每次我都会要求首席执行官告诉我，他的公司在新一轮的风险投资或股权融资中估值多少，但每次都会遭到对方拒绝。我向这些公司的公关代表或者牵头投资者提出这个问题的结果也是一样。偶尔，在投资争夺战中落败的风险投资家会忿忿然地向我透露一些内情，但这种情况极为少见。一般来说，公司估值都被视为重要的商业机密。

    但这是10年前的情况。5年，甚至3年前也是如此。然而，如今的新规则是通过估值来让人们认可获得风投支持的公司并促进其发展，沉默是金的做法已经成为例外。看看那些（估值超过10亿美元的）“独角兽”公司吧，我们对它们（的估值）早已了如指掌。

    出现这种变化的部分原因来自媒体，或者说，这是新闻报道增多，以及记者们知道了怎样从美国证监会（SEC）和被誉为“世界公司的首都”的特拉华州的公司注册系统里里挖消息的副产品。比方说，上周我问婴儿产品制造商Honest Co.的布赖恩•李和杰西卡•阿尔巴，作为联合创始人他们是否向别人透露了自己公司估值近10亿美元的消息。他们说还没有；他们认为，由此引发的对其“价值”的关注弊大于利。

    不过，大多数公司在这方面都是有意而为之。我花了点儿时间跟一些资深公关人士探讨了这个问题，他们反复提到了以下几点：

    1. 如果公司所在领域竞争激烈，披露高估值会有助于招聘员工和拉来客户。一位公关人士解释说：“人们把高估值视为公司获得认可而且风险较低的证据。也就是说它不会欠薪，并且能拿出产品来。”

    2. 别让CEO泄密。披露高估值的主要风险在于，如果新一轮融资的规模和上次持平或者下降，就难以预料会出现什么样的情况。所有来自员工或顾客的认可基本上都会转向。因此，关键在于给CEO一些回旋余地……嗯……好吧，其实就是糊弄大家。或者说，留出余地来表示原先的报道有误，证据就是CEO和公司从来都没有予以证实。那么，怎样“恰到好处地”透露信息呢？可以通过隐藏在背后的公关公司，并且不说明消息来源。或者，使用更容易理解的词语，如“熟悉情况的消息人士”或者“接近该公司的消息人士”。

    3. 有些CEO就是控制不住自己。另一位公关人士说：“对于许多硅谷公司而言，总有表达‘我的公司比你的大’的欲望。CEO出于战略原因而披露本公司的估值是一回事，但许多情况下他们纯粹是在自吹自擂。”对尚未拿出产品的公司来说情况尤其如此，而这样做会提高今后的声誉风险，并迫使这些公司在未来做出不合情理的财务决定（比如为了维持估值而举债）。

    4. 对那些确实不想公布自身估值的公司来说，一大顾虑是流传出去的信息不准确。比如说，一家初创企业筹集了1.5亿美元资金，却被报道为融资4亿美元。我接触到的所有公关人士都承认，在这种情况下，他们将设法把询问的记者引向正确的数字。一位公关人士这样说：“我可不想让你把我的话记下来，说我觉得记者都应该夸大其词；但他们当然应该这样做。”（财富中文网）

    译者：Charlie

    审稿：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.”