The VC Guide To Livestreaming (Without Becoming A Streamer)

Everyone in tech media has been talking about livestreaming.

Since TBPN was acquired by OpenAI, a16z launched MTS, and X announced it will 10x livestream monetisation, Investors, media companies, and CEOs are piling in.

The discourse around live content has reached a level of excitement that almost guarantees most of the people talking about it have never actually done it.

One of the things I’ve been increasingly conscious of, working in VC, is how few people in this space have built media assets outside of it. A lot of the advice being given about live reflects that gap.

I’ve been conscious of it in myself too, which is part of why, outside of Refinery, I’ve spent the last year also building one of the UK’s largest sports collectibles media properties. Doing that has meant building live content as a product, not just talking about it as strategy.

So, with those learnings in mind, and looking at the current chatter around live in the venture space - should VCs be doing this?

The short version is: not in the way most people are imagining, but there are specific applications that create real advantages. And the window on some of them is still open.

Why Live Content is Different

Live content is having a moment for a specific reason. The default operating mode for most internet audiences has shifted from trust to distrust.

Live counters it structurally. There is no edit bay between you and the viewer. Now that polished, produced content is infinitely replicable, the unscripted moment is disproportionately valuable and livestreaming is the antidote to "Corporate-Speak."

But for VCs specifically, it is worth thinking about live less as a format and more as a philosophy.

What this means for a VC

The two core principles of live streaming hold significant lessons for your VC content.

1. Breadth Play

TBPN is the hot example of this. The model is (was?) not about building a devoted live audience, but a content farming operation.

• The old model = spend ten hours scripting and editing one perfect video.

• The new model = go live for 4 hours and capture what happens. The live chat acts as a real-time focus group, then walk away with 20 clips pre-validated by a live audience.

This shifts from creating content to capturing it, which produces clips that seed across X, TikTok, YouTube etc. - producing broad awareness at a volume that traditional production cannot match.

But this principle is not LIVE only… The “Podcast into posts” pipeline is now a standard way that news and entertainment gets prospected and packaged, and something you can see a16z taking seriously - as a leading indicator of not only where VC media is going, but more generally, “who is influential, and why.”

For some firms, this is a legitimate goal. If you just want MORE people to know who you are, the relationships you have, and what you are doing.

2. Depth Play

This is about community, participation, and retention, and very few funds are doing anything here.

Live creates shared moments that recorded content cannot - watching something at the same time, having your question answered in real time, interacting in a way unique to streaming. That shared experience is the raw material for community, and when AI can produce infinite content, community is one of the few things that cannot be replicated. Distribution is not a defensible moat long term. Retention is, and the depth play is how you stop having to find new people all the time.

These two things are not the same. Both are legitimate goals. But they require different commitments, different formats, and different measures of success.

Here is where I would pump the brakes slightly…

VCs are not streamers. The commitment required to do live well - a consistent schedule, a personality on camera, willingness to be unscripted and wrong in public - is significant. The downside of doing it badly is visible in a way that mediocre blogs aren’t.

Live also tends to work better for those who already have some distribution. TBPN embedded with tech Twitter and used other people's audiences (the guests) brought the reach, Jason Calacanis had a decade of This Week in Startups before LAUNCH's live demo days. Even newer VC streamers like Brycent (Vesting TV) had a substantial following from crypto/gaming startup content before.

Live deepened existing relationships more than it created new ones from scratch. The two routes around that constraint are borrowing other people's audiences - well-known guests, partnerships with existing creators - or going deep enough in a specific niche that you become the definitive destination for a small but highly engaged community. Both work. Both require a different kind of commitment.

The Pitch VC Fund is instructive as a contrast.

Josh Muccio started The Pitch Show as a corrective to what he saw as Shark Tank spreading misinformation about how VC actually works - the fake drama, the unrealistic terms. He wanted to show how deals really get done. The show is not technically live: it records in-person, edits heavily, and the uncut versions sit behind a Patreon.

But the underlying commitment is the same as the best live content —> show the real thing, unscripted, with genuine stakes.

What makes it worth examining here is what that commitment produced downstream. Josh realised the long form show functions as middle of funnel, not top. It is a relationship-deepening tool for people who already know it - he uses clips, newsletters and network swaps to bring new people in, but the show does the nurturing.

