Interview with Eric Schmid, Director of Venture Growth at Bluemorrow.
As innovation pressure increases, more companies are moving beyond incremental product development, and into the world of venture building. However, while the concept is gaining traction, few know how to make it work. Corporations often struggle to move fast, attract entrepreneurial talent, or generate returns that match expectations.To unpack what separates success from failure, we spoke with Eric Schmid, tech entrepreneur, and venture builder, who has founded and scaled dozens of ventures over three decades in both Silicon Valley and Europe, including CATS Software, Spontacts, Frontify, Wealtharc, and eMotion and built new businesses in fintech, communications, e-commerce, food and beverages, digital media, and social discovery.
In this interview, you will read about:
- The evolution of venture building inside corporations.
- Common pitfalls in corporate venture building
- Speed vs Structure and how to find the right balance between them.
- Funding and exits: doing venture building with intent
- What’s next for venture building?
- Eric's final take
How has venture building evolved over the past two decades?
Eric Schmid: Having spent two decades in Silicon Valley, Venture building has evolved a lot over the past two decades. In the early 2000s, it was mainly driven by founders and VCs, corporates were mostly on the sidelines, doing M&A or passive investing. In the 2010s, we saw the rise of accelerators like Y Combinator, and some corporations began experimenting with building ventures themselves. Now in the 2020s, venture building has matured: there are clear playbooks, dedicated teams, stage-gated funding, and measurable KPIs. Even traditional VCs are adopting studio-like models, like Andreessen Horowitz with in-house build teams.
.webp?width=1280&height=365&name=VentureBuildingBlog_1%20(1).webp)
Why do so many ventures built by corporations fail to scale or generate returns?
Eric Schmid: The most common mistake is treating a venture like a traditional product launch. It’s like comparing Coke launching Cherry Coke to buying Vitaminwater, those are different beasts. You can’t evaluate a new venture using the same KPIs. Other big mistakes include assigning corporate managers who don’t have an entrepreneurial background, setting short-term financial expectations that stifle risk-taking, and misaligning with the corporate strategy, which leads to unclear goals and lost momentum.
.webp?width=1280&height=398&name=VentureBuildingBlog_2%20(1).webp)
Startups thrive on speed. Corporates rely on structure. Can you have both?
Eric Schmid: I believe the answer lies in having a clear direction. When everyone is aligned on the long-term strategy like, for example, "the future is electric mobility" venture teams can move quickly without having to wait for constant approvals. Venture building needs a balance of structured ambition: enough structure to protect resources and maintain governance, but also enough ambition to move fast, like a startup. It’s that mix that drives success.
.webp?width=1280&height=487&name=VentureBuildingBlog_3%20(2).webp)
How should companies fund ventures, and when should they exit?
Eric Schmid: I suggest taking a hybrid approach: start with internal capital to validate the idea, but the key is to define the exit path early on. You need to ask: Is the venture meant to integrate into the core business? Should it be spun off? Or is it aimed at scaling toward an IPO? Having that clarity from the start makes a huge difference. As I’ve said before, when everyone knows the goal, it helps avoid internal confusion and misaligned incentives, which can be a major roadblock.
With AI, sustainability, and new capital models rising, what’s the future of venture building?
Eric Schmid: In today’s landscape, we’re seeing a shift away from "innovation theater" and toward using innovation as a serious driver for long-term growth. The focus is no longer just on launching new ventures but on scaling the winners. We’re moving to a model that combines the stability of corporate guardrails with the agility and freedom of startups. In the next wave, ventures won’t just be using AI, they’ll be built around it. Successful corporate ventures will also start partnering more with startups, VCs, universities, and accelerators, embracing “Ecosystem Thinking” to speed up value creation. What’s exciting is that corporate ventures are now thinking more like startups, planning for exits, whether that’s through spin-outs, carve-outs, or M&A, which will help accelerate their growth and impact.
.webp?width=1280&height=443&name=VentureBuildingBlog_4%20(1).webp)
What is your final take on the topic?
Eric Schmid: Venture building only works when the new venture gets what it truly needs to thrive. That means real sponsorship, true autonomy, and the freedom to move at startup speed. When ventures are set up this way and can tap into corporate assets like customers, complementary products, and services can accelerate fast and leap ahead of regular startups.
What sets us apart is how deeply we integrate strategic foresight into venture building. While others focus mainly on execution, we start with a clear, evidence-based view of where the world is heading. Our foresight team tracks emerging trends and long-term shifts, so we’re building ventures that are not just reactive, but future-fit. Clients gain higher-quality opportunities, stronger alignment with a long-term strategy, and ventures built to last, not just launch.
If you're looking to build new businesses, our teams have a proven track record of building ventures in banking, insuretech, manufacturing, sustainability, and more.
