What You’ll Find This Week

I read a compelling post by Ibrahim Bashir the other day that got me thinking about how we make bets on product and innovation. He defined the swim lanes as Increment, Evolve, or Invent. And then goes on to point out that invention is what we strive for and yet we rarely find the opportunity to pursue.

This week, I’m breaking down the Increment/Evolve/Invent conundrum to arm you with the tools necessary to advocate for invention within an org that’s more comfortable incrementing.

Here’s what you’ll find:

Don’t Miss Our Latest Podcast

This Week’s Article

Corporate innovation isn’t a single job. It’s four motions that people lump together, then discuss like they’re all one thing:

Most people already have language for the first three. They know what it means to build, test, and invest.

The fourth is where things get messy, especially when the capability you’re adopting is built by a startup. Teams default to vague verbs like “partner” or “run a pilot” without being clear on what they mean.

What they mean is Venture Clienting.

It’s what you do in the adopt lane when you don’t want to build it and you don’t need to own it. You just need to adopt it.

So it’s not a startup program. It’s not co-building. It’s not investing with extra steps. It’s a customer motion. You pay for a pilot, you set the terms for adoption up front, and you make a scale-or-stop decision fast.

Venture Clienting forces one question early, before months get wasted:
If “buy” beats “build,” can this business actually adopt this startup?

Venture clienting is a buy-side motion for corporate innovation.

It’s when a business unit becomes a paying customer of a startup to adopt an existing product or capability, usually starting with a paid pilot (and without any discussion about taking equity).

The paid part matters because it forces commitment. Someone has to put budget behind the work, assign an owner, and treat the pilot like the first step toward adoption, not a high-school science project. Paid = skin in the game.

The no-equity part matters because it keeps the relationship clean. You’re not buying optionality or access. You’re buying a specific outcome.

Venture Clienting isn’t co-building. It’s not a demo day. It’s not CVC.

It’s what you use when the experiments point to “don’t build this,” and the startup already has what you need.

If venture clienting sounds like “being a customer,” that’s because it is. The reason it earns a distinct name is that most companies aren’t set up to be a customer to a startup.

Normal procurement is built for stable vendors. Known security posture. Long track record. Low variance.

Startups are the opposite. They move fast, their product is still evolving, and most can’t survive an onboarding cycle that takes nine months before the first check exchanges hands.

So Venture Clienting is a label for a specific kind of buying: buying for strategic advantage, with managed risk, at a speed that makes adoption possible.

It’s procurement plus an innovation operating model. Not because procurement is bad, but because the default procurement machine is optimized to prevent surprises, and Venture Clienting is explicitly choosing to accept a little surprise or risk in exchange for speed.

Venture Clienting is a strategy choice before it’s a process. It’s what you reach for when three things are true at the same time:

Use the market as your R&D bench. Pay for outcomes. Learn by adoption. It also comes with a trade. You’re swapping the risks of building for the risks of adopting a startup: maturity, security posture, integration effort, and roadmap volatility. Venture clienting works when you’re honest about that trade and design for it.

Venture clienting fits inside Adopt. It’s what adoption looks like when the provider is a startup and speed matters.

With that context, the operating model is there to prevent one specific failure mode: the startup gets stuck in “interesting” land because nobody is willing to design a real adoption decision.

A good venture client approach protects three things.

Speed. Your cycle time can’t be longer than the opportunity.
Focus. The pilot has to test adoption, not entertain stakeholders.
Decision. The work has to end in scale or stop, not limbo.

You don’t need a 12-step playbook. You need a few non-negotiables that make adoption possible.

First, there has to be a business owner and a metric. If nobody owns the outcome, the pilot becomes a field trip.

Second, the pilot has to be paid. Not as charity, but as commitment. Payment forces budget, ownership, and a real internal customer.

Third, you set the scale decision before the pilot starts. Define what success means, when the decision happens, and what “scale” actually means if it works.

Venture clienting fails in three predictable places.

First, the startup gets shoved through the same vendor process you use for a tier-one supplier. The timeline explodes and the startup’s runway becomes the constraint.

Second, expectations drift. What started as “we’ll test the product” turns into bespoke deliverables, custom integrations, and one-off compliance work the startup never planned for. The corporate thinks it’s normal iteration. The startup is quietly refactoring its roadmap around one customer.

Third, the pilot ends without a conversion path. Nobody wants to kill it, but nobody can scale it. So it sits.

A real venture client model prevents all three by designing for speed, scope, and a scale decision up front, not hoping they magically appear later.

Good Venture Clienting feels…boring. (And that’s a good thing.)

There’s a clear owner. There’s paid pilot scope. There are success criteria a business leader cares about. There’s a decision date. And there’s a real plan for rollout if the pilot hits.

