Crafting an appealing story is crucial when creating a new venture (Zilber, Reference Zilber2007; Bartel & Garud, Reference Bartel and Garud2009; Wry et al., Reference Wry, Lounsbury and Glynn2011; Garud & Giuliani, Reference Garud and Giuliani2013). Stakeholders can be unfamiliar with ventures (Lounsbury & Glynn, Reference Lounsbury and Glynn2001), especially technology ventures, where products are often complex and the opportunity difficult to grasp (Martens et al., Reference Martens, Jennings and Jennings2007). The task for the entrepreneur is to construct a narrative that frames the venture to build understanding and mobilise support (Davidsson, Reference Davidsson2015). Studies to date have provided rich insights into the storytelling that entrepreneurs carry out with initial audience groups, such as investors (Lounsbury & Glynn, Reference Lounsbury, Gehman and Glynn2019).

Less frequently considered is how these storytelling processes are extended to a later-stage audience (Lounsbury & Glynn, Reference Lounsbury, Gehman and Glynn2019). It is recognised that if the venture is to continue surviving and growing, it will need the support of a range of stakeholders (Fisher et al., Reference Fisher, Kotha and Lahiri2016). Yet, the storytelling that builds comprehension in an early-audience group may be less compelling in enrolling a future audience. As our discussion above of the entrepreneur attempting to brief an industry analyst shows, there are potential obstacles inherent in attracting a new audience. The ‘pitch’ that worked well with the investor does not seem to work as well with this audience group. Nor does the entrepreneur appear to understand what this new stakeholder is looking for and how to go about the ‘briefing’ (Überbacher et al., Reference Überbacher, Jacobs and Cornelissen2015; O’Neil & Ucbasaran, Reference O’Neil and Ucbasaran2016).

There is a clear gap in the existing literature regarding how entrepreneurs extend storytelling processes beyond an early-stage audience to a new, later-stage audience group (Überbacher, Reference Überbacher2014; Fisher, Reference Fisher2020). Research has suggested that different audiences will have different expectations of narrative, and different ways of assessing them (Fisher et al., Reference Fisher, Kuratko, Bloodgood and Hornsby2017). However, it is unclear how entrepreneurs go about meeting the demands of new audience groups. To explore this important phenomenon, we ask: How do entrepreneurs revise processes of storytelling to meet the expectations of a later-stage audience, and how does this audience group probe and challenge the storytelling processes put forward such that they require revision?

We examine this issue through qualitative, inductive research of the way entrepreneurs brief industry analysts. Industry analyst briefings have become a mandatory stepping stone for emerging ventures in the digital sector (Petkova et al., Reference Petkova, Rindova and Gupta2013). As discussed in Chapter 1, these analysts function as new gatekeepers in the hype ecosystem, shaping which ventures gain visibility. Based on this research, we develop a model of how entrepreneurial storytelling processes are extended to this new audience. Our analysis suggests that entrepreneurs struggle to move beyond the initial investor pitch and understand what is expected in industry analyst briefings. However, they can still repair the connection with this group by revising their narratives. We also demonstrate that, while entrepreneurs benefit from garnering a new audience’s support, this audience group can subject storytelling to greater scrutiny and additional probing, which in turn influences how ventures evolve.

4.1 Entrepreneurial Storytelling

Early studies have laid the groundwork for a perspective that views stories as playing a vital role in processes that enable new ventures to develop and survive (Hjorth & Steyaert, Reference Hjorth and Steyaert2004). As such, storytelling could be considered central to entrepreneurship (Lounsbury & Glynn, Reference Lounsbury and Glynn2001, Reference Lounsbury and Glynn2019; Bartel & Garud, Reference Bartel and Garud2009; Wry et al., Reference Wry, Lounsbury and Glynn2011; Garud & Giuliani, Reference Garud and Giuliani2013). Entrepreneurial storytelling has been defined as ‘accounts that legitimate individual entrepreneurs to networks of investors, competitors, and visionaries, who make resource decisions and take strategic actions based upon what the stories mean to them’ (Lounsbury & Glynn, Reference Lounsbury and Glynn2001, p. 545). Storytelling endeavours to make the ‘unfamiliar familiar’ by conceptualising the new venture in a way that is more readily ‘understandable and thus legitimate’ (Lounsbury & Glynn, Reference Lounsbury and Glynn2001, p. 549). This focus on future-oriented narrative echoes our analytical framework for hype (Chapter 2), where we described how entrepreneurs’ promissory stories help create and organise emerging technology fields. Storytelling can include the spontaneous accounts that form part of ‘everyday conversations’ through to the more ‘scripted narratives’ familiar to formal business presentations (Martens et al., Reference Martens, Jennings and Jennings2007, p. 1109).

Storytelling is seen as particularly relevant in the case of technology entrepreneurship (Martens et al., Reference Martens, Jennings and Jennings2007), which, because it is often ‘knowledge-intensive’, is more difficult for stakeholders to understand (Doganova & Eyquem-Renault, Reference Doganova and Eyquem-Renault2009, p. 1567). Scholars acknowledge that future-oriented and more promissory narratives are particularly crucial, as they highlight the possibilities surrounding a technology (Zilber, Reference Zilber2007). As Gartner (Reference Gartner2007) writes, to construct an entrepreneurial narrative is to generate ‘hypotheses about how the future might look and act’ (p. 614). Similarly, Chiles et al. (Reference Chiles, Bluedorn and Gupta2007) explain how stories ‘create opportunities through expectations of an imagined future’ (p. 467). Through writing the story, the entrepreneur comes to ‘imagine the opportunity for novel ventures’ (Cornelissen & Clarke, Reference Cornelissen and Clarke2010, p. 539). As we argued in Chapter 2, such future-oriented, promissory storytelling is a core mechanism of technology hype, performing and shaping expectations in nascent markets.

4.2 Entrepreneur Presents an Initial Story

For entrepreneurs, industry analyst briefings are not an easy task. For instance, there is nowhere near the same level of guidance one can find for investor pitches (Clarke et al., Reference Clarke, Cornelissen and Healey2019). Winning the attention of an industry analyst firm is a challenging and lengthy endeavour? Such firms are inundated with briefing requests from up-and-coming enterprises. For instance, Gartner reports that its analysts sit through 12,000 briefings yearly (Hare, Reference Hare2020). Moreover, if the venture wants to maintain analyst interest, it must brief them every few months and then continue to engage regularly with them, year after year. Our empirical data demonstrate that briefings would start with entrepreneurs selling their vision, but interactions would quickly turn sour as they found opposition to their story.

