Matthew Burris's Linkedin Analytics

"I run a venture studio" means nothing. The model isn't one-size-fits-all its a spectrum. What does that actually mean? When someone says "I run a venture studio," they could mean drastically different things. The venture studio model isn't one-size-fits-all - it's a spectrum of approaches with distinct strategies, structures, and outcomes. Let me illustrate with two studios at opposite ends of the spectrum: 1️⃣Studio A: The Cash Flow Engine This studio partners with experienced corporate VPs from the IT sector, backing them to launch professional services companies. Their playbook: 🧑‍💻 Founder Role: True co-founder from day one, providing both capital and operational infrastructure 💰 Investment Profile: Income-focused, optimizing for predictable cash distributions within 2-3 years 📈 Value Proposition: De-risking the founder's leap from corporate life while leveraging their industry network 🏦 Capital Structure: Lighter upfront investment (~$250K) with profit-sharing mechanisms prioritized over exit valuation ⚖️ Success Metrics: Consistent distributions, profitability milestones, founder retention 2️⃣Studio B: The Breakthrough Builder This studio licenses IP from research institutions to build health/medtech companies targeting the venture capital ecosystem. Their approach: 🧑‍💻 Founder Role: Acts as the refounder, licensing IP and bringing in domain experts and executives post-validation 💰 Investment Profile: Breakthrough-return focused, building for massive exits (often 8+ years horizon) 📈 Value Proposition: Translating complex research into viable commercial ventures 🏦 Capital Structure: Heavier upfront investment ($1M+) with sophisticated follow-on strategies ⚖️ Success Metrics: Successful Series A raises, IP portfolio value, breakthrough innovations The Ecosystem Impact These models aren't just different in structure - they create entirely different company types: Studio A builds predictable businesses that may never raise traditional VC but generate consistent returns Studio B builds moonshot companies with binary outcomes - massive success or complete failure This is why "venture studio" as a category needs further refinement. Investors, entrepreneurs, and even other studios need taxonomy to understand where each fits in the ecosystem. I've been mapping these differences as part of a comprehensive venture studio classification framework. The model above highlights just two dimensions (founder role and investment profile), but there are several others that create the full spectrum of studio approaches. What type of venture studio model resonates most with you? The predictable cash-generating approach or the breakthrough innovation model? Or something in between? #VentureStudio #StartupTaxonomy #VentureBuilding #InnovationModels

Love this initial screening approach. Quite curious as to how you view venture studios in this mix. I could see them fitting in either depending on your lens. Traditional but better. Most studios use some version of the basic startup playbook. Find a problem, validate it with customers, iterate on a solution and make sure it fit customers and the market. When the studio founders bring massive networks and experience aligned with the thesis, you have better. Different and excellent. Venture studios are definitely different. Excellence comes down to how the studio leverages process, operations, unique assets, and the studio founders network to deliver on the thesis and build companies. Assuming venture studios are in the running.

I'm thrilled to congratulate my teammate JT Benton on being recognized as a top performer in VC Lab's Cohort 16! 🏆 What impressed me most about JT throughout this journey wasn't just his leadership, but his unwavering commitment to active participation and adding value to every discussion and call. His dedication to our success at Selenic Capital has been truly inspiring. For those considering raising capital for a venture studio or contemplating a fund vehicle for the first time, I can't recommend VC Lab's program highly enough. The structure forces you to develop a disciplined approach to capital raising and implement a dedicated sales process specifically tailored for studio or fund vehicles. The program's rigorous curriculum, combined with direct, actionable feedback from mentors like Adeo Ressi, Mike Suprovici, Myrto Lalacos, creates an invaluable action driving environment for newcomers to fund management. The program is not a course or training. It is about making real progress. Fail to make progress? You will be removed but are free to come back in the next cohort. The pressure drives performance. Join us to hear more from JT at the Cohort 16 Final Showcase on April 3rd at 8 AM PT/11 AM ET. Register here: https://fi.co/e/368407 Glad to work with the team that made this happen! Neal Ghosh Evan Allen Blair Merlino #VentureCapital #VCLab #FundRaising #VentureStudio

