Venture Studio Associates

Using insights from over 500 Venture Studios

And working with studios that have collectively raised and managed over $500M in AUM

We help emerging Venture Studio founders build, launch, and scale their own Venture Studio 

For more info on how we can work together (Either retained advisory or build with you) 
↓
Message me “VSA” Via LinkedIn

Partner

CogBias AI

Bad questions lead to bad answers which lead to bad decisions. 

Break the cycle.

Ask better questions and see truths hidden in the answers.

CogBias AI is a platform for industry specific application development to detect Cognitive Bias in product development, hiring, legal, healthcare, and marketing research.

Co-Founder - CPO

Savvy Tinkers Studios

We partner with experienced professionals to build AI powered B2B SaaS Startups. Building first portfolio companies now. 

We partner with:
✔️ Experienced professionals with at least 10 years of experience
✔️ A problem they want to solve where they have 3 years of relevant experience

NCR Corporation

Formed the New Ventures Group, a startup studio inspired group focused on delivering early innovations to deployed products. Supported by the CEO, COO, CTO, and business unit GMs on the heals of the success of the launch of the first internal accelerator program.

✔️ Proposed and led NCR’s first accelerator program with the full support of the CEO and ELT. Delivered $90M in revenue from the first cohort with multiple teams taking products to market.
✔️ Launched the New Ventures Group operating as a hybrid startup studio responsible for transitioning multiple concepts to product owners, supported M&A evaluations, and market analysis.
✔️ Provided opportunity and framework to establish partnership to deliver strategic inroads to retail opportunities and new revenue streams worth over $2B.

Innovation Principal

Led innovation efforts across retail, financial, and hospitality lines of businesses. Secured executive support for partnerships and responsible for over 20% of patent filings for FY 2019.

✔️ Proposed an M&A to the CEO, GM of Retail, and Head of M&A backed with a business case that resulted in a partnership agreement with a potential revenue of $80M ARR in year 1. 
✔️ Found a $9B cost savings opportunity in the North American banking industry. Secured over 10 patents, built a business case, and secured executive support to pursue opportunity.
✔️ Trained internal teams on Flashpoint customer discovery techniques to leverage behavioral economics techniques to minimize cognitive bias in customer discovery

Innovation Leader

Providing internal product teams innovation and new product development support during NCR’s transition to an ‘as-a Service’ business model. 

✔️ Joined a team of intrapreneurs participating in the Flashpoint accelerator program, interviewing 175 customers and identifying 10 opportunities worth a deeper look.
✔️ Built the business case for three opportunities in finance and the convenience fuel retail industries, each with a potential of generating more than $100MM in SaaS revenue.
✔️ Led cross-functional hardware and software development teams to architect, prototype, and develop solutions leveraging computer vision, data analysis, deep learning, AI, and mobile development.

Innovation Engineer

Savvy Tinker Consulting

We worked with industry organizations and major investor groups to generate investing, company design frameworks, training, and though leadership content.

✔️ Distilled best practices across Private Equity, Venture Capital, Search Funds, Startup Studios, Accelerators, and Startups for new venture creation processes.
✔️ Adapted a quantitative venture investing approach for the strategic design of new company creation,  product development roadmaps, and focused customer discovery.
✔️ Created an evaluation framework for metal additive manufacturing use cased based by examples and data. 
✔️ Published core market and capabilities analysis on metal additive manufacturing achieving recognition from industry experts.
✔️ Presented findings at LiveWorx in 2018.

Independent Consultant

Flashpoint at Georgia Tech

Sole experienced founder on corporate team participating in the Flashpoint startup accelerator program the focused on adapting and applying behavioral economics and cognitive bias insights to improve the quality of customer discovery and user research in startups and new product development efforts.

✔️ Interviewed 175 customers using behavioral and cognitive bias limiting approaches. 
✔️ Mapped internal and external customer ecosystems to understand factors that shaped customer behavior and decisions.

Intrapreneur, Corporate Innovation Team @ Cohort 8

SPIN Collective Partnership

SPIN Collective was a collection of serial founders offering innovation and special projects consulting.

