Saturday, April 30, 2016

8 THINGS YOU DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT ‘SHARK TANK’ SOUNDS LIKE MORE SCAMMERS OUT OF NEVADA!

It has been a while since I wrote about Shark Tank here, but that doesn’t mean I don’t often still get questions about the show.
The most common one? It’s whether I can connect people toMark Burnett. (If you think I can, perhaps you aren’t ready for the intellectual rigors of pitching the Sharks. Here’s the general application link.)
But there are other things you didn’t know that I could tell you.

PRODUCERS GET A PERCENTAGE EVEN IF NO DEAL IS MADE.

If you pause the end credits of every episode, you’ll see this:
SharkTankEquityGrab
Scott Jordan, the owner of Scottevest (Season 3) explains, “merely appearing on the show, whether a deal is made or not, I have to give 5% of my “business” or 2% of the profits forever to the producers. So, my appearance was not free. … Free? They make money out of every deal I make from here forward.”
Jordan posted this scan of the pertinent contract clause:

Jordan says he went to great lengths during his segment to speak only about his product, but to make no mention of his brand name that would trigger perpetual equity ownership of his brand by Sony and ABC.
Entrepreneurs who agree to be taped by the show do it because thy think the national television exposure will compensate for the percentage. They may have a point. Most entrepreneurs report their websites are slammed following every broadcast. KissTixx, a lip balm product, saw its Webtraffic skyrocket by 3,000% when its segment aired. Rackspace, the server host for Villy Customs bikes, reported 3.2 million hits in a span of just 25 minutes. Litter, a jewelry brand, sold more than $250,000 in goods within 72 hours.
With ratings steadily rising — Shark Tank is now Friday’s #1 show on any network, with more than 6 million viewers per episode — exposure will only lead to even more conversions. Is that worth a 2% royalty of losing 5% of future equity? Many businesspeople think so.
Update: Just before Season Five, there was a huge behind-the-scenes fight over this clause, and it would appear one of the Sharks threatened to quit it it wasn’t removed. I cover the rebellion in this post.

EACH PITCH BEGINS WITH 30 SECONDS OF SILENCE.


The entrepreneurs never meet the Sharks before their pitch (this has been true since the pilot, when Tiffany Krumins struck a deal for Ava the Elephantthen called ‘Emmy’), nor do the Sharks know who is coming down the hall once the doors open. All the Sharks know is what the stagehands have pre-set on the oriental rug in front of them.
Then the Entrepreneur is released into the Tank while hand-held camera operators trail their progress down the hall. The visitor is instructed to wait on a spot on the rug and not to speak. This gives Production a time to clear the hand-held camera operators from the set and to get a few static shots of anticipation between the Sharks and the Entrepreneur. Finally, after an adrenaline-drowned, Wild West-style standoff, a cue is given and the business owner/s may commence their pitch.
The nickname for this long, painful pause is “the stare-down,” and it’s edited out for the broadcast, although the havoc it plays with the nerves frequently pays off in TV-ready dividends.

THE SHARKS ARE WIRED.

The control room can prod them to ask questions that need answering or wrap up the negotiations, if necessary. IFB earpieces are common host crutches in the reality show world, but take note that the Shark Tank pre-show title card confirms that the Sharks “invest their own money at their discretion.” You’ll notice, however, that Kevin O’Leary (always in the center chair) is usually the guy who applies pressure at key moments. It would be a dangerous drinking game to swig every time he asked, “What are you going to do?” because he often issues recaps so the editors will have a logical place to stick their commercial breaks.
Kevin's hidden earpiece: "Mr. Wonderful, now say, 'So what are you gonna do?'"
Kevin’s hidden earpiece: “Mr. Wonderful, now say, ‘So what are you gonna do?’”
O’Leary is the Shark who prompts tension because the control room has given him the role of segment narrator. He is a veteran of Canada’sDragon’s Den, so he knows the format well. His role as the subtle pacemaker is a large measure of his value on this show, since few of his offers are realistic enough to be accepted by most of the Entrepreneurs. He also reliably embodies the soul of venal greed that drives the ethos of the Tank.
This makes O’Leary both the de facto ringmaster and the spoiler who compels the Entrepreneurs to make choices. Is he a plant? All the Sharks are. But whether by forcing decisions or lobbing spoiler offers, O’Leary is almost always the Prompter Shark.

MANY DEALS FALL APART.

