
Newton inventor claims ‘Shark Tank’ is all a lie - ilamont
http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/09/16/newton-inventor-wearable-umbrella-says-shark-tank-all-lie/YtQVKJpsjAeqYiKdJn0ZrK/story.html?event=event25
======
downandout
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.

~~~
poppup
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
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
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.

~~~
poppup
The pitches can be shot between 15-60 minutes each. These are ballpark
figures, keep in mind, and I am sure that some pitches have taken longer. The
point is, there's not enough time to make an informed decision.

Production wants to shoot them as quickly as possible, as they are renting
very expensive studio space and paying the talent for every shoot day.

Shark Tank is very efficient as far as TV shows go. Some shows, like Big
Brother, shoot 100 minutes for every 1 minute aired. Shark Tank is probably
closer to 3-5 minutes shot for every 1 minute aired. It's more like a scripted
show in that regard. Certainly, all the pitches are memorized and practiced
well in advance.

Someone asked my credentials. I worked on Shark Tank for one season as an
editor. I have add'l credits on The Voice and Sarah Palin's Alaska for Mark
Burnett Productions. I also worked for 10 other production companies on about
25-30 shows for ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX and SHOWTIME. Some of them I don't
remember. Some of them I would like to forget, for example, Famous in 12:
[http://www.tmz.com/category/famous-
in-12/](http://www.tmz.com/category/famous-in-12/)

~~~
odbol_
When I was on Shark Tank our pitch took a little over an hour. Granted we had
a complicated audio requirements that took a while to set up, but the pitch
lasted a long time.

The beginning 1-minute pitch is memorized, but everything after that when
sharks are asking questions is totally free-for-all.

I was surprised and impressed by the professionalism and the speed of the
production team. They had it down to almost an assembly-line.

~~~
downandout
What product did you pitch? Scripted or not, it must have been a cool
experience. Did you get funded?

------
ChuckMcM
I'd love to hear the shark's side of this but I am not surprised to hear
someone say that the show doesn't accurately portray the deals. Having
participated in televised 'reality shows' (Robotica, Battlebots) it is clearly
entertainment value rather than the putative subject matter that the producers
are interested in. Mostly its little stuff, like the gift basket from Robotica
was said would include "New Balance Running shoes" but instead had some fairly
poorly made off brand shoes (the box said "Quolity Shoes" (yes with an 'o'
instead of an 'a' in Quality). My wife and I agreed that it felt like the
producers were trying to produce a show "experience" with props for the
"contestants."

But from the article there must be more since the guy sued and then settled
for $20K? What did the contract say? And the licensing stuff is pretty crazy
in TV (so many people want to be "on TV" it really is amazing).

~~~
webwanderings
I've always been of the opinion that all reality shows are produced with
actors, or aspiring actors. None of the people are everyday, average folks.
This view was reinforced after watching a few seconds of this Battlebots show
which you speak of. Either that, or the producers hunt down and look for TV-
suitable people from the average crowd. All those people who "want to be on
TV" are in that category.

~~~
hangonhn
So Shark Tank people are definitely real. The sisters who made Coffee-Meets-
Bagel were on the show and a friend met them at some startup event in Silicon
Valley before their app took off. Also a friend of mine has been on the show
as well.

That said, your hypothesis for "TV-Suitable" people isn't far off. A classmate
from college went to audition for some reality TV show and basically said the
producers look for certain traits such as how dramatic a person is, etc. My
friend who's been on Shark Tank is definitely a charming and likeable guy
(he's also a genuinely very nice guy).

------
vogt
I worked for one of the Sharks specifically in dealing with their Shark Tank
investments. It is not a lie. The verbal agreements on the show are just that.
This founder is saying things out of spite because his deal fell through in
due diligence, which in my experience is 100% on the founder almost all of the
time. Founders will hide things like law suits, giant piles of debt, etc
thinking that the Shark teams won't find it. Or sometimes the product has
serious flaws that the founder wasn't transparent about on air.

