Venture Studios vs VC: The Misunderstood Data

Young venture studios build companies.  Experienced studios build attention. Every venture studio claims to have the right process, capital stack, and talent bench. - but the few that are most successful, treat content as a structural element. Their best successes create awareness long before any code is written and any customers sign. Without it, even the best concepts tend to disappear. Look at Dollar Shave Club. One scrappy $4,500 video delivered 12,000 orders in 48 hours and paved the way for a $1B exit to Unilever. Science, the studio behind it, didn’t wait for traction. They created a narrative-market fit and proved that attention is the most valuable currency at the earliest stage of growth. The story preceded the scale. Like most of the best studios in the United States, High Alpha exhibits the same discipline. They conduct routine storytelling sessions with their entire portfolio. The aim is for the team to understand how to weaponize narratives, transform pitch decks into media, and position themselves as industry leaders for public exposure. They do not treat content as a nice to have. Instead, they see it as a foundational layer that compounds attention and builds faster momentum across multiple ventures simultaneously. The data backs this up. Studies show timely, story-driven content massively boosts engagement and market trust. A founder can code in silence, but a studio must broadcast from day one. Content drives deal flow, attracts operators, and seeds markets. At FRUXD, we believe the studios that publish more than they pitch will be the ones everyone follows. What do you think? Does your studio integrate content into your strategy, or is it only an afterthought?

Young venture studios build companies. Experienced studios build attention. Every venture studio claims to have the right process, capital stack, and talent bench. - but the few that are most successful, treat content as a structural element. Their best successes create awareness long before any code is written and any customers sign. Without it, even the best concepts tend to disappear. Look at Dollar Shave Club. One scrappy $4,500 video delivered 12,000 orders in 48 hours and paved the way for a $1B exit to Unilever. Science, the studio behind it, didn’t wait for traction. They created a narrative-market fit and proved that attention is the most valuable currency at the earliest stage of growth. The story preceded the scale. Like most of the best studios in the United States, High Alpha exhibits the same discipline. They conduct routine storytelling sessions with their entire portfolio. The aim is for the team to understand how to weaponize narratives, transform pitch decks into media, and position themselves as industry leaders for public exposure. They do not treat content as a nice to have. Instead, they see it as a foundational layer that compounds attention and builds faster momentum across multiple ventures simultaneously. The data backs this up. Studies show timely, story-driven content massively boosts engagement and market trust. A founder can code in silence, but a studio must broadcast from day one. Content drives deal flow, attracts operators, and seeds markets. Fruxd Ventures believes the studios that publish more than they pitch will be the ones everyone follows. What do you think? Does your studio integrate content into your strategy, or is it only an afterthought? #VentureStudio #Leadership #Content #Strategy

A new asset class is emerging in venture: the studio of studios model. We are at the forefront of it in Europe. Most investors know the concept of a venture studio, an organization that systematically builds companies from the ground up. Now imagine an entity that builds and backs multiple studios simultaneously, each creating multiple companies in parallel. That’s what a studio of studios is. It functions as an incubator for studios, a structure that compounds learning, execution, and returns across several venture-building engines. While similar models are starting to appear in the United States, we are the first in Europe to build it at scale. From a risk and exposure standpoint, it changes the math. A traditional venture studio can typically create five to six companies before it runs out of capital. A studio of studios invests across five to ten such studios. That means exposure to 50 to 100+ companies, all built under structured processes, shared systems, and disciplined capital pacing. For investors seeking early-stage exposure without the complexity of picking startups, this model provides diversified access with measurable operational control. Instead of betting on a single team or theme, you are backing an ecosystem of proven builders running a repeatable process for validation, iteration, and scale. This is where venture starts to look less like art and more like engineering. But as with any new asset class, diligence matters. If you are evaluating a studio of studios, there are a few key questions to ask. Who is behind it? Operator quality matters more than capital. If the general partners have not built or invested in studios before, that is a red flag. How disciplined is the build process? Studios win or lose based on process design. What is the model’s scalability? Its strength lies in the ability to replicate successful patterns across markets, teams, and verticals. If the framework is too bespoke, it will struggle to compound. The studio of studios model is about building smarter, compounding learning, talent, and capital efficiency across parallel systems. For LPs, it offers exposure to the earliest stages of innovation without the chaos of chasing individual bets. For founders and operators, it provides shared infrastructure, proven playbooks, and downstream funding networks. And for the ecosystem, it marks a shift from venture as isolated bets to venture as an integrated platform for creation. The next decade of venture will belong to those who can combine structure with scale. Studios built that foundation. Now, the studio of studios model is taking it to the next level. At Bifrost Studios, that is the system we are building. A structure designed to make venture creation repeatable, scalable, and compounding. The future of venture isn’t about taking more shots. It’s about building the machine that keeps generating them.

