【英语财经】分析：英国《金融时报》58年来首次易主 Pearson relinquishes coveted FT brand after 58 years and flurry of speculation

The Financial Times has covered countless takeovers since its creation in 1888, and detailed waves of consolidation, asset-swapping and covetous moguls in its own industry.

Yet, despite perennial speculation, it has not changed hands since 1957, when S. Pearson Industries, a British construction company that had accrued interests from provincial newspapers to the Lazard merchant banking house, bought a controlling stake as “a sound, conservative investment”.

The FT, then a salmon-tinted London paper under the banner of “industry, commerce, public affairs”, gave that news just two paragraphs, stating authoritatively that its “management and policy will continue exactly as at present”.

By the time Pearson announced an ￡844m deal to sell the FT to Nikkei

yesterday, both companies were barely recognisable from what they were 58 years ago, except for the strict observance of a policy of editorial independence that was established early on.

Knowing that its investment in Lazard would invite criticism if the FT were seen to be influenced by the bank’s agenda, the new owner vowed in 1957 that it would play no part in newsroom decisions, beyond appointing the paper’s editor. FT editorials still appear under the 1888 masthead declaration: “Without fear and without favour”.

Pearson has long since sold its stake in Lazard and assets as disparate as waxworks, vineyards and television producers to focus on the global education market, where it now styles itself as “the world’s leading learning company”.

It has justified the FT’s place in the portfolio by saying the news organisation sits on that “learning” spectrum. Pearson used FT content in professional education courses and enjoyed the FT brand’s door-opening power. Yet the FT has rarely been an investment priority in recent years, and investors often questioned what news analyst Ken Doctor yesterday called its “odd fit”.

Those questions were more audible when the FT was losing money more than a decade ago and ebbed as the FT’s digital revenues and profit margins grew. As recently as this week, Bernstein analyst Claudio Aspesi said that this was not the time to sell: the “FT is performing well and its prospects are, if anything, improving”.

But whenever eye-catching owners such as News Corp

’s Rupert Murdoch and Amazon

’s Jeff Bezos snapped up titles like the Wall Street Journal or Washington Post, analysts dusted off their sum-of-the-parts models. They argued that the FT was a trophy that might be worth more to another owner.

Mr Murdoch built a stake in Pearson in the late-1980s, but soon sold. As more recent would-be buyers such as Bloomberg and Thomson Reuters

, the financial data groups, sounded out Pearson representatives, directors juggled their duty to create value for shareholders with anxiety about honouring the commitment their predecessors made to the FT’s editorial freedom. As a result, the issue of the FT’s future has been one of the most sensitive facing John Fallon, who took over as Pearson’s chief executive in January 2013. He has overseen a sweeping restructuring while battling digital upheavals in traditional textbook markets, tight US education budgets and growing controversy over its assessment business.

Marjorie Scardino, a former journalist who ran Pearson for the previous 16 years, once vowed that the FT would be sold “over my dead body”. But Mr Fallon adopted a more cautiously worded formula, describing the brand as “a highly valued and very valuable part of” Pearson but not committing to keep it.

In late-2012, chief financial officer Robin Freestone told an investor conference: “We look at the ownership of that and say, ‘Are we the best owners for it? So far the answer is ‘yes’. That could change.” Over the past decade, Pearson has made an eventual FT sale simpler by gradually disposing of other assets that once sat around it, from its interests in European newspapers to its stakes in the FTSE index business and IDC, a financial data provider.

However, the group retained specialist business magazines such as The Banker and Investors Chronicle, which the FT owned in 1957, and a non-controlling 50 per cent stake in The Economist, which the FT acquired in 1928. That last stake was excluded from the Nikkei deal.

As Pearson has remade itself, so has the FT in the increasingly digital global news market. From a UK paper selling under 100,000 copies a day when Pearson bought it, the FT has become a global product with more than 720,000 paying readers, more than two-thirds of them digital subscribers.

Under Lionel Barber, editor since 2005, and John Ridding, chief executive since 2006, the “pink paper” has developed a digital-first business model. It charged for content on principle, pioneered a “metered” online access model and more recently introduced a “cost per hour” advertising metric, measuring how long a digital ad is seen.

Such moves, coupled with total circulation growth of 10 per cent last year and rising profitability, helped persuade Nikkei that the FT had become both a global brand with a valuable audience and a digital growth business that stands out from print-dominated rivals.

“The Financial Times stands as a crossover champ in the news industry,” Mr Doctor said.

As competition intensifies from print peers and well-funded new digital rivals, that theory will now be tested, as will the question of whether a new owner will honour editorial independence.

