How Investment Managers Should Think About Naming

The Truth About Logos

In investment management and private equity, logos are like names: places where clients tend to get overly fixated.

They’re emotionally charged artifacts — small enough for everyone to have an opinion, subjective enough for no one to be objectively right. We’ve seen entire brand-development projects stall for months because partners can’t agree on the exact line weight of a serif or whether the icon looks more dignified in navy or charcoal.

And yet, a logo is never what defines a firm. It’s an emblem, not an identity. It carries meaning only through the quality of the broader brand and the reputation built behind it.

Still, there are ways to get logos right — and more often, ways to avoid getting them wrong.

‍

What a Logo Should (and Shouldn’t) Be

Within private equity and investment management, the visual bar is high. You’re selling trust, judgment, and long-term stewardship, not consumer products. A logo’s job is to support those associations quietly — not to draw attention to itself.

At the highest level, a good logo just needs to be quality work. In practice, that means:

• It’s well-crafted and consistent with the rest of your brand system.
  
• It has some degree of meaning, even if that meaning is oblique or abstract.
  
• It’s versatile — scalable, legible, and functional across every medium.

You don’t want a logo icon so intricate that it falls apart when reduced to a small size, or so horizontally long that it can’t fit gracefully on conference signage, a presentation cover, or a LinkedIn avatar. You also don’t want a logo that only works when every word of your firm’s name is spelled out.

The goal isn’t brilliance — it’s utility, elegance, and alignment.

The “Mailbox Before the House” Problem

Perhaps the biggest misstep we see — thankfully less often now — is the firm that says, “We’ve already got a logo, now we’re ready for a website.”

That’s like going to an architect and saying, “We’ve purchased a mailbox, and we’d like to design a house around it.”

It makes no sense.

What it tells us, almost every time, is that someone went to 99designs or a similar platform and paid $100 for a batch of freelance submissions. That process yields what you’d expect: commoditized, uninformed work that’s aesthetically random and strategically disconnected.

The problem isn’t just quality — it’s coherence. Those logos weren’t built with any understanding of the firm’s strategy, target investors, or story. They can’t possibly work as the centerpiece of a brand system because they were never conceived as part of one.

Why Craftsmanship Still Matters

A well-done logo has levels of sophistication, nuance, and restraint that most financial professionals, understandably, aren’t equipped to analyze. That’s why they often assume that more options, or more ornate designs, equal better outcomes.

But good identity design isn’t about novelty. It’s about proportion, visual rhythm, and the ability to scale across use cases without losing integrity. When people say, “Oh, I could get that on 99designs for $100,” they’re missing the point: you’re paying not for the drawing, but for the judgment behind it; the integration with color, typography, tone, and the overall architecture of the brand.

This is especially true in investment management, where credibility is conveyed through restraint. A good logo doesn’t shout. It suggests discipline.

Redrawing Without Rewriting History

Though brand perception may seem intangible, it can be observed and influenced. Website analytics often reveal higher-than-expected traffic from diverse sources, and pitch materials circulate widely once shared. Even a modest 2% shift in perception — through a clearer pitch deck, an improved digital experience, or a refined narrative — can secure a significant allocation, win a competitive process, or attract a high-value hire. The potential compounding effect makes brand stewardship a high-leverage activity.

What Is the Bottom Line on Branding in Private Equity?

Brand in private equity is not a slogan or design exercise. It is the consistent, credible story a firm tells across all interactions, online and offline. In a market where many competitors offer similar returns and strategies, a well-managed brand can tilt decisions in your favor. The most effective brands are intentional, authentic, and aligned with how the firm actually operates — ensuring the story told externally matches the experience delivered internally.

The Myth of the Perfect Name in Investment Management

There’s a story about the founders of Blackstone that may or may not be true, but like all good stories in finance, it feels true enough to repeat.