Venture Clienting is for teams that are tired of confusing “we met a startup” with “we changed the business.” Not every innovation group needs it. But if your job includes the buy side of build vs buy, it’s one of the cleanest tools you can put on the table.

Venture clienting fits when the business has a real problem and the fastest path to capability is adoption, not an internal build.

You’ll know you’re in the right zone if all of this is true:

You’ll know you’re in the wrong zone when the effort is really about learning, signaling, or relationship building. That’s fine. Just call it what it is. Run discovery. Run a lightweight pilot. Don’t pretend it’s an adoption motion.

For founders, venture clienting is attractive for the obvious reasons. You get paid, you get a real use case, and you get a credible customer story.

But it only works when the customer is actually set up to be a customer.

A venture client is not “a big company that likes you.” It’s a big company that can do three things without stalling out:

If any of those are missing, the startup is walking into pilot purgatory. That can be worse than a quick no.

A lot of corporate innovation playbooks look similar from the outside. Startups show up. Logos go on slides. People say “strategic.”

The difference is intent. What are you trying to get?

If you need control, you build.
If you want optionality, you invest.
If you need capability in production, you adopt.

And if you’re not even sure yet, you’re in experiment territory. That’s where discovery, prototypes, and pilots belong. Their job is to help you pick one of the moves above.

Build is the control move. You’re creating the capability yourself because it’s core to your advantage, you need tighter integration, or you can’t rely on an external roadmap.

Success looks like shipping and owning the asset. Not “great pilot results.” A real product, a new venture, or a new internal capability that’s maintained.

Invest is the optionality move. You’re paying for exposure to upside, market learning, and a seat closer to what’s emerging.

CVC can be a win even if nothing gets adopted. That’s not a moral statement. It’s just how the math works.

This is the most common version of adopt. Co-selling, channel access, integrations, alliances, supplier deals. It’s about leverage and time to market.

Partnerships can create adoption, but they also can stay abstract for a long time because nobody has to buy and implement on day one.

Venture Clienting is the adopt move when the provider is a startup. You’re not paying for optionality. You’re paying to get a capability into the business.

That’s why it needs its own label. It signals a different posture than standard procurement and a different intent than a generic “partnership.” Managed risk, faster cycle time, and a pilot designed to end in a scale-or-stop decision.

Experiment is what you do when you’re not ready to commit to any of the moves above. It’s how you reduce uncertainty before you decide to build, invest, partner, or venture client.

Success looks like a decision. You learned enough to pick a lane.

Venture clienting isn’t a free lunch. It’s a trade. You’re swapping the risk of building for the risk of adopting a startup. If you don’t name that trade, you’ll get frustrated on both sides.

Speed to capability. You can get something into a real environment faster than an internal build, especially when the capability already exists and the need is urgent.

Cleaner incentives than “innovation programs.” When money changes hands, someone has to own the work. Budget, accountability, and success metrics show up earlier.

Strategic leverage without ownership. You can shape how the solution fits your environment through real usage and feedback, without turning it into an equity relationship.

Learning that actually transfers. You don’t learn in a demo. You learn when the tool hits real data, real workflows, and real users.

Vendor-machine drag. If the startup gets treated like a tier-one supplier, the cycle time blows up and the whole point disappears.

Roadmap mismatch. Startups ship what scales in their market. Corporates want what fits their exact edge cases. If you let expectations drift into bespoke work, you’ll either break the startup or end up with a fragile one-off.

Integration and operational load. The product might be ready, but your environment might not be. Identity, data access, security reviews, and change management still have to happen.

False confidence from a pilot. A pilot can prove the tool works in a narrow lane and still fail at rollout. Venture clienting only works when the scale path is real.

Non-dilutive capital. Revenue funds the business without giving up equity.

A real customer story. A paid pilot and a real environment can turn into proof, learning, and a reference that travels.

Product signal. Hard customers surface real constraints fast. That can improve the product for the whole market.

Scope creep disguised as “iteration.” Corporates can treat deliverables as infinitely flexible. That turns into unpaid roadmap hijack unless you lock scope and outcomes.

Slow decisions that burn runway. A long contracting cycle or a pilot with no conversion decision can be worse than losing the deal.

Hidden compliance work. Security and legal demands can force changes that don’t help your broader product. If you’re not careful, you end up building for one customer.

Venture clienting isn’t magic. It’s clarity.

It’s the moment a team stops hiding behind vague “partnership” language and vague verbs and makes an explicit choice: we’re going to adopt this startup capability, on purpose, with a real owner, real money, and a real decision.

If your company can’t do that, you don’t have a venture client motion. You have startup tourism. Lots of intros. Lots of pilots. No change in the business.

So the takeaway isn’t “everyone should do venture clienting.” It’s this:

When buy beats build, name the move. Then design for the three things that make adoption possible: speed, scope, and a scale-or-stop decision.

That’s how “we met a startup” turns into “we shipped a capability.”