Over time, that depth of trust allowed him to raise $6.3 million for a fund I primarily from listeners. The media property created community, the community provided the capital.

That is the depth play at its compounding end - not technically live, but built on the same philosophy.

What is worth doing

React to a moment while it is alive.

The most accessible live application for a VC is genuine real-time reaction to something significant in the sector. FOV Ventures did this effectively when Apple Vision Pro launched - teaming up with other VC firms to go live and answer Qs about what it meant for startups/investors in their space. You can repurpose these moments into clips, write-ups, newsletters. But the live moment is what earns the relevance.

Relationships with streamers vs building your own show.

This is probably the most underused angle in venture. Getting on TBPN is now hard. ETN - the European equivalent - is already assembling a high-quality guest roster. Offline, India's equivalent, is doing the same. These shows have distribution you do not have. If you have a portfolio company doing something interesting, or a thesis that connects to what a streamer's audience cares about, there is a real return to building those relationships early.

Smaller shows might be easier to access - Brycent's Vesting TV is doing live startup content. Bill on Base is doing late-night AI builder streams. Viraj in the UK is building a streaming presence.

Getting onto these shows costs you a conversation. Building a relationship with a streamer who covers your space - providing them access to portfolio companies, being a useful source - is content leverage without content production overhead… and is likely the PR playbook of the future.

Live from events you are already running.

If your fund runs portfolio days, founder dinners, or sector events, going live from them costs almost nothing in marginal effort and multiplies reach significantly. The people who could not attend still get the content. The people who did attend share it. Robinhood Ventures livestreamed a fund roadshow for their new vehicle - partly aligned with their democratisation thesis, partly just smart use of a moment they were already creating. The stream is the difference between that event reaching fifty people in the room and 1000s online.

Similarly, Seb Johnson, the UK creator, has been brought into DMG Ventures’ Onstage events, and distributing and repurposing here seems effective.

Community moments that makes the audience participants.

Funds already run office hours, portfolio sessions, and founder Q&As - they just rarely think about them as content. Going live for these is a small step that creates disproportionate returns. Ole Lehmann, a builder on X who helps non-technical people navigate AI, ran a Q&A recently that was straightforward in format and useful in execution - one person, a camera, an audience with real questions, answered in real time. A VC running the equivalent would produce the same thing.

This is probably the most accessible live format for a fund. It does not require a production, brand or a consistent commitment. It requires showing up occasionally with something useful to say and an audience willing to ask questions. For funds already running founder support sessions, portfolio calls, or community events, the marginal cost of going live is close to zero. The return - content, positioning as accessible, and the relationships that comes from answering real questions in public - is not.

Even a modest live audience produces disproportionate value if the reuse is deliberate.

A one-hour live stream produces: a full recording, a series of clips, a transcript, a newsletter section, pull quotes for LinkedIn and X. The stream is a content production session that happens to be live.

But caveat… for something to generate clips that travel organically, the source material has to be compelling. You can seed clips and create the appearance of momentum, but if the underlying content is boring, it goes nowhere.

Whether To Even Bother

Almost a year ago I noted that live content was a blue ocean in venture.

The TBPN acquisition hype and the MTS launch have made it slightly less of one - more people are paying attention.

But the actual execution gap between "talking about livestreaming" and "doing it consistently and well" remains enormous, which means the opportunity is still real for funds willing to go further than a tweet about it.

The funds that will benefit from live over the next few years will pick one specific use case - a monthly reactive stream on something happening in their sector, a relationship with a streamer who covers their space, a live component to an event they are already running - and do it consistently.

You don’t need to become an aspirational streamer to use it surgically. But it is absolutely worth understanding the principles of Live content, and its value, especially as AI content will continue to swell.

Laurie, Refinery Media

If you made it all the way through, thanks so much for reading! Several hundred VCs now open this every week. If it’s helped you think differently about marketing, Venture, or storytelling, please send it to someone in your orbit.

If you enjoyed this, read more from our top posts:

• Content That Improves Dealflow

• Founder-First is Not a Content Strategy

• The Future of VC Marketing is Interactive