Just as Judge Judy isn’t performing as a true judge but as a binding arbitrator, the buy-ins we see on Shark Tank are not done deals but actually good faith agreements. Due diligence kills many deals after they are shot. It could be that the patents aren’t airtight, or there’s irregularity in the books, — anything, really, can excuse either party from consummating their union. Nothing’s firm until everyone signs on the dotted line, and that happens off-camera much later.
In the case of one product Kevin Harrington (a Shark from the first two seasons) has sidestepped naming, a pattern of defective merchandise sank the deal. After Season 2 guest Shark Jeff Foxworthy took the bait with HillBilly Brand clothes, he says the owners confessed they only went into the Tank because they wanted publicity. And Season 1’s The Chef in Black, Dorene Humason, told me, her deal hit a rocky road almost immediately when she and her Shark investors clashed over strategy.
“From what I’m told, only about 50% of the deals you see made on Shark Tank actually officially get DONE,” writes Fleetwood Hicks of Villy Customs Beachcruiser Bikes. “As a guest on the show, you have the right to pass on the deal and the Sharks have the same right. The deal made on TV is simply a “good faith” agreement that you will begin the due diligence process.  I’ve heard that some companies just go on the show to get PR, but my intentions were to close our deal. ” He did.
The weekly “update” usually shows you the deals that went right. But lots go wrong and you’re never told about them.
Daymond John has called out a plus-size designer named Gayla Bentley for taking his and Barbara’s money and then vanishing. “They’re not going to tell you they’re going to disappear. They’re not going to tell you they’re buying a Mercedes-Benz.  They’re not going to tell you that type of stuff. They’re not going to tell you they have tax liens or their wife really owns the company.”

THEY SHOOT WAY MORE THAN THEY USE.

For many reasons  — timing, mood, variety, legal concerns, telegenic performances, complexity — some segments don’t make it to the final broadcast. How many? As many as 40% to half. When I shot on-set interviews during Season 2, several Entrepreneurs interviewed with me that did not make it to the final show edit. (Out of respect for the businesspeople and the show, I did not release those interviews.) For Season 3, the reported ratio was 52 used but 82 shot.
Likewise, some negotiations can go on for an hour or much longer, but the key moments are edited into palatable acts for television. Everything you see is true, none of it is re-taped, and the elements that are crucial to the outcome are included. But rather than drowning viewers in a Shark Tank that subjects viewers to, say, long minutes of going over sales numbers and distribution plans that don’t amount to much, the editors compress events.
Daymond John says the longest interrogation was for a product called Plate Toppers, which went on for 2 hours and 45 minutes. By the end of the segment, the entrepreneur is so tired of standing he’s seen rubbing his legs. But he got the deal.
The pitch for the Nubrella Hands Free Umbrella aired and an update was filmed on location with Daymond John, but that update was yanked from its scheduled broadcast when the deal ran aground. I’m sorry that never saw the light of day. It was pretty funny watching Daymond walk down a public street wearing a plastic umbrella bubble hat on his head.

THE ‘STEW ROOM’ IS ON SEPARATE SOUND STAGE.

The area where Entrepreneurs are interviewed after their pitch is not on the same sound stage as the Tank. The filming location is on another stage nearby. This is mostly so the talking won’t interrupt the filming of the next incoming pitch and also Entrepreneurs can be kept away from the people who are next up in the Tank. After all, nothing will unnerve a pitchman more than seeing the person before them fleeing in tears.
Yes, the Sharks fly into Los Angeles several times a year (often in July and October, if not more) and shoot several marathon days in which 20 or so business pitch, one after the other, with time in between to set up for the next one and get make-up touch-ups. Then the segments are mixed and matched over multiple episodes — which is why Barbara Corcoran and Lori Greiner wear the same outfit week after week. They have to for continuity, so the look will remain the same no matter when the segment airs. The guys are wearing the same clothes, too, but few people seem to notice that. Sexism!
The set, by the way, is on the Sony Pictures Studios lot in Culver City, California. It was once the M-G-M lot, where The Wizard of Oz and countless classic musicals (Easter ParadeSingin’ in the Rain) were filmed. The Tank (click here to watch my tour of it) is not on the same sound stage for every season, but it is on the same lot. If another major picture (like Spider-Man) or TV show (Jeopardy! or The Wheel of Fortune) is shooting, it can slip into just about any size stage.
Anyone can take a tour of the Sony lot. Click here for details.

THE REAL SHARKS AREN’T REAL, BUT THEY ARE FROM RENO.

The sharks you see swimming on either side of the corridor into the Tank are not there. They’re on video.
More surprising is where they come from. The end crawl credits the 1,635-room Peppermill Resort and Casino for them.
Maybe the sharks were downloaded from its Bimini Steakhouse, where “you dine in the surrounds of a virtual aquarium.” The fact they come from a casino means that like their human counterparts, Shark Tank‘s sharks are gamblers, too.