4.3 Gatekeeper Probes and Problematises the Story

In theory, what analysts attempt, namely verifying the future potential and survivability of a new venture, including the plausibility of its technology and market projections, is difficult or even impossible (Navis & Glynn, Reference Navis and Glynn2011). The initial challenge is to identify the most promising opportunities in the rapidly changing innovation landscape, which involves a relatively high degree of uncertainty and ambiguity. Will the venture be ‘disruptive’? Alternatively, could it be a flop? How are analysts to make sense, so they can advise clients? It appears that they have well-established methods and techniques for conducting what is commonly referred to in the investor pitch as due diligence (Huang & Pearce, Reference Huang and Pearce2015). Below, we show that briefings are organised as an escalating process whereby analysts often lie in wait for entrepreneurs before getting to the truth.

4.4 Getting to the Truth

Analysts described how they placed great importance on building good relationships with entrepreneurs but that these interactions could, at times, become practically and morally fraught. Their experience told them entrepreneurs would dress things up: ‘They always want to give you an impression that they do much more than they really do’ (analyst 6, interview). The analyst role, by contrast, was ‘to get to the truth’: ‘Some of the vendors are telling the truth; some of the vendors are exaggerating’ (A7, interview).

An analyst describes how: ‘We are quite cynical, and the reason we are quite cynical is that most people are lying to us … so the question is, how do you get behind the lies to find out what is really going on?’ (A1, interview).

Therefore, during briefings, analysts will mobilise mechanisms to evaluate claims, which include acting out moral frames to get behind ‘the façade’ as they see it. Similarly, ‘proof’ was also a standard part of their lexicon. An analyst describes how: ‘[O]ne kind of value is not just being different but being able to prove it… Prove your differentiation… If we’re going to say that, let’s have some proof to it, let’s have some metrics, let’s have some facts’ (A3, webinar). However, this raises the question of what counts as proof in these situations.

Upon hearing a questionable claim, an analyst may not immediately challenge the entrepreneur but instead go away and verify the information before returning to it in a later briefing. To see through stories, analysts performed something akin to ‘proxy ethnographies’ (Knorr Cetina, Reference Knorr Cetina2010). When entrepreneurs began mentioning a prestigious ‘partner’ or ‘customer’, the analyst would ask for names so that those cited could be contacted.

Customers and partners are seen to offer some validity to the emerging story, but it is not that analysts have blind faith in them, as they expect ‘prepping’ and ‘staging’. To get around this, analysts are on the lookout for impromptu or unsupervised gatherings. An analyst discusses how, when a venture invited him to a conference event, he took the opportunity to meet informally with its partners and customers. Such casual exchanges, known as ‘personal briefings’, were rich in information:

The analyst portrays their role as one where they take pride in not being taken in by entrepreneurs. Thus, they will listen with interest during briefings and later hold the venture accountable for the claims made. We describe below one such episode involving a venture (V4), where analysts had uncovered what they believed was a potentially misrepresented claim, which was then relayed to the venture’s CEO, prompting him to undertake corrective action.

An AR expert recounts how V4 had claimed to have established a ‘strategic partnership’ with [BigTech], and this helped it not only win analyst attention but make it onto a high-profile ranking: ‘[V4] shouldn’t have made the [ranking]. They made the [ranking] because [the analysts] saw them as a disruptive technology, [but] what they’re doing is they are piggybacking off a lot of [BigTech] initiatives’ (V4, prep). However, the analysts were now beginning to pour water on V4’s claim that it had indeed established a strategic partnership with BigTech. When the analysts approached BigTech for confirmation of this partnership, they received a surprising response. An AR expert recounts the words of the analyst: ‘You know, I asked people at [BigTech] about you, because I wanted some of that third-party validation that you do what you say you do, and no one’s even heard of you!’ (V4, prep). BigTech’s failure to corroborate V4’s claim of a strategic partnership caught the CEO off guard. The AR expert recounts the conversation:

A few months later, in a subsequent briefing, the analysts would return to this issue. The analyst asks: ‘[T]he thing I’m kind of curious about is this relationship that you’ve formed with [BigTech], more detail about that would be good’ (V4, briefing). In the preceding months, the venture had spent considerable time working to improve and repair this part of the story, which required significant effort to establish the strategic partnership discussed. The AR expert describes: ‘[S]o, [V4’s] been working really hard on beefing their [BigTech] support so that they have that ecosystem that’s helping to sell, and then [the analysts] will see that, so this is going to hopefully impress [them]’ (V4, prep). During the briefing, the CEO tells the analysts how: ‘We weren’t necessarily that well-known within the [BigTech] ecosystem … so we spent really the last three or four months working closely … on the [BigTech] side … [so] that we could get to the [BigTech] executive team and talk to them’ (V4, briefing). The V4 CEO points to how they will be doing joint pitches with BigTech at a forthcoming event: ‘[W]e are now going to be in keynote presentations and other highly-visible spots within the [BigTech] event where [BigTech] are highlighting the nature of our relationship’ (V4, briefing). The repair work satisfies the analyst, and the matter is dropped.

4.5 Entrepreneur and AR Expert Adjust and Reconcile the Story

We found that, over time, the briefing process can become a source of frustration for entrepreneurs. The disappointment is that, while the evaluation is being ratcheted up, they can often be in the dark about how the analyst perceives them, which prompts them to attempt to elicit feedback from the analyst. Moreover, fear of attracting disapproval or losing analyst interest could tempt the entrepreneur to engage in revised storytelling.

4.6 Discussion: Extending Storytelling to Industry Analysts

While Cultural Entrepreneurship scholarship has offered rich insights into how storytelling can persuade and enrol an early-stage audience, such as investors, there has been less focus on how entrepreneurs extend processes of storytelling to a later-stage audience group, like industry analysts (Fischer et al., Reference Fischer, Kotha and Lahiri2016; Lounsbury & Glynn, Reference Lounsbury and Glynn2019). Based on this, our chapter offers a model that maps and theorises how entrepreneurs revise storytelling processes to meet this new audience’s demands and expectations.

