Shark Tank has been a beacon for aspiring entrepreneurs across America. While many have found success after presenting their ventures to the panel of seasoned investors, there have been notable exceptions.
A list of businesses that failed after Shark Tank highlights the unpredictability of the entrepreneurial journey. Even with the spotlight of national television and the potential backing of industry titans, some businesses couldn’t sustain their momentum.
Delving deeper, when we analyze the net worth of businesses that failed after Shark Tank, it’s evident that not all publicity and initial investment guarantees long-term profitability.
Businesses That Failed after Shark Tank
In our exploration of shark tank failures, we will discuss both these categories, offering insights into the highs and lows of the entrepreneurial world as showcased on this popular reality show.
Worst Shark Tank Deals They Regret Taking
#1: ToyGaroo: An Inside Look
- Overview of ToyGaroo: Envisioned as the “Netflix of toys”, ToyGaroo brought a novel idea to the table—a monthly toy rental subscription service.
- Founders: Hutch Postik, Nikki Pope, Phil Smy, Rony Mirzaians, and Young Chu steered the ship.
- Shark Tank Appearance: They made their pitch in Season 2, Episode 2.
- Investment Snapshot: An impressive $250k was raised across two investment rounds, with both Mark Cuban and Kevin O’Leary seeing potential in the venture.
So, What Went Awry for ToyGaroo?
Phil Smy, a pivotal founder, provided some candid revelations in an exclusive interview:
- Toy Acquisition: Acquiring toys at a cost-effective rate proved elusive. Hopes were pinned on leveraging their investors’ networks to connect with major toy companies like Mattel, but this expectation fizzled out.
- Shipping Dilemmas: Toy dimensions varied immensely. Coupled with a “free shipping” model, costs spiraled. The logical move would’ve been to pivot away from this model, but this wasn’t in sync with the vision of their new investors.
Post their Shark Tank spotlight, there was a predictable surge in interest. However, as Phil highlights, this kind of sudden traction isn’t always optimal, especially for a business heavily reliant on stock. The right pace? A steady, organic growth trajectory would’ve allowed them to navigate challenges, such as sourcing and shipping, with more finesse.
In hindsight, Phil contemplates that the Shark Tank exposure, although alluring, might not have been the boon they anticipated. The influx of attention and investor relations had its complications.
Drawing the curtain on ToyGaroo’s journey underscores an essential business truth—being in the Shark Tank limelight isn’t an assured victory lap. Sometimes, the brilliant glow of public attention can overshadow a venture’s underlying needs and dynamics.
#2: The ShowNo Towels Saga
- What Exactly Were ShowNo Towels? A towel revamped into a poncho style. Yes, with a crafty opening in the center for the head.
- Behind the Scenes: The brainchild of Shelly Ehler, this unique product had its moment in the spotlight in Season 3, Episode 4 of Shark Tank.
- Investment Dynamics: Lori Greiner saw promise, committing $75k for a 25% stake. But as the story unfolds, that agreement isn’t as solid as it seemed.
The Downfall of ShowNo Towels – What Happened?
A strained alliance between Ehler and Greiner began almost immediately. Shelly’s account reveals that Greiner was quick to suggest changes. First, came the advice to hold off on cashing the check. Next? An attempt to alter the terms. Greiner eyed a heftier 70% slice of the company. Upon Ehler’s refusal, the deal morphed into a restrictive loan, earmarked solely for sales.
Shelly reflects, “My Shark Tank journey with Lori morphed into an unexpected life lesson. I once resented being sidelined, but I’ve come to appreciate the non-business wisdom it brought.” These sentiments once echoed in a blog post by Shelly, now offline.
Complications didn’t end there. Hopes were pinned on a major deal with the entertainment giant, Disney. But online sales lacked the spark, and the profit margin didn’t match Disney’s benchmark. The eagerly anticipated collaboration crumbled after prolonged negotiations.
Additionally, a royalty agreement with Franco Manufacturing fizzled out, adding to the list of setbacks. These combined disappointments, coupled with the investor-founder discord, culminated in the business folding.
