【雙語閱讀】風險投資模式行得通嗎？.

　　一項不同尋常的風險投資模式能夠起飛嗎?美國風險資金十分豐富， 但是并非所有地方都是這樣。 在歐洲，一些公司正以非同尋常的模式幫助那些掙扎的新成立的公司：投資廣告版面而非直接投錢。

　　Business

　　Ad space for equity

　　Air for shares

　　Could an unusual venture-capital model be taking off?

　　IN AMERICA, venture capital is plentiful. Not so elsewhere. In Europe, a handful of companies are helping struggling start-ups with an unusual model: investing advertising space in them instead of money.

　　Start-ups usually get their initial seed funding-a few tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars-from family or friends. A venture-capital firm won&apost step in until the firm is ready to raise maybe ten times that amount. In America, intermediate sums tend to come from informal "angel investors", typically entrepreneurs who have made a decent bit of money from their own start-ups and want to invest some in projects they like. But outside America&aposs technology hubs, such people are rare.

　　However, start-ups of that size are often making their first baby steps into the market and need publicity. Aggregate Media Funds, a Swedish firm started in 2002, pools excess advertising space provided by 15 Swedish media companies that are shareholders in the fund, and gives it to start-ups in return for an equity stake (it also plans their marketing for them). If the firms do well, they buy back the equity in cash, which goes to the shareholders, with a cut for the fund. Patrik Rosen, Aggregate&aposs boss, says it has made some 120 investments-in both start-ups and established firms that want to advertise a new product or a stock offering-and completed around 80 "exits", though he won&apost disclose how much money has been made.

　　Similar models have taken hold in Germany. ProSiebenSat.1, a television company, has been offering other firms advertising in return for equity or revenue shares since 2009, and reported making more than €40m ($56m) in the past year. A newer fund, German Media Pool, founded a year ago, combines a range of shareholders, as Aggregate does, so it can offer its start-ups ads anywhere from billboards to TV. Niko Waesche, the fund&aposs creator, aims to double his investors&apos money.

　　So why is the model not more widespread? It may have a bad reputation. Media firms that negotiate barter deals directly don&apost always do well: they tend to lack the expertise to invest in start-ups, and the deals may not be transparent. India&aposs largest media firm, the Times Group (aka Bennett, Coleman & Co), which publishes papers such as the Times of India, also owns a media-for-equity firm called Brand Capital, with stakes in around 400 companies. In 2009, under the name Times Private Treatie s, it got embroiled in controversy after India&aposs stockmarket regulator censured a group of people for conspiring to bump up the share price of one of its portfolio companies, and a Times Group journalist for midwifing media coverage. Critics say it is still hard to tell when Indian papers have financial links to firms they write about.

　　Hence, Mr Rosen argues, the need for independent, diversified media funds to act as middlemen. Even then, not all start-ups need ads-some are happy with social media-and many others would rather have cash instead. Still, for some it is just what they need. And for the media firms, since the ads would otherwise go unfilled, any return is pure profit.

　　【中文對照翻譯】

　　商業(yè)

　　為股票做廣告

　　股票時間

　　一項不同尋常的風險投資模式能夠起飛嗎?

　　美國風險資金十分豐富， 但是并非所有地方都是這樣。 在歐洲，一些公司正以非同尋常的模式幫助那些掙扎的新成立的公司：投資廣告版面而非直接投錢。

　　新成立的公司通常從家人或朋友那里獲得初始的種子資金，通常是數(shù)萬或數(shù)十萬美元。 只有公司籌集到了數(shù)百萬的資金時，風險投資才會介入。 在美國，過渡的資金通常來自于非正式的天使投資者， 特別是由新成立的公司發(fā)家且希望投資一些中意項目的企業(yè)家。 但是在美國科技中心之外，這樣的人少之又少。

　　然而，這樣規(guī)模的新成立的公司通常會邁著嬰兒步進入市場并需要廣告宣傳。 2002年成立的瑞典媒體公司媒體公基金集合了15家瑞典媒體提供的廣告版面，并且以交換股權(quán)的形式給予新成立的公司。(該公司還會為他們做市場規(guī)劃。)這15家媒體都是該基金的股東。 如果公司運作良好，他們就會用現(xiàn)金買回股權(quán)給予股東，并給基金一份利潤。 公基金的老板帕特里克?羅森表示給公司已經(jīng)做大約120筆投資，都是投在需要為新產(chǎn)品或發(fā)行股票的新成立的公司或已成型的公司，并完成了大概80個公司的"退市"，但是他并不會透露賺了多少錢。