We found that entrepreneurs struggle to move beyond the initial investor pitch and understand what is expected in industry analyst briefings. But they can still repair the connection with this audience through revised storytelling. Our main contribution to research on entrepreneurial storytelling is to reveal and theorise the stages through which entrepreneurs brief a later-stage audience through presenting an initial story that had worked well with a previous group, how industry analysts then engage in probing and problematising the story, which led to collective adjusting and reconciling of the story to meet new audience demands. Below, we describe the key stages and their various steps that lead entrepreneurs to extend and translate storytelling processes to garner the attention of a new audience group (see Figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1

Extension of processes of entrepreneurial storytelling to a new audience group.

Figure 4.1 Long description

The model presents a feedback loop with three main components between the investor pitch and analyst briefing. It begins with presenting the initial story, where the entrepreneur sells the vision and is met with opposition. Probing and problematising the story follows where the analyst gets to the truth and lies in wait for the entrepreneur. The entrepreneur or advisor draws out feedback and revises the storytelling whereby it is collectively adjusted and reconciled.

We show that entrepreneurs attempt to enrol this new audience by extending the same or similar storytelling processes that had worked well with previous investor audiences, which comprised selling the vision. However, we found that interactions with this new audience often turned sour, theorised as finding opposition (see also Zilber, Reference Zilber2007). Driven by different goals and concerns, we identify that analysts probe and problematise stories through an escalating evaluation process that consists of two steps. Initially, they lie in wait for entrepreneurs, knowing that allowing them space and freedom to sell the vision would provide an opening for further interrogation. Then they carry out a second step where they expose story weaknesses and limitations, which we theorise as getting to the truth.

During the briefing process, the entrepreneur learns (O’Neil & Ucbasaran, Reference O’Neil and Ucbasaran2016) or is counselled by advisors that it is not just a matter of selling the vision but aligning with the audience’s interests (Lounsbury & Glynn, Reference Lounsbury and Glynn2001). As a result, entrepreneurs attempt what we theorise as adjusting and reconciling to consider (and perhaps even adapt to) the analysts’ prevailing view (Zuckerman, Reference Zuckerman1999). Specifically, adjusting and reconciling involves ‘drawing out feedback’ from the analyst and engaging in revised storytelling based on the entrepreneur and AR expert scrutinising and making sense of (the often limited) reaction received.

We observed how revised storytelling could take numerous forms that included: (1) ‘repair work’ (Bachmann et al., Reference Bachmann, Gillespie and Priem2015), where an entrepreneur carried out transformative changes to reverse growing analyst distrust of a potentially misrepresented claim; (2) ‘pivoting’ (Grimes, Reference Grimes2018), where a venture radically changed direction after receiving analyst feedback; (3) ‘dressing up’, where an entrepreneur drew on a range of similar but slightly modified stories to capture analyst attention (Giorgi & Weber, Reference Giorgi and Weber2015); and (4) ‘maintaining a façade of conformity’ (Hewlin, Reference Hewlin2003), where an entrepreneur told one story to analysts and a different one to other audiences.

Our interpretation of events is that while the investor pitch and industry analyst briefing appeared similar enough for the entrepreneur, the industry analyst had, in Fisher et al.’s (Reference Fisher, Kuratko, Bloodgood and Hornsby2017) terms, different ‘expectations’. This audience seemed less accepting of the more future-oriented and promissory narratives favoured by the entrepreneur (O’Connor, Reference O’Connor, Hjorth and Steyaert2004). Our chapter captures and theorises the ‘critical moment’ (Boltanski & Thevenot, Reference Boltanski and Thévenot1999) when the audiences’ different expectations become evident and explains why entrepreneurs find themselves in difficulty and discord. There was initially what Boltanski and Thevenot (Reference Boltanski and Thévenot1999) might describe as a ‘shift’ of expectations as the entrepreneurs’ ported stories honed for one audience to another group. It follows that because the investor pitch and analyst briefing expectations were mostly incompatible with one another, the entrepreneur was then required to shift between different expectations to attempt to garner the support of this new audience.

Despite the importance of extending entrepreneurial storytelling processes to a new audience (Überbacher, Reference Überbacher2014; Fischer et al., Reference Fischer, Kotha and Lahiri2016, Reference Fisher, Kuratko, Bloodgood and Hornsby2017), we know relatively little about how an entrepreneur can enrol a further audience group (Fischer et al., Reference Fischer, Kotha and Lahiri2016; Lounsbury & Glynn, Reference Lounsbury, Gehman and Glynn2019). Our chapter thus directly responds to calls for further research into the processes by which an entrepreneur might modify storytelling processes for a later-stage audience (Überbacher, Reference Überbacher2014; Fisher et al., Reference Fisher, Kotha and Lahiri2016, Reference Fisher, Kuratko, Bloodgood and Hornsby2017). Even though the transfer of a story to a new audience group has been labelled a critical entrepreneurial ‘competence’ (Überbacher et al., Reference Überbacher, Jacobs and Cornelissen2015, p. 946), research to date has not yet provided a detailed examination and theorisation of how this extension process ‘actually occurs’ (Überbacher, Reference Überbacher2014, p. 684). Nor has it examined how entrepreneurs meet the different expectations of their audiences. Some suggest that audiences apply different ‘logics’ when assessing ventures (Fischer et al., 2017, p. 68). However, studies have not thoroughly explored the complex, evolving considerations and oppositions that govern interactions between entrepreneurs and a new audience (Gegenhuber & Naderer, Reference Gegenhuber and Naderer2019; Lounsbury et al., Reference Lounsbury, Gehman and Glynn2019), as we have done here.

4.7 Struggling to Transcend the Initial Vendor Pitch

A key contribution is that we demonstrate how entrepreneurs struggle to transcend the initial investor pitch. Whereas Fisher et al. (Reference Fisher, Kuratko, Bloodgood and Hornsby2017) suggest that entrepreneurs can ‘reframe’ stories to meet different audience expectations, our findings lead us to question their assumption that frames are ‘easily adjusted’ (p. 66). In our study, it was not always the case that entrepreneurs could ‘quickly and easily change their frames’ to attract and appeal to new audiences (p. 66). Instead, our evidence hints at the presence of ‘path-dependent’ processes (Garud et al., Reference Garud, Kumaraswamy and Karnøe2010). Some entrepreneurs based their storytelling to this new audience on techniques seen as successful with earlier groups (namely, investors). Our argument echoes Mauer and Ebers’ (Reference Maurer and Ebers2006) analysis, which suggests that entrepreneurs can suffer from ‘lock-in’ (p. 277) due to their limited ability and competence to relate to later groups. Yet, we extend their focus by showing how these same path-dependency processes can apply not just to forming new audience relationships but also during storytelling processes.

