Mark Cuban makes Shark Tank remove equity clause in contract | Hacker News Reader

Mark Cuban makes Shark Tank remove equity clause in contract

inc.com

259 pointsohashi63 comments

I love this. Never knew this was a clause...glad he pushed for this.

Mark really does seem like a stand up guy.

Shark Tank sounds kinda 'fluffy' and I never paid it much attention for the first few seasons - but then I heard about a company that pitched and I was intrigued so I was searching through the episodes of one of the earlier seasons and I realized how awesome the show is.

It is amazing to watch and see how quick the Sharks can sniff out vagaries of a deal - e.g. if an entrepreneur raised money before at some crazy price, or the cap table looks very weird, or the company was loaded up with debt. They always seem to get to that pretty quickly.

I wonder if that is because they (the show) do due diligence on each company before they reach the sharks and the sharks have notes about what to ask for.

Either way, I am always surprised by the quality of the pitches shown. Some are lame, but some are surprisingly good with solid business and likely solid growth prospects.

As a general rule, their instincts tend to be pretty spot-on - it seems.

I think it's also because the pitches are actually much longer than what goes on TV - cutting a few hours down to 10 mins or so, while still trying to make it flow well.

full length unedited pitches might make for interesting DVD extra material

I've read interviews before where it was indicated they know nothing (and want to know nothing) until they walk through the doors to make their pitch. The extensive due diligence is done after the show, which is why deals struck on the show often fall through later on. For example, some of the companies that pitch indicate that they have patents, but of course the validity and defensibility of such patents is something that has to be researched, not something you can take their word for. So on the show they're like, "Do you have a patent?" and they reply, "Yes (or no)" and that's the end of that line of questioning because it has to be researched independently.

The reason they seem to get to the crux of the issues so quickly, is because like most reality shows, it is heavily edited. A five or ten minute segment on the show reflects sometimes hours of questioning and discussion. From what I understand they have VERY long days (much longer than 8 hours, more like 12-14 hours a day) so it's almost an endurance thing for the sharks, because they spend so much time fleshing out the issues (and why wouldn't they since they're investing real money).

Personally I love the show also. Also check out Dragon's Den, which has both a Canadian and a British version (same format though, 5 investors all competing), and more recently CNBC's show The Profit where Marcus Lemonis (who was on the Secret Millionaire) by himself goes to failing businesses and invests a hundred K or two and takes over management for a week to turn things around.

I love this new era of entrepreneurship-themed TV, beats the hell out of Survivor or Lost. =)

Have always seen Dragon's Den but didn't pay it much attention for the same reason. I may just revisit it now, based on your recommendation. Thanks :)

The patent move always had me scratching my head - how they could just take their word for it and move on so quickly. Never understood it, but now it makes sense.

I'm sure there is always due diligence since the people pitching can always lie about purchase orders and the like. Sometimes a shark will even explicitly mention that the deal is contingent on something else coming through.

I've watched both and for some reason I find Shark Tank much better. I'm not sure if it's production or just that spark for reality TV that seems to be perfected in America. The personalities of the sharks probably has something to do with it, or the mix since both Robert and Kevin are also on Dragon's Den.

I've seen all three shows extensively and actually prefer the BBC show the most. IMHO, the BBC one is the most serious version and even though you have to get your head around some of the UK-specific stuff at first, you'll learn a lot from the show. Canada's Dragons Den and, even worse, Shark Tank, are more heavy on the drama and personalities, so there's more flash, but less substance.

Also, Peter Jones on BBC Dragon's Den strikes me as an incredibly intelligent investor.

I believe they mentioned in one of the Dragon's Den specials that something like 75% of the deals fall through during due diligence.

Having been on the Canadian Dragons' Den[1] to pitch my game Rejection Therapy[2], I can verify a lot of what you said.

To add: the narrative and chronology of the exchange between contestant and the Dragons is sometimes manipulated, either to spice up the drama (let's face it, some contestants are boring) or create a more logical sequence of events or questioning.

That said, there was lots of drama before and during my pitch. I had my ass kicked.

[1]http://www.cbc.ca/dragonsden/m/site/ [2]http://rejectiontherapy.com

Why can i not buy your game? :/

Not sure what you mean. Are you having problems with the purchase process?

Contact me via email and I'll get you a copy for free.

Glad I ran across this thread. Just the game I needed. Checking it out.

No.

The extensive due diligence is done after the show, which is why deals struck on the show often fall through later on.

Another reason is that many of those doing pitches don't actually want a deal, but instead simply want the exposure provided by the platform (which, I presume, is how the show managed to get that ridiculous equity clause in). Getting a "deal" is useful in that it makes it more likely that you'll make the cut and actually appear in an episode.

Dragons Den did a follow-up show where they talked about the majority of deals falling through afterwards for various reasons, among them that the pitchers had a change of heart.