👥 Who should we interview next? (Tag them!) Our VSF Speaker Series needs your nominations—and your connections. The venture studio landscape is nuanced with many approaches to company building. We want to showcase voices from every corner of the ecosystem: Investors backing multiple studio models Studio operators with unique methodologies Corporate innovators reimagining internal studios Entrepreneurs who've built companies through studios Economic development leaders deploying studios regionally Tell us who you want to hear from! Here's how to nominate: 1) Tag someone we should interview (or DM if you prefer) 2) Share why their perspective matters 3) The ONE question everyone needs their answer to Better yet—if you can make an introduction, let us know! The best insights often come from unexpected sources. Who has a story that deserves amplification? Help shape the conversation by commenting below with your suggestions! 👇 #VentureStudioForum #Innovation #Entrepreneurship

The inconvenient truth of entrepreneurship? Day one is just you and your bank account.. We've created a system where founders must first venture into a deadly jungle with limited resources and survive before investors will consider backing them. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘂𝗽 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗴𝗴𝗹𝗲 The traditional entrepreneurial path is paved with casualties: - Limited resources beyond personal capital - Constrained networks for talent and customers - All capital bet on a single thesis - Zero shared infrastructure - Learning everything from scratch What we don't talk about is the death that occurs before accelerators and VCs even get involved - the death of hopes, dreams, and entrepreneurial spirit. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘁𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗼 𝗦𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 Venture studios fundamentally invert this risk profile through: 1. Repeatable Playbooks - Iterative processes from ideation through testing, validation, and scaling that get refined with each company built 2. Rigorous Kill Metrics - Studios kill 95%+ of ideas quickly through systematic testing before significant capital deployment 3. Time Compression - Studios reduce time to Series A by 56% (25 months vs 56 months for traditional startups) 4. Shared Infrastructure - Technical talent, sales resources, operations, and legal teams across portfolio companies 5. Day-One Team - A full bench of experienced operators ready to build from the start 𝗥𝗲𝗮𝗹-𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱 𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁 The data shows this approach works. According to the Vault Fund report, OpenStore launched by Atomic Labs reached a $750MM valuation in just 8 months, and $970MM valuation only 10 months later. This isn't about eliminating risk entirely - it's about making entrepreneurship systematic rather than purely serendipitous. Why have we accepted a model that requires entrepreneurs to risk everything before getting support, when the studio model proves there's a better way? #EntrepreneurshipReinvented #VentureStudios #StartupStrategy #CompanyBuilding #RiskMitigation

𝟲𝟬% 𝗜𝗥𝗥 𝘃𝘀. 𝟯𝟯% 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗩𝗖: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗩𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗦𝘁𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗼 𝗔𝗹𝗽𝗵𝗮 A striking performance gap is emerging that institutional investors can't ignore. 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗩𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗦𝘁𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗼𝘀 𝗚𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗻𝘀 Studios create liquidity through three primary mechanisms: 1. Equity Exits - The traditional pathway, but with higher ownership at inception, creating significant value even at modest exits 2. Licensing Distributions - Particularly in medical and technology spaces, generating earlier returns before full exits 3. Profit Distributions - More common in cashflow-oriented studios, shortening investor return timelines significantly The strategic approach? Some studios sell 50% of common shares at 10x MOIC, guaranteeing a 5x baseline while maintaining upside potential. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘂𝗿𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗥𝗲𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗻 𝗗𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗹 1. 60% average Net IRR for venture studios vs. 33% for top-quartile traditional VC 2. 5.8x TVPI for studio-built companies vs. 1.6x for traditional startups 3. 84% of studio-created startups reach institutional seed rounds 4. 72% make it from seed to Series A 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗜𝘀 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗔𝗹𝗽𝗵𝗮 𝗣𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲? It's simple: when you start at day zero with founder-level ownership at founder-level valuations, you benefit from capital efficiency that traditional Series A investors cannot access. Most LPs have $0 allocated at the company creation stage - the exact point with the highest return potential. Important note: This data comes from a limited sample of studios (20) and is likely to evolve as the category matures and more data becomes available. Nevertheless, the comparison between average studio returns and top-quartile VC returns is striking and warrants attention. Is your portfolio missing this allocation opportunity? #VentureReturns #AlternativeInvesting #VentureStudios #StartupEconomics #InvestorAlpha