4.8 Audiences of Storytelling Far from Inactive

A second contribution is demonstrating the audience’s role in shaping storytelling, which contrasts with the assumption implicit in research that audiences are ‘passive recipients of the entrepreneurial story’ (Gegenhuber & Naderer, Reference Gegenhuber and Naderer2019, p. 154). However, a unique aspect of our study is that we could study both entrepreneurs and audience simultaneously, which provided us with evidence that market gatekeeper audiences are far from inactive. Specifically, we found that by probing and problematising narratives and moving entrepreneurs through an escalating evaluation process, where the story is placed under an increasing amount of scrutiny, this audience could bring to the surface discrepancies for which the entrepreneurs would ultimately be held accountable, leading to revised storytelling.

We are not alone in highlighting these critical audience evaluations. Some studies do give importance to how audiences ‘challenge’ entrepreneurs (O’Connor, Reference O’Connor, Hjorth and Steyaert2004). Scholars (Garud et al., Reference Garud, Schildt and Lant2014b, p. 1485) point to how, as ‘milestones are missed repeatedly’, entrepreneurs can be held accountable. However, whereas previous studies have focused on how audiences become critical after entrepreneurs encounter difficulties and setbacks – what Garud et al. (Reference Garud, Schildt and Lant2014b, p. 1483) characterise as ‘commitment rather than critical evaluation’ – we demonstrate how audiences probe and problematise entrepreneurs before forming their assessment. This finding is important because it challenges the tacit assumption of previous studies (Garud et al., Reference Garud, Schildt and Lant2014b) that entrepreneurial storytelling is only episodically or exceptionally exposed to audience evaluation. We instead shift attention to an ongoing evaluation process surrounding storytelling, where audiences are active and bring significant influence to bear from the outset.

4.9 How Entrepreneurs Modify Storytelling for Later-Stage Audiences

A final contribution is to develop our understanding of how entrepreneurs adapt storytelling processes for later audiences. While it is increasingly recognised that an audience will probe an entrepreneur, especially when they transition from an early-stage to a later-stage audience, the processes of ‘replotting’ (O’Connor, Reference O’Connor, Hjorth and Steyaert2004; Garud et al., Reference Garud, Schildt and Lant2014b) have not been extensively studied and theorised. Our chapter contributes here by opening the ‘black box’ of replotting to identify the repertoire of potential revisions deployed by entrepreneurs (e.g. repair work, pivoting, dressing up, and maintaining a façade). Unpacking the replotting process is essential because it reveals the various ways an entrepreneur can modify and revise a story to manage relationships with an audience that may struggle to understand and place them within their own frames and categories.

Moreover, once we open the black box, we can demonstrate that revised storytelling can result from a direct audience challenge to a potentially misrepresented narrative. For instance, V4 revised its story following the questioning of its strategic partnership. This makes it different to entrepreneurs identified in prior work, who revised storytelling either to attract a new audience group (Fisher et al., Reference Fisher, Kuratko, Bloodgood and Hornsby2017) or because they had failed to maintain earlier promises (O’Connor, Reference O’Connor, Hjorth and Steyaert2004; Garud et al., Reference Garud, Schildt and Lant2014b). Importantly, while there was potential for this misrepresentation to be treated more seriously than mere ‘legitimacy lies’ (Rutherford et al., Reference Rutherford, Buller and Stebbins2009), we also observed that it was possible to remedy the situation.

On this occasion, where censure was anticipated, we observed that the venture in question devoted considerable effort to revising its storytelling processes. Our chapter, in this respect, responds to recent calls for further research on how a new venture might ‘mitigate’ audience threats (Fisher, Reference Fisher2020, p. 19). It also moves us beyond a dualistic view that depicts entrepreneurs as either winning audience backing or not to a more dynamic perspective that shows, for instance, how they could gain initial support but then have their story problematised and be required to reverse growing audience scepticism through revised storytelling.

4.10 Research Opportunities for Studying Briefings

We join with those reconsidering the prevailing understanding of entrepreneurs as ‘skilled cultural operatives’ (Lounsbury & Glynn, Reference Lounsbury and Glynn2001, p. 559), where it is argued that one cannot assume entrepreneurs have from ‘the outset’ (Überbacher et al., Reference Überbacher, Jacobs and Cornelissen2015, p. 945) the necessary competences to gain the support of a new audience group (see also Lounsbury et al., Reference Lounsbury, Gehman and Glynn2019). Instead, as our chapter begins to explore, entrepreneurs often start with little knowledge of a new audience and must acquire the skills and competencies to win their backing. However, more studies are required, particularly those that explore the internal dynamics within ventures as they seek to understand and meet new audience expectations. Moreover, we shed light on a case where interactions were mediated by an AR agency that guided entrepreneurs on approaching industry analysts. However, it would be helpful to study situations where no such mediation and support were available to understand whether similar or different responses would occur.

Chapter 5 extends the above analysis by shifting focus from the act of storytelling and narrative refinement to the downstream consequences of a successful briefing. Specifically, it explores how some ventures, having passed through these evaluative filters, are elevated by analysts as ‘disruptors’ through designations such as Cool Vendor, Market Disrupter, Hot Vendor, etc.

The above example reflects a pressing problem. All ventures face the difficulty that they are unknown quantities at the outset (Fisher et al., Reference Fisher, Neubert and Burnell2021). However, they can seemingly rectify this problem in part through drawing support from ‘key resource holders’ (Lounsbury et al., Reference Lounsbury, Gehman and Glynn2019, p. 1229), such as a market gatekeeper (Plummer et al., Reference Plummer, Allison and Connelly2016; Soublière & Gehman, Reference Soublière and Gehman2020). An evaluation or endorsement from an influential gatekeeper, like an industry analyst, is critical because it is ‘linked to the likelihood of firm survival and growth’ (Navis & Glynn, Reference Navis and Glynn2011, p. 479). Scholars have noted that market gatekeeper coverage can reassure audiences about investing in or purchasing from a venture lacking a proven track record (Fischer et al., Reference Fischer, Kotha and Lahiri2016). Others have provided evidence that when gatekeeper backing is not forthcoming, it can become a block or impediment to progress (Petkova et al., Reference Petkova, Rindova and Gupta2013). For instance, if a venture does not appear on a ‘recommended vendor list’, as the example of ABC above shows, the gatekeeper will caution against it (Coslor et al., Reference Coslor, Crawford and Leyshon2020). As noted in Chapter 3, digital start-ups often turn hype into a strategic asset by targeting key audiences; here, that means utilising analyst coverage to overcome being perceived as an ‘unknown quantity’.

