Raised voices and lower reputations
Last night, 20th Century Fox held a private screening of The Day After Tomorrow, the movie depicting the "storm that changed the planet". In short order, the world's media capitals were engulfed: a tornado ripped through Los Angeles; hail devastated Tokyo; London was buried in snow. For investors in the audience, the abrupt climate change was a somewhat extreme dramatisation of the mood sweeping the industry. Over the past 12 months, media companies have faced a storm of unprecedented discontent from institutional investors. Sly Bailey (pictured), chief executive of Trinity Mirror, this month became the latest media boss to receive a testy shareholder call. The investor - one of several to contact the company - wanted assurances that the furore over the Daily Mirror's faked pictures of Iraqi prisoner abuse would not hurt advertising or profits. Within 24 hours, Piers Morgan, the Mirror editor, was sacked. The intervention fits a pattern of mounting investor concerns. It coincided with a legal action in France by Appac, an association of small shareholders, over alleged insider dealing at Vivendi Universal, the communications and media group.
In the US, shareholders at Walt Disney have prompted Michael Eisner, the veteran chief executive, to resign his chairman's role. Disaffected investors also triggered the series of events that have unravelled Conrad Black's once tight hold over Hollinger International, the owner of the Telegraph Group. Here, institutional investors ousted Michael Green, Carlton chairman - ahead of the creation of ITV plc - and also rattled their cages at BSkyB over the appointment as CEO of James Murdoch.
The Trinity Mirror furore has been seized on as a new development because of suggestions that shareholders were getting involved in an editorial issue. This is a sensitive area, because global consolidation and the rise of the large media conglomerates has prompted concerns that commercial pressures are influencing TV stations and newspapers to avoid controversial (and costly) areas that might be seen as pushing an anti-big-business agenda. This is a particularly acute issue at Trinity Mirror because one of its investors - Tweedy, Browne - criticised the paper's anti-war stance long before the fake pictures saga.
Trinity Mirror executives insist shareholders did not force Morgan's departure. "Nobody said 'something has to be done' or 'the business is being damaged'," according to one insider. "They simply wanted to know what was going on."
But there is an argument that since editorial values are part of a company's brand and the intangible assets on its balance sheet, shareholders, who own the company, are entitled to voice concerns on major editorial issues. After all, the logic goes, M&S shareholders take a view, for purely business reasons, on whether it is stocking appropriate clothes lines or delivering on the brand promises of its advertising.
Deutsche Asset Management, for example, says Trinity Mirror shareholders were right to act. It says: "Shareholders from any business sector have the right to expect that business decisions should be taken on the basis of sound advice and research. Other companies are required to produce products that 'do what it says on the box'. In the case of media companies, checks should be in place to ensure their product is based on the same expectations of truth and transparency."
Large investors deny targeting the media, and fund managers say they assess the performance of media companies using the same criteria they apply to other sectors. Richard Talbut, chief investment officer at Isis Asset Management - one of the shareholders that contacted Trinity Mirror - says: "I don't think media companies have been singled out. I think all companies, on all issues, are becoming much more aware of reputational damage."
Mike Bishop, head of equities at Morley Fund Management, agrees. But he warns that earnings volatility in the sector has focused attention on management performance. "Media conceptually has been a growth area, but overall there's been quite a lot of disappointment," he says. "The advertising recession has demanded different skills; at ITV, Charles Allen is back to cost-cutting which is what he does best."
The upheavals at ITV and Trinity Mirror, nevertheless expose a schism between liquidly traded media stocks and tightly controlled listed, or privately-owned companies. No amount of controversy is likely to remove Richard Desmond at Northern & Shell, the publishing group behind Express Newspapers - for he is the sole shareholder. Voting rights also ensure that the Rothermere family will continue to control Daily Mail & General Trust. The BBC and Channel 4 are also safe from investors, although the government shareholder can be equally brutal.
Rupert Murdoch is a major advocate of controlling shareholders. The media mogul says: "To have very strong influence in the company and to bring stability to the company is a good thing. You look at other media companies without this protection and they've been gobbled up. Everybody bigger has tried to kill them. But to have strong family ownership is the norm in America, whether you look at the New York Times Company, the Washington Post or Viacom. They all have super-voting stock or controlling shares, although their ownership is way under 50 per cent like ours."
