.jpg)
What Private Equity Firms Get Right (and Wrong) About Video

Video in private equity still sits in a weird place. Everyone knows it’s powerful. Everyone knows it’s increasingly expected. But most firms still don’t know exactly how to use it—or how not to. As a result, a lot of GPs end up investing in video without a clear strategy, or avoiding it altogether because the bar feels too high.
But the firms that get it right are doing something simple: they stop trying to make it about themselves. The most effective video content in private equity is built around third-party validation. Founders. Sellers. Management teams. Portfolio executives. The message isn’t “we’re great.” It’s “look at what we did together.”
Below, we’ve outlined what works, what doesn’t, and how to actually think about video as part of a broader brand system—not just a one-time asset.
What works: video types that actually deliver
Founder and seller interviews
There is nothing more effective than hearing directly from a founder who sold their company and had a good experience. That’s the audience most GPs care about convincing, and that’s the voice that carries the most weight. You’re not telling people you’re founder-friendly. You’re showing it.
These videos also serve a secondary purpose. They reduce anxiety. They help humanize what can feel like a cold, transactional process. When someone is evaluating whether to sell their business to a PE firm, seeing a peer speak candidly about the experience builds a level of comfort that no pitchbook can offer.
Portfolio company spotlights
These work for every audience. They show what you do post-close. They demonstrate progress. They help LPs visualize impact. They give management teams something to be proud of.
In real estate, the use case is obvious—think before and after transformation, time-lapse, or walkthrough footage. But in any sector, there’s value in putting a camera on the work itself. It’s a simple way to say: “Here’s what your capital helped us do.”
AGM and investor-facing content
This is where video has already found traction. A lot of larger firms already do it. And for good reason. AGMs can be heavy on slides and light on energy. A short video segment—whether it’s a site visit, a team feature, or a company update—can make the experience feel much more grounded.
Fund strategy explainers (in select cases)
Most firms don’t need these. If you’re doing middle-market buyouts or core-plus multifamily, your audience probably knows the model. But if you’re introducing a truly new asset class or an unfamiliar strategy—like Ranchland Capital Partners did—a strategy video can be a smart tool for educating both institutional and HNW investors.
Recruiting or internal culture videos
These are optional. If it’s authentic to the firm and there’s a real use case, great. But not every team needs to be making day-in-the-life content. It’s a nice-to-have, not a core deliverable.
What doesn’t work: the usual mistakes
“About the firm” reels
These often miss the mark. The messaging is self-promotional. The production is too long. And the content becomes outdated the moment someone on-camera leaves the firm.
Unless it’s executed with serious editorial talent, this type of video tends to feel like a corporate history project, and not in a good way.
Trying to be slick without the budget
High production value is a good thing. But if you’re trying to look like McKinsey and you’re spending $8,000, the gap will be obvious. That hurts more than it helps.
In our experience, there’s a sweet spot for two-day shoots:
- $50–75K all-in for high-quality production, editing, and light travel
- Under $10K is too little
- Over $200K is too much for most firms
- Most of the cost is per-day shooting and post-production
If you want to do it right, plan accordingly.
Making it about the firm instead of the audience
This is the classic mistake. The video starts and ends with “we’re great” and never once addresses what the viewer actually cares about. Whether you’re talking to investors or founders, the point is to show what it’s like to work with you—not to recite your firm’s values.
Poor integration with your other materials
If a video looks four years newer than your website—or worse, four years older—it’s going to stand out in the wrong way. It doesn’t need to match your pitchbook visuals, but it should speak the same language. Consistency matters.
Bad production quality
Same rules as your website, your pitchbook, or your branding. If it’s not top quartile, it’s a liability. Berkshire Hathaway can get away with a bare-bones website. You can’t.
Scripted or unscripted? It depends.
We’ve done both. I’ve done both. The videos on Darien Group’s site are fully scripted—I wrote the copy, practiced it, and shot it myself. It works because I knew how to make it sound like I was speaking, not reading. But that’s not something most clients are comfortable with or good at.
On the flip side, we’ve run plenty of unscripted shoots where we gave interview questions ahead of time, and some people absolutely nailed it. Others froze.
Scripting tends to be cleaner, but risks sounding stiff. Unscripted footage can be more authentic, but takes more editing and has less control. In the end, performance is what drives everything. The right approach depends on the speaker.
How video should fit into the brand system
Historically, firms have treated video like a “hero asset.” One polished clip. For the homepage. Evergreen. Left untouched for four years.
The better approach is to treat it as an ongoing program. One that feeds your website, your AGM, your LinkedIn strategy, and your pitch materials. It doesn’t have to be constant. But it should be annual. You shoot two or three pieces each year. You build a library. You refresh and retire content over time.
That’s the long-term advantage. Video isn’t a fix. It’s a competency.
Just like branding itself, the goal is to develop the muscle. Not to bolt something on when it feels like a problem. You don’t go to the gym because you’re injured. You go because fitness compounds over time.
The firms that understand that—the ones who treat brand and content and video as strategic levers, not repair jobs—are the ones who will look differentiated two years from now. Everyone else will be playing catch-up.