However, the process through which ventures gain the support of a market gatekeeper has not been fully addressed (Überbacher, Reference Überbacher2014). The literature suggests a ‘screening process’ (Petkova et al., Reference Petkova, Rindova and Gupta2008, p. 327) involving abstract ‘filtering’ and ‘selecting’ mechanisms (Petkova et al., Reference Petkova, Rindova and Gupta2013, p. 866). Still, the specific evaluative processes used by gatekeepers remain poorly understood (Überbacher, Reference Überbacher2014), which highlights the need for further investigation into how, in ‘crowded locations’ (Petkova, Reference Petkova, Barnett and Pollock2012, p. 396) with numerous ventures competing for gatekeeper attention, certain ones garner support.

The challenge of drawing gatekeeper coverage appears especially acute in the context of digital entrepreneurship. There has been a recent surge in the number of new digital ventures (Nambisan, Reference Nambisan2017; Nambisan et al., Reference Nambisan, Wright and Feldman2019), defined as ventures that have ‘digital artefacts at the core of their business model for value creation and capture’ (Lin & Maruping, 2021, p. 1). How do new digital ventures engage and benefit from market gatekeeper support? Answering this research question is crucial. It is argued that the uncertainties surrounding digital ventures differ from those of non-digital enterprises (Ingram Bogusz et al., Reference Ingram Bogusz, Teigland and Vaast2018), rendering them especially reliant on gatekeeper coverage (Von Briel et al., Reference Von Briel, Recker and Davidsson2018; Elia et al., Reference Elia, Margherita and Passiante2020).

5.1 Liability of Newness

A core insight of the new venture literature is that young enterprises suffer from the ‘liability of newness’ (Stinchcombe, Reference Stinchcombe and March1965; Bruederl & Schuessler, Reference Bruederl and Schuessler1990). Scholars have given significant attention to identifying how potential customers and others, because new ventures lack a track record, could be sceptical towards their performance and whether they can deliver the required quality in a timely manner (Fischer & Reuber, Reference Fischer and Reuber2007; Fischer et al., Reference Fischer, Kotha and Lahiri2016). Recently, it has been noted that this liability is more prominent in new technology areas or what Überbacher (Reference Überbacher2014) calls ‘high velocity environments’ as there can be a ‘rapid transformation’ (p. 685) of many different aspects, including what venture performance and quality mean. We focus below on digital ventures, as the liabilities surrounding these enterprise types are especially pronounced.

5.2 Gatekeeper Screening Processes

Mainstream scholarship has made much progress in showing how new ventures attempt to remedy the liability of newness through ‘being selected for coverage by influential institutional intermediaries’ (Petkova et al., Reference Petkova, Rindova and Gupta2013, p. 866). Gatekeeper coverage provides valuable assurances because it is assumed that the gatekeeper has conducted some evaluation and made a favourable judgement about venture qualities and viability (Hsu, Reference Hsu2004). Gatekeepers are defined as neutral ‘third parties’ (Beckert & Aspers, Reference Beckert and Aspers2011) or ‘intermediaries’ (Bessy & Chauvin, Reference Bessy and Chauvin2013; Coslor et al., Reference Coslor, Crawford and Leyshon2020) who evaluate phenomena in which they have no stake or interest (Beckert & Musselin, Reference Beckert and Musselin2013; Khaire, Reference Khaire, Durrand, Granqvist and Tyllström2017). The most well-known gatekeepers include industry analysts (Pontikes & Kim, Reference Pontikes and Barnett2017), industry media (Vasterman, Reference Vasterman2005; Kennedy, Reference Kennedy2008; Byrne & Giuliani, Reference Byrne and Giuliani2025; Magalhães & Smit, Reference Magalhães and Smit2025), and critics (Coslor et al., Reference Coslor, Crawford and Leyshon2020). Research shows that the gatekeeper performs essential functions such as ‘enhancing the visibility’ of ventures and ‘mediat[ing] information flows’ between it and other stakeholders (Pollock & Gulati, Reference Pollock and Gulati2007, p. 347). Ventures that win gatekeeper attention fare better as they channel market attention to those covered (Petkova et al., Reference Petkova, Rindova and Gupta2013). Failing to attract coverage will mean ventures will ‘not only be perceived as of lower quality’, but they could also be ‘less visible’ (Pollock & Gulati, Reference Pollock and Gulati2007, p. 347) since they are not part of industry discussions. However, the fact that gatekeepers have become an important staging post for new ventures echoes the puzzle we highlighted in the previous chapter. In Chapter 4, we showed that analyst briefings are a crucial site where start-ups repair their narratives to meet analysts’ criteria. Here we pick up on that by asking how, in practice, an analyst chooses one venture over another.

Studies have noted how gatekeepers have an internal ‘screening process’ (Petkova et al., Reference Petkova, Rindova and Gupta2008, p. 327) where they figure out ‘which firms merit their attention, for what reasons and to what extent’ (Rindova et al., Reference Rindova, Petkova and Kotha2007, p. 34). Others similarly describe how gatekeepers ‘filter information about new developments’ and ‘select a relatively small subset of issues, events, and organisations to focus public attention on’ (Petkova et al., Reference Petkova, Rindova and Gupta2013, p. 866). However, beyond these abstract screening processes, the actual mechanisms and evaluation processes remain poorly understood (Überbacher, Reference Überbacher2014). How, in situations where there are hundreds or, as with digital entrepreneurship, thousands of ventures vying for attention, does the gatekeeper decide to cover one venture and not another?

5.3 Valuation Studies

To help specify the gatekeeper evaluation process, we turn to recent Valuation Studies, a body of work that has shifted conceptions of evaluation from simple outcomes based on filtering and selection to more ‘processual’ understandings (see Millo et al., Reference Millo, Power, Robson and Vollmer2021). Two key insights are relevant from this literature. First, it acknowledges that venture performance or qualities are not given. Instead, they must be enacted as part of an evaluation. This is not an abstract or cognitive evaluation but rather one that involves distinctive socio-technical evaluation processes (Helgesson & Muniesa, Reference Helgesson and Muniesa2013, p. 23). Here, we will focus on the briefings provided by new digital ventures to industry analysts and the latter’s efforts to comprehend venture viability and distinctiveness.