In the mid-1980s, Steve Schwarzman and Pete Peterson were sitting in the living room of one of their homes, agonizing over what to name their new firm. They went back and forth for hours: Was “Blackstone” right? Did it sound too serious, too heavy, too cold?

At some point, one of their wives walked in and asked what on earth they were doing. They explained the debate. She listened and said something along the lines of:

“The name doesn’t matter. It’s going to take on whatever attributes you build into it through the business.”

I think that’s exactly the right way to think about naming.

Yes, some names are better than others. But in the end, a name is a totem, not a prophecy. It carries the meaning that you and your people build into it over time.

The Industry’s Long-Running Joke

Private equity and investment management have always had a bit of a naming problem — or maybe a naming formula. The old joke goes: When a new firm tries to name itself, every Greek god is already taken.

That’s only slightly an exaggeration. The Greek gods are taken, the mountain ranges are taken, the oceans are taken. There are plenty of Atlantics and Pacifics, more Summits and Peaks than anyone can count. Some names sound like marketing abstractions. Others turn out to be the founder’s childhood street.

The naming conventions are so narrow that, over time, they’ve become self-referential humor inside the industry.

And then there’s Cerberus, the three-headed dog guarding the gates of hell. To this day, I can’t hear that name without flashing back to seventh-grade Latin class, where our textbook introduced “Cerberus the dog” before I knew anything about private equity. There are exceptions to every rule, but that one remains… a choice.

The Decline of the Eponymous Firm

Over the past 10 or 15 years, we’ve seen a clear shift away from firms named after their founders. The reason is obvious.

First, it reads as egotistical. Most leaders don’t want to send that signal to their teams, their LPs, or the market.

Second, longevity. When a firm’s name is tied directly to one or two people, there’s an inevitable cognitive dissonance when those people retire, move into a chairman role, or pass away.

You can see the evolution all over the industry. The Jordan Company becomes TJC. Thomas H. Lee becomes THL. Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, thankfully, becomes KKR. These firms have the scale and history to make the acronym work. The rest of us would probably disappear into the alphabet soup.

Amusingly, even Blackstone is now often referred to simply by its ticker, BX. Maybe that’s the end state of all successful firms: eventually you become two letters and a stock price.

Why Naming Projects So Often Disappoint

Darien Group has been involved in probably a dozen significant naming projects over the years — usually for new firms or new funds. In the earlier days, we’d bring in professional naming agencies. These were the real deal: they’d worked with major corporations, had linguists and cultural researchers on staff, and could talk for hours about phonemes, etymology, and word shape.

And yet, even with all that science behind them, the results were often unsatisfying. The client would nod politely, we’d circulate long lists of “rationales,” and somehow everything felt off. Half the time, we ended up reverting to something the client came up with themselves — or something that emerged spontaneously during a call.

Which brings me to one of my favorite examples.

How “Heartwood” Was Born

In the mid-2010s, we worked with a private equity firm that had been operating since the early 1980s. Its original name, Capital Partners Incorporated, had been perfectly serviceable for its era. But by 2015, it had the feel of something chosen quickly at formation and never revisited — more generic than intentional, and out of step with what the firm had become.

The firm needed to rebrand. Its differentiator was in how it structured acquisitions: rather than loading companies with five to seven turns of debt, it preferred two or three, sharing more cash flow with management and investors. That was a selling point for founder-led and family-owned businesses.

We hired a professional naming agency to help, and a month in, the client still hated every option. On a Friday morning before a call with them — where we had nothing new to present — I started thinking about metaphors for solidity. I googled “diagram of a tree trunk.”

It turns out a tree has five concentric layers. The innermost, densest layer is called heartwood — the core that provides the trunk’s strength.

Fifteen minutes later, we had a name that perfectly captured the firm’s philosophy: structural strength at the center, reliability for both investors and management teams. It wasn’t flashy, but it had integrity and metaphorical resonance.

That’s usually what works.

