Schumpeter

熊彼得

Creative capitalism

創(chuàng)新資本主義

Other industries have a lot to learn from Hollywood

其他工業(yè)部門要向好萊塢學(xué)習(xí)很多

Nov 1st 2014 | From the print edition of The Economist

譯者：crazybull

THE main building on Disney’s studio lot has seven huge replicas of Snow White’s dwarfs holding up its roof, a reminder of how Hollywood does not take itself too seriously. Nor do many outsiders. Film is an eccentric business, filled with egos and excess. For most of their history, studios have had neither the stunning returns of startups nor the steady profits of mature firms. They are famed for blowing vast sums on high-profile turkeys. “Heaven’s Gate”, an extravagant flop in 1980, crushed United Artists, the studio Charlie Chaplin and other stars founded in 1919.

七個(gè)巨大的白雪公主小矮人復(fù)制品支撐著迪斯尼工作室主建筑的頂部，提醒人們不只是很多局外人，連好萊塢自己也不把自己當(dāng)回事兒。電影業(yè)是奇怪的，充斥著自我和非凡。影業(yè)公司的歷史中，大多沒有創(chuàng)業(yè)公司那樣的驚人回報(bào)也沒有成熟公司那樣穩(wěn)定的利潤。他們倒是因?yàn)樵掖蟀训馁Y金給高調(diào)卻失敗的作品而聞名。1980年的《天堂之門》就是一個(gè)極度浪費(fèi)的徹底失敗，這部作品壓垮了查理.卓別林和其他影星在1919年創(chuàng)立的聯(lián)美電影公司。

Few business-school professors would ever think to walk the red carpet and use Hollywood as a case study. However, it is time they tuned in to Tinseltown. One reason is that other industries are coming to resemble the film business in some ways. In today’s knowledge-based economy, bosses are having to spend more time managing flighty “stars”. Food and consumer-goods makers are, as the studios have already done, seeking to focus more on a narrower range of “blockbusters”; and in industries from electronics to carmaking, the pace of product and brand launches is increasing, so Hollywood’s ability to create a buzz rapidly about a new film may offer valuable lessons.

很少有商學(xué)院的教授想到過走過紅地毯，用好萊塢做研究案例。然而，到了關(guān)注浮華城的時(shí)候了。（浮華城=好萊塢）一個(gè)原因是，其他工業(yè)部門在某些意義上越來越像電影業(yè)。如今是知識經(jīng)濟(jì)的時(shí)代，老板們不得不花更多的時(shí)間來管理那些反復(fù)無常的“明星”。（企業(yè)里的管理骨干和技術(shù)骨干）食品以及消費(fèi)品制造商正在試圖更專注于更窄范圍內(nèi)的“大片兒”（轟動(dòng)暢銷產(chǎn)品），而影業(yè)公司早已對此駕輕就熟。從電子產(chǎn)業(yè)到汽車制造，產(chǎn)品和品牌的推出速度越來越快。好萊塢在推出一部新電影時(shí)創(chuàng)造出呼嘯而過的速度的能力，是有學(xué)習(xí)價(jià)值的。

Furthermore, movie-making is an American success story. It is one of the few remaining industries in which the country’s grip on the global market is as strong as it has ever been. China’s Chollywood and India’s Bollywood do not make films that people in other countries line up to see. America’s film and television industry reckons its exports are worth around $16 billion a year.

再者，拍電影也是一個(gè)美國人的成功故事。電影業(yè)是美國僅余的幾個(gè)有史以來最能牢牢掌控全球市場的產(chǎn)業(yè)之一。中國的周萊塢和印度的寶萊塢拍不出讓其他國家觀眾排隊(duì)買票的電影。估計(jì)，美國的電影以及電視產(chǎn)業(yè)出口額大約有每年160億美元。

Every company that employs creative people must think about how to harness their strengths for commercial gain without strangling their free-spiritedness. Hollywood has a century’s experience in this. Studios recruit a fresh creative team for each film, leaving its members to work intensely together with a minimum of interference, stepping in only when things are clearly going wrong. This gives team members a feeling of control and pride in their project; and to cap it all, everyone has their contribution duly acknowledged in the closing credits.

