????有時(shí)候“大”可能是一種美。

????自從魯伯特?默多克旗下的21世紀(jì)福克斯公司（21st Century Fox）宣布要收購(gòu)時(shí)代華納（Time Warner）以來(lái)，很多人都在討論把公司做大對(duì)于媒體公司的重要性。

????作為時(shí)代華納的股東之一，加百利資產(chǎn)管理公司（Gabelli Asset Management）的老板馬里奧?加百利表示：“我不喜歡這筆交易的條款，但是我喜歡內(nèi)容供應(yīng)商強(qiáng)強(qiáng)聯(lián)合的點(diǎn)子。十年以后，全世界的屏幕會(huì)比現(xiàn)在多得多，渠道成本依然將非常高昂。”

????但事實(shí)上，時(shí)代華納公司CEO杰弗里?貝克斯拒絕了默多克的收購(gòu)要約，時(shí)代華納和貝克斯的經(jīng)歷恰恰證明，媒體行業(yè)“越大未必越好”。自從2008年執(zhí)掌時(shí)代華納的權(quán)杖至今，這六年間貝克斯一直在為時(shí)代華納“瘦身”，其間公司股價(jià)也上漲了三倍。貝克斯剝離的一些部分成為獨(dú)立的媒體公司之后，表現(xiàn)也一直不錯(cuò)。比如時(shí)代華納有線(xiàn)公司（Time Warner Cable）自2009年年中從時(shí)代華納剝離以來(lái)，股價(jià)已經(jīng)上漲了444%?；ヂ?lián)網(wǎng)公司美國(guó)在線(xiàn)（AOL）自從脫離時(shí)代華納以來(lái)，股價(jià)也上漲了80%。甚至搞傳統(tǒng)媒體的時(shí)代公司（Time Inc.），也就是《財(cái)富》雜志（Fortune）的母公司，自從今年五月從時(shí)代華納拆分以來(lái)，其股價(jià)也已上漲了21%。

????有點(diǎn)諷刺的是，正是貝克斯的“瘦身戰(zhàn)略”，最終有可能導(dǎo)致時(shí)代華納公司落入默多克或其他競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手的手中。如果他沒(méi)有剝離那些部門(mén)的話(huà)，并且這些部門(mén)都經(jīng)營(yíng)得很好，那么多頭并舉的時(shí)代華納公司的市值可能將高達(dá)1530億美元。而市值只有460億美元的21世紀(jì)福克斯要想吃掉它，無(wú)異于蟒蛇吞象。

????當(dāng)然，這樣大的市值或許意味著貝克斯根本就不應(yīng)該給時(shí)代華納搞什么瘦身。貝克斯的確是在有些業(yè)務(wù)進(jìn)展糟糕的情況下把它們賣(mài)了出去，不過(guò)與貝克斯站在同一陣營(yíng)的人可能認(rèn)為，剝離這些業(yè)務(wù)有益于為時(shí)代華納創(chuàng)造額外的價(jià)值，而且這些業(yè)務(wù)在剝離后憑自己也能成長(zhǎng)得更好。

????根據(jù)一位了解這筆交易內(nèi)情的銀行家表示，貝克斯及其團(tuán)隊(duì)的確認(rèn)為時(shí)代華納已經(jīng)夠大了，而且他們也并不期待從默多克那里獲得一筆更肥的收購(gòu)合同。這位銀行家還表示，時(shí)代華納目前也無(wú)意收購(gòu)其他公司。

????時(shí)代華納看起來(lái)已經(jīng)很大了。它差不多是全球最大的視頻內(nèi)容生產(chǎn)商。該公司的視頻業(yè)務(wù)收入大約在260億美元左右，足以和迪士尼（Disney）并駕齊驅(qū)——當(dāng)然前提是不算迪士尼的主題公園、玩具和其他業(yè)務(wù)收入。這要比21世紀(jì)?？怂沟囊曨l業(yè)務(wù)收入多出30億美元。而且時(shí)代華納的家庭影院（HBO）也是各大有線(xiàn)公司的最?lèi)?ài)。所以很難說(shuō)時(shí)代華納會(huì)在給視頻內(nèi)容找銷(xiāo)路上遇到什么麻煩。當(dāng)然如果時(shí)代華納的規(guī)模是現(xiàn)在的兩倍的話(huà)，也許它有實(shí)力獲得更好的合同。