But here’s the twist: Shelly Ehler bounced back. Years post the ShowNo Towels hiatus, she rebooted the brand. This time, she’s spotlighting a niche – catering to individuals with disabilities, a demographic Greiner hadn’t prioritized earlier. The resilience? Undeniable.
#3: Sweet Ballz
- The Concept Behind Sweet Ballz: Crafting delightful cake balls, Sweet Ballz found its niche in convenience store aisles.
- The Masterminds: The duo steering this sweet venture? James McDonald and Cole Egger.
- Their Shark Tank Moment: The pitch unfurled in Season 5, Episode 1.
- Investment Highlights: Both Mark Cuban and Barbara Corcoran saw potential, pouring in $250k for a quarter stake in the business.
So, What Sent Sweet Ballz into a Tailspin?
At its core, Sweet Ballz narrates a tale as old as time: founders at loggerheads. A legal kerfuffle ensued not long after the ink dried on the Shark Tank deal.
The bone of contention? McDonald posited that Egger, his very partner, was orchestrating a rival enterprise—enter Cake Ballz. The acrimony reached a crescendo with even a restraining order coming into play.
Adding salt to the wound, this tumultuous phase coincided with their Shark Tank limelight. A golden opportunity slipped through their fingers as internal skirmishes played out in public. For a time, perplexed visitors seeking Sweet Ballz online were rerouted to the Cake Ballz domain.
Post-litigation, the dust settled with the Sweet Ballz digital realm returning to its originator, James McDonald. But the ship had veered off course. Between the Shark Tank hullabaloo, the ebbing interest in cake balls as a trend, and the internal tempest, the brand faced headwinds. Today, McDonald’s keeps the torch alight, albeit in a more subdued manner, juggling it with other pursuits.
#4: Body Jac
- The Brainchild Called Body Jac: Think of a contraption built to simplify push-ups, especially tailored for those not quite in their athletic prime. That’s Body Jac for you.
- The Visionary Behind It: The inventive Cactus Jack Barringer.
- Body Jac’s Moment Under the Shark Tank Lights: Spotlighted in Season 1, Episode 5.
- The Financial Backing: A sizeable $180k was pledged by Kevin Harrington and Barbara Corcoran, eyeing a half stake in the enterprise.
Where did Body Jac Go Awry?
An intriguing clause punctuated this business venture: Barbara Corcoran stipulated that Jack Barringer shed 30 pounds as a testimony to Body Jac’s efficacy. Triumphantly, Barringer met the challenge, solidifying the deal.
Yet, the anticipated crescendo of success proved elusive.
By 2012, the digital footprints of the product vanished with the website’s discontinuation. Corcoran, in candid reflections, dubbed her leap of faith in Body Jac as her most regrettable business decision. While concrete reasons remain shrouded in mystery, Body Jac’s journey serves as a poignant reminder that even a Shark’s nod doesn’t guarantee smooth sailing.
#5: CATEapp
- Unpacking CATEapp: Envision an application that discreetly tucks away select calls and messages. While it might seem like an accomplice for deceptive escapades, its broader utility can’t be overlooked.
- The Mind Behind The Curtain: Enter Neal Desai.
- CATEapp’s Stint on Shark Tank: It took center stage in Season 4, Episode 2.
- Financial Seal of Approval: Kevin O’Leary and Daymond John saw potential, injecting $70,000 for a 35% stake.
The Downfall of CATEapp:
Following its televised showcase, CATEapp witnessed a surge, amassing 10k fresh downloads—with an intriguing majority being women. Sensing a broader spectrum of applications, Desai ventured into realms like governmental and law enforcement sectors, hoping to harness the app’s discreet communications feature.
Yet, despite initial momentum, the tides didn’t turn in its favor. The digital traces of CATEapp began to fade, with its virtual platforms going dormant after 2013. The reasons remain obscure, but CATEapp’s journey underscores that even in the world of technology, not all that glitters is gold.
More Useful Guides: