Facebook应该效仿谷歌也来一场重组？

    上周一晚间，谷歌抛出了一个重磅炸弹，宣布重组，最初人们认为这只是一个笑话。甚至有人在评论谷歌CEO拉里·佩奇的博客文章时，怀疑网站被黑了。

    但第二天，商界的评论家、分析师和讲解员们却对此次重大变动达成共识：《纽约时报》称，新成立的控股公司Alphabet，将使谷歌放开手脚，“追求搜索之外的远大梦想。”彭博社解释称，Alphabet就像是“21世纪的伯克希尔哈撒韦公司”。网络杂志《Slate》认为，此次更名显示，Alphabet“在根本上是一家‘探月’工厂，并将始终坚持这样的使命。”

    我也参与了讨论，我认为拉里·佩奇不希望成为一家广告公司的CEO，不论这家广告公司有多成功，因为广告既不是新锐行业，也不足以改变世界。因此，谷歌现在成了一系列创新业务的组成部分。

    在谷歌总部Googleplex（是否会更名为Alphaplex？）以北8英里的地方，有另外一家非常成功的基于广告的科技公司。这家公司的高管们肯定在思考，他们是否应效仿谷歌的作法？

    正如《时代》杂志所说，谷歌一直在向其他公司输出它的文化。现在，谷歌的新公司结构成了“现代科技公司未来进化的模板”。在硅谷那些规模庞大、不断发展的科技公司当中，最适合这种新模板的当属Facebook。

    与谷歌类似，Facebook也是以网页服务起家，通过广告赚钱。两家公司的收入大部分来自其旗舰产品的广告收入。

    与佩奇一样，相较于纷杂的广告重新定位优化，Facebook的CEO马克·扎克伯格也对能够改变世界的创新更感兴趣。按照佩奇与扎克伯格的设想，各自公司的所有分支项目未来都将为公司带来利润。

    Facebook旗下已经汇集了多家迥然不同的公司，这些公司独立运营，互不干扰。Facebook网站目前拥有15亿每月活跃用户，除此之外，公司还有照片分享应用Instagram，每月活跃用户3亿人；消息应用WhatsApp，每月活跃用户8亿人，还有公司自己的消息应用Facebook Messenger，每月活跃用户7亿人。Facebook还收购了虚拟现实头戴设备制造商Oculus Rift，其产品预计将在明年第一季度上市。此外，Facebook一直在通过Internet.org项目努力使全世界更多人可以访问互联网，为此，公司还投入大量资源，开发太阳能互联网飞机和激光技术。

    除了结构和前景方面的相似之处，重组还可作为一个有效的招聘工具。你很难让工程师们对广告感到兴奋。有一句话总结了硅谷工程师对广告的感受，在业内广为流传（说这句话的人正是一位Facebook早期员工）：“我这代人中最优秀的人才都在思考如何吸引用户点击广告，真是弱爆了。”如果他们不创建自己的公司，硅谷的优秀人才可能宁愿去开发一些尖端的创新产品，比如虚拟现实。

    除了招募新的人才，投资者们也可能欢迎控股公司的结构。华尔街对谷歌的重组反响热烈，谷歌市值在盘后交易中上涨了200亿美元。这是一种不同寻常的反应。正如我的同事史蒂夫·甘德尔所说，投资者通常不喜欢综合性大企业。这类公司往往被认为效率低下。即使是伯克希尔哈撒韦公司的价值，也因此被许多人低估。

    但谷歌却凭借其专注于长期投资的前瞻性创新者形象，吸引了投资者。除此之外，谷歌也不需要担心维权投资者们迫使公司拆分，因为基于其双层股权结构设计，佩奇和公司总裁谢尔盖·布林拥有多数投票权。

    Facebook也有类似的保护机制。马克·扎克伯格拥有Facebook大量所有权股份，并且全部为“B级股”，而B级股的投票权是A级股的十倍。

    Facebook上市仅三年时间，现在便全盘照搬Alphabet的作法仍为时尚早。但像谷歌一样，该公司最终也会认为这样的作法是合理的。Facebook已经在朝着这个方向发展，新增了越来越多“探月”型部门。重组只是将公司的所有创新，展示给新的人才、投资者和全世界。（财富中文网）

    译者：刘进龙/汪皓

    审校：任文科

    When Google GOOG -0.14% dropped its bombshell restructuring announcement Monday evening, it was initially seen as a joke. Commenters on CEO Larry Page’s blog post suspected the site had been hacked.