Most investors don’t realize they have two very different ways to back a venture studio. One plays the long game. The other looks a lot more like classic VC. When talking to my partners who’s allocating $5–20M+ a year to studios, the key question isn’t just which studio to back. It’s how you back it: through the holding company or through its fund. The HoldCo is the studio’s core engine. It takes common equity (typically 10–15% all the way to 80-85%) in every company the studio creates. Over a decade, that can mean exposure to 30–60 startups through a single investment. As the studio matures, it often layers on a pre-seed/seed fund, which invests for preferred shares (15–20%) in each new venture. Why HoldCos attract capital? Exposure to the studio’s entire future portfolio, not just one vintage GP economics (fees + carry) flow back to HoldCo investors If operations are funded by sidecar fees, the HoldCo collects equity with minimal ongoing capital Where it gets tricky Access is usually early-stage, when risk is highest Distributions rely on studio decisions, so clear payout terms (often 50–80% minimum) are key Valuation and liquidity are harder than with fund LP interests Why some stick to the fund Familiar LP structure with preferred shares and cleaner exit flows. Easier to trade on secondaries More predictable governance and timelines. In short: HoldCo = long-term, diversified, GP-aligned upside. Fund = defined vintage, cleaner structure, faster liquidity. The most sophisticated LPs often do both. If you’re exploring venture studio investments, I can share live deal flow and due diligence frameworks or just chat about new types of of investment vehicles. This is me being generic just, as someone who built 6 venture studios based on solving velocity of money, I can tell you that there’s a blank script which allows for all kind of deals that most are not used to when dealing with venture studios that are operated by true operators.

A new asset class is emerging in venture: the studio of studios model. We are at the forefront of it in Europe. Most investors know the concept of a venture studio, an organization that systematically builds companies from the ground up. Now imagine an entity that builds and backs multiple studios simultaneously, each creating multiple companies in parallel. That’s what a studio of studios is. It functions as an incubator for studios, a structure that compounds learning, execution, and returns across several venture-building engines. While similar models are starting to appear in the United States, we are the first in Europe to build it at scale. From a risk and exposure standpoint, it changes the math. A traditional venture studio can typically create five to six companies before it runs out of capital. A studio of studios invests across five to ten such studios. That means exposure to 40, 50, or even 60 companies, all built under structured processes, shared systems, and disciplined capital pacing. For investors seeking early-stage exposure without the complexity of picking startups, this model provides diversified access with measurable operational control. Instead of betting on a single team or theme, you are backing an ecosystem of proven builders running a repeatable process for validation, iteration, and scale. This is where venture starts to look less like art and more like engineering. But as with any new asset class, diligence matters. If you are evaluating a studio of studios, there are a few key questions to ask. Who is behind it? Operator quality matters more than capital. If the general partners have not built or invested in studios before, that is a red flag. How disciplined is the build process? Studios win or lose based on process design. What is the model’s scalability? Its strength lies in the ability to replicate successful patterns across markets, teams, and verticals. If the framework is too bespoke, it will struggle to compound. The studio of studios model is about building smarter, compounding learning, talent, and capital efficiency across parallel systems. For LPs, it offers exposure to the earliest stages of innovation without the chaos of chasing individual bets. For founders and operators, it provides shared infrastructure, proven playbooks, and downstream funding networks. And for the ecosystem, it marks a shift from venture as isolated bets to venture as an integrated platform for creation. The next decade of venture will belong to those who can combine structure with scale. Studios built that foundation. Now, the studio of studios model is taking it to the next level. At Bifrost Studios, that is the system we are building. A structure designed to make venture creation repeatable, scalable, and compounding. The future of venture isn’t about taking more shots. It’s about building the machine that keeps generating them. #VentureCapital #VC #Fundraising

