Fundraising Partnership Models

YouTube sponsorships increased by 54% year over year in 2025. More brands are doing more deals with more creators on the platform than ever before. I know this because we tracked them all. At Gospel Stats we look at tens of millions of YouTube channels to uncover brand deals and reveal who's spending, on what creators, and with what impact. After nearly two decades building Tubefilter and the Streamy Awards, Drew Baldwin and I (along with Jared Klett) wanted to build a platform that we always wished existed. So we did. Gospel Stats empowers agencies to make sharper decisions, brands to outmaneuver the competition, and the entire creator ecosystem to thrive through unmatched transparency and insight. That may sound like a lot of PR speak, but check out our report and you'll see what I mean. We just put out our first 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟱 𝗬𝗼𝘂𝗧𝘂𝗯𝗲 𝗦𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗼𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗟𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 that reveals never-before-seen insights into the branded video ecosystem on the world's largest video sharing site. Here are some big takeaways: 📈 𝗦𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗼𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝘆 𝘂𝗽. From H1 2024 to H1 2025, we saw a 53.9% year-over-year increase in the quantity of sponsored videos on YouTube (for English-speaking videos with 25K+ views in the first seven days). It equals out to almost 11K sponsored videos uploaded every month. ▶️ 𝗩𝗶𝗲𝘄𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘂𝗽, 𝘁𝗼𝗼. There's a 27.9% YoY increase on the views on those sponsored videos. This difference in the upticks between quantity and viewership actually shows a more balanced sponsorship ecosystem, where deal flow among smaller creators shows the greatest increase. 🎯 𝗕𝗶𝗴𝗴𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀. The top 10 brands with the most sponsored videos on YouTube will surprise you. Perennial creator collaborators like Squarespace, BetterHelp, and Raycon Inc. are on the list. So are DraftKings Inc., SeatGeek, and PrizePicks. But nothing tops Ground News and it's 1,863 sponsored videos in the first half of the year. 💰 𝗖𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀 𝗴𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗮𝗴. Like most things on YouTube, no one beats MrBeast. He's top among creators with 1.4 billion views on 11 sponsored videos in the first half of the year. Once you subtract about 1.2 billion views you get to the other creators on the list, including Dave Ramsey, Joe Rogan, Adam W., Veritasium, and more. Expect these numbers to all go up. As YouTube continues to be a more dominant force in entertainment, more marketers will turn to more creators on the platform. The full report breaks down who's spending, what's working, and where the opportunities are. Check it out in the comments. I think you'll dig it.

The Winner Is….?   Direct Lending Private Credit transactions provided to Private Equity Sponsors have a lower default rate and loss rate compared to Non-PE Sponsor deals. In fact, the default rate/loss rate is ~50% lower for Sponsor-led deals vs. Non-Sponsor deals, as show in the data below. Capital Allocators investing in Direct Lending know this to be true given a multitude of factors:   1. Sponsor Oversight and Support: Private Equity Sponsors typically take an active role in managing their portfolio companies. They provide strategic guidance, operational improvements, and even financial support during challenging times. Their hands-on approach helps stabilize companies during periods of stress, reducing the likelihood of default. 2. Alignment of Interests: PE sponsors have significant equity stakes in the companies they invest in, creating a strong incentive to ensure the company's success. They are more likely to inject additional capital or restructure operations to avoid default, thereby protecting their investment. 3. Stronger Due Diligence: PE sponsors generally perform extensive due diligence before making an investment. This thorough vetting process results in higher-quality borrowers, as only companies with robust business models and growth potential are likely to receive sponsor backing. 4. Access to Resources: PE-backed companies often have better access to resources such as management expertise, operational enhancements, and additional funding. This can help them weather economic downturns or market challenges more effectively than non-sponsored companies. 5. Proactive Governance: PE sponsors usually enforce stricter governance and financial controls in the companies they back. This oversight can help ensure better financial discipline and faster response to problems, thus reducing the likelihood of default. 6. Reputational Risk for Sponsors: Private equity firms are highly concerned with maintaining their reputation in the marketplace. A default in one of their portfolio companies can tarnish their standing with investors and lenders, which can affect future deal-making. As a result, they are more likely to intervene to prevent defaults.   Middle Market lenders have "edge,” wider spreads with strong covenant protection. Private Credit wins over Broadly Syndicated Loans and High Yield Bonds (lower default rates, higher returns) year after year.