每一個(gè)雇傭有創(chuàng)造力的員工的公司必須考慮如何利用他們的能力創(chuàng)造商業(yè)收入而又不扼殺他們的自由精神。好萊塢在這方面有一個(gè)世紀(jì)的經(jīng)驗(yàn)。電影工作室為每一部電影雇傭一個(gè)新的創(chuàng)作團(tuán)隊(duì)，放手讓成員一起緊張工作很少干涉，只有在事情明顯做錯(cuò)了的時(shí)候才介入。這種方式在項(xiàng)目進(jìn)行過程中給團(tuán)隊(duì)成員以控制感和自豪感。更有甚者，每一個(gè)有貢獻(xiàn)的成員都會出現(xiàn)在片尾名單上。

Such teamwork is rare in other businesses, argues Mark Young of the University of Southern California’s Marshall School of Business. People work hard and collaborate well in the movie business in part because they have little job stability. Many are freelancers, who will not get hired for the next film unless they prove themselves on the current one. The tough lesson from Hollywood, then, is that job insecurity can lead to greater productivity, as long as workers believe in what they are doing and have their achievements recognised

南加州大學(xué)馬歇爾商學(xué)院的Mark Young認(rèn)為，這樣的團(tuán)隊(duì)合作在其他商業(yè)領(lǐng)域很少見。電影工業(yè)中，人們辛苦工作通力合作部分原因是因?yàn)樗麄兊墓ぷ鞣€(wěn)定性差。很多是自由職業(yè)者，如果他們不能在當(dāng)前的這部電影證明自己，下一部電影就不會再雇傭他們。那么，從好萊塢學(xué)到了艱辛一課：只要員工相信他們正在做的事業(yè)并且認(rèn)可他們的成就，工作的不安全感可以帶來更大的生產(chǎn)力。

Hollywood is a land of retakes. Everyone understands that constant revisions improve the product. In a recent book, “Creativity, Inc.”, Ed Catmull, the founder of Pixar and president of Disney Animation, argues that every film starts out as an “ugly baby”, growing through countless changes into a graceful adult. “Up”, Pixar’s hit film from 2009 about a widower who travels around the world with the help of balloons, began with a completely different premise. It was reworked drastically on the advice of the “Braintrust”, an internal group set up to give frank feedback. Mobile-app firms can also be adept at adjusting products in response to internal and external feedback, and makers of consumer goods are learning to tweak their products and packaging in response to reviews. But in many businesses, bosses still tend to spurn constructive criticism

在好萊塢經(jīng)常有改拍或者重拍。每個(gè)人都知道：經(jīng)常的修正能改善產(chǎn)品。在最近一本名為《創(chuàng)造力和公司》的書中，皮克斯工作室的創(chuàng)始人、迪斯尼動(dòng)畫的總裁艾德.卡特穆爾就說：每一部電影開始就像一個(gè)“壞孩子”，經(jīng)過無數(shù)次的改變最終成長為一個(gè)優(yōu)雅的成人。《向上》，是皮克斯在2009年攝制的一部電影，講述了一個(gè)鰥夫借助氣球的幫助環(huán)游地球，此片開始于一個(gè)完全不同的假設(shè)。內(nèi)部建起了小組（智囊團(tuán)）給予這個(gè)假設(shè)直率的意見反饋，在智能團(tuán)的建議下，該片做了大幅度的再加工。移動(dòng)應(yīng)用公司也可以根據(jù)來自內(nèi)部和外部的反饋意見熟練地調(diào)整產(chǎn)品。消費(fèi)品制造商也正在學(xué)習(xí)根據(jù)評論來改變他們的產(chǎn)品或者包裝。但是在很多行業(yè)里，老板依舊輕視建設(shè)性的批評。

Like Hollywood, California’s other world-beating industrial cluster, Silicon Valley, has overcome the fear of failure. Films are like tech startups in that flops are tolerated because they are so common, even when the initial idea seemed promising. In both cases, the value of failure as a learning experience is well understood. So in this part of American life, there are second, and third, acts. Studio heads sometimes roll when a film flops, but executives, directors and other talent can find redemption

和好萊塢一樣，加州另外一個(gè)領(lǐng)先全球的產(chǎn)業(yè)集群是硅谷，也克服了對失敗的恐懼。電影業(yè)像技術(shù)創(chuàng)業(yè)公司，即使初始的理念看起來很有前途，因?yàn)檫@些產(chǎn)業(yè)里徹底失敗很常見所以是能容忍的。在這兩個(gè)產(chǎn)業(yè)中，“積累了經(jīng)驗(yàn)失敗就有價(jià)值”被廣泛接受。這里的美國人的生活就是：第二次，第三次，去做！電影工作室的頭兒可能因?yàn)槟炒螐氐资《啦黄饋恚侵破?、?dǎo)演以及其他人才能得到補(bǔ)償。

