The traditional strategic vs financial CVC framework is outdated and broken
“And as you can imagine, you know, everyone's crammed into the middle and and and it ends up almost being an alphabetical list.”
Find this show
kind of today, I think the traditional discussion around whether a company or a CVC rather is strategic or financial, I think, is a little bit out of date. And I think that a lot of people, for ease, I think, tend to show almost a spectrum of of CVC units and whether, you know, with strategic at one end and and kind of financial at the other. And as you can imagine, you know, everyone's crammed into the middle and and and it ends up almost being an alphabetical list. And from kind of our perspective,
About this clip
Mike Smeed argues that the common way of categorizing corporate venture capital units on a spectrum from strategic to financial is no longer useful. He suggests this framework has become so generic that most CVCs end up clustered in the middle, making it essentially meaningless for differentiation.
Why this clip
Challenges a widely accepted industry framework for categorizing CVC approaches, offering a contrarian perspective on how the industry thinks about corporate venture investing.
What they said next
Why corporate VCs collaborate instead of competing like traditional VCs
31:00 - 33s · market insight
More from this episode
Similar clips from other shows
From the blog
Want clips like this for your podcast?
We find your top 5-8 clips, write the hooks, and deliver ready-to-post content. First 2 episodes are free.
Get 2 Episodes Clipped Free