The Illusion of “Scientific” Naming

The irony of the naming industry is that it pretends there’s a formula. There isn’t.

Even with today’s tools, ChatGPT included, you can generate a hundred plausible names in five minutes. The trick is not generation; it’s judgment. Which one feels like your firm? Which one you can say out loud without wincing? Which one will sound credible in a partner meeting or on a pitch deck?

At the end of the day, I agree with the Blackstone anecdote. The name becomes whatever meaning the firm builds into it. You can have the greatest name in the world, but if you underperform, it will eventually sound cheap. You can have a pretty bad name and, if you succeed, it will start to sound timeless.

What Actually Matters

So, what makes a name good?

1. Ownability. It has to be available — trademark, URL, and search results. One new client we worked with launched a site and was baffled that they weren’t showing up on Google. The problem? Their name was nearly identical to a much larger financial institution overseas. That’s like naming yourself “Nike Equity” and expecting to rank.
   
2. Appropriateness. The tone should match your audience. If you’re a middle-market industrial investor, a name like “Quantum Axis Capital” probably oversells the sophistication. Conversely, “Smith Capital” underplays it.
   
3. Comfort. You have to like saying it. You’ll say it thousands of times a year.

Everything else is taste.

The Role of Brand and Narrative

The reason names still matter is that they’re shorthand for a broader story. A name opens the door; the brand narrative walks people through it.

Choosing a name is an act of positioning; it hints at personality, time horizon, and risk tolerance. A strong brand and narrative make that positioning explicit. That’s what differentiates one manager from another when everyone is competing for the same dollar of capital.

Brand, narrative, reputation, and story are all tools for outcompeting in a crowded market. You can’t own a better Greek god, but you can own a clearer message.

A Totem, Not a Strategy

I’ve come to see naming as a strangely emotional process for clients. It’s personal. It feels like destiny. But really, it’s just the first line of a longer story.

A name is a totem, not a strategy. Pick something you can own, pronounce, and stand behind. Make sure it’s not already taken. Beyond that, stop agonizing.

Because if your firm performs well, the name will come to mean excellence. And if it doesn’t, even the perfect name won’t save you.

More Than a Logo

When people hear “rebrand,” they often think in consumer terms: a new name, a new logo, a new tagline. In private equity, it is rarely that dramatic. A rebrand is less like changing your identity and more like building a new house. By contrast, a refresh is redecorating the house you already have.

The real question firms wrestle with is: when do we need a new house, and when is a new coat of paint enough?

The Five-Year Rule

As a baseline, private equity firms should expect to rebrand every five years. Time alone is enough to date a brand. A website built in 2018 looks and feels like 2018, even if the design was strong at the time. Typography, imagery, messaging style - these all evolve.

The quality of the original build matters just as much. Many firms launched their first brand around Fund I or Fund II with understandable budget constraints. They often chose inexpensive vendors. The result was a brand that was functional but not durable: inconsistent elements, no real system, limited scalability. As those firms grow, the seams begin to show.

For them, the clock runs faster. A brand built on a shaky foundation simply will not hold up for a decade.

Strategic Triggers for a Rebrand

Most often, rebrands are driven not just by time but by strategy. When the fundamentals of the firm change, the brand must follow.

Examples include:

• Leadership transitions. New partners join, senior figures retire, succession reshapes the story.
  
• Fund proliferation. A single flagship vehicle grows into a suite of strategies: credit, growth, co-invest, secondaries.
  
• Geographic expansion. A firm that once raised solely in North America now brings in capital from Europe, Asia, or the Middle East.
  
• Sector evolution. A healthcare investor adds technology, or an industrials fund expands into infrastructure.
  
• Investor mix. Firms historically focused on institutional LPs begin targeting wealth managers or retail capital.
  

