精品国产_亚洲人成在线高清,国产精品成人久久久久,国语自产偷拍精品视频偷拍

????如果手頭上并沒(méi)有一家專(zhuān)營(yíng)寵物食品速遞的初創(chuàng)企業(yè)需要推介，這時(shí)想看看一位風(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資人不屑地翻翻眼睛該怎么做？不妨談?wù)勀銓?duì)安德森-霍羅維茨風(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資公司（Andreessen Horowitz）的仰慕之情吧。

????以前從來(lái)沒(méi)有哪家新的風(fēng)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(méi)有哪家風(fēng)投公司連第一支基金的初始投資都還沒(méi)有返還，就已經(jīng)成為了業(yè)內(nèi)無(wú)可爭(zhēng)議的媒體寵兒。因此，難怪其他風(fēng)投公司有點(diǎn)惱火。

????“要論給投資者賺的錢(qián)多少，有幾百家風(fēng)投都比這些家伙賺的多多了，”近日一位競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手告訴我。“如果它只是泡沫，最終破裂了，他們會(huì)怎么樣？他們還會(huì)那么不可一世嗎？”

????聽(tīng)起來(lái)有點(diǎn)酸溜溜。當(dāng)然，這些都只是私下里說(shuō)說(shuō)，不會(huì)當(dāng)著安德森-霍羅維茨公司員工的面說(shuō)。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(rèn)為是件艱苦的事。一蹴而就為長(zhǎng)期投資資產(chǎn)所不齒。而且，很多人認(rèn)為，事實(shí)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(jià)，助長(zhǎng)了整個(gè)行業(yè)的價(jià)格水漲船高。

????但針對(duì)安德森-霍羅維茨更多的、或者至少說(shuō)更普遍的抱怨是，媒體對(duì)安德森-霍羅維茨公司眾口一詞的贊譽(yù)。

????我無(wú)力反駁這一點(diǎn)。因?yàn)榘驳律?霍羅維茨公司已登上無(wú)數(shù)雜志的封面【包括《財(cái)富》雜志（Fortune）】，被眾多博客文章和會(huì)議主題演講所稱(chēng)道，公司創(chuàng)始人馬克?安德森（Marc Andreessen）也入選了《時(shí)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(dāng)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(wèn)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(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資公司。或許還優(yōu)于任何時(shí)期的其他任何一家金融公司。

????我們主要說(shuō)的是與媒體的接觸。如果安德森-霍羅維茨公司進(jìn)行了一項(xiàng)投資，記者們很有可能能得到機(jī)會(huì)、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(dāng)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(rùn)捐贈(zèng)給慈善事業(yè)等其它事項(xiàng)時(shí)，也會(huì)有這樣的機(jī)會(huì)。這一點(diǎn)聽(tīng)上去或許顯而易見(jiàn)，但要知道很多“知名”風(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資人進(jìn)行交易時(shí)通常都不會(huì)接受采訪。說(shuō)實(shí)話，你常看到約翰?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(shuō)，記者們因此心存感激才寫(xiě)下溢美之詞。我要說(shuō)的是這家公司在傳播自己的信息方面做出了相當(dāng)?shù)呐Γ渌緞t讓我們自己想辦法（結(jié)果通常導(dǎo)致質(zhì)疑疑態(tài)度）。風(fēng)投熱情可以持續(xù)很長(zhǎng)時(shí)間，因?yàn)橥顿Y者對(duì)被投資公司的了解幾乎總是會(huì)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.