英语文章阅读
2010.11.21
To save money, offices around the U.S. are adding a new chore to their employees' routine: taking out the trash.
Some 20,000 Texas state workers, who once had night janitors empty their desk-side waste baskets, now must tote their own trash and recyclables to common bins. City workers in Phoenix are doing the same, as are employees of some colleges and companies.
'One of the really labor-intensive parts of custodial work is walking to people's desks and emptying the trash,' said Dana Williams, director of facilities services at the Texas Facilities Commission, which manages buildings for more than 100 state agencies. 'And most people only have a fist-sized amount of trash.' By having workers dump their own cans, Texas is expected to save at least $825,000 annually on labor costs -- a tiny piece of a the state's two-year budget of $182 billion.
In addition to the savings on custodial labor, employers expect to save money by reducing the trash they generate, as well as collect more money by producing greater amounts of recycling, one of the program's goals.
State workers in Texas, for example, received small trash bins in addition to larger recycling cans. Some University of Washington workers began emptying their own baskets in a similar program a decade ago as part of an environmental initiative. But with budgets cut 25% over the past two years, Gene Woodard, the school's director of building services, is expanding the program campus-wide.
Mr. Woodard says workers occasionally call him to complain about stinky trash cans they forgot to empty before a vacation. 'Some of these mistakes you do just once,' he said.
When Dartmouth College unveiled its program this summer, the school presented the move as a part of a broader 'sustainability initiative.' Psychology professor Catherine Cramer says she was already recycling all the items the college is targeting.
'The only real change will be that I am expected to haul it to some central place myself instead of having custodial staff pick it up,' she wrote at the time on a school website. 'The real goals here, however prettily wrapped in sustainability rhetoric, are rather obvious.'
Ms. Cramer questions the economics of transferring work from the school's lowest-paid workers to higher-paid employees.
'While I am certainly not above emptying my own trash,' she said, 'it's less clear to me that it's a good use of my professional time, especially to make the frequent trips necessitated by a tiny bucket.'
Linda Snyder, Dartmouth's vice president of Campus Planning and Facilities, says the 'primary goals' of the initiative are to increase campus recycling and reduce waste. Results from the first month show just that. 'Although the program has produced nominal savings on costs such as trash-can liners, its main goal is to improve recycling and sustainability,' she said.
Texas is spending about $195,000 to set up its program, for small individual bins, larger centralized bins, signs and brochures. Officials said the preliminary results have been promising:
A 13% increase in the collection of recyclable materials -- worth $35,000 a year if that pace continues. Diverting the materials from the trash should save $45,000 more a year.
翻译
为了节约开支，美国各地的办公场所都在给雇员分派一项新任务：自己的垃圾自己倒。
得克萨斯州州政府的大约两万名工作人员现在必须把自己的垃圾和可回收物品放入公共垃圾桶，而过去他们办公桌旁的垃圾桶都是由保洁人员负责清理的。凤凰城的政府工作人员，以及一些大学和公司的员工也都在这么做。
德州政府机构设施管理委员会(Texas Facilities Commission)服务部主任威廉姆斯(Dana Williams)表示，保洁工作最累人的一项任务就是走到人们的办公桌旁清理垃圾桶。而且，大多数人都只有一丁点儿的垃圾。该委员会负责管理100多家德州政府机关的大楼。通过让员工自己倒垃圾，德州预计每年将至少节省人力成本82.5万美元──跟该州两年1,820亿美元的预算比当然只是微不足道的一部分。
除了省去保洁员的费用，雇主们还希望通过减少垃圾来节约开支，并且通过更多地回收物品来增加收入，这也是该项目的目标之一。
比如，德州的州政府工作人员除了领到小号的垃圾桶之外，还有比原先更大个儿的可回收物垃圾箱。
华盛顿大学(University of Washington)的一些员工早在十年前就开始了一项类似的行动：倒掉自己的垃圾桶，这是一个环保倡议项目的内容之一。但是，由于过去两年来学校的预算被削减了四分之一，该校楼宇服务部门的负责人伍达德(Gene Woodard)正在将这个项目在全校推广。
伍达德说，有时候会有员工给他打电话，抱怨由于放假前忘记倒掉自己的垃圾桶而弄得臭气熏天的状况。他的回答是，这种错误你只可能犯一次。
今年夏天达特茅斯学院(Dartmouth College)推广这一项目时，是将它作为更广范围的“可持续发展倡议”的一部分。心理学教授克莱默(Catherine Cramer)说，她早就已经开始回收如今学院指定的所有物品。
当时她在学院网站上这样写道，唯一的真正变化是由我自己来把垃圾拖到垃圾收集点，而不是由保洁员来收拾。尽管包裹着‘可持续’的华丽辞藻，这么做的真正目的却再明显不过了。
对于将清洁垃圾的工作从学校低收入工作者转移到高收入员工身上是否有经济意义，克莱默提出了质疑。
她说，我当然不是不屑于倒自己的垃圾，但我没法确定这是对我的工作时间的一种很好的利用，特别是为了一个小垃圾桶而来回奔走。
达特茅斯学院负责校园规划和设施管理的副院长斯奈德(Linda Snyder)说，这一倡议的首要目标是增加校园物品的回收利用和减少浪费。第一个月的结果正说明了这一点。她说，虽然这个项目在名义上节约了垃圾袋等成本，但它的主要目标是提高废物回收率和促进可持续发展。
德州花费了19.5万美元来实施这一项目，包括购置小型个人垃圾桶口大个儿的公共垃圾箱口标识牌和宣传小册子。官员们表示，项目的初步效果令人满意：可回收物品的数量增加了13%──如果这一增长速度能够保持，那么每年将创收3.5万美元，而将可回收物和垃圾分开的做法每年则可以再节约4.5万多美元。
If 'Jackass 3D' is anything like prior triumphs in the franchise, its band of raunchy, anarchic daredevils will make high art of low humor and leave no mishap private - especially if it involves someone's privates. But just try to get Johnny Knoxville and his gang to talk about how much each is paid. In America, money is the last conversational taboo.
That's probably a good thing for workplace morale. A new study by researchers at the University of California at Berkeley and Princeton University suggests that if all of our salaries were made known tomorrow, half of us would be made miserable and the other half would be made no happier.
That's more or less what happened at the University of California. Faculty and staff there are on the state's payroll. The passage in California of a right-to-know law in March 2008 enabled the Sacramento Bee to publish state worker salaries on its web site. Authors of the aforementioned study, now circulating as a working paper, contacted a random set of workers at three UC campuses and informed them of the web site. A few days later, they surveyed all campus employees on how they used the Bee's site, on their satisfaction with their job and pay and on whether they had job search intentions.
The findings: Usage of the site spread quickly, and 80% of new users said they looked up salary details on colleagues in their department. Among workers whose pay was below the median for their department, job satisfaction plunged and likelihood of searching for a new job increased. Interestingly, among those who were paid above the median, there was no meaningful change.