✔️ Delivered a strategy for $50MM annual cost savings for an agricultural client
✔️ Identified innovation special project opportunities with projected revenues of $500M ARR and $150M ARR respectively.
✔️ Identified a strategic gap in private equity operations strategy to deliver an additional 1-2x multiple through a targeted product innovation strategy based on work from McKinsey.
✔️ Developed financial model for growth value creation based on strategies found in private equity, search funds, venture studios, startup factories, and startup studios.

Innovation Consultant

MatterFab

MatterFab focused on designing industrial metal 3d printers targeting production and industry applications in the injection molding, aerospace, medical, and automotive industries.

✔️ Designed & built multiple prototypes capable of printing +98.5% dense solid stainless steel parts optimizing over process 200 variables.
✔️ Secured $2.5M in LOIs in under 8 weeks from mid-sized businesses and large enterprises.
✔️ Secured strategic partnerships & funded R&D agreements with Fortune 50 company.

Founder

RT6 Engineering

Hardware product development company designing solutions for US Special Operations, companies, and individuals. Spinoff raised nearly $10M in venture funding.

✔️ Developed portable target solution for accurate targeting and aim adjustment of airborne weapons and guidance platform.
✔️ Demonstrated that a low power blu-ray laser was capable of melting zinc, bronze, and stainless steel, establishing the foundation to build a 3d metal printer.

STIMULUS Engineering Services

Led technical product for next generation electro optical systems for US Special Operations. 

✔️ Designed optical system requirements for adverse operational environments to deliver 150% increase in performance with 10x the capabilities of the previous generation.
✔️ Built customer relationships and marketing materials for night vision capabilities that resulted in multiple offers in excess of $5M each within 60 days.

Design Engineer

Venture Studio Architect - I help you design, launch, and grow your company creation studio.

If you’re looking to build/optimize your venture studio

Or have already started the process…

Then firstly, congratulations

With an average IRR of 60% and the ability to be built without any VC, building a studio is the perfect path for any exited founder looking to start new ventures.

Secondly, you’re in the right place

We in Venture Studio Association help “emerging venture studio founders” build, launch, and scale their studio (Faster)

Working with venture studios that collectively manage $500M+ in AUM 

As well as being able to pull insights from collaborating with 500+ studios worldwide 

We’ve seen and solved the challenges that come during the creation of a venture studio

And can design and launch your studio for you, or be your coach and advisor helping you create your studio yourself.

Looking to get started? Or want to know more? 

Then DM me “VSA” for more info

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

Matthew Burris

Elevating the Venture Studio Ecosystem | Trusted by 500+ Venture Studios globally

Is startup failure truly inevitable? Data suggests otherwise.

Traditional VC operates on the "power law" assumption - most startups fail while a tiny percentage generate outsized returns. But venture studios are challenging this fundamental premise with remarkable results.

For decades, early-stage company creation has operated under a high-risk, high-variance model that embraces failure as an inevitable part of the process. The traditional venture capital approach funds numerous startups with the expectation that most will fail and only a small percentage will yield outsized returns.

But what if this high failure rate isn't inevitable, but rather the result of a systematic lack of quality control in company creation?

Venture studios have emerged as a fundamentally different approach to building companies—one that prioritizes systematic quality control throughout the formation process. The focus on active management and quality control stewards returns across the portfolio, rather than depending on finding rare unicorns to offset writeoffs.

The data presents a compelling case:
84% of studio-built companies secure seed funding (vs. industry average below 50%)
Studio companies reach seed funding twice as fast as conventional startups
75% success in reaching follow-on funding within 12 months
2.3x better capital efficiency than traditional startups
33% faster time to exit (5 years vs 7.5 for traditional startups)
60% average Net IRR for venture studios vs 33% for top quartile VCs

According to Vault Fund data, this performance gap isn't merely the result of a few outlier successes, but rather a systematic improvement in the quality of companies being built.

The venture studio model represents a fundamental rethinking of company creation, one that prioritizes integrated ideation, execution, and investment with a focus on quality control and efficiency. For institutional investors, this quality-first framework offers a compelling alternative to conventional venture capital allocation strategies.

Have you explored the venture studio model? What quality controls have you found most effective in early-stage company building?

Join us for the next 10 weeks as we continue "Formalizing Venture Studios: The Definition of an Emerging Asset Class" series where we'll further explore the foundation of venture studios as a distinct asset class in entrepreneurial finance, part of our mission at the Venture Studio Forum.