John Malone, the controlling shareholder of Liberty Media, endorses that view. He says family control or "Darwinism in the American media industry" protects long-term investment.
Acknowledging shareholder pressures, he says: "I can understand investors who want more transparency. But in many ways it's not the pension funds themselves who are driving this, but those people who are running the money on short-term relative performance. Those guys would sell their mothers to make their Christmas bonuses."
Hedge funds, in particular, have been blamed for much of the volatility in the industry. Companies exposed to such funds say they exercise too much pressure for rapid change.
But Steven Cohen, chief investment officer of Kellner DiLeo Cohen, the $500m New York hedge fund that owns shares in Disney and Hollinger, rejects that criticism. "There is a growing trend among institutional shareholders to get a greater degree of accountability," he says. "Blaming hedge funds is a facile point of view. If there are misdeeds at a company, action will be taken unless shareholders are asleep at the wheel."
Executives who do not own their companies must heed that warning. Managers who deliver shareholder returns are safe. Those who fail, like Tweedy, Browne says Conrad Black did, are vulnerable.
Eisner at Disney says the challenge is simple: "If I was managing these funds, I would be looking to the performance of the company; 100 per cent of my time is spent addressing shareholder concerns by delivering improved performance."
媒体业遭遇风暴
最近，二十世纪福克斯公司(20th Century Fox) 推出了影片《未来风暴》(The Day After Tomorrow) 一片。该影片描述了一场“改变了全球的风暴” 。影片中，全球媒体之都一一在风暴中陷落：台风洗劫了洛杉矶，冰雹摧毁了东京，大雪吞没了伦敦。影片说的是气候的突变，但在一定程度上，对观众席上的投资人来说，影片非常戏剧化地再现了波及整个媒体业的情绪。过去12个月以来，媒体企业也一直面对着一场风暴。这风暴就是投资机构对媒体企业产生了前所未有的不满。
股东现在动辄非难媒体业的老板。镜报集团(Trinity Mirror) 首席执行长斯赖?贝利(Sly Bailey, 见图) 最近就受到了几个股东的质询。其中一个股东要求镜报集团保证，英军虐囚的假照片事件不会影响《每日镜报》（Daily Mirror）的广告和利润。24小时后，《每日镜报》炒了编辑皮尔斯?摩根(Piers Morgan)的鱿鱼。之所以有这一处理结果，和投资者与日俱增的担忧不无关系。无独有偶，最近，针对维旺迪麾下环球音乐(Vivendi Universal)内线交易的传闻，维旺迪小股东利益保护协会（Appac) 也采取了法律行动。
在美国，迪斯尼逼任职多年的迈克尔?艾斯纳(Michael Eisner) 辞去董事长职务。因投资者的不满，一度稳坐霍林格国际公司(Hollinger International，每日电讯报集团控股方) 头把交椅的康拉德?布莱克（Conrad Blac）也在四面楚歌中离职。到目前为止，投资机构还在成立独立电视台(ITV)之前赶走了卡尔顿(Carlton)的董事长迈克尔?格林(Michael Green) 。同样，投资机构还对天空广播公司(BskyB) 任命詹姆斯?默多克(James Murdoch) 兴师问罪。