The findings fit neatly with something called the inequality aversion theory, proposed in 1999 by researchers in Zurich and Munich. In experiments, human subjects proved willing to sacrifice potential rewards if they could block others from receiving superior rewards. In other words, subjects in many cases cared more about fairness than gain. (A 2003 study involving monkeys showed similar behavior - and a bit of monkey rage displayed toward scientists who created the conditions.)
The University of California finding suggests employers have more to lose than to gain from publicizing salaries. Inexpensive workers might leave and costly ones aren't made more loyal.
That explains why some employers tuck secrecy clauses into their new hire contracts. Such clauses are losing their teeth, however. In the U.S., several states ban them, and in ones that don't,
court decisions suggest enforcement is made difficult if not impossible by Section 7 of the National Labor Rights Act, which protects workers who engage in concerted activity for mutual aid and protection. In the U.K. as of Oct. 1, the Equality Act 2010 bans enforcement in cases where workers are trying to determine whether they're being discriminated against - something employers would find difficult to disprove.
As for workers, many of whom seem all too keen to share gritty personal details with colleagues, maybe it's time to dish about pay. Half will leave the conversation frowning, but if dissatisfaction is a motivator, they'll end up better off.
如果说3D版《蠢蛋搞怪秀3》与前两部成功的系列片有相似之处的话，那就是这伙恶俗的、无法无天的搞怪者会以高雅的艺术来表现低俗的幽默方式，将所有的灾祸都公之于众，特别是如果涉及到某人的隐私。但如果想让诺克斯维尔（Johnny Knoxville）和他的剧组谈谈每个人的薪水，你一定会碰壁。在美国，钱是谈话中的最后一个禁忌。
这可能对工作环境的士气来说是件好事。加州大学伯克利分校（University of California at Berkeley）及普林斯顿大学（Princeton University）的一个新研究显示，如果明天我们所有人的薪水都公之于众，一半人会很悲惨，另一半人也不会更高兴。
加州大学的情况差不多就是这样。教师和员工都在州政府的花名册上。加利福尼亚州2008年3月通过的一项知情权法规让当地报纸《Sacramento Bee》在其网站公布加州工作人员的薪水。上述的新研究已发布成为研究报告。作者随意联系了三所加州大学分校的一些员工，并告知他们这个网站的信息。几天后，他们对学校所有员工就如何使用该网站、对工作和薪水的满意度以及是否有找新工作的打算进行了调查。
结果是：越来越多的人迅速开始使用该网站，80%的新用户说他们查过所在部门同事的薪水详情。薪水低于部门中间值的员工工作满意度迅速下跌，而找新工作的可能性增加了。有趣的是，薪水高于部门中间值的人没什么有意义的变化。
这恰巧映证了1999年由苏黎世和慕尼黑研究人员提出的“不平等厌恶理论”（inequality aversion theory）。实验证明，实验对象如果能阻止其他人接受比他更优越的奖励，他就愿意牺牲潜在的奖励。也就是说，实验对象在很多情况下更在意公平性，而不是获得多少。（2003年的一个关于猴子的研究也显示了相同行为，猴子还对造成这种情况的科学家表示了愤怒。）
加州大学的研究结果表明，对雇主来说，公开薪水的结果是失大于得。薪水低的员工可能会离开，薪水高的员工不会更忠于公司。
这就解释了为什么有些雇主会在新员工合同中塞进保密条款。但是这种条款的地位正在动摇。美国有些州不允许这样的条款，在允许的州省，《国家劳动权益法案》（National Labor Rights Act）第七部分规定对采取一致行动争取共同帮助和保护的员工进行保护，法庭的判决表明，该规定使得上述条款的实施十分困难。在英国，从10月1日起，《2010年平等法案》（Equality Act 2010）规定，在员工试图判定他们是否被歧视（雇主通常都很难反驳）的情况下，这些条款禁止实施。
对员工来说，很多人似乎太过热情地与同事分享自己的倒霉事，也许到了谈谈薪水的时候了。一半人听了之后会紧皱眉头地走开，但如果不满能成为一个激励因素的话，他们最终可能会有更好的表现。
The road to the mall may be paved with good intentions, but retailers know just how to get inside that part of your brain that yells, 'Buy me!' And this holiday season, they're rolling out more tricky marketing strategies to encourage recession-scarred shoppers to spend. 'Shoppers are dealing with a whole new arsenal of tricks,' says Kit Yarrow, a professor of psychology and marketing and Golden Gate University in San Francisco.
Merchants have always used marketing tricks and rotating sales to encourage consumers to open their wallets, but this year, they're pushing every psychological button they can, retail experts say. Competition for shoppers, plus a tepid holiday shopping outlook, means retailers are doing whatever they can to attract deal-hunting consumers' attention ─ all in an effort to entice them into spending more than they'd planned. That means adding worry-inducing purchase limits to indicate scarcity, promising free gifts to shoppers who spend just a little more, and offering rewards today to redeem later just so people will come back to the store.
These strategies work in part because they tap into hard-wired behaviors that go back to our days in caves. Long before we were confronted with half-off Merino turtlenecks or buy-one-get-one-free smartphones, we learned to stockpile in the event of shortage and to compete for scarce resources, psychologists and neuroscientists say. The stakes are considerably lower when you shop, but studies have shown our brains react similarly nonetheless. The effectiveness -- and proliferation -- of these mind games are a big part of the reason you're apt to look back and wonder why you thought that buying three itchy sweaters for $50 or a $200 no-name television was such a good idea.
Get to know these seven hidden triggers, and next time you go shopping you can look at retailers' pitches with a more critical eye -- and maybe avoid blowing your budget:
'Shop today and save 50% next week.'
Aimed at: Your best intentions.
Why you fall for it: The promise of bigger savings in the future appeals to people who think they can game the system, says Lars Perner, an assistant professor of clinical marketing at the University of Southern California's Marshall School of Business. You figure on buying just one or two things now, then returning to pick up a few more. But volume-driven retailers are using the now-and-later tactic this year to steer consumers back to stores when they know they'll have new stock or other promotions that help you buy more than you planned.
It's similar to the 'buy a little bit more and get a free gift' promotion, Perner says.
'Limit five per person.'
Aimed at: Your competitive spirit.
Why you fall for it: Limits trigger a feeling that the deal is so great that, if not for that limit-four-per-customer rule, shoppers would be filling their carts to the brim, leaving none for you, says L.J. Shrum, the president of the Society for Consumer Psychology and the marketing department chair at the University of Texas at San Antonio. Setting a limit increases the likelihood you'll buy at least one, and it's even more effective if you were already planning to buy one of the item.
Higher numbers in promotions have the same effect, according to a 2007 study in the Journal of Retailing. Changing the structure of a sale from 'Buy two' to 'Buy eight' resulted in a 55% increase in sales ─ regardless of the price of each option, says study co-author Kenneth C. Manning, chair of the marketing department Colorado State University. This year, limits are showing up on anything a store wants to get rid of. You'll even see limits on items that might seem absurd to purchase in multiples, Shrum says.
'Our Big Sale ends tomorrow/today/in a few hours.'
Aimed at: Your survival instincts.