Second, this research also highlights how evaluation can be transformative (Antal et al., Reference Antal, Hutter, Stark, Antal, Hutter and Stark2015; Kornberger et al., Reference Kornberger, Justesen, Madsen and Mouritsen2015). In tracing the etymology of the concept of ‘value’, for instance, the French sociologist Vatin (Reference Vatin2013) distinguished between ‘evaluating’ and the more generative notion of ‘valorising’, where the latter conception captured how the work of evaluation is not merely about appraisal but can also be additive towards the phenomenon under review. To evaluate ‘corresponds with a static judgement attributing a value to a good, a thing, a person’, whereas to valorise ‘has a dynamic meaning – increasing a value, adding an increment to it, a surplus value’ (Vatin, Reference Vatin2013, p. 33). The view of evaluation as concerned with identifying and creating value has begun having currency within management scholarship and broader social sciences (Karpik, Reference Karpik2010). For instance, in their study of the evaluation of art, Plante and colleagues (Reference Plante, Free and Andon2020, p. 3) discuss how art evaluators do more than identify the value of a particular artistic asset. In defending and rationalising their assessment to others, they actively enhance its value (see also Barman, Reference Barman2015; Bidet, Reference Bidet2020; Frenzel & Frisch, Reference Frenzel and Frisch2020).

When considering how gatekeepers screen new ventures, existing scholarship describes the first conception, appraisal (Pollock & Gulati, Reference Pollock and Gulati2007; Petkova et al., Reference Petkova, Rindova and Gupta2013), but not the second, valorising. Inspired by the idea that digging further into gatekeeper screening processes reveals potentially more profound value-creating mechanisms, we highlight the role of valuation and valorisation in screening processes as new ventures brief gatekeepers to win their backing.

5.4 New Ventures: An Unknown Quantity

To understand how new digital ventures engaged with and benefited from gatekeeper support, we surfaced three processes that enabled ventures to move from being an unknown quantity in the eyes of the gatekeeper to engaging the gatekeeper, to being valorised by it.

We found that analyst firms are expanding their coverage as they attempt to map and categorise the start-up community. This is a significant departure point. Previously, they only focused on the more prominent and significant/established players. This shift, we found, involved them in crafting a new venture focus and building developmental screening.

5.5 Engaging Gatekeeper Screening Processes

Our analysis identified a second process whereby the venture engaged with gatekeeper screening processes through a briefing. Our investigation captured how the briefing involved a series of mechanisms that included keeping them interested, understanding expectations, and navigating categories.

5.6 Being Valorised by the Gatekeeper

Those ventures that successfully proceed through the screening process would expect to benefit from gatekeeper attention in some way. In our analysis, we identified a third process that included giving spontaneous reactions, talking up, and advocating for.

5.7 Discussion: Model of the Gatekeeper Evaluation Process

This chapter sought to answer how new digital ventures engage a market gatekeeper and benefit from its coverage in helping solve a critical problem, being an unknown quantity. In doing so, we develop a process model of gatekeeper evaluation, revealing how ventures were required to perform a new kind of pitch, theorised as a valorising pitch, to move from being an unknown quantity to engaging the gatekeeper and being valorised. Figure 5.1 illustrates the mechanisms and challenges associated with briefing the gatekeeper and securing its support.

Figure 5.1

Model of the gatekeeper evaluation process.

From Unknown Quantity to Engaging the Gatekeeper: The starting point for our process model is how, identifying the growing significance of new digital ventures (Nambisan et al., Reference Nambisan, Wright and Feldman2019), the gatekeeper went about crafting a new venture focus and, because these ventures rarely met ‘established scales of evaluation’ (Aspers, Reference Aspers2018), ‘building developmental screening’. We show that to move from being an unknown quantity to engaging the gatekeeper required ventures to mobilise three mechanisms: keeping them interested, where, similar to ‘entrepreneurial storytelling’ (Lounsbury et al., Reference Lounsbury, Gehman and Glynn2019), ventures attempted to convince why gatekeeper coverage was warranted; understanding expectations, whereby ventures become socialised in gatekeeper practices and worldview; navigating categories, where ventures needed to consider and take into account gatekeeper categorisations (see Chapter 7). While these mechanisms helped ventures progress to the next phase of gatekeeper evaluation, we emphasise that this was far from inevitable, given high levels of competition for analyst coverage and exacting briefing demands.

From Engaging the Gatekeeper to Being Valorised: If successful in briefing, a venture may potentially receive more detailed consideration, perhaps making it onto a ranking or procurement list. However, the nub of our argument is that the briefing triggered more than inclusion in the formal gatekeeper evaluation system. Specifically, it led to being valorised, which comprised the gatekeeper talking up, where it explained and justified to gatekeeper clients and others why certain ventures received coverage, including providing further detailed evidence of positive attributes and innovative characteristics; advocating for, where, having discovered a promising venture, gatekeeper staff might then enthuse about it during client meetings, on stage when making a presentation, or when writing up a case study; giving spontaneous reactions, where advice was offered to a venture struggling to spell out its more innovative attributes or identity. These were typically not deep reflections but unprompted and knee-jerk.

However, this raises the puzzling question of why the gatekeeper might support or promote a venture, especially considering its role as an ‘impartial’ assessor (Beckert & Musselin, Reference Beckert and Musselin2013; Pollock & Williams, Reference Pollock and Williams2016; Khaire, Reference Khaire, Durrand, Granqvist and Tyllström2017). As we see it, the gatekeeper promoted ventures not in a prescribed or designed way but as a ‘consequence’ of its evaluation process (Kruger & Reinhart, Reference Krüger and Reinhart2017; Frenzel & Frisch, Reference Frenzel and Frisch2020). This interpretation is reinforced by Valuation Studies scholarship, which views gatekeeper screening as involving evaluation and a more generative process of ‘valorising’ (Kornberger et al., Reference Kornberger, Justesen, Madsen and Mouritsen2015; Aspers, Reference Aspers2018). As Vatin (Reference Vatin2013) theorises, evaluators play an active role in not just identifying but ‘enhancing’ value through explaining and justifying assessments (see also Bidet, Reference Bidet2020). However, in our case, the gatekeeper did more than elaborate and define a venture position – what we theorise as talking up – it also sought to ‘improve’ that position through advocating for and giving spontaneous reactions.