    But over next day, the business world’s commentators, analysts and explainers banded together to create a consensus about the shake-up: Alphabet, the new holding company’s name, frees up Google to “dream big beyond search” the New York Times announced. Alphabet is like “a 21st century Berkshire Hathaway,” Bloomberg explained. The name change signals that Alphabet “is fundamentally a moonshot factory, and always will be,” according to Slate.

    I joined the chorus, arguing that Larry Page doesn’t want to be the CEO of an advertising company, no matter how successful said advertising company is, because advertising not a very cool, world-changing business to be in. Ergo, Google is now one part of a portfolio of innovative businesses.

    Eight miles north of the Googleplex (will they change it to Alphaplex?), executives at another very successful advertising-based technology company are likely wondering whether they should be doing the same thing.

    As the Times argued, Google has always exported its company culture to the rest of the corporate world. Now, the company’s new corporate structure is “a template for the next evolution of a modern tech firm.” Out of all the big, evolving tech firms in Silicon Valley, Facebook is best suited for this new template.

    Like Google, Facebook FB 0.61% started as a web service that makes money through ads. The majority of both companies’ revenue comes from advertising through their flagship products.

    And like Page, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is more excited by world-changing innovations than the intricacies of ad retargeting optimization. Both Page and Zuckerberg see a future where all of their companies’ side projects contribute to the bottom line.

    Facebook Inc. has already amassed a portfolio of somewhat disparate companies operating independently of one another. Beyond its namesake product, which has 1.5 billion monthly active users, Facebook owns photo sharing app Instagram, which has 300 million monthly active users, messaging app WhatsApp, which has 800 million monthly active users, and it’s own messaging app, Facebook Messenger, which has 700 million. Facebook acquired virtual reality headset maker Oculus Rift, which is set to go on sale in the first quarter of next year. And Facebook is spending considerable resources developing solar-powered Internet drones and laser technology, in line with its efforts to increase Web access around the world through its project, Internet.org.

    Beyond similarities in structure and outlook, restructuring works as a great recruiting tool. It’s not easy to get engineers excited about advertising. There’s a famous quote that sums up how Silicon Valley engineers feel about advertising (uttered by an early Facebook employee, no less): “The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads. That sucks.” If they’re not starting their own company, the Valley’s top talent would rather work on cutting-edge, innovative products like virtual reality.

    Beyond new recruits, investors are also likely to embrace the holding company structure. Wall Street applauded Google’s re-organization, adding $20 billion to Google’s market cap in after-hours trading. It was an unusual reaction, since, as my colleague Steve Gandel noted, investors usually dislike conglomerates. They’re seen as less efficient. Even Berkshire Hathaway is considered undervalued by many.

    But Google has wooed investors on its image as a forward-thinking innovator focused on long-term investments. Beyond that, the company has the luxury of not having to worry about activist investors pressuring it to split up, because the company’s dual-class share structure gives Page and President Sergey Brin majority voting power.

    Facebook has similar protections in place. Mark Zuckerberg’s sizable ownership stake in Facebook is all “class B” stock, and that gives him ten votes for every class A vote.

    Just three years into its life as a public company, it may be too early for Facebook to go full-Alphabet. But the company may eventually decide, like Google, that such a move makes sense. Facebook is already moving in that direction by adding more and more moonshot-style divisions. Restructuring would only highlight those innovations to new recruits, investors, and the world.