先是团购网站Groupon解雇了安德鲁•梅森。现在流媒体音乐服务供应商Pandora又表示乔•肯尼迪即将离职。在那些上市首日股价飙升、并因此在公共市场引起轰动的公司担任CEO，现在看起来真像是一场职业冒险。

    Pandora在2010年6月将股价定为16美元。首个交易日，它的股价猛涨至26美元，随后一天又跌至发行价以下。去年，Pandora的股价曾一度跌至每股8美元，到昨天收盘时涨回到11.73美元。这个价位离首次公开募股的价格仍然低了27%，比历史最高点低了55%。

    Groupon的股价轨迹与之相似，不过更加夸张。它的发行价为每股20美元，仅仅几个小时后就上涨到31.14美元，随之而来的便是缓慢而痛苦的下跌。梅森离开Groupon的那一天，公司股价已经低至每股4.24美元，比起首次公开募股价格低了79%，比首日转瞬即逝的历史最高点低了86%。

    看看这两只股票。经验丰富的投资者早已对第一个明显的教训谙熟于心：当心第一天的飞涨。很久以前，购买首日发行的股票，它的涨势很可能会持续几周，甚至几个月。但是最近急躁的投资者对于快速变现短期收益或抛空短命股票已经越来越缺乏耐心。

    不过经过事后分析，还有一些事情也逐渐清楚：对许多公司而言，利用互联网盈利似乎变得越来越难。能够与消费者产生大量共鸣的商业模式无法转化为带来稳定收入增长的业务。

    在第一波网络初创公司的浪潮中，亚马逊（Amazon）和雅虎（Yahoo）这样的公司在稳定盈利之前，早期都有过几年的亏损。而更近一些崭露头角的公司，如谷歌（Google）和Facebook，已经能获得20%至30%的利润空间。

    不过这些都是例外。许多网络公司最近的首次公开募股都在与稍纵即逝的盈利或常规性的季度亏损作斗争。Pandora和Groupon的利润空间与谷歌的对比如下图所示。的确，谷歌是一家资历更老、更加成熟的公司，但是它公开发售股票时，拥有13%的净利润空间和20%的税前利润率。

    First Groupon fired Andrew Mason. Now Pandora says Joe Kennedy is leaving Pandora. Being a CEO of a company that made a splash in the public markets with high-flying IPOs is starting to look like a job hazard.

    Pandora (P) priced its shares at $16 in June 2010. On its first day of trading, the stock shot up to $26 before plunging below its offering price the next day. After dipping as low as $8 a share last year, Pandora has rallied to $11.73 at yesterday's close. That's still 27% below its IPO price and 55% down from its record high.

    Groupon's (GRPN) stock has followed a similar if more extreme trajectory. Offered at $20 a share, the stock surged to $31.14 in a matter of hours, then began a slow painful slide. The day Mason left Groupon, the company's stock traded as low as $4.24 a share, a 79% discount from its offering price and 86% off its fleeting, first-day high.

    Looking at these two stocks, the first apparent lesson is one well-known to experienced investors: Beware the first-day pop. Once upon a time, buying a stock on the first day of trading could possibly let you in on a rally that could last months, if not weeks. But recently bearish investors have been impatient to cash in on quick gains or short stocks they believe have a brief shelf-life.

    But with more hindsight, something else is becoming clear: It seems to be getting harder for many companies to make money from the web. The business models that have resonated with consumers on a large scale simply aren't translating into businesses that can generate steady profit growth.

    In the first wave of Internet startups, companies like Amazon (AMZN) and Yahoo (YHOO) posted early losses for years before moving into steady profitability. Newer companies like Google (GOOG) and Facebook (FB) have emerged capable of delivering profit margins of 20% or 30%.

    But these are the exceptions. Many recent web IPOs have struggled with fleeting profits or regular quarterly losses. Compare the profit margins of Pandora and Groupon with that of Google in the chart below. Granted, Google is an older, more mature company, but when it went public it had net profit margin of 13% and a pretax margin of 20%.