These findings resemble Karpik’s (Reference Karpik2010) analysis of the competition between evaluators, where, because evaluators vie with others for the attention of audiences, they strive to make the things they assess ‘more visible and more desirable than their competitors’ (p. 46). Hence, as shown in our case, the gatekeeper devoted considerable effort to help ventures prosper in the market, that is, going as far as to provide suggestions (‘You want to be a security company’), introductions (‘We will speak of you with clients’), and even affective responses (‘We are as passionate about your solutions and capabilities as you are’). We suggest that valorisation should be conceptualised as involving both these aspects (justifying and advocating), which brings together what the extant literature treats as separate or does not account for. It also allows us to theorise another aspect in our study – how ventures sought to trigger and leverage this broader gatekeeper role.

Valorising Pitch: The notion of the valorisation pitch should capture the idea that ventures were often mindful that, underlying the gatekeeper evaluation system, there were other mechanisms to be leveraged. This aspect resembles the ‘strategic valorisation’ described by Plante and colleagues (Reference Plante, Free and Andon2020, p. 3), showing how actors, often purposefully and expertly, exploit the connection between evaluation and valorisation. For instance, some ventures viewed briefing not simply as a means to enter a ranking but as a way to elicit spontaneous feedback, which could then have an ‘editing’ effect (Überbacher et al., Reference Überbacher, Jacobs and Cornelissen2015, p. 943) on their venture. Others realised the potential for the briefing to build more significant gatekeeper engagement – similar to the ‘soft power tactics’ described by Santos and Eisenhardt (Reference Santos and Eisenhardt2009, p. 663) – which could then be subtly exploited. Others still saw the potential for a venture to enter a ranking but then for the two processes – evaluation and valorisation – to shape each other in a ‘bootstrapping manner’ (Plante et al., Reference Plante, Free and Andon2020, p. 15) where, because of gatekeeper coverage, it receives further valorisation, which enables entrance to other higher prestige rankings.

These insights illuminate how ventures could engage the gatekeeper to overcome some of the damaging aspects of being an unknown quantity. Valorisation appeared as powerful as other influences that stem from the formal gatekeeper evaluation system. Indeed, for some, gatekeeper valorisation was thought to be more powerful. Ventures that proactively leverage gatekeeper valorisation appear more likely to build market acceptance, that is, successfully engage with potential customers and other resource providers. Our analysis suggests that leveraging gatekeeper valorisation requires all three mechanisms – keeping them interested, understanding expectations, and navigating categories. We, therefore, reveal and theorise an enhanced model of gatekeeper evaluation that offers ventures the potential to mitigate some of the liabilities of venture adolescence (Stinchcombe, Reference Stinchcombe and March1965; Bruederl & Schuessler, Reference Bruederl and Schuessler1990).

We now discuss how this new theorisation of the gatekeeper evaluation process and valorising pitch contributes to research on new venture development, gatekeepers, and digital entrepreneurship.

5.8 How New Ventures Brief Market Gatekeepers for Endorsements

There is broad recognition of the importance of gatekeepers in the development of new ventures (Navis & Glynn, Reference Navis and Glynn2011). They can perform a significant role for ventures that find it challenging to gain a foothold in the marketplace (Überbacher, Reference Überbacher2014). Our chapter thus directly responds to Petkova’s (Reference Petkova, Barnett and Pollock2012) call to build conceptions of ‘what exactly a young firm can do to become selected by prestigious affiliates’ (Petkova, Reference Petkova, Barnett and Pollock2012, p. 394) by offering a rare empirical study of interactions between gatekeepers and ventures at the moment when they become more structured and formalised around a briefing. Our exploration of relationships forming around this distinct briefing type is novel; to our knowledge, we are the first to study and establish the importance of these valorising pitches and the micro-processes enacting them.

It is widely recognised that pitching is a core ‘cultural competence’ (Überbacher et al., Reference Überbacher, Jacobs and Cornelissen2015). However, most attention has been given hitherto to pitches related to starting and financing (Clarke et al., Reference Clarke, Cornelissen and Healey2019) rather than to audiences, such as gatekeepers, for broader assets, such as an endorsement (Fischer et al., Reference Fischer, Kotha and Lahiri2016). Scholars posit that it is necessary to distinguish between pitches to early- and later-stage audiences as the challenges will likely differ (Lounsbury & Glynn, Reference Lounsbury and Glynn2019). Fisher and colleagues (Reference Fisher, Neubert and Burnell2021) identified six pitch types with unique features and functions, but none directly reflect the dynamics and audience identified in this chapter. Our account complements the above studies by revealing a further pitch – the valorising pitch – which we have defined as a device to enrol a market gatekeeper to help build market presence. For instance, while investment pitches are characterised as a ‘singular transaction-based exchange’ (Teague et al., Reference Teague, Gorton and Liu2020, p. 336) involving ‘simple relationship[s]’ (p. 334), the valorisation pitch requires longer-term interactions where ventures must not only ‘engage the gatekeeper’ but ‘keep them interested’ over many years, which requires new skills and expertise. Furthermore, our theorisation of the valorising pitch would seem to complement Überbacher and colleagues’ (Reference Überbacher, Jacobs and Cornelissen2015) call for further research on the ‘strategic cultural actions’ those in new ventures must engage in when ‘legitimising their ventures’ (p. 947).

5.9 Gatekeeper Evaluation Processes Are Value-Creating

Our theorisation of the market gatekeeper evaluation process is also novel. Despite being theorised as ‘expert evaluators’ (Hsu, Reference Hsu2004), ‘evaluative institutions’ (Überbacher, Reference Überbacher2014), and ‘evaluators’ (Bessy & Chauvin, Reference Bessy and Chauvin2013), there are as yet no fine-grained models (Überbacher, Reference Überbacher2014) that tell us how gatekeepers evaluate ventures vying for their attention and what influence this has on their development. This chapter provides this more granular analysis in the form of an enhanced theoretical model of gatekeeper evaluation, which depicts evaluation processes as not simply ‘value-identifying’ but also value-creating. To date, researchers have advanced the debate by examining the ‘screening processes’ (Petkova et al., Reference Petkova, Rindova and Gupta2008, p. 327) used by gatekeepers to help figure out ‘which firms merit their attention, for what reasons and to what extent’ (Rindova et al., Reference Rindova, Petkova and Kotha2007, p. 34), where gatekeepers are depicted as making ‘judgments about the presence and level of specific [venture] attributes’ (Petkova et al., Reference Petkova, Rindova and Gupta2013, p. 866). However, this focuses on static value-identifying processes, the first part of our model, but not the second. The more value-creating mechanisms we reveal here are important because they are fundamentally generative of venture attributes and capabilities. Our enhanced theorisation, therefore, articulates mechanisms not fully accounted for in the existing concept of gatekeeper screening. It also deepens our understanding of how gatekeepers influence the development of new ventures.