Why you fall for it: Fear, pure and simple. This tactic appeals to a basic instinct to grab what's available or be left without, says Noah Goldstein, an assistant professor of human resources and organizational behavior at the Anderson School of Management at the University of California, Los Angeles. Think of the crowds stocking up on bottled water and canned goods before a major storm comes through. In those frenzied hours, it's a matter of survival.
Retailer e-newsletters have made it easy to extend that tactic online, and many retailers send multiple emails to shoppers as the end of a sale nears. And they often respond.
'Get 23% off.'
Aimed at: Your love of a bargain.
Why you fall for it: Real estate brokers have long known that uneven pricing (say, $524,755 versus $525,000) catches buyers' attention, because those odd numbers suggest a bargain that has already been marked down -- whether that's actually the case or not. This year, retailers have picked up on that tactic this year as a way to separate their sales from the sea of 20%-off offers, Yarrow says.
'We have a great deal on the accessories for that, too.'
Aimed at: Your long-term investor.
Why you fall for it: Once the consumer has already made a decision to buy and to pay, it's easier to convince them to add related ─ but maybe unecessary ─ items to their purchase, Shrum says. That's because in your mind, you already own the product, making you more vulnerable to pitches for things that promise to make the purchase more useful or less vulnerable. A 2009 Carnegie Mellon study found that consumers were more likely to buy warranties on purchases if they thought doing so would extend the life of their gadget or preserve its value. And shoppers who felt they were being offered an un-advertised deal were 42% more likely to buy. This is particularly common with products that would be expensive to replace, like smartphones or tablet computers.
'Save $250! (New price: $500.)'
Aimed at: Your price-sensitive side.
Why you fall for it: Touting big savings or using a gigantic font in an ad puts the deal at the center and makes the actual price an afterthought. What's more, your brain often perceives the actual price as more reasonable because of that big price drop, says Perner.
Stores have used this tactic more during the recession to sell higher-priced items, hoping that you'll take a closer look at the washer that has the splashy discount, even if it is more expensive than other models, he says. This trick works, experts say.
'Get a free gift with your $50 purchase.'
Aimed at: Your inner child (who wants a present, too).
Why you fall for it: You were already planning to buy one sweater, but you're one additional belt purchase away from getting to get a free scarf. At the store, you don't think about the $20 price tag or about how rarely you actually wear a scarf. Instead, your mind sees the free gift as an additional reason to buy the primary product in the first place. (A 2009 study from researchers at New York University and California State University found that promotions were more effective if they highlighted the product to be purchased, rather than the gift.)
It's the retail equivalent of finding money on the ground. And shoppers equate added value with a discount ─ even if they're spending extra money to get a freebie they wouldn't have otherwise purchased and might not even use, says Yarrow. That mindset is why stores have brought back the gift-with-purchase this year, as an alternative to big discounts. What's more, this sort of psychological trick makes you feel less guilty about buying ─ or getting for free ─ a little something for yourself. 'It helps you justify the purchase,' she says.
在去往购物中心的路上，你可能满怀着精打细算的良好愿望，可是，商家总是有办法打动你脑子里高声叫嚷着“我要买”的那个部分。眼下这个假期购物旺季里，他们又推出了一些更
加狡猾的促销招数，务必让业已遭受萧条重创的顾客们打开腰包。旧金山金门大学（Golden Gate University）的心理学及营销学教授亚罗（Kit Yarrow）说，眼下，顾客们必须应付五花八门无所不包的新型促销花招。
零售业专家们说，各路商家一直都在使用各式各样的促销手段和滚动折扣来怂恿消费者慷慨解囊，今年更是用上了各种可能的心理战术。争夺顾客的斗争十分激烈，这个假期的销售形势又不容乐观，商家便不得不使尽浑身解数，力图吸引那些喜欢便宜的消费者──一切的一切，都是为了引诱他们进行超计划开支。他们会设置令人揪心的限量购买来显示货品稀缺，会提供免费礼品来鼓励顾客再多花点钱，还会抛出当天不能兑现的奖品，为的是让顾客再度光临。
这些招数之所以能够奏效，部分原因在于它们利用了我们在穴居时代便已养成的一些根深蒂固的习惯。心理学家和神经科学家说，早在遭遇半价羊毛衫和买一送一智能手机的诱惑之前很久，我们就已经学会了囤积备荒，学会了争夺稀缺资源。到我们进行购物的时候，物品短缺的风险已经比以前小了许多，尽管如此，相关研究却显示，我们的大脑还是会产生跟以前差不多的反应。这一类的心理战术十分有效，遍地开花，致使我们经常都会反躬自问，当初自己为什么要花50美元买三件让人身上发痒的毛衣或是花200美元买台没牌子的电视，而且还觉得非常值。
来看一看下面列出的七大暗藏杀招吧，下次购物的时候，你就可以用一种更具批判性的眼光来审视商家的促销广告──兴许还可以控制住自己的预算，不做计划外的开支：
第一大杀招：今天买，下周就可以省50%。
攻击目标：你精打细算的良好愿望
中招原因：南加州大学马歇尔商学院（University of Southern California's Marshall School of Business）的现场营销学副教授佩纳（Lars Perner）说，将来可以省很多钱的承诺对那些自以为比商家精明的人很有吸引力。你会在心里盘算，现在先买一两件东西，下次再来多买几件。不过，在今年，力图增加销量的商家之所以采用这种时间差战术，目的是操纵你再次光顾的时间，让你赶上新货上架的日子、赶上商店举办的其它一些让你超支的促销活动。