#VentureStudio #StartupSuccess #VentureCapital #QualityControl #AssetClass #InstitutionalInvesting

Venture capital aims for quantity over quality.
Poor bets get covered by statistics.
What if we returned to quality?

Traditional venture capital operates on a quantity-driven strategy designed around power law returns—where a small percentage of investments generate the majority of returns. This approach necessitates making numerous bets with the statistical expectation that most will fail but a few will succeed spectacularly enough to drive overall portfolio performance.

The traditional VC strategy leads to several important implications:

- Portfolio construction focusing on volume (often 30+ companies per fund)
- High tolerance for failed investments (typically 50-70% of the portfolio)
- Minimal early-stage operational involvement to maximize deal flow coverage
- A primary focus on identifying potential outliers rather than reducing failure rates
- Capital allocation strategies that prioritize post-traction companies

Venture studios, by contrast, employ a fundamentally different strategic approach centered on quality concentration. Rather than accepting high failure rates as inevitable, studios invest heavily in quality systems that reshape the distribution of outcomes:

- Portfolio construction focusing on fewer, higher-quality companies (typically 8-15 per fund)
- Lower tolerance for failed investments, with systematic processes to terminate underperforming concepts early
- Intensive operational involvement from inception through scale
- Equal focus on reducing failure rates and identifying high-potential opportunities
- Captures learnings to continually improve studio process and success rates
- Capital allocation strategies that create value at the formation stage

This strategic divergence produces a different risk-return profile. The venture studio approach doesn't eliminate the potential for outsized returns but significantly reduces the dependency on them for overall portfolio performance. While traditional VC funds might generate returns through just 2-3 successful investments in a portfolio of 30+, studio returns typically come from a much higher percentage of their more carefully constructed portfolios.

As venture studios mature into a formalized asset class, this shift from power law dependency to quality concentration becomes a defining characteristic for institutional allocation strategies. The implications extend beyond individual investments to portfolio construction, risk management, and performance expectations.

Is your investment strategy built on accepting failure or systematically preventing it? How might a quality concentration approach reshape your portfolio performance?

Join us for the next 10 weeks as we continue "Formalizing Venture Studios: The Definition of an Emerging Asset Class" series where we'll further explore the foundation of venture studios as a distinct asset class in entrepreneurial finance, part of our mission at the www.venturestudioforum.org.

#VentureCapital #QualityControl #VentureStudios

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!

View newsletter: Venture Studio Perspective

In the ever-evolving landscape of private markets, we're witnessing a fascinating paradox. Venture studios, arguably one of the most significant innov

Open article: The Missing Venture Studio Framework
A New Taxonomy for Venture Studios by Matthew Burris • 4 min read

The Missing Venture Studio Framework
A New Taxonomy for Venture Studios

𝗠𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝘁𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲𝘀. 

𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺 $𝗕.

The confusion starts with Venture Capital funds (the core vehicle many LPs use to frame their mental model when evaluating early-stage investing opportunities.)

But studios aren't VC firms. And they don't operate (or spend) like VC.

Let’s start with 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮 𝘁𝘆𝗽𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗩𝗖 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝗺 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀:

Their model is simple: Source deals. Underwrite. Invest. Monitor. Most costs go to people and back-office ops like legal and accounting.

Which is why VC firms can run lean. Especially in the early days, a small team can deploy a meaningful amount of capital with minimal overhead.

𝗡𝗼𝘄 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗮 𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗼:

Instead of making investments into existing startups, studios create companies from scratch. That means a completely different cost structure, with significantly higher baseline operating expenses.

Why? Studios are designed to build companies in-house, so their internal headcount includes roles like:

- Designers
- Engineers
- Product managers
- Recruiters
- Growth marketers

Studios aren't "services" firms in the traditional sense, but the services they provide to early startups are deeply integrated into the company-building process. And those services cost money.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗹𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆:

Studios typically spend 40-60% of their total capital on operations — 2-3x more than traditional venture capital funds. Presented without context, this statistic might be viewed as extreme overcharging or operational waste.

However, when presented with the context of the additional entrepreneurial and operator functions a studio executes, the costs become more intuitive and justifiable.

Most studios run centralized playbooks, operate shared tooling, and maintain internal product infrastructure that reduces risk and speeds up development. This upfront investment also means higher burn.

Studios may support 5 startups a year, each staffed with internal resources before that team is replaced by full-time founders. From a cost standpoint: it's more like a startup factory than a capital allocator.

𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲𝘀 𝗟𝗣 𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗸𝘆:

The performance metrics might end up looking similar to VC over time (IRR, DPI, TVPI) but how studios get there is completely different.

Capital allocators need to shift how they evaluate these opportunities. The structure is not the same. So the diligence process shouldn't be either.

Studios represent a fundamentally different model, more intensive, more expensive, but potentially more performant.

Which raises the argument: 

While it makes sense to ask, “Why do studios cost more?” 

The better question might be:

“Are studios building more value per $ spent?”

And just maybe, can you see how the money is spent to add value?

The secret behind venture studio performance?
Quality & control in deal creation, not sourcing. 👇

The venture studio model remains misunderstood by many institutional investors, often conflated with accelerators, incubators, or traditional venture funds. This misunderstanding stems from viewing studios primarily as a fund rather than as a company which creates companies.

What truly differentiates venture studios is their control and execution across the entire company creation lifecycle—a distinction that fundamentally changes both the risk profile and expected outcomes of company creation.
A venture studio is defined by its active control across three core functions:

💡Entrepreneur Role: Responsible for ideation, validation, and strategic development
🛠️Operator Role: Manages execution, product development, and operational infrastructure
💰Investor Role: Deploys capital and manages portfolio financial outcomes

In many ways, a venture studio operates less like a VC fund and more like an operations-heavy private equity fund that starts companies instead of buying them. This parallel is instructive—both models emphasize rigorous governance, disciplined operational improvements, and careful management of investments.

The key difference lies in the starting point: while private equity applies quality control to existing businesses, venture studios build quality into companies from their very inception, systematically derisking the entrepreneurial journey from day one.

Unlike accelerators that provide temporary support to existing startups or traditional VCs that make passive investments across numerous companies, venture studios actively build companies from inception. This hands-on involvement enables studios to implement quality control measures that would be impossible in traditional models.

As we continue to formalize venture studios as a distinct asset class, this unique structural advantage becomes increasingly important for institutional investors to understand. The triple-role framework not only explains performance differences but provides a foundation for evaluating and comparing different venture studios within the emerging asset class.

Looking forward to revolutionizing your approach to company building? Join us for the next 10 weeks as we continue "Formalizing Venture Studios: The Definition of an Emerging Asset Class" series where we'll further explore the foundation of venture studios as a distinct asset class in entrepreneurial finance, part of our mission at the Venture Studio Forum.

#VentureStudio #AssetClass #StartupCreation #VentureCapital #PortfolioStrategy #InstitutionalInvesting

𝗜𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀 𝗱𝗼𝗻'𝘁 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝘀 𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝗮 𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗼.

That’s a problem.

Unlike traditional VC where investors back a portfolio of companiess -
Studios bundle 3 functions into one: ideation, company building, and investing.

This creates murky capital allocation that frustrates both investors and studios.

That’s why we created the Venture Studio Cost Structure Model (VSCSM): to bring transparency to how studios deploy capital, regardless of legal structure.

𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝟱 𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆:

𝗦𝘁𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗼 𝗦𝗚&𝗔 (15–25%)
Definition: Core operating expenses to run the studio entity, separate from any specific portfolio work.

Financial: Like a VC management fee (covers essential studio operations.)

𝗖𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗕𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱𝘀 (10–35%)
Definition: Direct costs of ideation, validation, and building of new companies.

Financial: These are the studio’s “cost of goods sold.” 

𝗜𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗖𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 (0–10%)
Definition: Small capital investment to form entities and secure common equity alongside studio “sweat.”

Financial: Analogous to a founder’s personal contribution.

𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗜𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗖𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹 (30–50%)

Definition: Structured internal rounds securing preferred equity with investor protections.

Financial: Mirrors traditional VC terms and processes.

𝗙𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄-𝗢𝗻 𝗔𝗹𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 (0–20%)

Definition: Capital reserved for later rounds (pre-seed, seed) with external co-investors.

Financial: These are contingent on performance, not preset like primary rounds.

𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀:

Capital Deployment Transparency:
See exactly how capital is used across studio functions.

Strategy Alignment Verification:
Confirm deployment matches the studio’s stated model.

Risk Profile Assessment:
Analyze allocation patterns to understand risk posture.