????過(guò)去三年，各大傳媒巨頭在股市上的表現(xiàn)要好于他們的小兄弟。但是其中時(shí)代華納是表現(xiàn)最好的一個(gè)。不過(guò)根據(jù)S&P Corporate IQ公司的數(shù)據(jù)，如果你把時(shí)代華納排除在外，同時(shí)再把最近已經(jīng)被收購(gòu)的時(shí)代華納有線(xiàn)和Direct TV摘出去，那么各大傳媒巨頭（即營(yíng)收入在200億美元以上的傳媒公司）的股市表現(xiàn)并不顯著強(qiáng)于中等規(guī)模的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手（也就是營(yíng)收在50億到200億美元之間的媒體公司）。

????過(guò)去三年里，哥倫比亞廣播公司（CBS）的股價(jià)上漲了120%，幾乎和時(shí)代華納一樣。演唱會(huì)推手Live Nation的股價(jià)也翻了一番還多。CBS的市值已經(jīng)達(dá)到180億美元，相比之下Live Nation則剛剛超過(guò)20億美元。

????顯然，投資者們也像貝克斯一樣，并不認(rèn)為在媒體行業(yè)公司規(guī)模是唯一重要的事。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

????譯者：樸成奎

????Pretty big could be beautiful enough.

????Since it was announced that Rupert Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox had made a bid to buy Time Warner , much of the talk has focused on how important it is for media companies to be really big.

????“I don’t like the terms of the deal, but I like the idea of content providers combining,” says Mario Gabelli, whose Gabelli Asset Management owns shares of Time Warner. “Ten years from now, there are going to be many more screens worldwide and the cost of distribution is still too high.”

????In fact, Time Warner and CEO Jeffrey Bewkes, which turned down Murdoch’s offer, offer the best argument that bigger might not always be better in the media business. Bewkes, who took the helm at Time Warner in 2008, has spent the past six years sliming down the company. Over that time, the company’s stock price has tripled. The divisions Bewkes has spun-off into standalone media companies have also performed well. Time Warner Cable stock, for instance, is up 444% since it was split off in mid-2009. Shares of internet company AOL are up 80% since its separation. Even old media Time Inc. , which is the owner of Fortune, is up 21% since it started trading on its own in May.

????Ironically, it is now Bewkes’ strategy to slim down that may ultimately put his company in the hands of Murdoch or another rival. If he had not spun off those other divisions and they had done as well, the combined Time Warner would now be worth $153 billion, which would likely be too large for Murdoch’s Fox, which has a market cap of $46 billion.

????Of course, that massive combined value may suggest that Bewkes shouldn’t have been sliming down in the first place. He does appear to have sold off some businesses at their low points. But the Bewkes camp would argue that splitting off those businesses helped create that additional value, and that the spun off businesses have grown better on their own.

????According to a banker close to the deal, Bewkes and his team truly believe Time Warner is big enough, and they are not angling for a larger bid from Murdoch. The banker also said Time Warner is not pursuing its own acquisition to keep Murdoch at bay.

????Time Warner does look plenty large. It is already the largest, or close to it, producer of video content in the world. The company generates around $26 billion in revenue from its video businesses, roughly the same as Disney , when you exclude the sales that company gets from its theme parks, toys, and other businesses. That’s about $3 billion more than Fox generates. And Time Warner’s HBO is a must-have for cable companies. So it is hard to argue that Time Warner will have a hard time cutting deals to distribute its video. Still, you could argue that if Time Warner was twice the size, it would have even more leverage to get better deals.

????Over the past three years, shares of the largest media companies have performed better than their smaller peers. But Time Warner is the best performing stock of the bunch. Take it out, as well as the recent gains that Time Warner Cable and Direct TV have received since their takeover bids, and shares of the largest companies—$20 billion in revenues and up—have not done that much better than mid-size media players—$5 billion to $20 billion in revenues— according to data from S&P Corporate IQ.

????Shares of CBS Corp. are up 120% in the past three years, nearly as much as Time Warner. Concert producer Live Nation’s stock has more than doubled. CBS has an $18 billion market cap. Live Nation is just over $2 billion.

????Like Bewkes, investors, it appears, don’t think size in the media business is the only thing that matters.