佩纳说，这种招数跟再多买一点就可获赠免费礼品差不多。
第二大杀招：每人限买五件。
攻击目标：你的竞争心理
中招原因：美国消费者心理学协会（Society for Consumer Psychology）主席、圣安东尼奥（San Antonio）得克萨斯大学（University of Texas）营销系主任希拉姆（L.J. Shrum）说，限量购买会让你觉得，这东西实在是划算极了，要不是每人限买四件的话，其它顾客就会把自己的手推车装得满满当当，一件都不给你剩下。数量限制将会提高你至少买一件的几率，如果你本来就打算买一件的话，这种招数还会更加有效。
《零售月刊》（Journal of Retailing）2007年刊载的一篇论文表示，在促销活动当中，较大的数字也会产生较大的效果。论文作者之一、科罗拉多州立大学（Colorado State University）营销系主任曼宁（Kenneth C. Manning）说，数量设置从“买两件”变成“买八件”之后，促销商品的销量就增长了55%──无论两种设置对应的价格如何。今年，各家商店已经给所有意欲清空的货品加上了数量限制。希拉姆说，有些商店甚至给一些疯子才会买不只一件的东西设置了数量限制。
第三大杀招：本店大甩卖将于明天/今天/几个小时之后结束。
攻击目标：你的求生本能
中招原因：恐惧，原因就是这么简单。加州大学洛杉矶分校安德森管理学院（UCLA Anderson School of Management）人力资源及组织行为学副教授戈德斯登（Noah Goldstein）说，这种招数抓住了人的一种原始本能，那就是尽量抓住眼前的东西，免得到最后两手空空。想想那些赶在大风暴来临之前囤积瓶装水和听装食品的人群，你就会明白其中道理。在那些疯狂迷乱的时刻，囤东西变成了一件关乎生死存亡的大事情。
有了电子零售商函，各路商家就可以轻而易举地把这种招数搬到网上。促销截止日期行将到来的时候，许多商家都会给顾客们发好几封电子邮件，而顾客们也经常都会起而响应。
第四大杀招：降价23%。
攻击目标：你贪图便宜的心理
中招原因：房地产经纪们早就知道，有零有整的定价策略（比如说，把525,000美元改成524,755美元）可以吸引买家的注意，因为那些零头数字表明卖家的价格已经一降再降──不论事实是否果真如此。亚罗说，今年，各路商家已经用上了这种招数，为的是让自己的促销活动秀出群伦，跟那些铺天盖地的“降价20%”有所区别。
第五大杀招：这种商品的配件现在也有很优惠的价格。
攻击目标：你的长线投资理念
中招原因：希拉姆说，一旦顾客决定付钱买下某件商品，劝说他们买下一些与之相关──不过也许并不必要──的东西就会变得比较容易。原因在于，一旦意识到自己拥有了某件产品，你就比较容易相信商家的说词，由此买下一些据说能让该产品更好用或是更不容易坏的东西。根据卡内基梅隆大学（Carnegie Mellon University）在2009年所作的一项研究，消费者如果觉得各种保障服务能让自己购买的产品更耐用，或者是能让产品保值，就会更加愿意购买此类服务。如果顾客觉得自己得到了某种广告里没有的专享优惠，购买的可能性还会提高42%。对于智能手机和平板计算机之类的高价产品来说，这样的情形尤其普遍。
第六大杀招：节省250美元！（现价：500美元。）
攻击目标：你对价格的敏感
中招原因：打广告的时候，商家会用省一大笔钱的说法来引诱顾客，或是用上超大号的字体，顾客由此就会把注意力集中在商家开出的优惠条件上，事后才会去掂量商品的实际价钱。佩纳说，这都不算完，顾客还往往会觉得商品的价钱比较公道，毕竟它已经降了那么多嘛。
佩纳说，在经济萧条时期，各家商店用这种招数用得比较多，为的是推销那些定价比较高的产品。他们的如意算盘是，自己抛出了泡沫四溅的折扣，顾客就会好好地看看那台洗碗机，尽管它的价钱比其它的型号贵。专家们说，这种招数相当好使。
第七大杀招：消费50美元即可获赠免费礼品。
攻击目标：你内心深处的那个孩子（跟你一样，他也想要件礼物）
中招原因：你本来就打算买一件毛衣，可是，你还得买一条计划之外的皮带才能获得一条免费的围巾。在商店里的时候，你不会去想，皮带上吊着一个20美元的价签，也不会去想，自己戴围巾的次数是多么地稀少。你心里只有那件免费的礼品，还会把它作为购买凑数商品的一个额外理由。（根据纽约大学[New York University]和加利福尼亚州立大学[California State University]的研究人员在2009年所作的一项研究，如果商家着重强调需要购买的商品，而不是免费赠送的礼品，促销的效果就会更好。）
对顾客来说，免费礼品简直就是天上掉下来的馅饼。亚罗说，他们会把礼品的价值等同于一种折扣──即便他们是用额外的钱换来了一件平常不会去买、甚至根本就不会去用的赠品。正是因为顾客们有这样的心理定势，各家商店今年又捡起了购物赠礼的招数，用它来替代大幅度打折。不仅如此，这种心理战术还可以减少你的内疚感，让你觉得给自己买点儿东西──或者是给自己换点儿免费的东西──并不是那么罪过。亚罗说，赠品可以让你买得更加理直气壮。
Youku.com Inc. Chief Executive Officer Victor Koo says he's tired of being asked whether his company, China's biggest online-video provider, is the nation's version of YouTube or Hulu. It's both and better, he says。
Koo is among dot-com executives gathering in Beijing today and tomorrow to sell the idea that Chinese online services from Youku to Tencent Holdings's QQ are catching up to the world and western companies will soon turn to China for innovation. Their edge in detecting trends: an Internet population of 420 million, more than the number of people in the US and Germany。
Some investors may already be ahead of the curve. Tencent and Baidu are larger than EBay Inc. and Yahoo! Inc. by market value. Alibaba Group Holding's Alibaba.com unit is also among the 10
biggest Internet companies globally by market capitalization。
Tencent expanded its QQ online-chat software to offer additional features that appeal to youths, according to an Internet analyst. QQ controlled 77 percent of China's instant-messaging market as of December, compared with 4.2 percent for Microsoft's MSN, according to researcher Analysis International。
Taobao.com, China's biggest online-shopping site, overtook San Jose, California-based EBay within three years of its founding in 2003 by waiving commissions from transactions between its users. The approach by Taobao appealed more to China's cost-conscious Internet users, according to James Hawkins, managing director at DGM Asia, which buys advertising from Internet companies in China。
While the number of so-called
彭博社10月19日报道：中国成为互联网中心，优酷网胜过YouTube
中国最大的在线视频网站优酷网首席执行官古永锵表示，他对于经常被问及他的公司是否是中国版的YouTube或者Hulu感到十分厌烦。她说，优酷网是它们两者的结合，并且更优秀。
今明两天，古永锵将与众多互联网公司高管齐聚北京，推广这样一种理念，即像优酷和腾讯QQ这样的中国互联网服务正在逐渐赶上世界的步伐，西方企业很快将来到中国寻求技术创新。它们在发现流行趋势方面的优势是：中国拥有4.2亿网民，比美国和德国的人口总和都要多。
博达克咨询有限公司董事长邓肯-克拉克说：“互联网的中心正在逐渐向中国转移。中国的网民数量几乎是美国的两倍。这种网民密集度意义重大。”
一些投资者有可能早在这种趋势出现前就已经采取了行动。腾讯与百度的市值比亿贝和雅虎还高。阿里巴巴网站也是全球范围内市场资本额最高的10家互联网企业之一。
有分析师指出，腾讯在即时通讯软件QQ的基础上推出了许多吸引青少年的附加功能。市场调查公司易观国际的数据显示，截至去年12月，QQ在中国即时通讯市场中占有77%的份额，而微软公司的MSN只占4.2%。
淘宝网自2003年成立后的三年内，就通过不收取用户间交易提成的做法超越了总部位
于加利福尼亚州的亿贝公司。DGM公司亚洲区总经理詹姆斯-霍金斯说，淘宝网的做法更能吸引极为注重节省成本的中国网民。DGM公司主要经营中国互联网企业的广告业务。
克拉克说，尽管中国的网民数量比其他任何国家都要多，中国互联网企业却未能在世界其他地方家喻户晓。他说：“腾讯公司是世界上最大的互联网公司之一，但中国以外的大多数人都未曾对它有所耳闻。”中国企业在收入方面也落后于美国企业。此外，总部位于北京的市场调研公司迈博瑞咨询有限公司的总经理马克-特纳金指出，中国在培养创新能力的教育和社会条件方面落后于美国。但他表示，庞大的网民数量决定了，中国必将影响互联网的未来。
英语文章阅读
2010.11.21
To save money, offices around the U.S. are adding a new chore to their employees' routine: taking out the trash.