That last shift - into wealth and retail - is the most urgent driver today. Brands built for institutional investors are designed to be formal, corporate, even intentionally unapproachable. They signal gravitas. By contrast, wealth managers and retail investors require the opposite: clarity, accessibility, human tone. Concepts must be explained in plain language. Educational resources become essential.

Sometimes this means launching a separate website for retail distribution. But even then, the core brand has to flex to accommodate. A firm cannot present as ivory tower in one channel and approachable in another without creating tension.

Refresh as Best Practice

If rebrands are the new house, refreshes are the redecorating. They should happen every year.

A refresh is not about reinventing your story - it is about keeping the story sharp and the design current.

A proper refresh includes:

• Content audit. Review every section of the site for accuracy and alignment with strategy.
  
• Visual updates. Rotate photography, add new illustrations or video, update accent colors.
  
• Structural tweaks. Add a page for a new strategy, simplify navigation, improve bios.
  

The payoff is twofold. First, the site feels current to external stakeholders. Small changes - new imagery, fresh graphics, updated layouts - signal vitality. Second, it prevents the painful accumulation of misalignment. Firms that refresh annually never wake up six years later realizing they have three new funds and no coherent way to present them.

The Cost of Brand Drift

When firms skip refreshes and delay rebrands, brand drift sets in. Templates fray. Messaging fragments. Teams invent their own workarounds. The further the brand drifts from the firm, the harder and more expensive it becomes to fix.

There is also a cultural cost. Outdated brands create inertia. They feel stodgy, out of step, unpolished. Employees - especially younger professionals - notice. They hesitate to share the site or materials. By contrast, when firms launch refreshed brands, we consistently see an internal surge of pride. People are energized. They feel their firm looks the part.

That lift matters. Culture is reinforced or undermined by how a firm shows up to the world.

Refresh vs. Rebrand: A Framework

To simplify the decision:

• Rebrand when the fundamentals have changed (strategy, structure, investor base, leadership) or when more than five years have passed since the last overhaul.
  
• Refresh every year, regardless, to keep the story sharp and the design modern.
  

The two approaches reinforce one another. Refreshes extend the life of a brand and delay the need for a full rebrand. Rebrands reset the foundation when incremental updates are no longer enough.

Conclusion: Keep Pace With Reality

A private equity firm’s brand is not static. It is a living system, reflecting strategy, culture, and ambition. When firms let that system stand still while everything else evolves, they create misalignment that becomes costly to repair.

The smarter path is rhythm: annual refreshes to stay sharp, paired with rebrands every five years or when strategy demands it. Firms that follow this cadence avoid both the risk of neglect and the expense of overcorrection.

In a market where LP expectations, investor channels, and transaction dynamics are all shifting quickly, brand alignment is not a luxury. It is the foundation for credibility.

A Frozen Moment in Time

Most private equity websites are treated as static projects. Once launched, they are left to age while only the most obvious updates - press releases, portfolio companies, team members - get added. The result is a site that becomes a frozen moment in time. The firm evolves, but the website does not.

The real cost of letting a site grow stale is not always obvious. Outdated design, stale messaging, and misaligned positioning quietly erode credibility. And now, with LLMs reshaping digital visibility, the stakes are higher than ever.

Here are three major risks of letting a website age without meaningful refresh.

1. Design and Message Trends Move On Without You

A five-year-old website will look like a five-year-old website. That does not mean it will look terrible - if it was done well, it may still hold up - but design cues age quickly. Typography, layout, and imagery all carry time stamps.

The same is true of messaging. A site crafted in 2017 often reveals its age in tone and emphasis. Older sites tend to read like pitchbooks repurposed for the web, written almost entirely for LP audiences. Today, best practice is different: private equity websites are first impressions for sellers, management teams, and intermediaries just as much as they are for LPs.

Other motifs give websites away instantly. Glossy team photos used as homepage hero images, or worse, stock photos of businesspeople in conference rooms - these were everywhere five years ago. Today, they look dated. More recently, the “management-friendly” positioning surge has begun to feel tired as well. A claim repeated by everyone is not a differentiator; it is white noise.