镜报集团的虐囚风波之所以被投资人大作文章，其原因是有人怀疑股东也卷入了编辑事务。股东参与编辑是个敏感地带。由于媒体的全球性整合和大型媒体集团的兴起，人们担心在商业压力之下，电视台和报纸会刻意回避争议性（和代价高昂）的领域。这个问题在镜报集团尤为突出。该集团的投资机构之一特崔第布朗(Tweedy, Browne) 在虐囚假照闹得沸沸扬扬之前，就曾批评《每日镜报》的反战立场。
镜报集团的管理层认为，股东并没有强迫摩根离职。“没有人说出‘得处理处理’ ，或者‘业务受到损失了’ 这样的话，” 一位内幕人士透露。“他们只是想了解情况。”
但也有人称，由于编辑的价值观是媒体企业品牌的一部分，也是无形资产，反映在收支平衡表上。股东既然是公司的拥有者，对重大编辑问题如有疑问，应该有权提出来。照这个逻辑来说，零售企业玛莎百货（M&S）的股东关注服装存货是否适当，或者品牌形象是否和广告相符，那都没有问题，毕竟都完全出于商业原因才会关注。
例如，德意志资产管理公司(Deutsche Asset Management) 就表示，镜报集团的股东如有所行动，也是无可厚非的。该公司指出：“在任何商业领域，股东都有权要求企业的决策有合理的建议和充分调研为基础。有的企业必须生产出‘名副其实’ 的产品。对媒体企业来说，也应该有审查机制，保证它们的产品符合人们的期望，反映真实与透明的原则。”
大型投资机构否认自己专门为难媒体企业。基金管理者说他们对媒体企业的业绩也没有另眼相看，是和对待其它企业是一样的。ISIS资产管理公司(Isis Asset Management) 也是镜报集团的股东之一，最近也联系了镜报集团。该公司首席投资官理查德?塔尔伯特(Richard Talbut) 说：“我想我们不是专门和媒体企业过不去。我想不论是什么企业，也不论发生的问题是什么性质，只要名誉受到了损失，都会关注的。这种趋势只会越来越明显。”
茂龙基金管理公司(Morley Fund Management)证券业务的负责人迈克?毕舍普(Mike Bishop) 也同意这一观点。但是他警告说，媒体业的收益起伏不定，这已经让人开始关注管理层的业绩问题。“媒体业照说是增长型产业，但总体来说，情况很不如意，” 他说。“由于广告业萧条，就要求经理人更改其管理技巧。独立电视台的查尔斯?艾伦(Charles Allen) 原本就是削减开支的能手，所以现在他就调整了，重新开始减支。”
但是，独立电视台和镜报集团的风波却暴露了两类企业的不同，一类是完全上市的媒体企业，一部分是上市却存在严格控制的媒体企业，亦即私营媒体企业。比如对快报集团(Express Group) 出版商Northern & Shell的理查德?德斯蒙（Richard Desmond）来说，无论出现什么争议，他都会岿然不动，因为他是唯一的股东。同样，因为投票权在自己手里，罗丝马尔(Rothermere) 家族还将继续掌控《每日邮报》和General Trust。英国广播公司(BBC) 和第四频道(Channel 4) 也都不会受投资者冲击，不过政府股东也一样难对付。
鲁珀特?默多克(Rupert Murdoch) 是股东控股的一大支持者。这位媒体大亨说：“对公司有强有力的影响，保持公司稳定，这是件好事。你看那些没有这种保护的媒体企业，哪个不给人吞了？随便哪家竞争对手，只要比它们大，都要把它们往死里整。有强大的家族控制这是美国的常规做法，你看《纽约时报》公司(New York Times Company)、《华盛顿邮报》(the Washington Post)、还有维亚康姆(Viacom)，哪个不是这样？它们都有超级投票股(super voting stock) ，或者控股权，尽管它们的股份都远不足50%，和我们一样。”
自由媒体集团(Liberty Media Group) 控股股东约翰?马龙(John Malone) 也支持这一观点。他说家族控制或曰“美国媒体业的达尔文主义” 保障了长期性投资。
他也承认来自股东的压力。他说：“我可以理解投资人对透明度的要求。但是在很多方面，并不是退休基金本身在推动这些，是那些炒短期相对业绩的人在背后推动。这些家伙为了挣圣诞节的奖金，狠不得把自己老妈给卖了。”
大家认为对冲基金是媒体业动荡不安的一大祸因。受到这些基金影响的企业说，快速变化的环境给它们带来了巨大压力。
凯尔纳?迪里奥?柯恩公司(Kellner DiLeo Cohen) 是一家资产达5亿美元的纽约对冲基金公司，持有迪斯尼和霍林格公司的股份。该公司首席投资官史蒂文?柯恩(Steven Cohen) 否定了上述批评。“机构股东要求企业有更大程度的责任性，这是趋势，” 他说，“责备对冲基金这是一种取巧的态度。如果公司有不当行为，就必须采取行动，否则股东岂不就像开车时睡觉一样？”
管理者如果没有控股所在企业，就得听一听这警告。要是他们能够实现股东回报，他们万事大吉。要是不行，那可就危险了。特崔第布朗之言和康拉德?布莱克之行就是前车之鉴。
迪斯尼的艾斯纳说挑战很简单：“如果我来管理这些基金，我也会关注公司业绩，我会把100%的时间都用来改进业绩，解决股东所担心的问题。”