Capital Efficiency Metrics:
Assess cost per equity point to evaluate efficiency.

Equity Type Analysis:
Clarify what portion buys common vs. preferred equity.

The Venture Studio Cost Structure Model won’t predict returns. But it gives investors a clearer lens into how studios really work.

Building great companies means building it right.
Quality Control. Quality Assurance. Derisking. Amplifying Value.
This is the heart of the Venture Studio Model. 

For decades, early-stage company creation has operated under a high-risk, high-variance model that embraces failure as an inevitable part of the process. The traditional venture capital approach funds numerous startups with the expectation that most will fail and only a small percentage will yield outsized returns. This is known as the "power law" distribution that has defined the industry.

But what if this high failure rate isn't inevitable, but rather the result of a systematic lack of quality control in company creation?

Venture studios have emerged as a fundamentally different approach to building companies—one that prioritizes systematic quality control throughout the formation process. The focus on active management and quality control stewards returns across the portfolio, rather than depending on finding rare unicorns to offset writeoffs. By implementing rigorous stage-gate processes, specialized expertise, and data-driven validation methods, venture studios are challenging the conventional wisdom that company building must remain a high-failure endeavor.

We reframe how to evaluate and view venture studios through a quality lens. And who does not want higher quality investments?

This is the first article in a 10 week series as we formally define the Venture Studio Asset Class and build a testable evaluation framework for venture studios of all types, a core mission of ours at the Venture Studio Forum. Join us at https://lnkd.in/gWcpx_Xp to shape the asset class and accelerate venture studios globally.

For decades, early-stage company creation has operated under a high-risk, high-variance model that embraces failure as an inevitable part of the proce

Open article: The Quality-First Revolution: How Venture Studios Are Transforming Company Creation by Matthew Burris • 11 min read

The Quality-First Revolution: How Venture Studios Are Transforming Company Creation

The quality multiplier of venture studios
Lowering risk, amplifying ROI 👇

Venture studios apply shared resources across multiple company building initiatives, creating quality advantages that compound across the portfolio:

🧠 Specialized Expertise: Domain experts prohibitively expensive for individual startups 
📋 Best Practices Implementation: Systematic application of proven methodologies 
💻 Standardized Technology Development: Common technical frameworks and infrastructure 
🔄 Comparative Learning: Cross-pollination of insights from simultaneous building efforts

This approach contrasts with traditional startups that operate in isolation with limited outside expertise. Studios invest in these capabilities because they create a quality multiplier across the whole portfolio.

For example, a venture studio might maintain shared teams of UX designers, security specialists, and enterprise sales strategists working across all portfolio companies. This enables even early-stage ventures to access expertise typically available only to mature companies.

These shared resources enhance quality through key mechanisms: 

✅ Best-in-class capabilities from day one, preventing costly mistakes 
🔄 Institutional knowledge eliminating "reinventing the wheel" across companies 
🛠️ Systematic application of expertise producing higher-quality business foundations

While maintaining these resources requires investment, the economic return more than justifies it through: 
⏱️ Faster time-to-market (reducing burn rates) 
🛡️ Lower failure rates (preserving capital) 
🚀 Higher-quality products at launch (accelerating revenue)

When measured on an IRR basis, specialized resources actually increase returns by enabling more successful outcomes per dollar invested—challenging conventional wisdom about "lean" startup approaches. A topic we will unpack in detail next week.

As venture studios formalize into a recognized asset class, this quality multiplier effect becomes a key differentiator for institutional investors evaluating managers. Are you still building companies in isolation when shared expertise could dramatically improve your outcomes?

Join us daily as we continue "Formalizing Venture Studios: The Definition of a New Asset Class" series with an exploration of how venture studios are reshaping institutional portfolio allocation strategies.

#VentureStudio #StartupQuality #ResourceOptimization #AssetClass #InstitutionalInvesting #AlternativeInvestments

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

Stage-Gates in Building Companies?
It's the quality control engine that runs venture studios.

Unlike individual founders who often become emotionally attached to their initial concept, venture studios employ structured stage-gate processes where ideas must meet objective criteria to advance. This creates multiple quality control checkpoints throughout the company formation journey.