Perhaps Hollywood’s most remarkable skill is in launching brands that achieve global prominence in a matter of days. Each film is a separate product that needs its own marketing, and the stakes are incredibly high: if it has not gained sufficient momentum by its opening weekend, it may sink without trace. Studios spend vast sums on promotional campaigns, often as much as they spend on producing the film itself. Businesses that are sceptical about the value of marketing, and about the possibilities for creating consumer awareness rapidly, should look closely at how Hollywood manages to come up with new brands on a near-weekly basis. The key is to treat the marketing as a core part of the project, rather than as an afterthought

也許，好萊塢最非凡的本領(lǐng)就是在短短幾天里推出品牌并讓它蜚聲全球。每一部電影都是一個(gè)單獨(dú)的產(chǎn)品，需要它自己的市場，賭注也出奇的大：如果在首映的周末沒有取得強(qiáng)勁的勢頭，它就會銷聲匿跡。工作室花大手筆用于宣傳活動(dòng)，經(jīng)常和電影的制作成本一樣高。那些對營銷的價(jià)值以及快速創(chuàng)造消費(fèi)意識的可能性持懷疑態(tài)度的行業(yè)，應(yīng)該仔細(xì)觀察一下好萊塢是怎樣設(shè)法跟上幾乎以星期為單位的新品牌（推出）。關(guān)鍵是把營銷作為項(xiàng)目的一個(gè)核心，而不是把營銷放在計(jì)劃外。

Sunrise Boulevard

金光大道

For all the film industry’s reputation as a licence to lose money, the media conglomerates that own the big studios nowadays run them more professionally, and keep a closer eye on profitability. Three of the six Hollywood “majors” are now managed by business-school graduates. Film companies no longer have extravagant numbers of projects in development, and focus more on action-packed “franchise” films featuring comic-book characters, which sell well abroad and lend themselves to sequels. Learning from Silicon Valley, Hollywood is relying more on outside financing, which means sharing the profits from hits but also protects against crippling losses when a film flops.

雖然電影業(yè)容易賠錢是出了名的，媒體大亨們旗下的大型電影公司如今經(jīng)營更為專業(yè)，也更加關(guān)注盈利狀況。好萊塢“六大影業(yè)公司”之中的三個(gè)現(xiàn)在由商學(xué)院畢業(yè)生管理。影業(yè)公司不再有極多的待開發(fā)項(xiàng)目，而是更致力于有動(dòng)漫人物特色的動(dòng)作類影片的“特許經(jīng)營”，因?yàn)檫@類片子在海外市場賣座，還能出續(xù)集。向硅谷學(xué)習(xí)，好萊塢正在越來越多依賴外部融資，也就是：如果電影大賣則分享利潤，如果失敗了也不會損失慘重。

No one likes to talk about age in Hollywood, but it has enjoyed remarkable longevity. The studios have survived the threats from new technologies like television and the internet, and “pivoted” repeatedly to adjust their output to audiences’ shifting tastes. Few businesses have refreshed their product line-ups so often. And few have restructured so thoroughly: studios have evolved from being vertically integrated groups that owned cinemas and kept actors on the payroll to become asset-light, flexible renters of talent. In the 102 years since the founding of Universal Pictures, the oldest of the majors, Hollywood may have provided plenty of “how not to” examples for business—but it has plenty of positive ones too.

好萊塢人不喜歡談?wù)撃挲g，但是好萊塢已經(jīng)相當(dāng)?shù)母邏哿恕Ｄ切┰谥T如電視以及互聯(lián)網(wǎng)之類的新科技威脅中存活下來的電影工作室，不斷隨著觀眾口味的變動(dòng)而轉(zhuǎn)變。有幾家經(jīng)常刷新他們的產(chǎn)品陣容，有幾家已經(jīng)徹底的重組：電影工作室已經(jīng)從擁有電影院發(fā)工資養(yǎng)著演員的垂直一體化集團(tuán)進(jìn)化為“輕資產(chǎn)”，靈活雇傭人才。六大影業(yè)公司最年長的一個(gè)，環(huán)球影業(yè)創(chuàng)立的102年里，好萊塢為商業(yè)提供了大量的“為什么不賺錢”的例子---但也提供了很多積極的案例。

From the print edition: Business