如果手头上并没有一家专营宠物食品速递的初创企业需要推介，这时想看看一位风险投资人不屑地翻翻眼睛该怎么做？不妨谈谈你对安德森-霍罗维茨风险投资公司（Andreessen Horowitz）的仰慕之情吧。

    以前从来没有哪家新的风投公司能发展如此之快，成立刚刚三年就已经募集了近25亿美元的资金。也没有哪家风投公司连第一支基金的初始投资都还没有返还，就已经成为了业内无可争议的媒体宠儿。因此，难怪其他风投公司有点恼火。

    “要论给投资者赚的钱多少，有几百家风投都比这些家伙赚的多多了，”近日一位竞争对手告诉我。“如果它只是泡沫，最终破裂了，他们会怎么样？他们还会那么不可一世吗？”

    听起来有点酸溜溜。当然，这些都只是私下里说说，不会当着安德森-霍罗维茨公司员工的面说。但在业内，在背后，这种嫉妒正在四处蔓延。

    我明白了。融资原本被认为是件艰苦的事。一蹴而就为长期投资资产所不齿。而且，很多人认为，事实上就是安德森-霍罗维茨公司造就了科技泡沫。它总是支付高价，助长了整个行业的价格水涨船高。

    但针对安德森-霍罗维茨更多的、或者至少说更普遍的抱怨是，媒体对安德森-霍罗维茨公司众口一词的赞誉。

    我无力反驳这一点。因为安德森-霍罗维茨公司已登上无数杂志的封面【包括《财富》杂志（Fortune）】，被众多博客文章和会议主题演讲所称道，公司创始人马克•安德森（Marc Andreessen）也入选了《时代》杂志（Time）百位最具影响力的人物之一。但我至少可以试着做一些解释。不妨把我当成是电影《好人寥寥》（A Few Good Men）中的黛米•摩尔。凯文•波拉克在电影里问她：“你为什么这么喜欢他们？”。

    1. 安德森-霍罗维茨公司的媒体管理优于其他任何风险投资公司。或许还优于任何时期的其他任何一家金融公司。

    我们主要说的是与媒体的接触。如果安德森-霍罗维茨公司进行了一项投资，记者们很有可能能得到机会、电话采访马克•安德森、本•霍洛维茨、杰夫•乔丹或其他任何最合适的人员。同样，当安德森-霍罗维茨公司发行了一支新基金、选择将一半利润捐赠给慈善事业等其它事项时，也会有这样的机会。这一点听上去或许显而易见，但要知道很多“知名”风险投资人进行交易时通常都不会接受采访。说实话，你常看到约翰•多尔或迈克•莫瑞茨讨论Series A融资或者某支基金的关闭吗？

    我并不是要说，记者们因此心存感激才写下溢美之词。我要说的是这家公司在传播自己的信息方面做出了相当的努力，而其他公司则让我们自己想办法（结果通常导致质疑疑态度）。风投热情可以持续很长时间，因为投资者对被投资公司的了解几乎总是会比记者多。

    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.