Some 20,000 Texas state workers, who once had night janitors empty their desk-side waste baskets, now must tote their own trash and recyclables to common bins. City workers in Phoenix are doing the same, as are employees of some colleges and companies.
'One of the really labor-intensive parts of custodial work is walking to people's desks and emptying the trash,' said Dana Williams, director of facilities services at the Texas Facilities Commission, which manages buildings for more than 100 state agencies. 'And most people only have a fist-sized amount of trash.' By having workers dump their own cans, Texas is expected to save at least $825,000 annually on labor costs -- a tiny piece of a the state's two-year budget of $182 billion.
In addition to the savings on custodial labor, employers expect to save money by reducing the trash they generate, as well as collect more money by producing greater amounts of recycling, one of the program's goals.
State workers in Texas, for example, received small trash bins in addition to larger recycling cans. Some University of Washington workers began emptying their own baskets in a similar program a decade ago as part of an environmental initiative. But with budgets cut 25% over the past two years, Gene Woodard, the school's director of building services, is expanding the program campus-wide.
Mr. Woodard says workers occasionally call him to complain about stinky trash cans they forgot to empty before a vacation. 'Some of these mistakes you do just once,' he said.
When Dartmouth College unveiled its program this summer, the school presented the move as a part of a broader 'sustainability initiative.' Psychology professor Catherine Cramer says she was already recycling all the items the college is targeting.
'The only real change will be that I am expected to haul it to some central place myself instead of having custodial staff pick it up,' she wrote at the time on a school website. 'The real goals here, however prettily wrapped in sustainability rhetoric, are rather obvious.'
Ms. Cramer questions the economics of transferring work from the school's lowest-paid workers to higher-paid employees.
'While I am certainly not above emptying my own trash,' she said, 'it's less clear to me that it's a good use of my professional time, especially to make the frequent trips necessitated by a tiny bucket.'
Linda Snyder, Dartmouth's vice president of Campus Planning and Facilities, says the 'primary goals' of the initiative are to increase campus recycling and reduce waste. Results from the first month show just that. 'Although the program has produced nominal savings on costs such as trash-can liners, its main goal is to improve recycling and sustainability,' she said.
Texas is spending about $195,000 to set up its program, for small individual bins, larger centralized bins, signs and brochures. Officials said the preliminary results have been promising:
A 13% increase in the collection of recyclable materials -- worth $35,000 a year if that pace continues. Diverting the materials from the trash should save $45,000 more a year.
翻译
为了节约开支，美国各地的办公场所都在给雇员分派一项新任务：自己的垃圾自己倒。
得克萨斯州州政府的大约两万名工作人员现在必须把自己的垃圾和可回收物品放入公共垃圾桶，而过去他们办公桌旁的垃圾桶都是由保洁人员负责清理的。凤凰城的政府工作人员，以及一些大学和公司的员工也都在这么做。
德州政府机构设施管理委员会(Texas Facilities Commission)服务部主任威廉姆斯(Dana Williams)表示，保洁工作最累人的一项任务就是走到人们的办公桌旁清理垃圾桶。而且，大多数人都只有一丁点儿的垃圾。该委员会负责管理100多家德州政府机关的大楼。通过让员工自己倒垃圾，德州预计每年将至少节省人力成本82.5万美元──跟该州两年1,820亿美元的预算比当然只是微不足道的一部分。
除了省去保洁员的费用，雇主们还希望通过减少垃圾来节约开支，并且通过更多地回收物品来增加收入，这也是该项目的目标之一。
比如，德州的州政府工作人员除了领到小号的垃圾桶之外，还有比原先更大个儿的可回收物垃圾箱。
华盛顿大学(University of Washington)的一些员工早在十年前就开始了一项类似的行动：倒掉自己的垃圾桶，这是一个环保倡议项目的内容之一。但是，由于过去两年来学校的预算被削减了四分之一，该校楼宇服务部门的负责人伍达德(Gene Woodard)正在将这个项目在全校推广。
伍达德说，有时候会有员工给他打电话，抱怨由于放假前忘记倒掉自己的垃圾桶而弄得臭气熏天的状况。他的回答是，这种错误你只可能犯一次。
今年夏天达特茅斯学院(Dartmouth College)推广这一项目时，是将它作为更广范围的“可持续发展倡议”的一部分。心理学教授克莱默(Catherine Cramer)说，她早就已经开始回收如今学院指定的所有物品。
当时她在学院网站上这样写道，唯一的真正变化是由我自己来把垃圾拖到垃圾收集点，而不是由保洁员来收拾。尽管包裹着‘可持续’的华丽辞藻，这么做的真正目的却再明显不过了。
对于将清洁垃圾的工作从学校低收入工作者转移到高收入员工身上是否有经济意义，克莱默提出了质疑。
她说，我当然不是不屑于倒自己的垃圾，但我没法确定这是对我的工作时间的一种很好的利用，特别是为了一个小垃圾桶而来回奔走。
达特茅斯学院负责校园规划和设施管理的副院长斯奈德(Linda Snyder)说，这一倡议的首要目标是增加校园物品的回收利用和减少浪费。第一个月的结果正说明了这一点。她说，虽然这个项目在名义上节约了垃圾袋等成本，但它的主要目标是提高废物回收率和促进可持续发展。
德州花费了19.5万美元来实施这一项目，包括购置小型个人垃圾桶口大个儿的公共垃圾箱口标识牌和宣传小册子。官员们表示，项目的初步效果令人满意：可回收物品的数量增加了13%──如果这一增长速度能够保持，那么每年将创收3.5万美元，而将可回收物和垃圾分开的做法每年则可以再节约4.5万多美元。
If 'Jackass 3D' is anything like prior triumphs in the franchise, its band of raunchy, anarchic daredevils will make high art of low humor and leave no mishap private - especially if it involves someone's privates. But just try to get Johnny Knoxville and his gang to talk about how much each is paid. In America, money is the last conversational taboo.
That's probably a good thing for workplace morale. A new study by researchers at the University of California at Berkeley and Princeton University suggests that if all of our salaries were made known tomorrow, half of us would be made miserable and the other half would be made no happier.
That's more or less what happened at the University of California. Faculty and staff there are on the state's payroll. The passage in California of a right-to-know law in March 2008 enabled the Sacramento Bee to publish state worker salaries on its web site. Authors of the aforementioned study, now circulating as a working paper, contacted a random set of workers at three UC campuses and informed them of the web site. A few days later, they surveyed all campus employees on how they used the Bee's site, on their satisfaction with their job and pay and on whether they had job search intentions.
The findings: Usage of the site spread quickly, and 80% of new users said they looked up salary details on colleagues in their department. Among workers whose pay was below the median for their department, job satisfaction plunged and likelihood of searching for a new job increased. Interestingly, among those who were paid above the median, there was no meaningful change.