Venture capital is full of noise - narratives, anecdotes, and opinions. Over the past few years, I’ve worked to cut through that by doubling down on data: dissecting the structural traits of this asset class, from illiquidity and vintage diversification to the nuances of fund math. As an LP, digging into private and public datasets has given me a sharper view of how allocation decisions are made - and revealed how little of this analysis is shared for other GPs and LPs to learn from. That’s why I’ll be sharing these insights more consistently through "𝐒𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐍𝐨𝐢𝐬𝐞" - my data-driven lens on how LPs approach venture allocation, with a focus on uncovering the insights hidden in the data. Whether zooming in on Canadian venture or zooming out to global trends, my aim is to provide frameworks that GPs and LPs can apply to their own decision-making. So where to start? First post below 👇 𝐏𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝟏 – 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐝𝐨 𝐬𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐫 𝐕𝐂 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐆𝐏–𝐋𝐏 𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭? 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 - 𝐢𝐭’𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜𝐬. In venture, we’ve all heard that “small funds outperform.” That deserves its own deep dive (coming later 👀), but the real strength of smaller funds often gets overlooked: 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐆𝐏𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐋𝐏𝐬. With smaller funds, there’s only one path to wealth creation - carried interest. And that’s where alignment is sharpest. My analysis makes this clear. Looking across six real funds with different sizes and partner counts, I calculated the Net TVPI needed for each partner to generate $50M: • Fund A ($1.2B, 8 partners) → 𝟏.𝟓𝐱 Net TVPI • Fund F ($15M, 1 partner) → 𝟏𝟑.𝟓𝐱 Net TVPI - 𝟗𝐱 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐫! This shows why smaller-fund GPs must chase outlier outcomes and bring a level of grit and hustle often absent at larger platforms. Even more telling is comp mix. For Fund A, 60% of the $50M comes from fees - guaranteed regardless of performance. For Fund F, 95% is entirely variable, fully tied to carry. And that’s the key. 𝐋𝐏𝐬 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭 - and in smaller funds, that’s exactly where GPs focus. 𝐒𝐨, 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐊𝐞𝐲 𝐓𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬? 𝟏. 𝐑𝐮𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐍𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐬: LPs should model net fund performance needed for each partner to earn $10–50M. Low hurdles from large funds or oversized partnerships weaken incentives. 𝟐. 𝐁𝐢𝐠 𝐅𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐬 = 𝐁𝐢𝐠 𝐅𝐞𝐞𝐬, 𝐒𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐅𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐬 = 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐞 𝐀𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭: Large funds rely on fees, insulating partners from performance. In smaller funds, carry dominates — creating sharper GP–LP alignment. 𝟑. 𝐂𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐎𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐏𝐚𝐭𝐡: In small funds, GPs earn meaningful wealth only through carry — the same source of returns for LPs. This is just the start of Signals in the Noise 🤓

There are 6 characteristics VCs look for in Limited Partners (LPs) 🖐️☝️ Not any LP is a good LP. Fundraising is one of the most difficult obstacles New Managers will overcome to become operational. Closing a fund, in other words, meeting the target fund size in commitments, often requires managers to pitch to hundreds, if not thousands, of LPs. In many cases, the amount of "NOs" they will hear can feel overwhelming. It may begin to seem like any LP is a good LP. However, this is a dangerous mindset for a new manager to adopt. VCs sign up every committed LP as a 10-year customer, in some cases, even longer. The success and failure of the fund is tied to the LPs in many ways. So, it is SO important for VCs to find the right LPs. Here is what this means. The right LPs are: 1️⃣ MISSION ALIGNED: While they care about the returns, they fully align and believe in the fund's thesis. 2️⃣ ACTIVE: They are easy to reach, engage with the fund's progress, attend events, and help out where they can. 3️⃣ NOT OVERBEARING: LPs who demand a lot of the managers' time and question everything can distract managers. 4️⃣ PATIENT: They understand that VC is a long-term play and returns typically require 10 years if not more to be realized. 5️⃣ DIVERSE: they come from diverse backgrounds, so can bring fresh perspectives and networks to help the managers. 6️⃣ COMPLIANT: they need to be able to pass KYC (Know Your Customer) and AML (Anti-Money Laundering) checks, have the financial ability to meet capital commitments, and not present any conflict of interest. 