Venture studios are companies that build other companies. That simple definition masks a profound innovation in the startup ecosystem. After speaking with over 500 studios worldwide, here's what sets them apart: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗩𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗦𝘁𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗼 𝗗𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 1. Not accelerators or incubators Studios are founders, not just advisors. They dedicate 40-100+ hours/week per company vs. a few advisory hours in accelerator models. 2. Deep operational involvement Studios don't just suggest directions; they write code, talk to customers, build infrastructure, and execute alongside the founding team. 3. Ownership structure As founders/co-founders, studios typically hold significant ownership, including both common and preferred equity. 4. Speed advantage Data shows studio-built companies reach Series A 2.2x faster than traditional startups (25 months vs. 56 months). 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗜𝘁 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗸𝘀 The studio model institutionalizes the co-founder role. It's like having an experienced founder with deep domain expertise, capital, network, and shared resources on day one. When entrepreneurs tell me what they wish they had for their next venture, they're essentially describing a venture studio. The proof? Companies like Moderna, Snowflake, hims & hers weren't just lucky startups - they were systematically built by studio models focused on de-risking entrepreneurship. Is it worth giving up a co-founder share of equity to bring on a studio that can dramatically amplify what you're building? #VentureStudios #CompanyBuilding #StartupInnovation #VentureCapital #EntrepreneurshipReinvented

🎙️ From Zero to 100 Startups: The TechnoSpark Story Join us for a VSF members only live conversation with Denis Kovalevich, who built his first startup studio back in 2011 when no frameworks existed and the term wasn't even recognized. In just 5 years, TechnoSpark launched 100 companies—one every 15 working days—through extraordinary challenges: Executing three completely different studio strategies in parallel Building without any existing playbooks or predecessors And finally navigating government nationalization What does it take to pioneer studio methodologies from scratch? How do you evaluate what's working when you're inventing the model? Join our VSF Speaker Series kickoff: 📅 April 3rd 🕙 11AM EST 📍 Virtual (Live Members Only, recording will be public) Denis reflects: "Fourteen years ago, I had no opportunity to base my venture studio on relevant experience. For founders launching studios today, the situation is entirely different." We are at a critical inflection point – the venture studio model has begun to prove itself, and it's time for it to be viewed as a proper asset class. This is what the VENTURE STUDIO FORUM is focused on – defining the studio asset class and advocating it on a global scale. This conversation matters. VSF members can access registration details in their member portal. Recording will be on the @VentureStudioForum youtube channel. Got a question for Denis? Drop it in the comments below. 👇 #VentureStudioForum #StartupStudio #Entrepreneurship

Venture Studios need a simple framework. Build Strategy X Formation Role covers the breadth of studios. The lack of standardized frameworks in the venture studio space creates a massive amount of friction. Investors find it difficult to navigate, studios use dozens of terms to describe themselves with no universal agreement or consistency, and everyone is left with a unique opinion and view of the asset class. This gap is not an academic concern. It blocks up capital from flowing in to venture studios. Let's consider a simplification. A two axis comparison of every studio. Axis one - the investment strategy of the studio. Does it align with VC, PE, or building cashflow companies. Axis two - the formation or origination role that the studio plays. Founder, cofounder, late-cofounder, or refounder. These two axes describe the core operational motion and approach of any studio, in any industry, any where in the world. It's how you start, your build strategy, and exit strategy summarized. What do you think? Does it fit? Does it fall flat? Let me know!

