The verdict in three sentences
Founders in London now ask AI assistants like ChatGPT which funds back their stage and sector before they ever open a fund's website, and the answer they get shapes who receives the deck. A venture capital firm appears in those answers when its thesis, cheque size, portfolio and partners are stated clearly and consistently across its own site and credible third-party sources, and is left out or misdescribed when they are not. The work is still an emerging market, typically quoted at £2,500 to £8,000 a month by London agencies in 2026, and the only honest way to judge it is a dated record of what the assistants say about you over time.
What founders and LPs now ask AI assistants
A seed founder in Shoreditch or a Series A team in King's Cross uses an AI assistant as a first filter. LP-side, allocators also run quick checks before a first call. The questions are specific:
| Who asks | Typical question put to an AI assistant | What the answer needs from your firm |
|---|---|---|
| Pre-seed founder | "Which London VCs write first cheques under £500k for climate tech?" | Stated stage and cheque range, sector pages |
| Seed founder | "Which UK funds lead seed rounds in B2B fintech and are founder-friendly?" | Lead vs follow position, portfolio examples |
| Series A CEO | "Who are the partners at [fund] and what have they backed?" | Partner bios with consistent names and roles |
| Founder abroad | "Which London VCs invest in European startups outside the UK?" | Geography stated plainly |
| Founder preparing | "How do I pitch [fund], do they take cold decks?" | A clear pitch submission route |
| Angel or scout | "Does [fund] co-invest with angels at seed?" | Co-investment stance |
| Prospective LP | "What is [fund]'s strategy and team background?" | Factual strategy page, no performance claims |
| Journalist or analyst | "Which London funds focus on deep tech in 2026?" | Fresh, dated thesis content |
If your site says "we back exceptional founders" without stage, sector or cheque size, an assistant has nothing precise to repeat. Worse, it may fill the gap with an outdated database entry or a partner who left two years ago.
Why some funds appear in answers and others do not
AI assistants draw on what is publicly and consistently stated. In our reading of the London market, the funds that come up tend to share a few traits:
- Consistent facts everywhere: the same thesis, stage and cheque range on the site, on Companies House filings where relevant, on professional profiles and in press coverage.
- Third-party mentions: funding announcements, ecosystem reports, podcasts, university and accelerator pages that name the fund in context.
- Clear factual pages: one page per thesis or sector, a portfolio page with dated entries, partner pages that state what each person backs.
- Structured data describing the organisation and its people, so machines read the same facts as humans.
- Freshness: a thesis last updated in 2022 reads as abandoned.
The LP side is where caution matters. Communication aimed at investors in a fund is regulated, and the FCA rules on financial promotions apply to what a firm can say publicly about its funds. Visibility work should focus on founders and on factual descriptions of strategy and team, never on returns. Data protection also applies: under UK GDPR, the Data Protection Act 2018 and the ICO's oversight, a pitch form should collect only what is needed, and PECR governs cookies and marketing email. This is not legal advice.
What the work covers, and what it costs in London
The work usually spans an audit of how assistants currently describe the fund, alignment of public facts across sources, rewriting or creating thesis, portfolio and team pages, structured data, a programme of credible third-party mentions, and regular measurement. Ballpark 2026 ranges below come from typical London agency quotes and public rate pages; the market is young, so spreads are wide.
| Component | London ballpark (ex VAT) | Frequency | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Initial AI visibility diagnostic | £3,000 to £9,000 | Once | Set of questions, current answers, gaps |
| Content and fact alignment | £2,500 to £5,000/month | 3 to 6 months | Thesis, portfolio, partners, consistency |
| Third-party mentions and PR | £3,000 to £8,000/month | Ongoing | Ecosystem media, podcasts, reports |
| Combined retainer | £4,000 to £8,000/month | 6 to 12 months | Diagnostic often included |
| Quarterly measurement only | £1,000 to £2,500/quarter | Quarterly | Dated record of answers |
| Site rebuild if the base is weak | On quote | Once | Only where pages cannot be fixed |
Kolonell scopes this work on quote, after a diagnostic of what assistants currently say about your fund.
How results are measured
Need a professional website?
Kolonell builds websites that attract clients, optimized for the Sénégalese market. Free quote in 2 minutes.
No provider can promise that an assistant will recommend your fund, and anyone who does is overselling. What can be measured is a dated record: the same set of 20 to 40 questions, asked at fixed intervals, with each answer stored. From that record you track three things: the share of answers that mention the fund, the accuracy of what is said (stage, cheque size, partners, sectors) and the position of the fund relative to named peers. A fall in errors is often the first visible win, well before mentions increase.
Mini case study
Illustrative example: "Thames Arc Ventures", a £120m seed fund in Farringdon, asks 30 founder questions to AI assistants each month. In the first record, the fund is mentioned in 4 answers out of 30 (13%), and 2 of those 4 state an outdated cheque size. After six months of fact alignment and ecosystem coverage, the record shows 9 mentions out of 30 (30%) with no factual errors. The fund spends £5,000 a month, £30,000 over six months. If its partners judge that one additional quality deal flow lead a month is worth the time of an associate, about £1,500 per lead in screening cost avoided elsewhere, six months yield £9,000 of direct value: the case rests on deal quality and accuracy rather than on a short-term financial return.
FAQ
Do London founders really use AI assistants to shortlist funds?
Many now do as a first filter, alongside personal networks and databases. The question is less "if" than whether the answer about your fund is accurate, and a 30-question record shows that in a few days.
Can we talk about fund performance to improve our visibility?
Performance messaging to the public is regulated and best avoided in this context. Visibility work should rely on factual thesis, team and portfolio information approved by your compliance function.
How long before anything changes?
Corrections to factual errors can show within 2 to 4 months; a higher share of mentions usually takes 6 to 12 months, because third-party coverage builds slowly.
Is this the same as SEO?
It overlaps: clear pages and structured data help both. The difference lies in measurement, a dated record of assistant answers rather than search rankings, and a heavier weight on consistent third-party mentions.
What budget should a London fund plan?
As a 2026 ballpark, a diagnostic of £3,000 to £9,000, then £4,000 to £8,000 a month for six to twelve months. A small fund can start with the diagnostic and quarterly measurement only.
Find out how AI assistants describe your firm. We will put your fund's real founder questions to AI assistants and show you what comes back. Request a diagnostic quote: reply within 48 hours.
Mohamed Bah
Fondateur, Kolonell
Passionate about digital and entrepreneurship in Africa, Mohamed has been helping Sénégalese businesses with their digital transformation since 2020. Founder of Kolonell, he believes every SME deserves a professional and accessible online présence.