𝙃𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙝𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙙 𝙤𝙛 𝙁𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙧/𝙁𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙧 𝙁𝙞𝙩? 👇🏽 I spent the weekend reflecting on my own experience, first working with investors as a founder and now engaging with founders as an investor. Hopefully, these thoughts will help you do due diligence on your potential investors. Choosing investors is as important as choosing your co-founders. In the early stages, you’ll be spending a lot of time with them, so you need an ally. Founder–funder disputes are common, but divorce is painful in startups. Never prioritise money; always aim for partnership, conviction, and alignment. Here’s a framework I follow when we invest: 𝙄𝙣𝙫𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙋𝙝𝙞𝙡𝙤𝙨𝙤𝙥𝙝𝙮 Understand how the investor defines success and where your company fits within their strategy. This shows whether they’re patient capital or chasing quick returns, and how much conviction they’ll have when things get tough. It’s about seeing if your long-term view aligns with theirs. 𝘿𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣-𝙈𝙖𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙋𝙧𝙤𝙘𝙚𝙨𝙨 You need clarity on how decisions are made, by whom, and how fast. Some funds have deep investment committees, others move on instinct. Knowing this helps you plan your fundraising timeline and avoid surprises. 𝙋𝙤𝙨𝙩-𝙄𝙣𝙫𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙄𝙣𝙫𝙤𝙡𝙫𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 Money is easy; partnership isn’t. You need to know whether they’ll be active mentors, passive supporters, or micromanagers. Their level of involvement should match what you actually want, not what they assume you need. 𝙁𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙧 𝙍𝙚𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙝𝙞𝙥𝙨 How investors behave during hard times matters more than when things go well. Ask questions that reveal how they handle conflict, underperformance, or pivots. It shows whether they treat founders as partners or portfolio assets. 𝘾𝙖𝙥𝙞𝙩𝙖𝙡 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙎𝙞𝙜𝙣𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙜 Follow-on strategy and signalling risk can make or break future rounds. Understand how much they can or will support you if things go sideways or skyrocket, and how they behave when they choose not to reinvest. 𝘼𝙡𝙞𝙜𝙣𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙑𝙞𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣 You’re not looking for validation; you’re checking whether they truly understand what you’re building and why it matters. Alignment ensures they’ll have conviction through market cycles and won’t push you towards short-term outcomes. 𝙏𝙧𝙖𝙣𝙨𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙮 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝘾𝙪𝙡𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙚 Strong relationships rely on clear communication. Learn their preferred style, whether structured updates or informal check-ins, and how they react to bad news. Set expectations early for honesty on both sides. 𝙍𝙚𝙥𝙪𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙁𝙞𝙩 Every investor has a reputation among founders and other VCs. Do your backchannel checks. How they handle board tension, layoffs, or exits reveals their true character. You’re assessing fit as much as credibility. I hope this is helpful. If you have any questions or clarifications, comment below. #gew #investors #founders