Debunking myths about Venture Studios! "Investors in a studio are also paying for the studio’s operational costs." FALSE. In the dual-entity model, investors are not funding the studio’s operations, they are building equity instead of buying it. Here’s an example: the Studio holds 30% of every startup. If the Investment Vehicle owns 35% of the Studio, then the annual capital invested in the Studio translates into about 10.5% equity in every new startup. This is not an extra cost, it’s simply an alternative way of creating equity. On top of that, the cost per equity point is lower compared to a traditional VC, which often buys shares on the market in startups that are not even validated yet. But there’s more. Every startup built by the Studio generates learnings that improve the quality of the next ones. At the same time, the Studio accumulates assets, processes, and know-how, which create residual value and make the Studio itself a sellable asset (and that value is far from negligible). So, investors are not covering operations: they are betting on a clear thesis, to build equity instead of buying it.

🚀 Scaling a game studio isn’t about funding - it’s about building systems that endure. At Mobidictum Conference 2025, Cvetan Rusimov will join industry leaders Gabriele Aimone and Baris Ozistek to share how studios grow from indie beginnings to global scale. From org design and hiring to publishing pipelines and investor alignment, this session will unpack the building blocks of sustainable growth - what keeps working even when you stop pushing. 📅 Day 2 · Red Stage · 14:30–15:00 📍 Istanbul | October 21–22 #GameDev #StudioGrowth #Leadership #Mobidictum2025 #ScalingGames

The "Earn-to-Own" transition is a common theme in emerging studios. Many venture studios get their start as service businesses. Ad agencies, dev shops, engineering firms. It makes sense when you think about it - they've played a key role in the venture-building process, but favored the consistent cash flow in lieu of owning the assets. Then, they have the epiphany: their business already has many of the elements needed to build a venture studio, so why not make the move? Here's the thing: navigating this transition is harder than it sounds. Many studios begin with a plan to offset capital needs with services work. When it's time to fund raise for the studio, a clear conflict emerges - and it's often too late to do anything about it. Investors want to know that the studio's resources are going toward venture-building and not client work. Without a clean separation, the studio never grows up. It's a bad look, and a waste of precious time. Transitioning from a services firm to a venture building operation is hard - but not impossible. If you're thinking about such a move, and need resources, we cover this in our latest paper, "the GP Dilemma." DM me if you'd like a copy!

Studios don’t replace founders. They remove their blind spots. Every founder has strengths. Some are visionaries who can see markets before they exist. Others are operational thinkers who can turn ideas into structured execution. A few are natural storytellers who can attract capital, talent, and customers. But very few are good at all of it. That’s where studios come in. A studio gives founders the scaffolding to move faster and think broader. It provides the systems and capabilities most startups spend years trying to build from scratch. Recruiting, brand positioning, fundraising, legal infrastructure, and product validation are all functions that pull time and focus away from what founders do best. In a studio environment, those gaps are filled from day one. Founders can focus on product, customer, and execution, knowing that the fundamentals are already in place. It’s about freeing founders to operate at their highest leverage. A strong studio also compounds learning across ventures. What works in one company becomes part of the playbook for the next. Mistakes are documented, frameworks are refined, and founders enter with a shorter path to validation. But the system is only as strong as the people within it. If a studio brings in the wrong entrepreneurs, no amount of structure will fix that. Studios do not eliminate the need for exceptional founders. They make exceptional founders even more effective. The studio model does not replace entrepreneurship. It enhances it. And that is how ideas become companies, and companies become systems that build the next generation of founders.

This is a good idea. But, at least for me, it seems that if the range of outcomes for a new project is sufficiently large, planning a meaningful exit isn't practical at project inception. I usually wait until a few months after the product launch to determine, what, if any, exit I'm going to see from that investment. At that time you have enough data to get a rough guess as to what sort of exit one is looking at, and then work backwards from there, as suggested below. #venturestudios #investing #startups