I stopped working for the shark before "Beyond the Tank" came out so I can't
speak to the sharper image thing.

~~~
beachstartup
this is basically how all business works. nothing is real until the money is
in the bank. and until it is, there's a million things to go wrong. it can
still go wrong after, too, it's just less likely.

~~~
jorgecastillo
"Nothing is real until the money is in the bank."

This is pretty much how life works too!

------
n0us
“Sharper Image is the last company in the whole country I would have allowed
him to even speak with,” Kaufman said. “We all know their reputation. They
went bankrupt. Their name makes you think of a niche item that costs a lot of
money, and that’s not what Nubrella is.”

A 60 dollar sunshade strapped to a hat isn't niche?

~~~
WalterSear
It's 2016. If scifi taught me anything about 2016, it was that it involved
outrageous plastic headgear.

~~~
rm_-rf_slash
Any period of history can involve outrageous headgear. Even things we consider
classy can change in a heartbeat. Fedoras used to be cool. Now they're weird
and neckbeard-y.

~~~
zyxley
> Fedoras used to be cool. Now they're weird and neckbeard-y.

Fedoras are still cool... if worn with a nice suit by a well-groomed person.

Fedoras worn with undershirts and untailored clothes were never cool in the
first place.

~~~
logfromblammo
I wear an Outback Trading Co. oilskin River Guide hat [0].

I don't care if it looks cool, because it keeps my glasses dry in the rain,
and the sun out of my face the rest of the time. If I want to be fashionable,
I can wear something else, but mostly I just want to be comfortable.

[0] [http://www.outbacktrading.com/river-guide-1497-brn-
md](http://www.outbacktrading.com/river-guide-1497-brn-md)

~~~
jsmthrowaway
Try a Tilley. I _looooove_ my Tilley.

I have this one:
[http://www.tilley.com/us_en/men/hats/ltm6-airflor.html](http://www.tilley.com/us_en/men/hats/ltm6-airflor.html)

Owner's manual is worth a read, if you're unfamiliar:
[http://www.tilley.com/media/pdf/Tilley-Owners-Manual-
EN.pdf](http://www.tilley.com/media/pdf/Tilley-Owners-Manual-EN.pdf)

~~~
logfromblammo
That looks fit for a different purpose. One of the reasons I wear a full-
brimmed hat is to replace both sunglasses and umbrella, and the mesh portion
of the Tilley that you linked allows rain to pass through the crown. The
Wanderer [0] is likely closest to what I would wear.

It's a bit more expensive than what I already have, but it looks like they
have a lifetime replacement guarantee and a 2-year insurance policy against
loss. All other things being equal, I'd rather pay less up front and take
greater care with what I bought.

[0] [http://www.tilley.com/us_en/men/hats/warm-weather/tilley-
wan...](http://www.tilley.com/us_en/men/hats/warm-weather/tilley-
wanderer.html)

------
nix0n
Fyi: The man is from Newton MA, USA.

He is not the Apple Newton's inventor.

~~~
seltzered_
Also, here's a video of the invention itself:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0nV2S5pO2I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0nV2S5pO2I)

I like things that help battle the elements, but this isn't my cup of tea. It
appears that he's also kickstarted the thing about three years ago (only to
~$10,000 in funding) and people are complaining about not receiving the item:
[https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/36197580/finally-the-
wo...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/36197580/finally-the-worlds-first-
hands-free-umbrella-has-a/comments)

My current system of dealing with rain in the Pacific Northwest is combining a
well made rain jacket with a wool baseball cap (Ebbets Fields makes some) - it
solves the problem of wearing glasses in the rain pretty well. There's
probably some really niche uses for the nubrella, but there's other solutions
already (camera rain covers, waterproof phones/phone cases/etc).

~~~
bobbytherobot
I actually think this device would do little good for weather.

* Rain can come at you from many more angles than just straight down

* Wind will rip apart anything remotely a sail, like the top of his device

* How do I put it on as I exit a car?

------
fnayr
So the guy sues them, settles for $20k, sues them again for a different
reason, and has the audacity to say he wants to appear on another episode and
think there's even a chance of that happening?

~~~
legitster
I was with it until he demanded more air time. That's such a weird demand out
of this.

