|
????每次我都會要求首席執行官告訴我，他的公司在新一輪的風險投資或股權融資中估值多少，但每次都會遭到對方拒絕。我向這些公司的公關代表或者牽頭投資者提出這個問題的結果也是一樣。偶爾，在投資爭奪戰中落敗的風險投資家會忿忿然地向我透露一些內情，但這種情況極為少見。一般來說，公司估值都被視為重要的商業機密。 ????但這是10年前的情況。5年，甚至3年前也是如此。然而，如今的新規則是通過估值來讓人們認可獲得風投支持的公司并促進其發展，沉默是金的做法已經成為例外。看看那些（估值超過10億美元的）“獨角獸”公司吧，我們對它們（的估值）早已了如指掌。 ????出現這種變化的部分原因來自媒體，或者說，這是新聞報道增多，以及記者們知道了怎樣從美國證監會（SEC）和被譽為“世界公司的首都”的特拉華州的公司注冊系統里里挖消息的副產品。比方說，上周我問嬰兒產品制造商Honest Co.的布賴恩?李和杰西卡?阿爾巴，作為聯合創始人他們是否向別人透露了自己公司估值近10億美元的消息。他們說還沒有；他們認為，由此引發的對其“價值”的關注弊大于利。 ????不過，大多數公司在這方面都是有意而為之。我花了點兒時間跟一些資深公關人士探討了這個問題，他們反復提到了以下幾點： ????1. 如果公司所在領域競爭激烈，披露高估值會有助于招聘員工和拉來客戶。一位公關人士解釋說：“人們把高估值視為公司獲得認可而且風險較低的證據。也就是說它不會欠薪，并且能拿出產品來。” ????2. 別讓CEO泄密。披露高估值的主要風險在于，如果新一輪融資的規模和上次持平或者下降，就難以預料會出現什么樣的情況。所有來自員工或顧客的認可基本上都會轉向。因此，關鍵在于給CEO一些回旋余地……嗯……好吧，其實就是糊弄大家。或者說，留出余地來表示原先的報道有誤，證據就是CEO和公司從來都沒有予以證實。那么，怎樣“恰到好處地”透露信息呢？可以通過隱藏在背后的公關公司，并且不說明消息來源。或者，使用更容易理解的詞語，如“熟悉情況的消息人士”或者“接近該公司的消息人士”。 ????3. 有些CEO就是控制不住自己。另一位公關人士說：“對于許多硅谷公司而言，總有表達‘我的公司比你的大’的欲望。CEO出于戰略原因而披露本公司的估值是一回事，但許多情況下他們純粹是在自吹自擂。”對尚未拿出產品的公司來說情況尤其如此，而這樣做會提高今后的聲譽風險，并迫使這些公司在未來做出不合情理的財務決定（比如為了維持估值而舉債）。 ????4. 對那些確實不想公布自身估值的公司來說，一大顧慮是流傳出去的信息不準確。比如說，一家初創企業籌集了1.5億美元資金，卻被報道為融資4億美元。我接觸到的所有公關人士都承認，在這種情況下，他們將設法把詢問的記者引向正確的數字。一位公關人士這樣說：“我可不想讓你把我的話記下來，說我覺得記者都應該夸大其詞；但他們當然應該這樣做。”（財富中文網） ????譯者：Charlie ????審稿：Vera Han |
????Every time, it went the same way. I would ask a CEO to tell me his company’s valuation on its new round of venture capital or growth equity financing, and he’d decline. Same thing if I asked the company’s PR rep, or lead investor. Occasionally a rival venture capitalist who had lost the deal would spill out of spite, but it was rare. In general, valuations were considered precious trade secret. ????That was ten years ago. And five years ago. And even three years ago. Today, however, such reticence is the exception to a new rule in which valuations are used to legitimize and promote venture-backed companies. Just think of all those unicorns, and that we all know of their existence. ????Part of the shift is media-driven —aa byproduct of increased coverage and reporters figuring out how to scour SEC and Delaware filings systems. For example, last week I asked Honest Co. co-founders Brian Lee and Jessica Alba if they had leaked their company’s near $1 billion valuation. They said they hadn’t, and that the resulting focus on their “value”awas more negative than positive. ????Most of it, however, is intentional. I spent time speaking with several veteran PR pros about the matter, and heard the following points repeatedly: ????1. If the company is in a highly-competitive space, disclosing a strong valuation can help with both employee recruitment and customer acquisition. “It’s viewed as proof of validation and that the company is less risky,” one PR pro explained. “It means the paycheck won’t bounce, and the product will be delivered.” ????2. Don’t let the CEO spill the beans. The big risk to disclosing a high valuation is what happens if the company then raises at a flat or down-round next time. Basically, all of that employee/customer validation is reversed. The key, therefore, is giving the CEO some wiggle-room to…aummm…mwell, basically to lie to everyone. The flexibility to say those original reports were wrong, as evidenced by the fact that neither the CEO nor company ever confirmed them. So how do you leak “properly?”rVia PR on background, without attribution. Or, put in more recognizable terms, via “sources familiar with the situation”oor “sources close to the company.” ????3. Some CEOs simply cannot help themselves. “There is a lot of ‘mine is bigger than yours’iat Silicon Valley cocktail parties,”tanother PR pro said. “It’s one thing if a CEO discloses valuation for strategic reasons, but a lot of times it’s just bragging.” This is particularly true if a company has not yet shipped product, thus increasing the future reputational risk and forcing the company to make unnatural financing decisions in the future (like doing a debt deal for the purpose of maintaining valuation). ????4. For companies that do want to keep their valuations private, one huge fear is that inaccurate information will leak. For example, a startup raises at a $150 million mark but it is reported as $400 million. Each PR person I spoke with admitted that, in such cases, they will try to steer the inquiring reporter toward the correct number. Here’s how one put it: “I don’t want to be on record as saying reporters should bluff, but of course they should.” |
最新文章