The findings fit neatly with something called the inequality aversion theory, proposed in 1999 by researchers in Zurich and Munich. In experiments, human subjects proved willing to sacrifice potential rewards if they could block others from receiving superior rewards. In other words, subjects in many cases cared more about fairness than gain. (A 2003 study involving monkeys showed similar behavior - and a bit of monkey rage displayed toward scientists who created the conditions.)
The University of California finding suggests employers have more to lose than to gain from publicizing salaries. Inexpensive workers might leave and costly ones aren't made more loyal.
That explains why some employers tuck secrecy clauses into their new hire contracts. Such clauses are losing their teeth, however. In the U.S., several states ban them, and in ones that don't,
court decisions suggest enforcement is made difficult if not impossible by Section 7 of the National Labor Rights Act, which protects workers who engage in concerted activity for mutual aid and protection. In the U.K. as of Oct. 1, the Equality Act 2010 bans enforcement in cases where workers are trying to determine whether they're being discriminated against - something employers would find difficult to disprove.
As for workers, many of whom seem all too keen to share gritty personal details with colleagues, maybe it's time to dish about pay. Half will leave the conversation frowning, but if dissatisfaction is a motivator, they'll end up better off.
如果说3D版《蠢蛋搞怪秀3》与前两部成功的系列片有相似之处的话，那就是这伙恶俗的、无法无天的搞怪者会以高雅的艺术来表现低俗的幽默方式，将所有的灾祸都公之于众，特别是如果涉及到某人的隐私。但如果想让诺克斯维尔（Johnny Knoxville）和他的剧组谈谈每个人的薪水，你一定会碰壁。在美国，钱是谈话中的最后一个禁忌。
这可能对工作环境的士气来说是件好事。加州大学伯克利分校（University of California at Berkeley）及普林斯顿大学（Princeton University）的一个新研究显示，如果明天我们所有人的薪水都公之于众，一半人会很悲惨，另一半人也不会更高兴。
加州大学的情况差不多就是这样。教师和员工都在州政府的花名册上。加利福尼亚州2008年3月通过的一项知情权法规让当地报纸《Sacramento Bee》在其网站公布加州工作人员的薪水。上述的新研究已发布成为研究报告。作者随意联系了三所加州大学分校的一些员工，并告知他们这个网站的信息。几天后，他们对学校所有员工就如何使用该网站、对工作和薪水的满意度以及是否有找新工作的打算进行了调查。
结果是：越来越多的人迅速开始使用该网站，80%的新用户说他们查过所在部门同事的薪水详情。薪水低于部门中间值的员工工作满意度迅速下跌，而找新工作的可能性增加了。有趣的是，薪水高于部门中间值的人没什么有意义的变化。
这恰巧映证了1999年由苏黎世和慕尼黑研究人员提出的“不平等厌恶理论”（inequality aversion theory）。实验证明，实验对象如果能阻止其他人接受比他更优越的奖励，他就愿意牺牲潜在的奖励。也就是说，实验对象在很多情况下更在意公平性，而不是获得多少。（2003年的一个关于猴子的研究也显示了相同行为，猴子还对造成这种情况的科学家表示了愤怒。）
加州大学的研究结果表明，对雇主来说，公开薪水的结果是失大于得。薪水低的员工可能会离开，薪水高的员工不会更忠于公司。
这就解释了为什么有些雇主会在新员工合同中塞进保密条款。但是这种条款的地位正在动摇。美国有些州不允许这样的条款，在允许的州省，《国家劳动权益法案》（National Labor Rights Act）第七部分规定对采取一致行动争取共同帮助和保护的员工进行保护，法庭的判决表明，该规定使得上述条款的实施十分困难。在英国，从10月1日起，《2010年平等法案》（Equality Act 2010）规定，在员工试图判定他们是否被歧视（雇主通常都很难反驳）的情况下，这些条款禁止实施。
对员工来说，很多人似乎太过热情地与同事分享自己的倒霉事，也许到了谈谈薪水的时候了。一半人听了之后会紧皱眉头地走开，但如果不满能成为一个激励因素的话，他们最终可能会有更好的表现。
The road to the mall may be paved with good intentions, but retailers know just how to get inside that part of your brain that yells, 'Buy me!' And this holiday season, they're rolling out more tricky marketing strategies to encourage recession-scarred shoppers to spend. 'Shoppers are dealing with a whole new arsenal of tricks,' says Kit Yarrow, a professor of psychology and marketing and Golden Gate University in San Francisco.
Merchants have always used marketing tricks and rotating sales to encourage consumers to open their wallets, but this year, they're pushing every psychological button they can, retail experts say. Competition for shoppers, plus a tepid holiday shopping outlook, means retailers are doing whatever they can to attract deal-hunting consumers' attention ─ all in an effort to entice them into spending more than they'd planned. That means adding worry-inducing purchase limits to indicate scarcity, promising free gifts to shoppers who spend just a little more, and offering rewards today to redeem later just so people will come back to the store.
These strategies work in part because they tap into hard-wired behaviors that go back to our days in caves. Long before we were confronted with half-off Merino turtlenecks or buy-one-get-one-free smartphones, we learned to stockpile in the event of shortage and to compete for scarce resources, psychologists and neuroscientists say. The stakes are considerably lower when you shop, but studies have shown our brains react similarly nonetheless. The effectiveness -- and proliferation -- of these mind games are a big part of the reason you're apt to look back and wonder why you thought that buying three itchy sweaters for $50 or a $200 no-name television was such a good idea.
Get to know these seven hidden triggers, and next time you go shopping you can look at retailers' pitches with a more critical eye -- and maybe avoid blowing your budget:
'Shop today and save 50% next week.'
Aimed at: Your best intentions.
Why you fall for it: The promise of bigger savings in the future appeals to people who think they can game the system, says Lars Perner, an assistant professor of clinical marketing at the University of Southern California's Marshall School of Business. You figure on buying just one or two things now, then returning to pick up a few more. But volume-driven retailers are using the now-and-later tactic this year to steer consumers back to stores when they know they'll have new stock or other promotions that help you buy more than you planned.
It's similar to the 'buy a little bit more and get a free gift' promotion, Perner says.
'Limit five per person.'
Aimed at: Your competitive spirit.
Why you fall for it: Limits trigger a feeling that the deal is so great that, if not for that limit-four-per-customer rule, shoppers would be filling their carts to the brim, leaving none for you, says L.J. Shrum, the president of the Society for Consumer Psychology and the marketing department chair at the University of Texas at San Antonio. Setting a limit increases the likelihood you'll buy at least one, and it's even more effective if you were already planning to buy one of the item.
Higher numbers in promotions have the same effect, according to a 2007 study in the Journal of Retailing. Changing the structure of a sale from 'Buy two' to 'Buy eight' resulted in a 55% increase in sales ─ regardless of the price of each option, says study co-author Kenneth C. Manning, chair of the marketing department Colorado State University. This year, limits are showing up on anything a store wants to get rid of. You'll even see limits on items that might seem absurd to purchase in multiples, Shrum says.
'Our Big Sale ends tomorrow/today/in a few hours.'
Aimed at: Your survival instincts.