~~~
xemdetia
I think it made sense in just a settlement- 'you want to keep rerunning that
episode over a decade after it was recorded and aired, let me at least show
"now."' I can see how such a product with such limited circulation could be
completely overwhelmed by Shark Tank reruns/promos in marketing even though
it's wildly out of date.

------
madenine
Worked for a company that was on Shark Tank and Beyond the Tank. Its a TV show
- its there to entertain viewers and sell ad time not generate funding for
businesses. When they filmed BTT, there were narratives that they wanted to
push, certain things they wanted to be said, etc. Bottom line, the money my
employer got from ST/BTT was dwarfed in comparison to the marketing/PR
benefits of just being on the show and working with the Sharks' teams - being
associated with the show opens a lot of doors.

I remember seeing an article from the founder of a company that was on ST
estimating that the PR/Exposure was probably worth in the ballpark of $3m. I'd
agree with that; a random re-run years after the initial episode would still
bring in a huge amount of traffic - at no cost to us. I'd estimate we got 3-5
re-runs every quarter.

I'll throw it out there too that there was a huge delay between filming BTT
and when the episode aired.

------
DrSayre
Everybody who watches this show knows the Sharks can pull out of the deal
later on. I enjoy the show, even though I realize a lot of it has to be
staged. However, I don't like how they force the people to make a decision
within minutes, but the Sharks can research the product some later and pull
out if they want to.

~~~
angryasian
The thing is that either side can pull out of the deal after the show. I've
heard that some of these pitches and discussions can go on for an hour or more
and television edits it down to 15 minutes.

~~~
weaksauce
Herjavick said (in his Reddit AMA iirc) that most pitches are about two hours
long.

------
Golddisk
I remember seeing somewhere (can't remember if it was online, or on the show)
where the Sharks talked about how a lot more goes into the deal then the
little snippet of them talking that is shown on TV. Obviously that makes
sense, as the info from the little snippet is often superficial. The exposure
for the company presenting their items is probably one of the best parts. I
would think if you are set to capitalize on that then you have a good shot of
doing decently, even if the Sharks don't back you (although this guy even has
problems with that).

Sounds like this guy just struggled with his business and it basically ran
into the ground.

~~~
babuskov
> I remember seeing somewhere

I saw an interview with Mark Cuban that was completely unrelated to the
subject, but touched Shark Tank briefly and he explained how it worked.

------
89vision
"(sharper image)...Their name makes you think of a niche item that costs a lot
of money, and that’s not what Nubrella is.”

Funny, when I saw the Nubrella, Sharper Image is the first thing that came to
mind.

------
mtmail
In Germany's equivalent 26 of the 35 announced deals during the show didn't
work out. Usually due-diligence but I can imagine in some cases that wasn't
even started. I counted 114 presentations (19 episodes, 6 presentations
average). So 26 actual investments is a 20% ratio.

------
inputcoffee
I am not speaking about this case in particular, because I have no idea what
happened, but in general things like this must happen all the time even if the
show is "authentic."

I think a lot of diligence and deal details have to be worked out. They ask
who else own shares but they don't even go through a cap table.

I know the sharks have been disappointed when entrepreneurs turned out not to
be "serious" and just show up for exposure.

This person may have been scammed, but it is also possible that one red flag
ended the diligence. ("Wait? how much debt?!")

The thing that remains a mystery is this follow up episode. But that makes no
sense on both sides. How do you get pressured to do a follow up episode if you
never saw an investment?

------
zxcvvcxz
> Nubrella is currently out of cash, Kaufman said, and potential new investors
> won’t bite, assuming the “sharks” and Sharper Image backed out of those
> deals because of some hidden defect in its product or business plan.

Be careful who you deal with, and force them to act sooner rather than later.
When dealing with the Sharks I don't know if you really can force them to act
and cut a check, they can just say they will and run re-runs, potentially
screwing your future investment opportunities.

------
Justin_K
I learned that many of the entrepreneurs on the show aren't even true
applicants. A friend of mine works for a small company that's experienced
rapid growth and a lot of publicity - there is a team at Shark Tank's
production co that are aggressively trying to get them on the show.

The sad reality is that it's not even about applying and catching a break
anymore... I'm not surprised.. it's TV.

That said, I think this guy's story sounds fishy.

------
powera
Man with bankrupt company files lawsuit, more at 11.

He's not claiming anything that the producers won't readily admit, so this
should be fairly straightforward. He seems to have some merit to his claim
that re-runs should show the original air date, other than that everything he
claims is laughable.

