5 ms·

Mark Cuban said in a Howard Stern interview that about half of the deals made on the show fall apart during due diligence. So it's not particularly surprising

Mark Cuban said in a Howard Stern interview that about half of the deals made on the show fall apart during due diligence. So it's not particularly surprising that he never got his $200k. The only "fraud" I see here was perpetrated on viewers, if indeed they later aired a show (that this inventor voluntarily participated in) with an entirely fictional narrative about making a deal with Sharper Image. Shark Tank probably has an innocent explanation, and the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. But my BS detector went through the roof when he suggested that as a settlement for his lawsuit, he would accept being allowed to go back on a show that he claims is a fraud. This makes him sound like nothing more than a desperate, failed business owner that is attempting extort his way back onto the show for the free advertising it offers.

helthanatos 10y ago
It sounds to me that he is lying... A lot. He accepted a settlement and now is suing again because that wasn't enough? He doesn't want people to think his item is niche and expensive... But it is. He raised the price from something already expensive to "I think I'll just carry around a tent". When you improve something, normally you improve defects and make it better, so it should cost around the same price. Why double the price for something a little better? This guy seems to not know how to run a company at all.
- canttestthis 10y ago
  I don't agree with that at all. It's up to him to set the price for his improved product, whether it's 10% more or 100% or 1000%. It's unfair though when an old version of his product is presented at an old price point using present tense verbs on TV. Of course viewers are going to think it's a bait and switch when they try to buy it. It harms his business.
  - helthanatos 10y ago
    If his product improved enough to price it so much greater, he should have versioned his product. If his "improvements" were just a farce and he just wanted to increase the price, then it is a bait and switch. Either way, this boils down to him being bad at business. But with reruns, they should include a disclaimer that says the original date and that prices may have changed.
    - canttestthis 10y ago
      No, he shouldn't be forced to version his product. Being taken advantage of by a large media house != being bad at business.
      - helthanatos 10y ago
        He changed his product. That was his choice. It was also his choice to appear on Shark Tank. Two times.
    - Jtsummers 10y ago
      So if someone runs across an old Craftsman add for a $2.00 philips head screwdriver that's $5.00 today, even though it hasn't changed (if anything it's probably cheaper to produce), they're dishonest?
  - notahacker 10y ago
    Does Shark Tank not follow the example of the UK show Dragon's Den that inspired it in discussing costs of manufacture and wholesale prices? Can't see how anyone can reasonably consider it a "bait and switch" if, after watching a programme in which someone has discussed making a product for $5, selling it wholesale for $15 and expecting it to retail at $30, they then find a different price again for the current version. Getting more revenue out of consumers is literally the point of a show about entrepreneurship.
poppup 10y ago
I worked on Shark Tank. It is a lie (but not unlike almost every other TV show) with just enough truth to keep "suspension of disbelief" aloft. It was designed that way from the beginning. Almost all TV shows are designed this way. The "lie" is called entertainment. The subject of "high stakes" investing is ready-made for TV, but no investor can adequately research a business in the 15 minutes it takes to shoot each pitch.
- downandout 10y ago
  Is Mark Cuban's claim that he funds approximately half of the deals he makes on the show in the ballpark? I also remember him saying something about the each pitch actually taking up to an hour, that is then cut down for TV. But you're saying it takes 15 minutes to shoot each. Which is it?
  - Reedx 10y ago
    The edited pitches they show on TV are way too long to only have 15 mins of raw footage. Surely the actual pitches are much longer than that.
    - downandout 10y ago
      That's my take as well (plus Mark Cuban actually said it takes much longer than you see on air). I don't want to call anyone a liar, which is why I asked the questions I did. For all I know he did work there. But it was certainly a suspect comment.
      - poppup 10y ago
        Between pitches, production takes long breaks where Mark Cuban and the other talent have nothing to do, but sit and wait. TV production is not very exciting. Post-production even less so. A lot of sitting and waiting. A lot of looking through useless footage to try to find the juice. I have worked in TV for over a decade. I am leaving Santa Monica to move to Mission Bay in San Francisco in November. I hope not to work on another TV show for the rest of my life, but God laughs when we make plans.
AdamJacobMuller 10y ago
The thing that made me realize the lawsuit is frivolous is that his basic contention here seems to be that he didn't realize that the show would be replayed over and over for years. Have you not watched television in the past decade? They're still re-running shows from the 50s! Why would you assume they would throw away the free-at-this-point old episodes? Does ANY non-news show do that?

