Today’s Improved SPAC Structure Requires a Strong IR & PR Playbook
Alpha senior leaders recently co-sponsored a SPAC Bootcamp in NYC alongside several of the most experienced operators in the space, including our partner, Belay Global. The takeaway was clear: the SPAC market is back – but it isn’t the market that crashed in 2022.
After two quiet years, 2025 saw 144 SPAC IPOs raise over $30.3 billion, nearly tripling 2024’s $9.6 billion total. SPACs accounted for nearly 40% of U.S. IPO deal count, up from 23% the year prior. The momentum has carried into 2026 as the first two months alone produced 50 SPAC IPOs raising $10 billion — outpacing the 27 traditional IPOs that raised over $9 billion over the same window.
A core theme of the event centered around how much the product itself has changed. What we’re seeing today isn’t a return to 2021, it’s something different enough to warrant its own label. Alpha is calling it SPAC 4.0: a more disciplined, institutionally credible iteration marked by performance-based sponsor economics, longer deal timelines, and revenue-generating targets with real operating histories.
The audience has changed even more than the structure. What was once a retail-driven phenomenon fueled by social media buzz, celebrity sponsors, and speculative enthusiasm has increasingly become a domain dominated by institutional investors. The capital is back, the retail frenzy is not, and the communications strategies that worked during the boom (and that many firms are still recycling) are not built for the audience now writing the checks.
For sponsors, target companies, and advisors supporting them, the implication is straightforward: the IR and PR playbook needs a serious update.
Alpha’s Senior Managing Directors James McCusker and Elizabeth Castro presenting at They Belay/Alpha SPAC Bootcamp.
What Actually Changed: Retail Frenzy to Institutional Discipline
During the peak of the SPAC boom in 2020–2021, retail investors played an outsized role. The structure of SPACs offering accessible entry points, and the allure of early-stage growth stories made them particularly attractive to individual investors. Add in high-profile sponsors and aggressive forward-looking projections, and SPACs quickly became a staple of retail portfolios.
However, several factors contributed to the cooling of retail enthusiasm:
- Post-merger underperformance: Many de-SPAC companies struggled to meet projections, which eroded trust among retail investors.
- Regulatory scrutiny: Increased attention from the SEC around disclosures and projections reduced the promotional tone that initially drew in retail participants.
- Market volatility and rising rates: A more risk-off environment shifted retail interest toward more stable or short-term opportunities.
At the same time, institutional investors, who hadn’t always participated in SPAC IPOs and PIPEs began to take a more central role. Their approach is markedly different: more analytical, more risk-averse, and more focused on fundamentals than narratives.
Why Institutions Now Dominate the SPAC Landscape
Today’s SPAC ecosystem reflects a more mature, institutionalized market:
- Capital concentration: Larger funds and asset managers now control a greater share of deployable capital in SPACs, most notably through direct PIPE financing and anchor investments.
- Due diligence expectations: Institutional investors demand rigorous financial modeling, realistic projections, and clear paths to profitability.
- Structural advantages: Institutions manage redemption features, negotiate favorable terms, and influence deal structure in ways retail investors cannot.
- Reduced speculative appeal: With fewer “story stocks” and more scrutiny, SPACs have become less attractive to momentum-driven retail traders.
The Communications Gap: Why the Old Playbook No Longer Works
Communications strategies built for the 2020–2021 retail audience emphasized big-picture storytelling, media visibility, and aspirational growth projections. That approach is not just ineffective with today’s institutional buyers – it is actively counterproductive. It triggers exactly the skepticism that the 2021 cohort’s underperformance is hardwired into every institutional diligence process.
Importantly, this evolution also extends beyond target companies to SPAC sponsors themselves. In today’s market, sponsors are no longer relying solely on deal-making track records or networks to differentiate. Instead, they are increasingly engaging in strategic communications to build credibility with institutional investors and, just as critically, to attract high-quality merger targets.
This shift in investor base requires a fundamental rethink of investor relations (IR) and public relations (PR) strategies.
How IR and PR Must Evolve
To engage institutional investors effectively, communications must become more disciplined, data-driven, and transparent.
Five principles should now anchor the communications work:
1. Lead with Operating Fundamentals, Not Vision & Hype
Institutional investors prioritize clear revenue quality, cash flow visibility, unit economics, and the credibility of the path to profitability, as well as the scalability of the business model. Forward-looking, aspirational statements still have a role and remain one of the genuine advantages of the de-SPAC route, but they need to be tightly tethered to the operating data and clearly bounded by realistic assumptions.
2. Treat Pre-Deal Readiness as a Communications Asset
Sophisticated sponsors no longer treat operational gaps as post-closing work. Finance infrastructure, internal controls, audit readiness, cybersecurity governance, and a functioning IR capability are now evaluated before the deal proceeds. Communications teams should be working with management well before the merger announcement to ensure the company can credibly tell its public-company story from day one – not scrambling to build that capability after the proxy is filed with the SEC.
3. Distinguish between SPAC Arb Capital & Long-Only Fundamental Capital, Target Each Appropriately
The marketing strategy around the IPO differs fundamentally from that of the de-SPAC announcement. The former is about the credibility of the sponsor and the thesis; the latter is about persuading sector-focused fundamental investors to buy in at a premium to trust value. Treating these as a single audience produces messaging that is too generic for either.
4. Shift PR from Broad Media to Targeted Thought Leadership
The objective is no longer brand visibility; it is positioning the management team and sponsor as credible operators within a defined sector. That means targeted placements in financial and industry-specific outlets, executive visibility at investor-focused forums and sector conferences, and substantive thought leadership on industry dynamics – not promotional headlines. Done well, this work compounds in building the sponsor’s reputation with potential targets and with institutional capital simultaneously.
The goal is to now position the company as a credible operator, not just an exciting story.
5. Align IR, PR, Legal & Finance Under One Narrative
In a more institutional and highly scrutinized market, inconsistencies between IR and PR messaging can quickly undermine credibility. The gap between what the CFO says on an earnings call, what the press release implies, and what the proxy discloses is the gap that plaintiffs’ lawyers and short sellers exploit. A unified communications strategy where financial messaging, media narratives, regulatory disclosures, and executive commentary are tightly aligned is now table stakes, not refinement.
A Note on SPAC Sponsors
This evolution applies as much to SPAC sponsors themselves as to their targets. In a market where private companies considering a SPAC have more options than they did three years ago, sponsors are increasingly competing on platform credibility, not just on deal terms or networks. A visible, disciplined, consistently communicated sponsor brand signals professionalism to institutional capital and positions the sponsor as a value-add partner to high-quality targets. The most effective sponsors today are running their own thought leadership, sector commentary, and executive visibility programs, often well in advance of any specific transaction. In a more competitive environment for quality targets, pre-positioning matters.
Conclusion
The SPAC market in 2026 is more active than at any point since the 2021 peak, and more disciplined than ever. Institutional capital is willing to back the right deals but unwilling to undertake weak ones.
For companies navigating the SPAC process today, the communications mandate is clear: replace hype with substance, storytelling with operating data, and broad appeal with sector-specific credibility.
The companies and sponsors that internalize this, and adapt their IR and PR strategies accordingly, will be far better positioned to successfully convert the renewed institutional interest into durable, well-priced transactions. The ones that don’t will find that today’s institutional buyers have a long memory and a short list of names they trust.