~~~
ethanbond
Really? They admit that they say they're investing $200k and then don't invest
$200k?

~~~
powera
There's a very clear disclaimer at the start of each episode that all deals
are tentative and subject to due diligence and other factors.

~~~
ethanbond
Okay but they filmed a follow up pretending he received funding

------
agentgt
Ha... I live in Waltham right on the edge of Newton and I think I saw the guy
and I assumed it was just a new fangled baby Bjorn. At the time I just assumed
the baby wasn't attached.

If I lived somewhere else it probably would have made a bigger impression on
me but I honestly see weird devices all the time in the Boston area
(particularly fairly bizarre recumbent bikes and skating devices particularly
as you approach Cambridge).

------
JeremyMorgan
Not incredibly surprising but this guy seems pretty shady, and I'm sure we're
not getting the whole story.

Everything on television is at least a little bit fake. If I'm being
completely honest I enjoy ST just to see the pitches and check out interesting
new products. I couldn't care less what happens after the show. I bet a lot of
viewers are like me.

------
glibgil
What is it with inventors and umbrellas? I can't think of a bigger non-
problem.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-Yx9GGqW5U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-Yx9GGqW5U)

------
JustSomeNobody
Hasn't the already been "invented"?

I remember seeing something in a magazine a decade or so back about a Japanese
person who did something very similar.

------
jimjimjim
Reality TV is not. Every reality show is a distortion to further the show's
brand or to generate drama.

------
EdSharkey
A small fry is unhappy things didn't work out after he went for a swim in the
_shark tank_, eh?

------
dpedu
Oh no, who would of thought a primetime cable TV program isn't real?

------
poppup
TV is a lie? Is that really news?

------
logicallee
I'd like you to give more of your credentials.

I've been in contact with several of the of the entrepreneurs featured there,
one of whom is a YC-backed entrepreneur (MTailor), and also for what it's
worth I have another contact (via email) that I don't want to name.

I haven't been on the show or anything like that. Why would you say that it is
a "lie"?

A lot of deals fall through. What specifically would you consider a "lie"?

Examples of a lie would be if there were never any money that ever changed
hands, etc.

Other than that, it seems to be genuine

>but no investor can adequately research a business in the 15 minutes it takes
to shoot each pitch.

You claim to have worked on shark tank but somewhere I heard that the pitches
are much longer (up to an hour+) and get edited down, whereas you claim that
it is 15 minutes, about the running time. So who's right?

For this reason I would like you to name what crosses the lie threshold for
you, and give just a bit more of your credentials.

For the rest of us reading this I will state that the biggest "lie" isn't a
lie at all: getting exposure on shark tank is a huuuuuuge amount of value for
any company. But this is not something that any entrepreneur mentions (or it
gets cut). I've never heard anyone say "Do you realize that when this airs,
based on my talks with other founders we will get about five hundred thousand
hits to our web site? So far we have a 7% closing rate on every single visitor
who has ever come to our site." or anything like that... it's the elephant in
the room that nobody really mentions, except a few times the sharks refer to
it obliquely as 'gold-diggers' etc. but it's not mentioned in a positive
light, for example when negotiating about valuations. I haven't seen anything
else that seems to be a lie to me! (And this includes personal contact as
mentioned at the top.)

~~~
eggdude
I think his definition of "lie" is very broad in the sense of presenting
something to be different than it actually is. For example:

\- The show makes it seem like the pitch lasts 15 minutes when it generally
lasts much longer in reality (I've talked to a friend who has been on the show
that has verified this).

\- The show makes it seem much more dramatic than it actually is by
overlapping dialogue, rearranging and timing reaction shots, and using music
(to the extend of fabricating a conversation)

\- The show makes it seem like an exact deal is made in 15 minutes when there
is much more involved before and after the show

~~~
poppup
Yes. More or less I agree with what you have said. The main point is that the
complaint against the TV show is ridiculous as the show is created for the
purpose of entertainment, not veracity.