    在最近的经济衰退中，Pandora和Groupon都通过提供折扣或者植入广告的廉价服务抓住了对价格敏感的消费者，从而迅速发展，获得了早期的市场份额。它们俩都成为了新一代创业公司的象征，吸引了那些轻率的投资者参与这些新生科技公司的首次公开募股。不过这两次募股都显示，实际上，比起盈利增长更快的公司，投资者对于收入增长更快的公司并没有很强的投资欲望。

    Groupon的利润已经受到了挤压。首先，快速扩张需要很高的营销成本；此外，公司近期还积极进军利润较低的直接销售领域。而根据合同，Pandora要为他们艺术家的音乐版权支付繁重的费用，因而导致利润受损。

    随着管理层变动，Pandora发布的收益报告更加凸显了这一趋势。这家公司的发展速度仍然足以让大多数公司眼红。上一季度，用户听音乐的总时长增加了53%，达到了40亿小时。它的季度收入同比增长54%，达到了1.25亿美元。不过公司财报显示，每股仍然净亏损4美分。

    尽管在上周四的盘后交易中，Pandora股票上涨了21%，达到14.16美元，收入和未来导向仍然符合专家的预期。这种情况可能凸显了投资者的乐观，新任CEO可能会让Pandora有更好的表现。梅森的离职新闻轰动网络之后，Groupon的股票也出现了类似的上涨行情。

    但是新任CEO是否一定是拯救这两家公司的灵丹妙药，目前还很难说。Groupon的董事会暗示需要一名老练的高管来带领公司前进。但是肯尼迪的经验已经足够丰富。2004年加入Pandora以前，他曾在e-Loan和Saturn公司干过许多年。如果Pandora的董事会觉得他们需要年轻血液，也许他们可以同Groupon互换CEO。

    真正导致Groupon、Pandora和最近许多首次公开募股不景气的原因，恐怕投资者不愿意听到。那就是，它们自身的商业模式已然遭遇危机。借用网络来建立业务或开展营销确实能够削减成本，但同时也让消费者期待，甚至到处搜寻价格低廉，或者因为植入广告而免费的产品，甚至更理想些，没有广告、却能免费使用的产品。

    因此，在投资者的压力之下，董事会和公司转而责怪CEO。实际上它们的商业模式才是罪魁祸首。网络已经无法继续沿用以前的方式盈利了。（财富中文网）

    译者：严匡正

    Both Pandora and Groupon grew rapidly and gained early market share by offering discounted or ad-supported services that appealed to cost-conscious consumers in the recent recession. Both became emblematic of a new generation of startups that could entice skittish investors into new tech IPOs. Both IPOs showed that, in fact, investors still aren't hungry for companies better at growing revenue than growing profit.

    Groupon's profits have been pressured by, first, high marketing costs made to fuel rapid expansion and, more recently, an aggressive move into lower-margin direct sales. Pandora's profits are hurt by the onerous fees demanded by music labels for licensing their artists under contract.

    The earnings report Pandora made alongside news of the management changeunderscores the trend. Pandora is still growing at rates most companies would envy. Total listener hours rose 53% to top 4 billion hours last quarter. Revenue grew 54% to $125 million from the year-ago quarter. Yet the company still reported a net loss of 4 cents a share.

    Pandora's earnings and future guidance were in line with analyst expectations, although the stock rose 21% in afterhours trading Thursday to $14.16. That may reflect optimism that a new CEO could help Pandora improve its performance. Groupon's stock saw a similar pop after Mason's departure hit the wires.

    But it's not clear how a new CEO is going to be a sure-fire solution for either company. Groupon's board indicated that a seasoned executive could be needed to steer the company forward. But Kennedy is just such a seasoned hand, with several years at e-Loan and Saturn Corp. before joining Pandora in 2004. If Pandora's board feels a younger face is necessary, perhaps they can arrange a CEO swap with Groupon.

    The real reason weighing down the stocks of Groupon, Pandora and many other recent IPOs is a truth investors may not want to hear. The business models themselves are troubled. Using the web to build or market a business can cut costs, but it's also trained consumers to expect -- and even shop around for -- prices to be low. Or free if ad-supported. Or, ideally, free without any ads.

    And so, under pressure from investors, boards and companies are blaming CEOs. When in fact it's the business models that are problematic. The web just doesn't generate profits the way it used to.