Firms that fail to update fall behind industry norms, and their sites signal stasis rather than vitality.

2. The Firm Evolves, the Site Stands Still

Even more costly than design drift is the gap between what the firm has become and what the site still says.

Firms refine sector strategies, launch new funds, expand geographically, and change investor mixes. Operations teams grow, ESG programs take shape, succession brings new leadership forward. Yet the website often remains frozen, updated only at the margins.

The further the site drifts from the firm’s reality, the more damage it does:

• It creates a credibility gap in the market.
  
• It forces a radical, expensive overhaul when the firm finally decides to catch up.
  
• It diminishes internal pride, making employees feel their firm is dated or out of touch.
  

We have seen firsthand how invigorating a new brand can be internally. Younger professionals in particular respond with energy and pride when a refreshed website launches. By contrast, sitting on a seven-year-old brand sends a signal of inertia.

3. Digital Visibility Now Means LLM Readiness

For years, “SEO and digital visibility” was the main argument for keeping sites current. But today the challenge has shifted. The question is no longer just whether your site ranks in Google. It is whether your firm surfaces in LLM-driven queries across platforms like ChatGPT.

This is a frontier where most firms are unprepared. Technical optimization for LLMs is still a developing field. But the implications are clear: firms that do not adapt will lose visibility as search shifts away from static engines and toward AI-driven answers.

The good news: some of this can be retrofitted onto an existing site. The better news: firms that are building new sites now have the chance to bake in LLM readiness from the start. That means:

• Identifying the queries you want to show up in.
  
• Creating authoritative content that LLMs can surface as reliable.
  
• Structuring metadata and site architecture with this future in mind.
  

At Darien Group, we have invested in technical expertise specifically for this challenge. It is not just about traditional SEO anymore - it is about being discoverable in the next era of digital search.

The Hidden Cultural Cost

There is also a softer, but very real, cost of letting branding age too long: culture. Stale, stodgy design signals stagnation. It turns off younger recruits. It makes employees less proud to share the firm’s website. By contrast, a refreshed identity can energize teams and remind them that the firm is dynamic, modern, and growing.

Conclusion: Aging Quietly Is Still Aging

Letting a private equity website age may feel harmless. After all, if the numbers are current and the team page is up to date, what is the harm? The harm is threefold: design and message trends that make you look behind the times, a growing misalignment between your firm and your site, and a looming challenge around LLM visibility that is already reshaping digital discovery.

The website is not just another marketing tool - it is the most public reflection of who you are. Letting it drift out of sync is more than cosmetic. It is a strategic liability.

A Milestone in Our History

Darien Group has built many proof points over more than a decade in business. The one we are most proud of - and the one that sits prominently on our homepage - is this: we have worked with 42 of PEI’s Top 300 private equity firms. That is close to 15% of the list.

It is not just the number that matters. Many of the PEI 300 are in geographies where we do not operate (Asia, in particular). Many others skew toward venture capital, which is less aligned with our specialization. Against that backdrop, having worked with more than 40 of the world’s largest private equity managers represents real exposure to the top echelon of the industry. It is a milestone we would not have imagined when we started in 2015.

Lessons That Are Humbling, Not Formulaic

What we have learned from this body of work is not a neat set of best practices. There are a few reasons why:

1. The assignments vary widely. For some firms we have executed full rebrands; for others we have delivered targeted investor-relations support.
   
2. The work spans a long period. Some projects were seven years ago, and both the firms and the market have changed dramatically since then.
   
3. Many engagements were team-specific. Even at firms in the top 10 by AUM, our assignments were often with individual product teams, not always centralized marketing.
   

Because of that, the lessons are more emotional than semantic. The first is humility. It is humbling to reflect that since founding Darien Group in 2015, we have had the chance to contribute to the efforts of many of private equity’s leaders. The second is diversity. No two firms are alike, even when they appear similar on paper.