It's interesting that some people think of TV as somehow "true." Maybe it is
emotionally true, but it is not reality. Reality is having to commute 90
minutes to work on a TV show that portrays reality falsely as many of my
colleagues do.

~~~
logicallee
Thank you. Look, this is not a place for video editors (in specific), i.e.
you're literally on a startup forum. I don't know if you have any experience
with startups other than via Shark Tank, but after reviewing after you've
written I've come to the conclusion that your calling the show a lie is
completely unwarranted, and informed more by your prior experience e.g. "We
edited it so that he never came back down and that she was calling her
daughter's name... as if they were up there naked or something... That is
where the "lie" is most evident." \-- but you did not give any examples of
anything nearly that bad as regards the deals.

You may not know this, but in normal negotiations with startups, there are
many, many meetings involved over a very long period of time. So many deals
fall through that there had to be a Handshake protocol invented just to keep
VC's to their word -
[https://www.ycombinator.com/handshake/](https://www.ycombinator.com/handshake/)

"Silicon valley runs on handshake deals." Yeah, due dilligence gets done
afterward, not on the spot! Of _course_ all pitches are rehearsed very, very
heavily. I mean these are actual businesses that were built for a decade at
times, you know?

I think you go _way_ too far writing "with just enough truth to keep
'suspension of disbelief' aloft." These are real businesses that continue
whether or not anyone ever films them again. They're actual deals. A lie would
be if these businesses (and their sales numbers, etc) were fabricated out of
thin air and did not actually exist. Example: Silicon Valley, the show, like
Pied Piper. If Pied Piper were presented as reality, and its numbers shown as
reality, without _even so much as existing_ \- that would be a lie.

The most telling is that you call Mark Cuban, who is by no means a celebrity
first and investor second, a "talent". He's not some actor playing a role on
Shark Tank.

So I simply am not on board with your original comment that I replied to - it
goes too far.

You should have simply said that the interactions were heavily edited, and
represent deals that continue after the part that is aired.

A lie would be if an actor were playing the character invented for the
"talents" you mentioned, but these people did not exist in real life, were not
really business people at all, let alone actual investors investing in
startups with real deals, or if the businesses were fabricated.

So after reviewing what you've written I would suggest that you tone it down a
bit. I had skype conversations with the businesses shown. My conversations had
a startup on the other side - I wasn't talking with some character, like Homer
Simpson. They also matched what I saw on screen (more or less, of course,
heavily edited.)

These are businesses first, and short shark tank segments only incidentally.
They're not lies or fabrications.

~~~
wutangson1
>"Look, this is not a place for video editors.."

This guy... and his 'skype conversations' with entrepreneurs lol

~~~
dang
Please stop posting unsubstantive comments to HN.

~~~
wutangson1
Ironic

------
ptero
Sign in / sign up required. Boo :(

~~~
aluhut
I had a popup with a gray "Close" in the top right corner. I didn't read it so
not sure if this is what stopped you.

~~~
DiabloD3
A rather non-obvious close, so parent comment is correct.

The popup does not have an obvious bold "close" or "X" in the right hand
corner or the bottom right, it has a very light grey close in the upper left,
and also does not respond to clicking outside the modal dialog.

Thats enough to consider that a dark pattern.

~~~
gcp
I also tried to hide the popup before I saw the close button. It's very hard
to find. But I'm sure that's intentional?

------
gerby
I'll never participate in Shark Tank.. one of two investors I'd even consider
taking an investment from on that show, doesn't even appear in the majority of
the episodes. That would be Chris Sacca.. I think he's brilliant.