Why you fall for it: Fear, pure and simple. This tactic appeals to a basic instinct to grab what's available or be left without, says Noah Goldstein, an assistant professor of human resources and organizational behavior at the Anderson School of Management at the University of California, Los Angeles. Think of the crowds stocking up on bottled water and canned goods before a major storm comes through. In those frenzied hours, it's a matter of survival.
Retailer e-newsletters have made it easy to extend that tactic online, and many retailers send multiple emails to shoppers as the end of a sale nears. And they often respond.
'Get 23% off.'
Aimed at: Your love of a bargain.
Why you fall for it: Real estate brokers have long known that uneven pricing (say, $524,755 versus $525,000) catches buyers' attention, because those odd numbers suggest a bargain that has already been marked down -- whether that's actually the case or not. This year, retailers have picked up on that tactic this year as a way to separate their sales from the sea of 20%-off offers, Yarrow says.
'We have a great deal on the accessories for that, too.'
Aimed at: Your long-term investor.
Why you fall for it: Once the consumer has already made a decision to buy and to pay, it's easier to convince them to add related ─ but maybe unecessary ─ items to their purchase, Shrum says. That's because in your mind, you already own the product, making you more vulnerable to pitches for things that promise to make the purchase more useful or less vulnerable. A 2009 Carnegie Mellon study found that consumers were more likely to buy warranties on purchases if they thought doing so would extend the life of their gadget or preserve its value. And shoppers who felt they were being offered an un-advertised deal were 42% more likely to buy. This is particularly common with products that would be expensive to replace, like smartphones or tablet computers.
'Save $250! (New price: $500.)'
Aimed at: Your price-sensitive side.
Why you fall for it: Touting big savings or using a gigantic font in an ad puts the deal at the center and makes the actual price an afterthought. What's more, your brain often perceives the actual price as more reasonable because of that big price drop, says Perner.
Stores have used this tactic more during the recession to sell higher-priced items, hoping that you'll take a closer look at the washer that has the splashy discount, even if it is more expensive than other models, he says. This trick works, experts say.
'Get a free gift with your $50 purchase.'
Aimed at: Your inner child (who wants a present, too).
Why you fall for it: You were already planning to buy one sweater, but you're one additional belt purchase away from getting to get a free scarf. At the store, you don't think about the $20 price tag or about how rarely you actually wear a scarf. Instead, your mind sees the free gift as an additional reason to buy the primary product in the first place. (A 2009 study from researchers at New York University and California State University found that promotions were more effective if they highlighted the product to be purchased, rather than the gift.)
It's the retail equivalent of finding money on the ground. And shoppers equate added value with a discount ─ even if they're spending extra money to get a freebie they wouldn't have otherwise purchased and might not even use, says Yarrow. That mindset is why stores have brought back the gift-with-purchase this year, as an alternative to big discounts. What's more, this sort of psychological trick makes you feel less guilty about buying ─ or getting for free ─ a little something for yourself. 'It helps you justify the purchase,' she says.
在去往购物中心的路上，你可能满怀着精打细算的良好愿望，可是，商家总是有办法打动你脑子里高声叫嚷着“我要买”的那个部分。眼下这个假期购物旺季里，他们又推出了一些更
加狡猾的促销招数，务必让业已遭受萧条重创的顾客们打开腰包。旧金山金门大学（Golden Gate University）的心理学及营销学教授亚罗（Kit Yarrow）说，眼下，顾客们必须应付五花八门无所不包的新型促销花招。
零售业专家们说，各路商家一直都在使用各式各样的促销手段和滚动折扣来怂恿消费者慷慨解囊，今年更是用上了各种可能的心理战术。争夺顾客的斗争十分激烈，这个假期的销售形势又不容乐观，商家便不得不使尽浑身解数，力图吸引那些喜欢便宜的消费者──一切的一切，都是为了引诱他们进行超计划开支。他们会设置令人揪心的限量购买来显示货品稀缺，会提供免费礼品来鼓励顾客再多花点钱，还会抛出当天不能兑现的奖品，为的是让顾客再度光临。
这些招数之所以能够奏效，部分原因在于它们利用了我们在穴居时代便已养成的一些根深蒂固的习惯。心理学家和神经科学家说，早在遭遇半价羊毛衫和买一送一智能手机的诱惑之前很久，我们就已经学会了囤积备荒，学会了争夺稀缺资源。到我们进行购物的时候，物品短缺的风险已经比以前小了许多，尽管如此，相关研究却显示，我们的大脑还是会产生跟以前差不多的反应。这一类的心理战术十分有效，遍地开花，致使我们经常都会反躬自问，当初自己为什么要花50美元买三件让人身上发痒的毛衣或是花200美元买台没牌子的电视，而且还觉得非常值。
来看一看下面列出的七大暗藏杀招吧，下次购物的时候，你就可以用一种更具批判性的眼光来审视商家的促销广告──兴许还可以控制住自己的预算，不做计划外的开支：
第一大杀招：今天买，下周就可以省50%。
攻击目标：你精打细算的良好愿望
中招原因：南加州大学马歇尔商学院（University of Southern California's Marshall School of Business）的现场营销学副教授佩纳（Lars Perner）说，将来可以省很多钱的承诺对那些自以为比商家精明的人很有吸引力。你会在心里盘算，现在先买一两件东西，下次再来多买几件。不过，在今年，力图增加销量的商家之所以采用这种时间差战术，目的是操纵你再次光顾的时间，让你赶上新货上架的日子、赶上商店举办的其它一些让你超支的促销活动。