Size Does Not Equal Sophistication

One of the clearest takeaways is that institutionalization cannot be assumed based on size. We have worked with managers in the top 100 of AUM who are impressively disciplined in how they run projects. We have also seen firms of equal stature that are clumsy, inefficient, and internally misaligned - so much so that you wonder how they execute on the scale they do.

The explanation is often that branding and communications are simply not core to the investing craft. A firm can be extraordinary at sourcing deals and generating returns while being unsophisticated at marketing. We have encountered firms that are woefully understaffed on the communications side, or whose instincts around positioning are outdated and ineffective.

Size, brand recognition, and AUM are not reliable indicators of branding capability.

Public vs. Private: Different Operating Models

Another striking difference is between publicly traded firms and their private counterparts. Public firms operate much more like large corporations. Processes are centralized, approvals are layered, and branding projects often happen within product-specific silos rather than at the corporate level.

By contrast, working with a 15-person team that runs a single fund inside a larger manager feels like working with a boutique. There may be brand standards to navigate, but the culture and pace resemble a small firm more than a large institution.

Culture Is Revealed in the Process

Culture is one of private equity’s favorite talking points. Almost every firm describes itself as “management-friendly” or “collaborative.” But the reality shows up less in words and more in process.

The clearest example: when senior leadership deputizes a working group to run a branding project, vows to let them make decisions, then parachutes in at the end to change everything. This is more common than it should be. The result is wasted time, strained relationships, and a worse outcome.

Firms with clean reporting structures and real delegation thrive in branding work. Firms with muddled processes do not. Culture is visible in how projects actually get done.

The Rise of the CMO

Over the last decade we have seen a clear shift at the upper end of the market: the introduction of real CMO-level resources. Traditionally, branding and marketing were owned by the most senior investor-relations professional. Increasingly, larger firms are bringing in executives with backgrounds in corporate marketing, digital, or advertising.

This has two effects. First, it reduces the number of opportunities available to agencies like ours. A high-powered CMO may already have trusted design firms and may not need our translation between private equity speak and brand language. Second, it raises the bar for the industry. We welcome that. Professionalizing marketing is good for private equity, even if it narrows our potential client pool.

From Rebrand Wave to Inertia

Between 2017 and 2022, private equity went through a major rebrand cycle. Many of the industry’s largest firms refreshed their identities and digital platforms. Darien Group pitched for most of them and won many. That wave has now subsided.

The reasons are familiar:

• Higher interest rates and slower monetization have reduced appetite for discretionary projects.
  
• Many firms are sitting on brands launched just a few years ago.
  
• Industry inertia tends to default to five-year cycles.
  

But inertia is not without risk. Constituents evolve faster than brand cycles. LPs, sellers, and talent expect fresher communication. Firms that rely on legacy reputations or outdated brands will eventually feel the consequences.

Crawl, Walk, Run: A Framework for Maturity

One of the metaphors we often use is “crawl, walk, run.” It applies well to where the industry is today.

• Crawl: basic materials are in place, numbers are current, team members are updated.
  
• Walk: a consistent program exists - annual website audits, updated visuals, refreshed positioning.
  
• Run: a true content engine is in motion, feeding multiple channels with thought leadership, digital campaigns, and ongoing visibility.
  

The leaders in the space are running. Oaktree is known for Howard Marks’ memos. KKR has built a robust thought-leadership platform. In the middle market, Trivest sets the standard in email marketing, while Middle Ground has become prolific in content creation.

These efforts did not appear overnight. They required years of steady investment

New Directions in Communication

What is most encouraging is the shift toward more frequent, targeted, and creative communication. Firms are recognizing that:

• Press releases and legacy media are not enough.
  
• Constituents want regular visibility, not just episodic updates.
  
• New platforms - from LinkedIn to podcasts - are where mindshare is being built.
  