helthanatos 10y ago

It sounds to me that he is lying... A lot. He accepted a settlement and now is suing again because that wasn't enough? He doesn't want people to think his item is niche and expensive... But it is. He raised the price from something already expensive to "I think I'll just carry around a tent". When you improve something, normally you improve defects and make it better, so it should cost around the same price. Why double the price for something a little better? This guy seems to not know how to run a company at all.

canttestthis 10y ago
I don't agree with that at all. It's up to him to set the price for his improved product, whether it's 10% more or 100% or 1000%. It's unfair though when an old version of his product is presented at an old price point using present tense verbs on TV. Of course viewers are going to think it's a bait and switch when they try to buy it. It harms his business.
- helthanatos 10y ago
  If his product improved enough to price it so much greater, he should have versioned his product. If his "improvements" were just a farce and he just wanted to increase the price, then it is a bait and switch. Either way, this boils down to him being bad at business. But with reruns, they should include a disclaimer that says the original date and that prices may have changed.
  - canttestthis 10y ago
    No, he shouldn't be forced to version his product. Being taken advantage of by a large media house != being bad at business.
    - helthanatos 10y ago
      He changed his product. That was his choice. It was also his choice to appear on Shark Tank. Two times.
  - Jtsummers 10y ago
    So if someone runs across an old Craftsman add for a $2.00 philips head screwdriver that's $5.00 today, even though it hasn't changed (if anything it's probably cheaper to produce), they're dishonest?
- notahacker 10y ago
  Does Shark Tank not follow the example of the UK show Dragon's Den that inspired it in discussing costs of manufacture and wholesale prices? Can't see how anyone can reasonably consider it a "bait and switch" if, after watching a programme in which someone has discussed making a product for $5, selling it wholesale for $15 and expecting it to retail at $30, they then find a different price again for the current version. Getting more revenue out of consumers is literally the point of a show about entrepreneurship.

poppup 10y ago

I worked on Shark Tank. It is a lie (but not unlike almost every other TV show) with just enough truth to keep "suspension of disbelief" aloft. It was designed that way from the beginning. Almost all TV shows are designed this way. The "lie" is called entertainment. The subject of "high stakes" investing is ready-made for TV, but no investor can adequately research a business in the 15 minutes it takes to shoot each pitch.

downandout 10y ago
Is Mark Cuban's claim that he funds approximately half of the deals he makes on the show in the ballpark? I also remember him saying something about the each pitch actually taking up to an hour, that is then cut down for TV. But you're saying it takes 15 minutes to shoot each. Which is it?
- Reedx 10y ago
  The edited pitches they show on TV are way too long to only have 15 mins of raw footage. Surely the actual pitches are much longer than that.
  - downandout 10y ago
    That's my take as well (plus Mark Cuban actually said it takes much longer than you see on air). I don't want to call anyone a liar, which is why I asked the questions I did. For all I know he did work there. But it was certainly a suspect comment.
    - poppup 10y ago
      Between pitches, production takes long breaks where Mark Cuban and the other talent have nothing to do, but sit and wait. TV production is not very exciting. Post-production even less so. A lot of sitting and waiting. A lot of looking through useless footage to try to find the juice. I have worked in TV for over a decade. I am leaving Santa Monica to move to Mission Bay in San Francisco in November. I hope not to work on another TV show for the rest of my life, but God laughs when we make plans.

AdamJacobMuller 10y ago

The thing that made me realize the lawsuit is frivolous is that his basic contention here seems to be that he didn't realize that the show would be replayed over and over for years. Have you not watched television in the past decade? They're still re-running shows from the 50s! Why would you assume they would throw away the free-at-this-point old episodes? Does ANY non-news show do that?