用Apple Pay花錢是何樣體驗
Apple Pay?
Apple Pay是什麼？
It is the tech company’s new, contactless way of having us pay for things.
是這家科技公司新推出的非接觸式支付服務。
How does it work?
怎麼用？
Imagine you’ve ordered your flat white with soya milk at Pret A Manger. Normally you then have to reach for your bank card and place it on the contactless reader to pay.
想象你在Pret A Manger點了一杯加豆奶的白咖啡。通常，接下來你要掏出銀行卡，放在非接觸式讀卡器上進行支付。
And now?
那麼現在呢？
You have to reach for your iPhone 6 and place it on the contactless reader to pay.
你得拿出你的iPhone6，然後把手機放在非接觸式讀卡器上進行支付。
This hardly seems to herald a “shake up” in consumer spending.
這似乎很難說是消費者支出即將迎來“鉅變”的前兆。
In the world of payments, small gains in efficiency can lead to big changes in behaviour. It might not seem like much, but if it were to take one second less to take a phone out of a pocket than a card out of a wallet, then Apple Pay could become the default way to pay for more than coffee. Paying via the iWatch, Apple’s new wrist gizmo, is probably even quicker.
在支付領域，效率的小幅提升也能引發行爲的巨大改變。或許這看起來相差不是很大，但如果從口袋裏拿出手機比從錢包裏拿出銀行卡要快1秒的話，那麼不僅僅是咖啡，Apple Pay可能會變成我們爲許多東西付賬的默認方式。通過蘋果(Apple)新推出的腕部配件iWatch支付很可能還要更快。
I just don’t see how it makes much difference.
我實在看不出它能帶來多大變化。
Perhaps not. But there is more to how payment methods change behaviour than efficiency. We also need to consider what Apple Pay might do to the “pain of paying”.
變化或許的確不大。但就支付方式引發行爲的改變而言，問題可不只是效率。我們還需要考慮Apple Pay對“支付的痛苦”(pain of paying)可能造成的影響。
Is that the pain you feel when you think you might actually have to talk to the human behind the counter?
你說的是在想到不得不和櫃檯後面的人說話時所感受到的那種痛苦嗎？
Not quite. It is a term behavioural economists use to describe the salience of paying for something — and how that might affect what it is we are consuming.
不全是這樣。這是行爲經濟學家使用的一個術語，用來描述支付的一種突出特性——以及這種特性會如何影響我們的消費。
I don’t understand.
我不明白。
Dan Ariely, a psychology professor at Duke University in the US, explains the idea by using pizza.
美國杜克大學(Duke University)心理學教授丹縠庂裏(Dan Ariely)用披薩來解釋這個概念。
I like pizza.
我喜歡吃披薩。
I like pizza, too. But I am more likely to like pizza when the pain of paying is low, Prof Ariely says.
我也喜歡吃。但艾瑞里教授說，如果支付的痛苦更低，我會更喜歡吃披薩。
You mean when someone else is paying.
你的意思是有別人付錢的時候。
Journalists and free food have a longstanding healthy relationship, but that is not what Prof Ariely means. He suggests considering what it would feel like if you were charged for pizza not by the full amount but by the bite. Rather than return at the end of the meal the waiter might lurk nearby and keep a tally of how many times you put the quattro formaggio in your mouth.
記者一向能通過正常的渠道獲得免費事物，但這不是艾瑞里教授所說的意思。他提出，可以設想一下這樣的情況：如果餐廳不是依據食物的全部份量，而是依據你吃掉的那部分來收費，你是什麼感覺？侍者不是在你用餐結束時返回，而是躲在附近，記下你把quattro formaggio披薩放進嘴裏的次數。
I would consider that to be weird.
我會覺得那樣很怪。
Exactly. It might have been cheaper for you to pay for only what you ate but the pain of paying is too high to make it worth it.
正是如此。如果按照你吃掉的部分來收費，或許的確便宜一些，但支付的痛苦太過高昂，所以不值得這麼做。
Not to mention the pain of chewing. I would have taken very large bites.
更別提咀嚼的痛苦了。我肯定每一口都會吃下很多。
Now you can eat in peace and comfort. And when you are done, you can keep the immediate pain of paying low, says Prof Ariely, by not paying in cash.