Ever seen a rightsholder publicly show what their sponsorship achieved? Neither had I until I landed on Fnatic’s website. A week ago, while building my esports post, I came across their site and instead of the usual sponsor logos or partner links, they show case studies. Take BMW’s “United in Rivalry” campaign, for example: a 39% lift in awareness, 84% boost in brand perception, and it even became the No.1 reason fans chose BMW as their preferred car. 🚙 Now that’s refreshing transparency. It struck me because you don’t usually see football clubs, golf tournaments, or racing teams doing this, yet an esports team has been doing it for years. Those ROI numbers usually live deep inside sales decks or post-campaign PDFs that never see the light of day. 🧑🏻💻 That thought came back to me last week while I was sitting at Sid Lee Sport’s office, listening to the Unofficial Partner Podcast recording with GSIQ – as Charlie Dundas, Rory Natkiel, and Rebecca Martin discussed the need for an effectiveness revolution in sponsorship. The panel didn’t mince words: sponsorship has an evidence problem. 📌 Compared to advertising, there’s still a lack of rigorous proof, shared benchmarks, or consistent ROI models. But that’s starting to change. They spoke about Barclays’ model on how they don’t just look at “brand love,” but also measure commercial uplift, customer profitability, and community impact. 🏦 They discussed econometric modeling – a fancy term, yes, but one that’s helping brands finally quantify sponsorship’s role alongside TV, digital, and retail media. Hearing that conversation in person felt like a full-circle moment because what Fnatic is doing – showing tangible, public-facing results – is exactly where the industry should be headed. 🎮 This new era of sponsorship will be defined by transparency, where rightsholders don’t just sell space, they sell proof. At Luscid, that’s something we strongly believe in too, as every day we're helping brands see what potential reach and engagement could look like before they invest, giving them the data to make informed, confident decisions. Because the more trust brands have in the numbers, the more they’ll invest and the more they invest, the smarter and more sustainable this industry becomes. #sportsmarketing #sportssponsorship #sportsbiz

The FIFA World Cup is a reminder that great sponsorships don’t just buy attention, they can create measurable commercial momentum. The latest YouGov BrandIndex data shows that "sponsor-linked brands" are winning on the metrics that matter most for demand generation: awareness, buzz and more importantly, consideration(2x), as those brands were ranked using an Ad Impact Score (AIS)*. The Coca-Cola Company, Doritos, Cheetos (PepsiCo), Pringles (Mars Snacking, Mars) and Gap Kids (Gap, Gap Inc.) are all seeing meaningful uplift among U.S. World Cup fans, proving that when a brand shows up in the right cultural moment, it can move beyond visibility and into real consumer intent. What stands out to me is not just the media reach, but the commercial opportunity behind it. For consumer brands, the question is no longer: “Did people see it?” It’s: “Did it change behavior?” That’s where Integrated Commerce becomes imperative. The most effective media strategies today are the ones that connect the full journey, from fandom and consideration, to foot traffic, retailer demand, and store sales. Whether through geo-targeted activation, commerce-linked audience planning, or store-level measurement, the goal is the same: turn media investment into measurable business outcomes. In categories like snacking and beverages, this is especially powerful. A winning sports moment should translate into: - more store visits - stronger shelf demand - higher sales lift - clearer ROI on media spend The brands that win in moments like this are the ones that don’t stop at buzz. They build systems that convert excitement into commercial growth. That’s the future of media: less about impressions, more about impact. *Brands were ranked using an Ad Impact Score, calculated as: Ad Awareness change + Buzz change + (Consideration change x 2) Data source: YouGov #IntegratedCommerce #CommerceMarketing #RetailMedia #MediaMeasurement #FIFAWorldCup #ConsumerBrands #Footfall #StoreSales

𝐘𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘨𝘺. The best deal I ever structured was not the cheapest capital. It was the partner who understood the asset well enough to stay calm when the timeline slipped. Conventional strategy treats financing as a downstream activity, something you arrange after the plan is set. The operators I respect most invert that. They choose capital partners the way they choose acquisitions: for fit with the underlying economics, for behavior under stress, and for what the relationship makes possible in year three. In contingency fee litigation the point is sharper. Case outcomes are lumpy and the duration is long. A lender who prices only the rate and not the pattern will call the wrong shot at the wrong moment. A lender who underwrites the portfolio the way we do becomes a source of strategic patience, and patience is the scarcest input in this business. Across $8.1 billion in transaction value, the partnerships that compounded were the ones where both sides understood the same model. 𝐀𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐲. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦 𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐞𝐭 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐬 𝐢𝐭.