　　德國也興起了同樣的模式。 德國衛(wèi)星電視頻道ProSieben衛(wèi)星一臺在2009年就開始以交換股權(quán)或股份的形式為公司提供廣告， 去年盈利超過4千萬歐元(5千6百萬美元)。 成立于一年前的德國媒體基金像媒體公基金一樣聯(lián)合了一批股東。從廣告牌到電視的任何地方，它都能夠為新成立的公司投放廣告。 基金創(chuàng)始人尼科?華思車的目標是使投資者的錢翻倍。

　　為什么這個模式并沒有更廣泛的應用呢? 可能是這個模式名聲不好。 協(xié)商直接易貨交易的媒體公司通常盈利狀況不佳：他們通常缺乏投資新成立的公司的專業(yè)知識，并且協(xié)議可能不透明。 印度最大媒體公司時代集團在發(fā)行諸如印度時報之類的報紙的同時也擁有一家媒體換股權(quán)的公司，名叫品牌資金，該公司擁有大概400家公司的股份。 2009年,該公司以時代財產(chǎn)轉(zhuǎn)讓契約的名義卷入了一場爭議,這場爭議源于印度股票市場管理機構(gòu)嚴厲指責一幫人串通抬高其中一家成員企業(yè)的股價和一位時代集團記者為媒體報道推波助瀾。 批評者稱目前仍然很難確定事情根底，因為印度報紙和其報道的公司有經(jīng)濟聯(lián)系。

　　所以羅森先生主張獨立多樣的媒體基金作為中間人。 即使是那是也不是所有新成立的公司都需要廣告，有些公司樂意使用社交媒體，而許多公司寧愿獲得資金。 然而對于一些公司來說這正是他們所需要的。 對于一些媒體公司來說，若不投給新成立的公司，一些廣告版面也會空白，所以一切收益都是純利潤。

　　一項不同尋常的風險投資模式能夠起飛嗎?美國風險資金十分豐富， 但是并非所有地方都是這樣。 在歐洲，一些公司正以非同尋常的模式幫助那些掙扎的新成立的公司：投資廣告版面而非直接投錢。

　　Business

　　Ad space for equity

　　Air for shares

　　Could an unusual venture-capital model be taking off?

　　IN AMERICA, venture capital is plentiful. Not so elsewhere. In Europe, a handful of companies are helping struggling start-ups with an unusual model: investing advertising space in them instead of money.

　　Start-ups usually get their initial seed funding-a few tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars-from family or friends. A venture-capital firm won&apost step in until the firm is ready to raise maybe ten times that amount. In America, intermediate sums tend to come from informal "angel investors", typically entrepreneurs who have made a decent bit of money from their own start-ups and want to invest some in projects they like. But outside America&aposs technology hubs, such people are rare.

　　However, start-ups of that size are often making their first baby steps into the market and need publicity. Aggregate Media Funds, a Swedish firm started in 2002, pools excess advertising space provided by 15 Swedish media companies that are shareholders in the fund, and gives it to start-ups in return for an equity stake (it also plans their marketing for them). If the firms do well, they buy back the equity in cash, which goes to the shareholders, with a cut for the fund. Patrik Rosen, Aggregate&aposs boss, says it has made some 120 investments-in both start-ups and established firms that want to advertise a new product or a stock offering-and completed around 80 "exits", though he won&apost disclose how much money has been made.

　　Similar models have taken hold in Germany. ProSiebenSat.1, a television company, has been offering other firms advertising in return for equity or revenue shares since 2009, and reported making more than €40m ($56m) in the past year. A newer fund, German Media Pool, founded a year ago, combines a range of shareholders, as Aggregate does, so it can offer its start-ups ads anywhere from billboards to TV. Niko Waesche, the fund&aposs creator, aims to double his investors&apos money.

　　So why is the model not more widespread? It may have a bad reputation. Media firms that negotiate barter deals directly don&apost always do well: they tend to lack the expertise to invest in start-ups, and the deals may not be transparent. India&aposs largest media firm, the Times Group (aka Bennett, Coleman & Co), which publishes papers such as the Times of India, also owns a media-for-equity firm called Brand Capital, with stakes in around 400 companies. In 2009, under the name Times Private Treatie s, it got embroiled in controversy after India&aposs stockmarket regulator censured a group of people for conspiring to bump up the share price of one of its portfolio companies, and a Times Group journalist for midwifing media coverage. Critics say it is still hard to tell when Indian papers have financial links to firms they write about.

　　Hence, Mr Rosen argues, the need for independent, diversified media funds to act as middlemen. Even then, not all start-ups need ads-some are happy with social media-and many others would rather have cash instead. Still, for some it is just what they need. And for the media firms, since the ads would otherwise go unfilled, any return is pure profit.

上12下

共2頁