現在你可以安心舒適地用餐了。艾瑞里教授說，吃完了以後，你可以通過不用現金支付來降低立即到來的支付的痛苦。
Is this because cards are quicker?
這是因爲用銀行卡支付更快嗎？
Not always. But behavioural economists have consistently found that since it feels less like spending when we use a credit or debit card, we tend to spend more.
不一定。但行爲經濟學家一再發現，用信用卡或者借記卡支付感覺不那麼像花錢，這使我們傾向於花得更多。
So if I want to spend less money, I should carry more cash?
那麼，如果我想少花錢，我應該帶更多現金？
Richard Thaler, a behavioural economist, likens spending with cash as “having one’s meter running”: there is a heightened awareness of the pain of payment. And when the meter is running, as Woody Allen showed, we are very aware of it.
行爲經濟學家理查德帠勒(Richard Thaler)把花現金比作“讓我們的計價錶轉起來”：我們會更強烈地意識到支付的痛苦。就像伍迪縠倫(Woody Allen)展現出來的，當計價表跳動的時候，我們會非常清楚地意識到這一點。
Woody Allen?
伍迪縠倫？
You know the scene: in Manhattan, he’s in a cab with Mary (played by Diane Keaton) and he tells her: “You look so beautiful I can hardly keep my eyes on the meter.”
你知道這一幕：在電影《曼哈頓》(Manhattan)中，伍迪縠倫和黛安蘒羅(Diane Keaton)飾演的瑪麗(Mary)坐在出租車上，他對她說：“你看起來真美，我幾乎無法盯着計價表看了。”
And you’re saying he wouldn’t have that problem with Apple Pay.
那麼，你是說如果用Apple Pay，他就不會有這個問題？
For a variety of reasons, I can’t see him ever writing the line: “You look so beautiful I can hardly keep my eyes on the Apple Pay notification centre.”
出於各種原因，我無法想象他會寫出這樣的臺詞：“你看起來真美，我幾乎無法盯着Apple Pay的通知中心看了。”
I see. So cash is salient. This is presumably why casinos have gamblers exchange money for chips.
我明白了。所以現金纔是重點。想必這就是爲什麼賭場會讓賭客把錢換成籌碼。
Yes. As neuroeconomists Drazen Prelec and George Loewenstein have shown, the more payment is “decoupled” from consumption, the more we consume. We also spend on more frivolous and less healthy items when the pain of payment is lower.
是的。就像神經經濟學家德拉贊渠雷萊克(Drazen Prelec)和喬治勒文施泰因(George Loewenstein)所證明的，支付和消費越是“脫鉤”，我們消費的就越多。在支付的痛苦更低的時候，我們也會在更加無聊和不那麼健康的事物上花錢。
The pain might be lower but it comes eventually — with interest.
支付的痛苦可能更低了，但最終它依然會到來——和利息一起。
That is if we remember. The academics Priya Raghubir and Joydeep Srivastava have found that we are less likely to remember purchases made by electronic means.
如果我們記得的話。普里亞拉古比爾(Priya Raghubir)和喬伊迪普斯里瓦斯塔瓦(Joydeep Srivastava)兩位學者發現，我們更難記住通過電子方式進行的消費。
So even if Apple Pay isn’t faster, it may still change how we spend?
因此就算Apple Pay並沒有更快，它還是可能改變我們的消費方式？
It is possible. This is merely an idle theory but since a phone or a watch is not normally associated with spending, people may feel even less “pain” when using it than a bank card.
有可能。這只是一個不嚴謹的理論，但既然我們通常不會把使用手機或者手錶與消費聯繫在一起，使用這種支付方式感受到的“痛苦”或許比使用銀行卡還要少。
But I can see how I would start to hate my phone if I knew it were making me poorer.
但我能預見到，如果我知道我的手機讓我變得更窮，我就會開始討厭我的手機了。
That is only if you realise what is happening. It comes down to the Woody Allen question: are your eyes on the meter, or elsewhere?
除非你意識到發生了什麼，纔會那樣。這就歸結到伍迪縠倫的問題：你的眼睛是盯着計價表，還是別的地方？
