千萬別讓默多克買下時代華納

My first reaction to the $73bn bid from 21st Century Fox for Time Warner, which this week settled in for a prolonged fight as Time Warner blocked Fox from mounting a rapid assault on its board of directors, was to ask: what problem is Rupert Murdoch trying to solve?

我對21世紀福克斯(21st Century Fox)出價730億美元收購時代華納(Time Warner)之舉的第一反應是：魯珀特•默多克(Rupert Murdoch)想要解決什麼問題？在成功抵擋福克斯對其董事會的突襲後，時代華納已準備好打一場持久戰。

It is not a paucity of high-quality television. Indeed, the problem is the opposite these days: it is hard to find enough time to watch all of the fine series that pour out of broadcast and cable networks, both subscription and free to air: True Detective, Game of Thrones, Orange is the New Black. The Good Wife, The Americans, House of Cards. The list goes on.

眼下，高質量的電視節目不是太少，而是太多。的確，現在的問題是好節目太多了，我們沒時間全部看完。無論是付費頻道還是免費頻道，都有許多優秀的電視劇：《真探》(True Detective)、《權力的遊戲》(Game of Thrones)、《女子監獄》(Orange is the New Black)，還有《傲骨賢妻》(The Good Wife)、《美國諜夢》(The Americans)、《紙牌屋》(House of Cards)，等等、等等。

Nor are the networks in financial trouble. Competition among cable and satellite operators to gain viewers – and efforts by services such as Netflix to draw them away – has created a production boom. In the US, non-sports cable networks receive $17bn a year in fees from cable and satellite operators; video-on-demand and similar services gain another $7.5bn, growing by 20 per cent in 2013, according to Barclays.

電視臺也不缺錢。有線和無線運營商對觀衆資源的爭奪，再加上Netflix等視頻網站的入局，催生了一場電視劇製作熱潮。巴克萊(Barclays)數據顯示，在美國，非體育類有線臺每年從有線和衛星電視運營商那裏收到的轉播費高達170億美元，視頻點播及類似服務實現75億美元的收入，在2013年增長20%。

Hollywood studios such as Warner Bros and Fox are feeling the pinch, but this is a golden age of television, in creative and financial terms. That is the healthy outcome of fierce competition in a market where the barriers to entry have been falling, but it could be placed at risk by a wave of megamergers such as Fox/Time Warner and Comcast buying Time Warner Cable.

華納兄弟(Warner Bros)和福克斯(Fox)等好萊塢製片公司感受到壓力，但無論從創意角度還是資金角度而言，眼下都是電視的黃金時代。這是市場進入門檻降低和激烈競爭產生的良性結果。然而，一輪大規模併購可能葬送這個黃金時代，比如福克斯對時代華納的收購、康卡斯特公司(Comcast)對時代華納有線(Time Warner Cable)的收購。

Although we are now used to a bevy of dramas and comedies vying for our attention – both in the US and on international channels and streaming services – it is worth noting how recent the phenomenon is. The first series of The Sopranos, the HBO series that started the race to the top in television production, began 15 years ago.

儘管我們現在習慣了有一大堆電視劇爭奪我們的注意力——無論是在美國和海外電視頻道，還有流媒體服務，但值得一提的是，這種現象的歷史並不悠久。第一部挑起電視劇爭霸賽的劇集是《黑道家族》(The Sopranos)，由美國家庭電影頻道(HBO)製作，開播於15年前。

It was launched two years before the ill-conceived and disastrous 2001 merger of AOL and Time Warner, which was accompanied by a lot of corporate flannel about how AOL would usher old media into the digital age. The upheaval that The Sopranos caused was more potent and enduring than the financial engineering inflicted on HBO’s parent company.

那部劇開播兩年後的2001年，美國在線(AOL)跟時代華納合並了，當時有許多人鼓吹美國在線會帶領老媒體走向數字時代，然而這次併購計劃不周，最後慘敗收場。《黑道家族》引發的製作高質量電視劇的趨勢，則比針對HBO母公司的“金融工程”更有生命力、也更加持久。

AOL Time Warner is no more, but HBO’s value has grown hugely – it is the jewel Fox most wants to seize in Time Warner’s crown. The channel gained its power with cable operators by being innovative, not by being big. Subscription channels including Showtime and free ones such as AMC, which broadcast Mad Men, followed its lead.

美國在線時代華納已成過去式，但HBO的價值增長了不少；福克斯對時代華納發出收購，最想摘取的就是HBO這顆“皇冠上的明珠”。HBO之所以能征服有線電視運營商，靠的是創新，而不是規模。娛樂時間(Showtime)等付費有線電視頻道、以及播放《廣告狂人》(Mad Men)的AMC等免費有線電視頻道，也在追隨HBO的腳步。

This happened in an extremely competitive market, driven by four big broadcast networks, six major Hollywood studios and the disruptive force of the internet, which enabled new services to be created. No company had sufficient power of distribution, or share of production, to inhibit it.

這一切發生在一個競爭極度激烈的市場上，這個市場由四大無線電視臺、6大好萊塢製片公司、以及不斷帶來新型服務的互聯網的顛覆力量驅動。沒有一家公司有足夠的分銷實力和製片份額來阻止競爭。

Mr Murdoch, of all people, should recognise the benefits of competition since he is an innovator. He broke the grip of the big three broadcast networks by launching the Fox network in 1986. Fox News, which he started in 1996, has (for good or ill) overtaken Time Warner’s CNN. FX, a Fox cable channel, makes good shows such as Fargo.

