安德森-霍羅維茨投資公司成為媒體寵兒
|
????如果手頭上并沒有一家專營寵物食品速遞的初創(chuàng)企業(yè)需要推介，這時想看看一位風險投資人不屑地翻翻眼睛該怎么做？不妨談談你對安德森-霍羅維茨風險投資公司（Andreessen Horowitz）的仰慕之情吧。 ????以前從來沒有哪家新的風投公司能發(fā)展如此之快，成立剛剛?cè)昃鸵呀?jīng)募集了近25億美元的資金。也沒有哪家風投公司連第一支基金的初始投資都還沒有返還，就已經(jīng)成為了業(yè)內(nèi)無可爭議的媒體寵兒。因此，難怪其他風投公司有點惱火。 ????“要論給投資者賺的錢多少，有幾百家風投都比這些家伙賺的多多了，”近日一位競爭對手告訴我?！叭绻皇桥菽罱K破裂了，他們會怎么樣？他們還會那么不可一世嗎？” ????聽起來有點酸溜溜。當然，這些都只是私下里說說，不會當著安德森-霍羅維茨公司員工的面說。但在業(yè)內(nèi)，在背后，這種嫉妒正在四處蔓延。 ????我明白了。融資原本被認為是件艱苦的事。一蹴而就為長期投資資產(chǎn)所不齒。而且，很多人認為，事實上就是安德森-霍羅維茨公司造就了科技泡沫。它總是支付高價，助長了整個行業(yè)的價格水漲船高。 ????但針對安德森-霍羅維茨更多的、或者至少說更普遍的抱怨是，媒體對安德森-霍羅維茨公司眾口一詞的贊譽。 ????我無力反駁這一點。因為安德森-霍羅維茨公司已登上無數(shù)雜志的封面【包括《財富》雜志（Fortune）】，被眾多博客文章和會議主題演講所稱道，公司創(chuàng)始人馬克?安德森（Marc Andreessen）也入選了《時代》雜志（Time）百位最具影響力的人物之一。但我至少可以試著做一些解釋。不妨把我當成是電影《好人寥寥》（A Few Good Men）中的黛米?摩爾。凱文?波拉克在電影里問她：“你為什么這么喜歡他們？”。 ????1. 安德森-霍羅維茨公司的媒體管理優(yōu)于其他任何風險投資公司。或許還優(yōu)于任何時期的其他任何一家金融公司。 ????我們主要說的是與媒體的接觸。如果安德森-霍羅維茨公司進行了一項投資，記者們很有可能能得到機會、電話采訪馬克?安德森、本?霍洛維茨、杰夫?喬丹或其他任何最合適的人員。同樣，當安德森-霍羅維茨公司發(fā)行了一支新基金、選擇將一半利潤捐贈給慈善事業(yè)等其它事項時，也會有這樣的機會。這一點聽上去或許顯而易見，但要知道很多“知名”風險投資人進行交易時通常都不會接受采訪。說實話，你?？吹郊s翰?多爾或邁克?莫瑞茨討論Series A融資或者某支基金的關(guān)閉嗎？ ????我并不是要說，記者們因此心存感激才寫下溢美之詞。我要說的是這家公司在傳播自己的信息方面做出了相當?shù)呐?，而其他公司則讓我們自己想辦法（結(jié)果通常導致質(zhì)疑疑態(tài)度）。風投熱情可以持續(xù)很長時間，因為投資者對被投資公司的了解幾乎總是會比記者多。 |
????Want to get a venture capitalist to roll his eyes dismissively, but don't have a pet food delivery start-up to pitch? Then just mention how much you admire Andreessen Horowitz. ????Never before has a new VC group grown so quickly, raising nearly $2.5 billion in its first three years of existence. Nor has another VC firm become the industry's undisputed media darling, before having even returned the initial investment on its first fund. No wonder other VCs are a bit miffed. ????"There are hundreds of other VCs who have made more money for their investors than either of those guys," one rival recently told me. "What happens to them if this is a bubble, and it pops? How smart are they going to look?" ????Bitter, party of everyone. Not on the record, of course, or to the faces of Andreessen Horowitz staffers. But on background and behind their backs, the envy is epidemic. ????Look, I get it. Fundraising is supposed to be hard. Overnight success is anathema to a long-term asset class. And many actually blame Andreessen Horowitz for the tech bubble itself, arguing that the firm's penchant for paying high prices has fomented industry-wide inflation. ????But all of that is secondary to a larger, or at least more prevalent, complaint: Media complicity in the Andreessen Horowitz canonization. ????I can't argue the point. Andreessen Horowitz have been featured on countless magazine covers (including by Fortune), fawning blog posts, conference keynote slots and Marc Andreessen getting named one of Time's 100 most influential people. But I can, at least, try to explain it. Consider me like Demi Moore in A Few Good Men, when Kevin Pollack asks "Why do you like them so much?" ????1. Andreessen Horowitz is better at media management than any other venture capital firm out there. Maybe better than any other financial firm, period. ????The primary attribute here is access. If Andreessen Horowitz makes an investment, there is a very good chance that reporters will get phone time with Marc Andreessen, Ben Horowitz, Jeff Jordan or whoever else is most appropriate. Same thing if the firm raises a new fund, chooses to give away half its earnings to charity, etc. That may sound obvious, but you'd be amazed how many "brand-name" venture capitalists don't usually give interviews when they do deals. Seriously, how often do you see John Doerr or Mike Moritz quoted about a Series A round? Or even about a fund close? ????I'm not trying to say that we're grateful, and thus write nice things. I'm saying that they make a significant effort to disseminate their message, whereas others leave us to our own (often cynical) devices. VC enthusiasm can go a long way, since the investor almost always knows more about the new portfolio company than does the reporter. |
相關(guān)稿件
最新文章