The quality control framework consists of: 
🔍 Idea Validation: Ideas evaluated against market size, competitive landscape, and studio thesis alignment 
👩‍💼 Expert Involvement: Specialized knowledge and skills across functional areas 
📊 Data-Driven Validation: Using metrics to validate progress and market interest 
🚦 Stage-Gate Process: Rigorous evaluation at each development stage

The most significant quality threshold typically occurs before full build effort commences—when substantial capital is committed. At this inflection point, studios require validation across multiple dimensions:

🏢 Market Validation: Evidence of customer interest through letters of intent or pilot commitments 
💰 Financial Validation: Projected economics meeting minimum return thresholds 
🛣️ Strategic Validation: Alignment with future funding and exit pathways 
👥 Team Validation: Identification of appropriate leadership with domain expertise

This structured approach contrasts with traditional founding teams, who often lack the discipline or incentives to abandon underperforming concepts. Studios eliminate many preventable failure modes—effectively derisking venture creation at each stage.

Leading venture studios have implemented distinctive validation mechanisms: 

🔄 Alloy Innovation requires line of sight to $100,000 in customer revenue within six months
🔍 Pioneer Square Labs confirms interest from follow-on capital sources and identifies potential strategic acquirers
🔬 NLC Health gathers industry expertise on market and technology fronts for IP evaluation

As venture studios mature into a formalized asset class, these quality control methodologies serve as critical differentiators for institutional investors evaluating managers.

How might this quality framework improve success rates in your innovation initiatives? Join us daily as we continue "Formalizing Venture Studios: The Definition of a New Asset Class" series with an exploration of how venture studios are reshaping institutional portfolio allocation strategies.

#VentureStudio #StartupValidation #QualityControl #AssetClass #InstitutionalInvesting #AlternativeInvestments

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

"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

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

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

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

How venture studios approach company formation fundamentally shapes their economics, talent strategies, and returns.

𝗙𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗰𝘁 𝗙𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗥𝗼𝗹𝗲𝘀

1. The Founder (Formation Studios)

  - Studio originates the idea internally
  - Builds initial version/validates market
  - Recruits entrepreneurs/leadership team to take over

  - Examples: Idealab

2. The Cofounder (Partnership Studios)

  - Studio partners with entrepreneurs at idea stage
  - Joint company building from day one
  - Shared founder economics
  - High operational involvement

  - Examples: Pioneer Square Labs

3. The Late Cofounder (Incubation Studios)
  - Studio joins existing early companies
  - Provides resources, capital, and expertise to accelerate
  - Competing with accelerator models

  - Examples: Science

4. The Refounder (Commercialization Studios)

  - Licenses IP or acquires companies as foundation
  - Rebuilds/pivots around acquired technology
  - Common in deep tech, biotech
  - Examples: Flagship Pioneering

𝗜𝗱𝗲𝗮 𝗦𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗗𝘆𝗻𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗰𝘀

According to Vault Fund's 2023 research with 35 company creators, these ideas come from:

- 31.4% Internal ideation
- 34.3% Network/inbound
- 5.7% Academia IP
- 5.7% Corporate partners
- 22.9% Mix of sources

The pattern: As studios mature, their idea sourcing diversifies beyond internal concepts.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁: 𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗠𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀

Regardless of founder approach, successful studios are nearly always led by serial entrepreneurs with "been there, done that" experience.

The venture studio model is extremely difficult to execute without prior company-building experience.

Which founder role does your organization play or would you prefer to partner with?

#VentureStudioTaxonomy #CompanyBuilding #FounderRoles #StartupFormation #VentureModels

We found the third founding studio. And they own idea → IPO themselves. Idealab, Blenheim Chalcot, and...
now MDB Capital.

Just a few weeks into the Venture Studio Forum and we had a call that reshaped venture studio history.

This 30-year-old public company - MDB Capital - didn't even know they were a studio until our first conversation.

This pattern is surprisingly common - from our conversations with venture studios, 30-40% of studios don't realize what they are until years after they start.

What surprised us was the take their own companies public.
Not by going to a wall street bank.
They take them public.
Themselves.

What makes MDB Capital extraordinary is their complete mastery of the company lifecycle:

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝘂𝗹𝗹-𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗦𝘁𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗼 𝗔𝗱𝘃𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗴𝗲: 
With deep finance expertise, MDB engineers biotech companies from concept to IPO under one roof. As the only venture studio operating as a fully licensed broker-dealer, they can: 

🔹 Identify promising biotech concepts ripe for commercialization
🔹 Build teams strategically positioned for early funding success
🔹 Take their portfolio companies public through their in-house capabilities

This creates a capital efficiency system unmatched in our venture studio research.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗥𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗱: With 35+ years in the securities space, Chris Marlett and his team have led multiple financings for venture-stage public companies and developed strategies for numerous successful public ventures.