英国《金融时报》自1888年创办以来，报道了无数的收购，也描述了自己所在行业一波又一波的整合、资产交换和贪婪大亨。

然而，尽管外界猜测不断，但英国《金融时报》自1957年以来没有更换过东家；那年，已经收购了从地方报纸到Lazard商业银行等多项资产的英国建筑公司S. Pearson Industries，收购了英国《金融时报》的控股股份，称其为“一笔稳健、保守的投资”。

当时的英国《金融时报》是一份三文鱼色调的伦敦报纸，其口号是“工业，商业，公共事务”。该报用仅两个段落的篇幅报道了自身所有权变更的新闻，并以权威的语气声明“管理和政策将严格保持不变”。

到了昨日培生集团(Pearson)宣布以8.44亿英镑将英国《金融时报》出售给日经新闻(Nikkei)时，两家公司的面貌都已经与58年前大为不同——唯一坚守的是办报之初就确立的编辑独立的政策。

1957年，新的东家明白，如果英国《金融时报》被视为受到Lazard银行议程的影响，集团在该行的投资将招致批评，于是它誓言除了任命该报主编外，不参与编辑部的任何决策。时至今日，英国《金融时报》社评栏顶部仍然印着1888年的庄严宣告：“不惧怕，不偏袒”。

培生集团早已出售了其在Lazard银行所持股份和其它多项资产，包括蜡像馆、葡萄园和电视制作公司，以便专注于全球教育市场，如今它对自己的定位是“世界领先的学习公司”。

多年来，培生集团一直用这样的说法为持有英国《金融时报》做辩护，即这家新闻机构属于“学习”的范畴内。培生集团将英国《金融时报》的内容用于专业教育课程，并获益于英国《金融时报》品牌的威望。然而，近年英国《金融时报》很少是一个投资重点，投资者也往往质疑新闻业分析师肯?多克托(Ken Doctor)昨日所称的这种“奇特搭配”。

这些质疑声在10多年前英国《金融时报》亏损时比较响亮，近年随着英国《金融时报》数字营收和利润率增长而有所消退。就在本周，伯恩斯坦(Bernstein)分析师克劳迪奥?阿斯佩西(Claudio Aspesi)曾表示，现在不是出售的时候：“英国《金融时报》表现良好，该报的前景如果说有任何明确方向的话，那就是在好转”。

但是，每当抢眼的东家，如新闻集团(News Corp)的鲁珀特?默多克(Rupert Murdoch)和亚马逊(Amazon)的杰夫?贝索斯(Jeff Bezos)买下《华尔街日报》 (Wall Street Journal)和《华盛顿邮报》(Washington Post)等知名报纸时，分析师们就会重新翻出他们的“整体与部分之和”模型。他们提出，英国《金融时报》是一项炫耀性资产，对另一个东家也许更有价值。

上世纪80年代末，默多克曾买入培生集团的股份，但不久就脱手了。后来，当潜在买家，如金融数据集团彭博(Bloomberg)以及汤森路透(Thomson Reuters)，接洽培生集团的代表时，董事们权衡着自己的职责：一方面是为股东创造价值，另一方面惦记着履行前辈对英国《金融时报》的编辑自由所作出的承诺。其结果是，英国《金融时报》的未来是范岳涵(John Fallon) 2013年出任培生集团首席执行官以来面对的最敏感事项之一。他主持了一轮全面的重组，同时艰难应对各项挑战：传统教科书市场被数字化颠覆、美国教育预算收紧，以及围绕培生评估业务的争议与日俱增。

之前执掌培生集团16年、当过记者的玛乔丽?斯卡尔迪诺(Marjorie Scardino)曾经誓言：“只要我活着就不会同意”出售英国《金融时报》。但范岳涵作出了更为谨慎的表述，他形容FT品牌是培生集团“极为珍视和极有价值的一部分”，但并没有承诺保留它。

2012年末，首席财务官罗宾?弗里斯通(Robin Freestone)在一个投资者会议上表示：“我们研究了对（英国《金融时报》）的所有权，然后自问，‘我们是该报最好的东家吗？迄今的答案是肯定的。这个答案以后可能会改变。”过去10年里，培生集团逐步处置英国《金融时报》的外围资产——从其所持的欧洲报纸权益，到其在富时(FTSE)指数业务和金融数据提供商IDC所持股份——使得最终出售英国《金融时报》在操作上比较简单。

然而，培生集团保留了英国《金融时报》在1957年拥有的专业商业杂志，如《银行家》(The Banker)和《投资者纪事》(Investors Chronicle)，以及英国《金融时报》1928年收购的《经济学人》(Economist) 50%非控股股权（这部分股权不包括在日经新闻交易内）。

就像培生集团改头换面一样，英国《金融时报》在日益数字化的全球新闻市场也自我再造了。当年Pearson买下英国《金融时报》时，这是一份每日销量不到10万份的英国报纸。如今该报已成为一款全球产品，拥有逾72万付费读者，其中三分之二以上是数字订户。

在2005年上任的主编莱昂内尔?巴贝尔(Lionel Barber)和2006年上任的首席执行官李尔庭(John Ridding)领导下，这份“粉红色报纸”发展了“数字为先”的经营模式。它原则上对内容收费，开创了一种“计量”在线访问模式，近年还推出“每小时成本”广告衡量标准，测定一则数字广告被观看的时长。

这些举措，再加上去年总发行量增长10%以及不断上升的盈利能力，帮助说服了日经新闻：英国《金融时报》已成为一个全球品牌，拥有颇有价值的受众群体和成长型数字业务，在一群依赖印刷版的对手中脱颖而出。

“英国《金融时报》是屹立于新闻业的跨界冠军，”分析师多克托表示。

随着来自出版业同行和资金雄厚的新生数字对手的竞争加剧，这一说法将受到考验，同样将受到考验的还有一个问题，即新的东家会否尊重编辑独立。

译者/和风