Tuesday, March 1, 2016

BEWARE OF SPONSORSHIP “BROKER” SCAMS

I received a rather alarming email this week. It was from someone who was the victim of what I can only call a scam from someone purporting to be a sponsorship broker. Upon further investigation, it looks like a lot of people have been burned by this person. This is the first I’ve heard of something like this, and I can only hope this “broker” is the only one out there operating in this manner, but something tells me there could be more. This is the set-up:
  • A sponsorship “broker” claims that if you pay a few hundred or a few thousand dollars, s/he will guarantee sponsorship for your property of at least $X.
  • You pay, and no sponsorship materialises.
  • Many broken promises ensue. Claims of misplaced contracts. Claims of having a signed deal with a sponsor that is just about to pay. Excuses galore, and still no money. And because it was guaranteed, you have been counting on it as cash flow for your property, and now you’re short and desperate.
While I am definitely sympathetic with people who have been burned in this manner, this is certainly a case of an offer being too good to be true. No one can guarantee that you will get a certain amount of sponsorship for you – there are simply too many variables at play. And if they believe what you have is truly saleable, they would be charging a commission on the sponsorship they bring in, not charging you up-front. It is true that many brokers do charge a nominal fee up-front to get a property ready for sale, but that is a small fraction of the commission on the projected sales, which is the real driver for performance by those brokers.
In this case, I’ve done some poking around, and in amongst the many, many people who have seen no financial return at all, there is a small handful that seem happy. I have no idea why they got what they want and so many others have been left out in the cold, but the phrase “pyramid scheme” did cross my mind.
In the interest of clarifying the ins and outs of sponsorship brokers, here are some quick guidelines:
  • Sponsorship brokers make the lion’s share of money as a commission on sponsorship sales. Getting you the maximum amount of money for your property is their motivation.
  • Sponsorship brokers are well-connected and spend a lot of time nurturing their relationships with corporate decision-makers. The primary focus of their marketing efforts is around positioning the properties they represent for sponsorship, not getting properties to sign up with them and hand over cash.
  • Sponsorship brokers take the time to understand the needs of a sponsor and create offers around your property that are absolutely appropriate for them. They do not sell one large sponsorship and divvy it up among the stakeholders, whoever they may be. No genuine sponsor would go for it – it’s too arbitrary and not leverageable.
  • Sponsorship brokers of any merit will behave as professionals, not engage in snarky tit-for-tat with disgruntled customers all over the web.
  • Sponsorship brokers will not be interested in selling rats-and-mice sponsorship. If you don’t have an opportunity that is genuinely worth their while selling – we’re talking tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, at minimum, depending on the broker – they won’t take you on and you will need to sell it yourself. Sorry, people… sometimes the truth hurts.
I have a few resources that may be helpful for those of you looking for, or working with, brokers:
If you end up having to sell sponsorship yourself, and don’t know where to start, I suggest:
I wish all of you out there the best of luck, whether you are trying to sell sponsorship, trying to find an appropriate broker, or trying to recover from a broker’s broken promises.

Wednesday, January 6, 2016

SCAMPAIGNS

Similar fraud “scampaigns” were unveiled after the fact on sites such as Kickscammed, Facebook’s GoFraudMe page, and Android Police Crowded Reality TV by Adryenn Ashley
  • Jen Hintz is accused of using the $26,000-plus raised on Kickstarter for FibroFibers, an indie yarn-dyeing business, to fund her move from North Carolina to Massachusetts.
  • The project founders of Kreyos Meteor smartwatch made off with $1.5 million raised on Indiegogo for a waterproof, voice-activated wearable device that could also track your sleep.
  • An Iowa woman raised thousands of dollars through GoFundMe to pay for her daughter’s cancer treatments, when in fact the child was healthy.
  • Adryenn Ashley,  WAKE UP TV SHOW She is a con shark sales woman who promises she can close any deal over the phone, with her relentless promises of all this money, talking fast, with a high pitched voice sounding like she has a cold or ate a pig whole. She also does not pay the brokers anything. PLUS LIFE TV SHOW  is another scam. She is the type that will want the broker to give her free PR, free Time, Free introductions, Free Services and ends up ultimatley getting fired by several brokers. One broker fired her and bashed her to the entire entertainment community. She has no honor and is a very jealous and decietful combative self righteous woman. You will never see a dime from anything you do for her. She promises TV but bewared as a funder the show will air at 1 am with No money or ROI in sight and she comes up with all these numbers that are false! You have to have time slots that people will watch. Paid Public Access type TV at times when Americans are Sleeping with no ratings is not ROI. She also cannot use POP TV networks logo on her videos nor can she be included in their time slot on their site.While Leetha Kaye Slauson, the Iowa woman, was given five years’ probation, other penalties amount to little more than a slap on the wrist. Under the FTC settlement, Chevalier is prohibited from making misrepresentations about future crowdfunding projects, is barred from disclosing or benefiting from customers’ personal information, and was fined $111,793.71, which was suspended due to Chevalier’s inability to pay. 

SPOTTING A SCAMMER

The FTC isn’t yet able to identify one crowdfunding site as more prone to scams and fraud than another. “We rely on consumer complaints as a barometer, but they’re not a good one-to-one measure of prevalence in the marketplace,” explains Helen Wong, a lawyer with the FTC. However, Wong notes, “There’s been an uptick in consumer complaints since this case was announced. The case has alerted consumers to the fact that the FTC is looking into this area.”