Want to hear how they've operated as a stealth venture studio for decades?

Join our LIVE conversation with Chris Marlett, Founder & CEO of MDB Capital, hosted by JT Benton.

📅 Thursday, April 24th ⏰ 10:00 AM EST 🖥️ Virtual Event - Exclusive to VSF members 

Join us at the Venture Studio Forum 

#VentureStudio #BiotechInnovation #VentureCapital #IPOStrategy

The word "venture" misleads many about what studio models actually do. The reality is far more nuanced.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗶𝘀𝗸 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗳𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝗧𝗮𝘅𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝘆

Venture studios operate across four distinct risk categories:

1. Breakthrough Innovation Studios (Highest Risk)

  - Deep tech and biotech with significant technical risk
  - Examples: Flagship Pioneering (Moderna)
  - Long-term horizons, high technical expertise

2. Venture Capital Studios (High Risk)

  - Building companies for traditional VC funding pathways
  - Examples: Atomic, Pioneer Square Labs
  - Strong market risk, moderate technical risk

3. Private Equity/M&A Studios (Medium Risk)

  - Building for strategic acquisition or PE funding
  - Focus on revenue-generating businesses in established markets
  - More defined exit pathways, shorter timelines

4. Cashflow Studios (Lower Risk)

  - Building profitable businesses from day one
  - Focus on consistent revenue rather than exponential growth
  - Profit distributions as regular return mechanism
  - Often underappreciated by traditional investors

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀

1. Studio structure should match its risk profile - different legal and capital structures make sense for different categories

2. The data shows high performance across all models - Vault Fund research found no correlation between structure and performance, but potential correlation between size and performance

3. Follow-on capital expectations must align with the risk profile - what works for biotech won't work for SaaS

Understanding this spectrum helps investors make more strategic allocations across the studio landscape.

What type of venture studio risk profile most interests you?

#VentureStudios #RiskProfiles #VentureInvesting #CompanyBuilding #DeepTech

Delivered: 10x MOIC & 45% IRR.
No more guesswork in studio success.
And why I joined. Work with us👇

Most studios struggle to deliver returns. We've cracked the code with proven methodology.

Our composite Track Record:
• Built, managed, or advised 17+ studios for venture capital firms, corporate innovation teams, and independent entrepreneurs;
• Achieved +10X markup to date on studios' venture-track portfolio companies;
• Co-founded a cash flow studio requiring <$2M total investment that's on track for 45% IRR over 10 years.

While the bulk of our time is focused on our own homegrown studios, we selectively make our expertise available to clients who align with our approach.

Here's how you can work with us:
1️⃣Design Workshop Our intensive paid workshop focuses on the design of your studio, working through essential definitions and functions, and leaves you with an actual blueprint on how to move forward.

Best for:
→ emerging studios
→ corporate innovation groups
→ studio-curious organizations looking to forge their own journey.

2️⃣Studio Audit For established studios encountering challenges, our comprehensive audit analyzes +30 dimensions of your studio's investor, ideation, and operator functions. Giving you the detail, clarity, and insights required for systematic fine tuning of your model.

Best for:
→ established studios (working on Fund II or beyond)

Skip years of costly studio iteration. 
Learn from our battle scars. 
We've already solved many of the challenges you'll face.

How to Engage:
→ For direct support, DM me ‘workshop’ or ‘audit’ and let’s find out if there’s an opportunity to work together!

→ For general advisory, join the Venture Studio Forum, and access broad-based studio expertise.

VSF members benefit from weekly AMAs, educational resources, advisory and guidance, and group sessions from experienced studio builders and studio operating partners.

PS: Every leader should periodically clarify how people can work with them. The ecosystem moves fast—make it easy for partners to find their path.

#VentureStudio #StudioBuilding #StartupEcosystem #InnovationDesign

Taplio

Matthew Burris's Linkedin Analytics

What is Matthew talking about?

Who is engaging with Matthew

's Best Posts (last 30 days)

Want to drive more opportunities from LinkedIn?