????再就是關(guān)于如何建立廣告模式的問(wèn)題。我認(rèn)為，有意思的地方在于這兩家公司的DNA。與其他最大、最成功的公司相比，這兩家公司有許多類似之處。如果進(jìn)行對(duì)比，比如從美國(guó)和世界歷史上挑選任何十家公司，你會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)：“哇，它們有很多相似之處?！倍雀柙诒举|(zhì)上是以“什么”為核心：信息和發(fā)現(xiàn)信息。而Facebook則是以人為核心。所以，雖然廣告模式在兩家公司都非常奏效，但出發(fā)點(diǎn)卻不同，因?yàn)楣镜某霭l(fā)點(diǎn)本身就存在差異。我們可以多談?wù)勥@個(gè)問(wèn)題。關(guān)于具體如何建立廣告模式，作為一名商人，我認(rèn)為關(guān)鍵在于，你必須有一款實(shí)實(shí)在在的產(chǎn)品。所以，首先是尋找合作伙伴，確定如何在正確的時(shí)間向正確的人顯示正確的廣告，創(chuàng)造一種價(jià)值感。這不是一日之功。兩家公司都是在時(shí)斷時(shí)續(xù)地前進(jìn)。我認(rèn)為，關(guān)鍵在于，當(dāng)你讓人們參與其中，投入時(shí)間時(shí)，比如在Facebook上消磨的時(shí)間比在其他網(wǎng)站花費(fèi)的時(shí)間更多，這時(shí)你便有機(jī)會(huì)向人們展示有用的商業(yè)素材。于是便能創(chuàng)造價(jià)值，進(jìn)而真正增加公司的價(jià)值。

????亞當(dāng)?拉辛斯基：從歷史的角度來(lái)看，我發(fā)現(xiàn)非常有趣的一點(diǎn)是，我過(guò)去沒(méi)能理解，不論是谷歌，還是后來(lái)的Facebook，它們其實(shí)都是出版商。不僅我本人忽視了這一點(diǎn)，我想很多人都忽視了。而你，拉里和謝爾蓋卻沒(méi)有。馬克也明白其中的道理。而你效力于這兩家公司的時(shí)候，都實(shí)現(xiàn)了它們的愿景。當(dāng)然，我所講的出版商，是一種非常寬泛的說(shuō)法。我不知道，你是否同意。

????大衛(wèi)?費(fèi)舍爾：是的。我也是花了很長(zhǎng)時(shí)間才搞明白。我的職業(yè)生涯是從做記者開(kāi)始的，所以別說(shuō)你，我也沒(méi)有那么快便理解“出版商”的意義所在。這或許是因?yàn)槲覀儗?duì)出版商的看法有點(diǎn)不一樣。不過(guò)，按你的理解，對(duì)于一名內(nèi)容生產(chǎn)者，我認(rèn)為，出版商的提法也說(shuō)得過(guò)去。在Facebook，從許多方面來(lái)看，用“描述者”來(lái)形容它可能更為貼切，因?yàn)檎嬲孎acebook成功的，是你們的創(chuàng)造力，每一個(gè)人都是內(nèi)容制作者，每一個(gè)人都是出版商。要說(shuō)是什么將一個(gè)公司與其他公司區(qū)別開(kāi)來(lái)，這種動(dòng)力就是非常關(guān)鍵的一個(gè)因素。

????譯者：劉進(jìn)龍/汪皓

????Now, how you actually build it, I think what's interesting is -- with respect to the two companies -- is in the DNA, they're similar in so many ways compared to most large successful companies, and if you compared, you know, took any set of ten companies in history in this country and the world you'd say, "Oh, there's a lot of similarities there." But Google at its core was a company built on the what: information and discovering information. And Facebook is a company built on the who: on people. And so that advertising model works effectively in both cases, but it starts from a different place, the company starts from a different place, and we can maybe talk a little bit more about that.

????In terms of how you actually build it, the key to any of these things, as I'm sort of a business guy, and you need an effective product. And so it starts with a lot of partnership figuring out building something that will -- how do you show the right ad to the right person at the right time and create a sense of value. That doesn't happen day one. In both cases you need to kind of go in fits and starts, but I think the idea is that it adds real value when you have people engaged and spending time and, you know, in a place like Facebook spending more time than anywhere else in the web, and you'll have the opportunity to show them some useful commercial material, you create value in that.

????ADAM LASHINSKY: From a historical perspective, what I find so interesting is that I personally did not understand that Google was a publisher or later that Facebook was a publisher. I missed that. I think a lot of people missed it. But you, Larry and Sergey didn't miss that. Mark didn't miss that. And you came in at both company's stages and said -- you know, you executed that vision. And I'm using publisher in a very loose term. I wonder if you even agree.

????DAVID FISCHER: Yes. It took me a while. Like I got my career started as reporter, so I also did not jump to the word "publisher" as quickly as you did, probably because we think about a publisher as something slightly different. But as a creator of content in a world in which if you think about it that way, it certainly -- I think the publisher piece works. And in some ways in Facebook, I think it's much more apt as a descriptor, because everyone, the whole notion of what makes Facebook work is you creating, everyone is a content creator, everyone is a publisher. That dynamic is, if you want to talk about what sets the companies apart, that's a critical piece in terms of what distinguishes them.