After many hoops around it, the best definition of a Studio we could muster is :

A Studio is an organization that builds companies with some lasting edge that dramatically improve the odds of success of the built companies, thus profiting from the value created in the underlying assets.

We acknowledge that this is a particular definition. Let’s dig in.

Organization : it’s a lasting organization. Not a project, not “teams”. We are highly against offshoring and we try to vertically integrate everything that is important.

// that builds : we do not believe in the “super advisor” model, neither the “stock picker” model. Basically, super advisors are glorified investors, and stock pickers are notoriously bad (or follow a power law). We think that a studio should be builders.

// some lasting edge : We think “I have the best team” or “I have a good brand thus I can attract founder” is not an edge. A repeatable network of co-builders to launch startups is an edge. A repeatable way of doing some user research at scale and re-use it is an edge. A repeatable tech stack that speeds up company creation is an edge. The lasting edge should be non-people-dependent, and constitute assets that scale over time. Said differently, we’re not buying the “hollywood” model of Studios (i.e having talent-intensive organization only).

// dramatically improves : At the end of the day, a Studio has a right to win if the improvement in odds and/or magnitude of success is 10x better than the alternative.

// profiting from the value created : Charging services to startups is a nogo for us. A true Studio should profit from the value created in the asset (asset sales, NAV financing, …) and not charge services - nothing wrong with this, it’s just a consulting company and has a vastly different set of incentives.