We now see prominent leaders from prominent firms appearing on both large and niche podcasts. We see firms experimenting with promoted content and digital campaigns. The industry is beginning to acknowledge that awareness and persuasion look very different in 2025 than they did even five years ago.

The Bigger Picture: Transformation Ahead

All of this is happening against the backdrop of industry change:

• The concentration of AUM at the largest firms.
  
• The democratization of private investment.
  
• Evolving expectations from LPs and other stakeholders.
  

We believe the next five years will bring more transformation to private equity branding and communications than the last 25. It is both a moment of uncertainty and a moment of opportunity.

Our Takeaway From 42 Firms

What does it mean to have worked with 42 of private equity’s leading managers? Two things stand out:

1. No two firms are the same. Size, reputation, and AUM tell you very little about culture, process, or sophistication.
   
2. The landscape is shifting rapidly. Professionalization, content marketing, and digital visibility are reshaping what branding looks like in private equity.
   

For Darien Group, the milestone is not just a proof point. It is a perspective. We have seen how differently firms operate, how quickly the environment is changing, and how urgent it is for managers of all sizes to adapt.

The next stage of private equity branding will not be defined by one-time rebrands or static websites. It will be defined by ongoing visibility: thought leadership, digital campaigns, content engines, and new channels where constituents are paying attention. The firms that succeed will be the ones that start building those muscles now.

The best time to invest in that kind of program was two years ago. The second-best time is today.

Competing Firms Take a Different Path

Many agencies that market themselves as private equity branding specialists actually focus on portfolio company work. Some do it exclusively, some balance it alongside GP/LP communications, and others dip into it occasionally. Their model is to support rebrands of acquired businesses - often 10 to 15 companies over the life of a fund. It is a different business model, and while there is nothing inherently wrong with it, it is not ours.

Our Focus Is the Investment Manager

At Darien Group, our expertise lies in the investment management space itself: the branding, messaging, and digital platforms that connect general partners with limited partners and other transaction audiences. We believe branding is industry specific, and that powerful branding depends on deep understanding of a sector’s stakeholders.

This is where we add the most value. We already know the private equity audience set inside and out - investors, sellers, management teams, intermediaries, and recruits. Because we know them, we can move straight to the nuances, differentiators, and storylines that will resonate. That accumulated expertise is the return on more than a decade of exclusive focus.

Why We Say No to Portfolio Company Work

It is not that we have never been asked. Occasionally, a client has approached us to support a portfolio company rebrand or a niche identity project. And when the request is something light and design-oriented, we have obliged. But the reality is that rebranding a SaaS provider, a manufacturing business, or a marine parts distributor requires different knowledge and skill sets.

At one point, a client invited us to build an e-commerce site for a portfolio company selling commercial boat components. Our response was candid: “This is not what we do, and you do not want us learning on your dime.” That project needed an agency that specializes in e-commerce and industrial products. Our value is not in moonlighting as generalists but in sticking to our knitting.

Where We Do Choose to Innovate

The areas where we will learn, experiment, and push forward are the ones that converge with our core sector. As private equity firms lean into Google Ads, promoted LinkedIn content, and LLM optimization, we are combining our sector mastery with new technical capabilities. The difference is that these evolutions are still directly tied to investment manager communications, where we can apply our foundation of experience.

We will not become tourists in the industries in which our clients invest. Just as there are agencies that specialize in healthcare, technology, and industrials, we exist for private equity. That exclusivity is what enables us to serve our clients with precision and conviction.

Conclusion: Specialization as a Differentiator

By declining portfolio company work, we reinforce our focus where it matters most: GP/LP communications and the broader private equity ecosystem. This specialization is not a limitation; it is a differentiator. It ensures that every engagement leverages years of sector knowledge and delivers immediate value, rather than starting from scratch. For firms seeking an agency partner who already understands the nuances of their world, that distinction makes all the difference.