Specifically, existing research has highlighted two prominent roles the gatekeeper plays towards new ventures. First, this is Pollock and Gulati’s (Reference Pollock and Gulati2007) suggestion that it ‘enhance[s] the visibility’ of ventures (p. 347). Second, it is Petkova and colleagues’ (Reference Petkova, Rindova and Gupta2013) finding that gatekeepers funnel ‘public attention toward some [ventures] and away from others’ (p. 866). However, by revealing how gatekeepers have value-creating and not just value-identifying mechanisms, we theorise them as more than simply amplifying pre-existing venture characteristics or popularising ventures with audiences. For instance, we show that the gatekeeper can shape the narrative surrounding venture identity and attributes (‘That’s a huge capability, you should talk about that more’). This insight that the gatekeeper can make ventures more understandable and attractive aligns with Überbacher’s (Reference Überbacher2014) call for research on the evaluative institutions that enable ventures to become ‘comprehensible and meaningful in the first place’ (p. 688). It also complements Lounsbury and colleagues’ (Reference Lounsbury, Gehman and Glynn2019) discussion of the ‘judgement processes’ surrounding new ventures and how it is these that drive the activity whereby ventures ‘acquire their attributes’ rather than simply residing in the ‘hands of the entrepreneur’ (p. 1225).

5.10 Gatekeepers Are Central in Realising Digital Entrepreneurship

Our chapter fosters an understanding of digital entrepreneurship by examining the unique role gatekeepers play in digital ventures (Elia et al., Reference Elia, Margherita and Passiante2020; Von Briel et al., Reference Von Briel, Selander, Hukal, Lehmann, Rothe, Fürstenau and Wurm2021). Scholars suggest the liability of newness is revealed differently in digital entrepreneurship (Srinivasan & Venkatraman, Reference Srinivasan and Venkatraman2017; Ingram Bogusz et al., Reference Ingram Bogusz, Teigland and Vaast2018). Specifically, this is because digital technologies embody ‘traits that allow [ventures] to evolve their identity’ (Recker & Von Briel, Reference Recker and Von Briel2019, p. 2). While the process of transforming identity through a ‘pivot’ (Ghezzi & Cavallo, Reference Ghezzi and Cavallo2020; Wagner & Som, Reference Wagner, Som and Fayolle2021) can help survival and growth (Von Briel et al., Reference Von Briel, Selander, Hukal, Lehmann, Rothe, Fürstenau and Wurm2021), it can also make it difficult for ventures to be clear about questions relating to ‘who [they] are’ and ‘what [they] do’ (Navis & Glynn, Reference Navis and Glynn2011, p. 479), which can be damaging when approaching resource providers.

Our generative model of gatekeeper evaluation complements existing research by showing how industry analysts are crucial actors in realising and shaping digital entrepreneurship, working as both ‘evaluators’ and ‘valorisers’. Our chapter suggests they play an especially significant role for some ventures more than others – specifically, those still developing significant aspects such as identity. Surprisingly, it did not seem to be the case that confusion around identity was wholly damaging in these settings (see McDonald & Gao, Reference McDonald and Gao2019; Fisher, Reference Fisher2020). Indeed, the gatekeeper took a ‘developmental’ rather than policing (Zuckerman, Reference Zuckerman1999) approach. However, this finding does not sit easily with mainstream gatekeeper literature. Scholars suggest that a venture lacking clarity around identity would be ‘screened out’ (Zuckerman, Reference Zuckerman1999, p. 1415). Yet, our chapter showed this was not always or inevitably the case (Durand & Paolella, Reference Durand and Paolella2013). We thus complement the body of scholarship that seeks to move beyond the depiction of ventures as either ‘screened in’ or ‘screened out’ (McDonald & Gao, Reference McDonald and Gao2019; Fisher, Reference Fisher2020). This is particularly important, given that we show that the gatekeeper adopted more ‘developmental screening’ and ventures themselves appear more expert and strategic in leveraging such coverage.

5.11 Research Opportunities for Studying Valorisation

Our chapter points to further research opportunities. We investigated how the valorising pitch benefits new digital venture development, but we glossed over whether this is a ‘tide that lifts all boats’ (Lounsbury et al., Reference Lounsbury, Gehman and Glynn2019, p. 1226). An essential vein of research would highlight the differences between those receiving gatekeeper coverage and those failing to win such endorsements. It is also necessary to identify the adverse consequences surrounding these briefings, including aspects such as what happens if the gatekeeper develops a negative assessment and how the venture might ‘shield’ (Überbacher et al., Reference Überbacher, Jacobs and Cornelissen2015, p. 945) if valorisation turns out to be ‘reductive’ instead of additive.

A further aspect for future research would be capturing the tension in our model between ‘value-identifying’ and ‘value-creating’ mechanisms. Both are important in supporting new ventures, but each works differently. Scholars may develop a richer understanding of how these mechanisms interrelate and whether there can be clashes, such as when one mechanism overrides or subsumes the other. For instance, further research might seek to understand whether there are limits to valorisation and any measures evaluators must take to ensure their evaluation systems and outputs continue to be seen as ‘impartial’ rather than ‘puff pieces’ (Silberstein-Loeb, Reference Silberstein-Loeb2011).

Finally, we suspect that our insights surrounding the valorising pitch could be further elaborated upon and incorporated into Valuation Studies (Kornberger et al., Reference Kornberger, Justesen, Madsen and Mouritsen2015; Aspers, Reference Aspers2018; Plante et al., Reference Plante, Free and Andon2020). Studying these briefings suggests a new type of evaluation practice – a ‘valorisation practice’ – that captures actors’ strategies and tactics to leverage the valorisation mechanisms underlying evaluation systems. Further research could investigate practical techniques as well as challenges across a variety of settings – rankings (Ringel et al., Reference Ringel, Espeland, Sauder and Werron2021), third-party certifiers (Gehman et al., Reference Gehman, Grimes and Cao2019), investment analysts (Arjaliès et al., Reference Arjaliès, Grant, Hardie, MacKenzie and Svetlova2017), auditing firms (Power, Reference Power2021), rating agencies (Rona-Tas & Hiss, Reference Rona-Tas, Hiss, Lounsbury and Hirsch2010) – as actors seek to benefit from this not much studied but fundamental evaluator role.