默多克理應最清楚地意識到競爭的好處，因爲他是個創新者。1986年，他創辦福克斯電視，打破了3大無線電視臺對市場的把持。他於1996年創辦的福克斯新聞(Fox News)，如今已超越時代華納的美國有線電視新聞網(CNN)——且不論這是好還是不好。福克斯旗下的有限電視頻道FX，也製作了像《冰風暴》(Fargo)那樣的優秀劇集。

The best quality of News Corp, now split into a publishing company and Fox, is entrepreneurialism.

新聞集團（News Corp，眼下已分拆爲一家出版公司和福克斯）最優秀的品質在於創新精神。

Mr Murdoch has founded (or retooled from brands that had been allowed to fade by others) a range of media properties, from The Sunnewspaper to BSkyB, the satellite broadcaster. They would not have survived, or existed, without him.

默多克創立了一系列媒體資產（或者再創了在其他人手中原本江河日下的品牌），從《太陽報》(Sun)到天空電視臺(BSkyB)。沒有他，這些品牌不可能存活、或根本不會存在。

Mr Murdoch has another side – that of adept and ruthless dealmaker. He has a history of forcing his way into a market and pouncing on an old-established asset, often at a high price. He paid a breathtaking $5bn for Dow Jones in 2007 and Fox has returned $12bn to shareholders over the past three years in an effort to rebuild credibility.

但默多克還有另外一面——精明、無情的生意人。硬擠進一個市場、（往往以高價）對一項老牌資產發起收購，這樣的事情他幹過很多次。2007年，他斥資50億美元收購道瓊斯(Dow Jones)，讓所有人大吃一驚；爲重建可信度，福克斯過去3年來向股東返還了120億美元。

I prefer the first Murdoch, but the second is now at work. He has struck just as Jeff Bewkes, Time Warner’s chief executive, has slimmed it down by spinning off Time Warner Cable and Time Inc, but before its growth potential was fully proved. The $73bn offer is not enough, and it will be hard to persuade Time Warner without overpaying.

我更欣賞第一個默多克，但如今跳出來的是第二個。時代華納首席執行官傑夫•比克斯(Jeff Bewkes)剛剛剝離了時代華納有線和時代公司(Time Inc)。也就是說，時代華納剛剛瘦身成功，但尚未充分證明自己的增長潛力，默多克選在這樣一個時機出手。730億美元的收購出價根本不足以反映時代華納的價值，而且要說服它接受收購，不支付溢價是不可能的。

The deal makes perfect sense for Mr Murdoch. He has coveted it since the 1980s, when he attempted to buy Warner Bros before setting up Fox. He would control a production powerhouse, with one broadcast network, two film studios and cable networks including HBO, and be the king of the content castle.

默多克眼下發起這樣一筆交易太符合邏輯了。他從上世紀80年代就開始覬覦這樣的資產，在創立福克斯之前，他曾試圖收購華納兄弟。收購時代華納將讓他擁有一個源源不斷產出內容的大工廠：有一家電視臺、兩家電影公司、還有包括HBO在內的有線電視臺——他將成爲主宰這個內容城堡的國王。

What about the rest of us, though? We have been extremely well served by the existing industry structure, and the intensification of competition in the past two decades. Why would the consumer want to lose all of that to consolidation and the rebuilding of media oligopolies?

可是，我們這些消費者怎麼辦？目前的行業結構、以及過去20年來白熱化的競爭，讓我們得以享受一流的服務。消費者怎麼會希望拿現在擁有的一切，去換取電視行業的整合、媒體的重新壟斷？

Ask a company in this wave of mergers and the answer tends to be: “We have no choice.” Others are growing and they must respond. Media companies cite the power of Comcast, particularly if the Time Warner Cable deal is approved. Comcast itself points to internet giants such as Google.

面對眼下這股併購潮，電視行業裏的公司可能會說：“我們別無選擇。”競爭者在成長，它們必須做出應對。媒體公司會用康卡斯特的強大爲自己辯護，特別是在時代華納有線的交易獲得批准的情況下。康卡斯特自己則說，有谷歌(Google)等互聯網巨頭在後面追着，它不得不這樣做。

The size argument is not self-evident – it helps in negotiations but what matters more is making shows that cable and satellite operators need. The fact that cable companies that once dominated distribution face new online and digital competition is difficult for them but is good for consumers, and it cannot be solved by merging with others.

規模這個理由並不具備說服力。在談判中，規模是個有利因素，但更重要的是製作出有線和無線運營商需要的節目。有線公司一度主導分銷，如今卻面臨新的網絡和數字渠道的競爭，這對它們是個不利因素，但有利於消費者，併購也解決不了它們的問題。

Before the entertainment industry plunges into a frenetic round of self-reinforcing, defensive consolidation, both US regulators and companies should consider: what is so bad about what we have?

在娛樂業掀起一輪自我強化、防守姿態的整合熱潮之前，美國的監管機構和公司都應該考慮一個問題：現在的局面有何不好？