Valuation kills studio fundraising. Even successful unicorn creating studios face it. Months of negotiation. Competing valuation frameworks. Ending in compromised ownership or complete restructuring. Why? We force company valuations onto fund vehicles. Venture studios aren't companies building one product. They're more like funds creating cohorts of startups. When a studio raises capital through a holding company to fund multiple companies, that entity functions like a fund. And no one asks for the valuation of a fund. The solution is surprisingly simple: ▪️ Evaluate studios as fund vehicles, not companies The venture studio model represents an emerging asset class with extraordinary potential. While studios are more than just investment vehicles—they're complete company creation engines—treating them like funds removes unnecessary friction from the funding process. What's your experience with studio fundraising? Have you encountered the valuation trap? #VentureStudio #StartupInvestment #VentureCapital

🔍 What's the Venture Studio resource you NEED? We've already built a toolkit at the Venture Studio Forum that includes: Searchable studio founder podcast transcripts Investor lists for studio-built companies Investor FAQ templates for data rooms Studio design workbook for founders Vetted service provider directory Curated research collection Due diligence frameworks Cap table templates But what's still missing? What would transform your studio journey tomorrow? The best communities are built on solving real problems. Comment below with the specific tool, framework, or resource that would make the biggest impact on your work right now. Your input directly shapes our 2025 roadmap. Is it benchmarking data? Governance frameworks? Structure comparisons? Let's build what matters most. 👇 #VentureStudio #Innovation #Entrepreneurship

60% IRR vs 33% for top-tier VC. Yet venture studios remain underfunded. The problem isn't performance. It's standardization. Despite managing $21B+ in funding and outperforming traditional venture models, venture studios lack the structured frameworks investors rely on to evaluate opportunities. This creates a fundamental paradox: excellence is hidden by opacity. The consequences are real: ▪️ Investors struggle to compare different studio approaches ▪️ Studios can't benchmark against meaningful peer groups ▪️Capital allocation relies on intuition rather than analysis ▪️Portfolio construction becomes needlessly complex Imagine evaluating growth equity without established metrics. That's where venture studios stand today - exceptional performance obscured by inconsistent terminology and evaluation methods. Why is standardization so challenging? The diversity within the studio landscape demands nuance: ▪️ Some build cash-flowing businesses with predictable returns ▪️ Others pursue breakthrough innovations in frontier technologies ▪️ Some create companies from scratch ▪️ Others transform existing assets Without structure to understand these differences, investors can't properly: ▪️ Evaluate strategic fit with portfolio objectives ▪️ Assess operational capabilities ▪️ Understand value creation mechanisms ▪️ Compare similar studios meaningfully At Venture Studio Forum, we're developing an evaluation framework mapping studios across two key dimensions: 𝗜𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗳𝗶𝗹𝗲 - How Studios Generate Returns: ▪️ Breakthrough-Return (frontier tech, category creation) ▪️ Venture-Return (high-growth with VC paths) ▪️ Growth-Focused (operational scale, PE-like) ▪️ Income-Focused (profit distribution focus) 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗴𝗲 - When/How Studios Engage: ▪️ Founder Role (pure company creation) ▪️ Cofounder Role (partnering at concept) ▪️ Late Cofounder Role (joining early ventures) ▪️ Refounder Role (reinventing existing assets) This matrix creates distinct studio archetypes, each with characteristic risk profiles and approaches. We're at a critical inflection point. The venture studio model has proven itself through performance, but scaling institutional adoption requires standardized language and frameworks. The Venture Studio Forum is building: ▪️ Frameworks for studio evaluation ▪️ Performance benchmarks for comparison ▪️ Educational resources for investors ▪️ Community standards driving professionalization What dimensions would you add to this framework? What metrics matter most for different studio types? Your insights will help shape these evolving standards. Comment below with your perspective. Want to see a deeper dive, check out our newsletter https://lnkd.in/eqHa6A8J #VentureStudio #Innovation #VentureCapital