Nonprofits have a fundraising problem. Not because donors aren't generous. They are. But relying entirely on philanthropy means your mission lives and dies by someone else's budget cycle. When we founded Bright Saver, we made a deliberate choice: build earned revenue into the model from day one. Not to replace philanthropy. To complement it. Here's how we think about it. Philanthropic dollars fund innovation. New programs. R&D. The risky bets that earned revenue can't justify yet. Earned revenue powers the core mission sustainably. For us, that's advocacy, community deployment, and decarbonization work. The work that has to keep going regardless of grant cycles. Right now we're running pilot programs with plug-in solar and battery manufacturers, helping them navigate supply chains, US certifications, safety standards, and a regulatory landscape that's fundamentally different from Europe. Millions of plug-in solar systems are already installed across Germany, Austria, and the Netherlands. The technology is proven. But bringing it to the US requires a different playbook. That's where the nonprofit model becomes an advantage. There isn't a market for plug-in solar in the US yet. We're not trying to maximize margin on hardware. We're trying to open up a market that unites clean, abundant energy with real affordability. We write model legislation. We work with 29 state legislatures. We deploy systems in underserved communities through utility and government partnerships. The pilots generate revenue that keeps all of that moving. We're not fully sustainable yet. We have more work to do. But we built this into the foundation of Bright Saver from day one, not waiting until we were forced to figure it out. Foundations and philanthropists who back us aren't subsidizing the core of our impact. They're funding the innovation layer. New programs in new states. Low income pilots in communities like Stockton. Policy work that opens the door for an entire industry. Thanks again to generous catalytic donors who make this work possible such as Natalie Gordon Lintilhac Foundation Alejandro Foung Lisa Guerra Phillip Hyun and Green Park Foundation. The earned revenue and the philanthropy aren't in tension. They compound each other. One builds the floor. The other raises the ceiling. I used to think nonprofits and revenue were fundamentally at odds. Building Bright Saver changed how I see it. The model works when you let each dollar do what it does best. Philanthropy takes the risks. Earned revenue holds the line. Curious if other founders or nonprofit leaders are experimenting with this. What's working?

What happens when you take proprietary NBA sponsorship SPND data, map every team’s partner roster, layer in every asset delivered to every sponsor, and then ask your AI platform to test the “less is more” theory? You get a much more nuanced answer than expected. In sponsorship, there’s a common belief that fewer partners + deeper activation = stronger revenue outcomes and intuitively, that makes sense. A tighter roster should mean more focus, more strategic partnerships, better execution, and higher-value deals. But when we looked across all 30 NBA teams using SponsorUnited’s sponsorship revenue estimates, partner counts, and asset-delivery data, the picture became more interesting. A few things stand out: - Activation depth alone is not enough. Some teams deliver a high number of assets per sponsor, but that does not automatically translate into outsized revenue. - Partner breadth alone is not enough either. A larger roster of sponsors does not necessarily mean a larger sponsorship business. In fact, the real signal is deal value and the strategic value delivered for that investment. The highest-performing teams are the ones that command more revenue per partner, and that's where many other factors come into play: Exclusivity, IP, the type of asset(s) delivered, not just the volume, market competitive factors, product and content factors and ultimately, do they truly deliver measurable outcomes that the brand cares about. The better question is not if one should have fewer partners or more partners,, it's are you maximizing the value of each partnership relative to our market, assets, audience, performance, and brand equity? This is where I think AI changes the game. For years, this type of analysis required manual data pulls, custom modeling, and a lot of interpretation. Now, we can point AI at proprietary sponsorship spend, asset, partner, and market data to isolate what is actually driving revenue and outcomes and where a team may be underpricing, overextending, or missing white space. This is the future of sponsorship intelligence and I'm so glad we're in the middle of building this. Oh, and this chart was literally coded and built within the SponsorUnited platform in real time. 😁 #sportsbusiness #sponsorship #sportsmarketing #AI #NBA #SponsorUnited National Basketball Association (NBA) #SPND