佩纳说，这种招数跟再多买一点就可获赠免费礼品差不多。
第二大杀招：每人限买五件。
攻击目标：你的竞争心理
中招原因：美国消费者心理学协会（Society for Consumer Psychology）主席、圣安东尼奥（San Antonio）得克萨斯大学（University of Texas）营销系主任希拉姆（L.J. Shrum）说，限量购买会让你觉得，这东西实在是划算极了，要不是每人限买四件的话，其它顾客就会把自己的手推车装得满满当当，一件都不给你剩下。数量限制将会提高你至少买一件的几率，如果你本来就打算买一件的话，这种招数还会更加有效。
《零售月刊》（Journal of Retailing）2007年刊载的一篇论文表示，在促销活动当中，较大的数字也会产生较大的效果。论文作者之一、科罗拉多州立大学（Colorado State University）营销系主任曼宁（Kenneth C. Manning）说，数量设置从“买两件”变成“买八件”之后，促销商品的销量就增长了55%──无论两种设置对应的价格如何。今年，各家商店已经给所有意欲清空的货品加上了数量限制。希拉姆说，有些商店甚至给一些疯子才会买不只一件的东西设置了数量限制。
第三大杀招：本店大甩卖将于明天/今天/几个小时之后结束。
攻击目标：你的求生本能
中招原因：恐惧，原因就是这么简单。加州大学洛杉矶分校安德森管理学院（UCLA Anderson School of Management）人力资源及组织行为学副教授戈德斯登（Noah Goldstein）说，这种招数抓住了人的一种原始本能，那就是尽量抓住眼前的东西，免得到最后两手空空。想想那些赶在大风暴来临之前囤积瓶装水和听装食品的人群，你就会明白其中道理。在那些疯狂迷乱的时刻，囤东西变成了一件关乎生死存亡的大事情。
有了电子零售商函，各路商家就可以轻而易举地把这种招数搬到网上。促销截止日期行将到来的时候，许多商家都会给顾客们发好几封电子邮件，而顾客们也经常都会起而响应。
第四大杀招：降价23%。
攻击目标：你贪图便宜的心理
中招原因：房地产经纪们早就知道，有零有整的定价策略（比如说，把525,000美元改成524,755美元）可以吸引买家的注意，因为那些零头数字表明卖家的价格已经一降再降──不论事实是否果真如此。亚罗说，今年，各路商家已经用上了这种招数，为的是让自己的促销活动秀出群伦，跟那些铺天盖地的“降价20%”有所区别。
第五大杀招：这种商品的配件现在也有很优惠的价格。
攻击目标：你的长线投资理念
中招原因：希拉姆说，一旦顾客决定付钱买下某件商品，劝说他们买下一些与之相关──不过也许并不必要──的东西就会变得比较容易。原因在于，一旦意识到自己拥有了某件产品，你就比较容易相信商家的说词，由此买下一些据说能让该产品更好用或是更不容易坏的东西。根据卡内基梅隆大学（Carnegie Mellon University）在2009年所作的一项研究，消费者如果觉得各种保障服务能让自己购买的产品更耐用，或者是能让产品保值，就会更加愿意购买此类服务。如果顾客觉得自己得到了某种广告里没有的专享优惠，购买的可能性还会提高42%。对于智能手机和平板计算机之类的高价产品来说，这样的情形尤其普遍。
第六大杀招：节省250美元！（现价：500美元。）
攻击目标：你对价格的敏感
中招原因：打广告的时候，商家会用省一大笔钱的说法来引诱顾客，或是用上超大号的字体，顾客由此就会把注意力集中在商家开出的优惠条件上，事后才会去掂量商品的实际价钱。佩纳说，这都不算完，顾客还往往会觉得商品的价钱比较公道，毕竟它已经降了那么多嘛。
佩纳说，在经济萧条时期，各家商店用这种招数用得比较多，为的是推销那些定价比较高的产品。他们的如意算盘是，自己抛出了泡沫四溅的折扣，顾客就会好好地看看那台洗碗机，尽管它的价钱比其它的型号贵。专家们说，这种招数相当好使。
第七大杀招：消费50美元即可获赠免费礼品。
攻击目标：你内心深处的那个孩子（跟你一样，他也想要件礼物）
中招原因：你本来就打算买一件毛衣，可是，你还得买一条计划之外的皮带才能获得一条免费的围巾。在商店里的时候，你不会去想，皮带上吊着一个20美元的价签，也不会去想，自己戴围巾的次数是多么地稀少。你心里只有那件免费的礼品，还会把它作为购买凑数商品的一个额外理由。（根据纽约大学[New York University]和加利福尼亚州立大学[California State University]的研究人员在2009年所作的一项研究，如果商家着重强调需要购买的商品，而不是免费赠送的礼品，促销的效果就会更好。）
对顾客来说，免费礼品简直就是天上掉下来的馅饼。亚罗说，他们会把礼品的价值等同于一种折扣──即便他们是用额外的钱换来了一件平常不会去买、甚至根本就不会去用的赠品。正是因为顾客们有这样的心理定势，各家商店今年又捡起了购物赠礼的招数，用它来替代大幅度打折。不仅如此，这种心理战术还可以减少你的内疚感，让你觉得给自己买点儿东西──或者是给自己换点儿免费的东西──并不是那么罪过。亚罗说，赠品可以让你买得更加理直气壮。
Youku.com Inc. Chief Executive Officer Victor Koo says he's tired of being asked whether his company, China's biggest online-video provider, is the nation's version of YouTube or Hulu. It's both and better, he says。
Koo is among dot-com executives gathering in Beijing today and tomorrow to sell the idea that Chinese online services from Youku to Tencent Holdings's QQ are catching up to the world and western companies will soon turn to China for innovation. Their edge in detecting trends: an Internet population of 420 million, more than the number of people in the US and Germany。
Some investors may already be ahead of the curve. Tencent and Baidu are larger than EBay Inc. and Yahoo! Inc. by market value. Alibaba Group Holding's Alibaba.com unit is also among the 10
biggest Internet companies globally by market capitalization。
Tencent expanded its QQ online-chat software to offer additional features that appeal to youths, according to an Internet analyst. QQ controlled 77 percent of China's instant-messaging market as of December, compared with 4.2 percent for Microsoft's MSN, according to researcher Analysis International。
Taobao.com, China's biggest online-shopping site, overtook San Jose, California-based EBay within three years of its founding in 2003 by waiving commissions from transactions between its users. The approach by Taobao appealed more to China's cost-conscious Internet users, according to James Hawkins, managing director at DGM Asia, which buys advertising from Internet companies in China。
While the number of so-called
彭博社10月19日报道：中国成为互联网中心，优酷网胜过YouTube
中国最大的在线视频网站优酷网首席执行官古永锵表示，他对于经常被问及他的公司是否是中国版的YouTube或者Hulu感到十分厌烦。她说，优酷网是它们两者的结合，并且更优秀。
今明两天，古永锵将与众多互联网公司高管齐聚北京，推广这样一种理念，即像优酷和腾讯QQ这样的中国互联网服务正在逐渐赶上世界的步伐，西方企业很快将来到中国寻求技术创新。它们在发现流行趋势方面的优势是：中国拥有4.2亿网民，比美国和德国的人口总和都要多。
博达克咨询有限公司董事长邓肯-克拉克说：“互联网的中心正在逐渐向中国转移。中国的网民数量几乎是美国的两倍。这种网民密集度意义重大。”
一些投资者有可能早在这种趋势出现前就已经采取了行动。腾讯与百度的市值比亿贝和雅虎还高。阿里巴巴网站也是全球范围内市场资本额最高的10家互联网企业之一。
有分析师指出，腾讯在即时通讯软件QQ的基础上推出了许多吸引青少年的附加功能。市场调查公司易观国际的数据显示，截至去年12月，QQ在中国即时通讯市场中占有77%的份额，而微软公司的MSN只占4.2%。
淘宝网自2003年成立后的三年内，就通过不收取用户间交易提成的做法超越了总部位
于加利福尼亚州的亿贝公司。DGM公司亚洲区总经理詹姆斯-霍金斯说，淘宝网的做法更能吸引极为注重节省成本的中国网民。DGM公司主要经营中国互联网企业的广告业务。
克拉克说，尽管中国的网民数量比其他任何国家都要多，中国互联网企业却未能在世界其他地方家喻户晓。他说：“腾讯公司是世界上最大的互联网公司之一，但中国以外的大多数人都未曾对它有所耳闻。”中国企业在收入方面也落后于美国企业。此外，总部位于北京的市场调研公司迈博瑞咨询有限公司的总经理马克-特纳金指出，中国在培养创新能力的教育和社会条件方面落后于美国。但他表示，庞大的网民数量决定了，中国必将影响互联网的未来。