I’m thrilled to launch the Venture Studio Forum as Chief Content Officer. 6 weeks → +90 studios & investors want in. 👇 We touched a nerve. We have product market fit. We have a roadmap to deliver. We are on a mission to change the venture studio ecosystem. Through three pillars: 1️⃣ Community 2️⃣ Standards 3️⃣ Content 1️⃣ The Entire Ecosystem The Venture Studio community has always been open and supportive of one another. We are expanding this to the full ecosystem: Universities Foundations Corporations Venture Studios Venture Builders Venture Studio Investors Corporate Venture Studios Consulting Venture Builders Economic Development Groups Aspiring Venture Studio Founders Service Providers to Venture Studios It's a BIG tent. One that is not just about bringing the community together. It's about elevating the entire ecosystem. Helping us all reach higher & perform better. Which brings us to Standards. 2️⃣ Time to Define What is a Venture Studio? What is a QUALITY Venture Studio? How well am I doing as a Venture Studio compared with my peers? The entire venture studio community has struggled with taxonomy, definitions, standards and expectations since the beginning. We are on a mission to address this. We are actively working with venture studio investors and venture studios to deliver a standard venture studio classification framework to help investors understand & navigate the venture studio space. The response to the initial version has been outstanding. For the experts and operators in the venture studio space, it lands hard. Unfortunately, standards don't address a challenge 29 years in the making. Venture studios have promoted the portfolio companies they build, leaving most unaware the role that venture studios have played, how the model works, and its impact on innovation ecosystems. 3️⃣ Solve awareness and understanding Our third Pillar, Content, aims to address this. Venture Studios should focus on building great companies. Our role is to shine a light on Venture Studios, to illuminate the whole picture. To reveal the power and flexibility of the venture studio model as well as its flaws & challenges. For in so doing, we better understand the model and how to use it effectively. Through comprehensive industry reports, case studies, educational materials, and data-driven insights, we'll build awareness and provide the depth to build conviction: Case Studies of Venture Studios & Their Companies Financial Analyses of the Venture Studio Model Due Diligence Guides for Venture Studios The Economic Impact of Venture Studios Corporate Venture Studio Best Practices Performance and Return Benchmarks Best Practices for Venture Studios 🎊 A new day Today is day one of the journey. And I am thrilled to be joined by many throughout the venture studio ecosystem who share this vision. If you're interested in learning more about the Venture Studio Forum or how you might be involved, I'd welcome the conversation.

Venture studios aren't VCs. Why force fit VC finance frameworks? The venture studio model has proven its ability to create value, driving an average IRR of 60% and TVPI of 5.8x - significantly outperforming traditional venture capital benchmarks. But here's the challenge: we're trying to force an innovative multi-role business model into legacy investment frameworks designed for single-role investors. Venture capital funds and private equity firms play primarily an investor role, allowing them to operate on a 2% management fee with small teams focused on finance, due diligence, and deal sourcing. Venture studios, however, play three distinct roles: 🚀 The entrepreneurial role (company ideation and founding) 🛠️ The operator role (hands-on company building) 💰 The investor role (capital deployment) This fundamental difference creates a problem. You can't perform these additional value-added roles without additional costs - more staff, more processes, more overhead. The standard "2 and 20" model simply breaks. This is why venture studios typically spend 40-60% of their total capital on operations—two to three times more than traditional venture capital funds. But these aren't inefficiencies—they're investments in value creation that drive higher returns through faster startup development and more capital-efficient equity positions. Studios struggle with three structural options, each with limitations: 📊 Traditional Fund Structure: A 2% management fee rarely covers full operating expenses, so they invest more to pay the studio for services or pay the studio to create investable companies directly 🏢 Holding Company Model: Appears like a direct business investment rather than a portfolio vehicle. Runs on a budget, but creates valuation questions. 🔄 Dual Entity Model: Creates complexity with two investor classes having different economic interests and may still pay for studio services directly or through portfolio companies Let’s add some clarity by categorizing capital allocation of venture studios into five distinct areas: ⚙️ Cost of Builds: Internal costs directly attributable to building portfolio companies 🏗️ Studio Operations & Admin: Overhead costs of running the studio entity 🌱 Founding Investment: Initial capital deployed to secure common stock 💎 Preferred Investment: Direct investment securing preferred equity 🔋 Follow-On Reserves: Capital reserved for future investment rounds This framework works regardless of legal structure, creating a universal language for comparing studio efficiency. It's time to stop forcing venture studios into legacy investment frameworks and embrace transparent capital allocation models that reveal rather than obscure the true economics of company creation. #VentureStudio #StartupStudio #VentureCapital #Innovation #CompanyBuilding