"and more recently CNBC's show The Profit where Marcus Lemonis"

A great show. I did business with Marcus before he was on the show. Then I saw the show (had literally forgotten who he was) and got an idea and did more business with him.

His negotiating style is to go in at or very close to his final position and then walk. He did that both times. Funny thing was he probably overpaid using that strategy.

Well the meetings are heavily cut, I remember reading that typically each of the pitches is atleast a couple of hours. The sharks have no information on the companies pitching before they walk in to the room, but I'm sure the producers do some home work to only let in entrepreneurs that will make for good TV. The sharks are all smart people so they know what to ask but its no where near a ten minute affair.

All the due diligence is done after the show ends. The deal you see on TV is only tentative until after the due diligence. Quite a few of the deals on the show have actually fallen through after some shady things have been uncovered

"but I'm sure the producers do some home work to only let in entrepreneurs that will make for good TV. "

Also heavily favors attractive women particularly those with blond hair (I'm serious).

Oh really? "Heavily favors attractive women particularly those with blond hair"?

http://abc.go.com/shows/shark-tank/episode-guide?category=Se...

Looks the usual to me - mostly white guys, that is.

"Never knew this was a clause...glad he pushed for this."

You are right in the way you phrased this "glad he pushed for this".

But I think in reading all the other comments here there is an assumption that Mark should get the lions share of the credit for this event.

But Mark didn't say he was the only one who pushed for it.

He said (from the tweet that the story is based on)

"I told them I wouldn't come back this season if it wasn't (removed)".

We have no idea if this was also the bargaining position of any or all of the other sharks as well (nobody has asked them) or if the production company had already decided to do that.

It's great that Mark has done this but I think w/o knowing about the others at this point he may be getting more credit than he deserves (or, maybe not! We just don't know).

I thought the clause was a good way to charge for the free marketing they're giving companies. Maybe it was too high, but most couldn't afford the cash.

Perhaps the reason he was able to convince them to do it retroactively is the companies weren't worth much. Watching a company worth 100K for your 5% stake just isn't worth the time and effort.

The reality TV show model is so profitable because they get free actors. It seems a bit much to expect those actors to pay to provide free content.

The broadcast versions of the negotiations are edited, sometimes heavily, so you can't necessarily assume that things happened as quickly in real life as they did on the screen. (Every once in a while, I'll catch them referring to a remark someone made earlier which I didn't hear, presumably because it didn't make the broadcast.)

I knew about the 2%/5% but thought it was a pretty fair deal. The amount of advertising that this brings to a many of the companies on the show is worth a ton. Some of the food or plain merchandise companies where all the sharks passed have updates where their sales have grown enormously.

This is also interesting that he waited to push for this until now.

It just goes to show that no matter how rich you are, you have to understand your value. If he had pushed for this change in Season 1 - which I suspect he may have - he probably didn't get anywhere because the show could always replace him.

Now that he has become synonymous with Shark Tank, he has much more leverage, along with the fact that maybe this clause has increasingly become an issue for companies.

Cuban wasn't on the show in season 1. He joined later.

Regardless of the season he joined, the point still stands

Probably why he didn't push for it season 1 then!

I know very little about him but this instantly makes me think he is a decent person at heart.

(and retroactive too, nice detail)

He is strongly opposed to high-frequency/algorithmic stock trading as well. Plus, he is regularly the most-fined owner in the NBA for telling the officials that they blew calls in press conferences.

At the very least, he's certainly entertaining.

And against patents:

http://blogmaverick.com/2011/08/07/my-suggestion-on-patent-l...

http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/31/mark-cubans-awesome-justifi...

As a fan of a rival basketball team (the San Antonio Spurs), I've followed Cuban for a long time. I don't really hold the fact that he's a competitor (and likes to talk smack) against him, and I'd say he's an excellent owner overall.

His complaints about the officiating are sometimes biased -- I'm not sure if it's because it helps team morale to complain about calls and make your players feel like you have their back, or just because he gets emotional about his team, which is certainly understandable enough.

Overall, I'd say he's probably the best marketing innovator in the league, though. Fans in the Metroplex have a number of different sports options and were spoiled by decades of Cowboys success, so they can be frontrunners at times and only care about their teams if they win enough to be seen as "interesting". In addition to helping make the team competitive and winning a title, Cuban has done a good job of building a strong fan base, one that isn't going to all head for the exits when they rebuild. That can be really tough to do, but he's made a lot of moves -- large and small -- over the years to make Mavs fans really invested in the teams and to make the in-arena atmosphere as fun as possible. And unlike some sports owners who are heavily involved in their teams, he knows how to hire experts at the game of basketball to handle the personnel and coaching decisions, and let them do their jobs with his support rather than feeling the need to interfere to satisfy his ego.

At first I wondered if he had any idea what he was doing given the seemingly freak success of broadcast.com (which he sold at its peak and which then fell to pieces not too long after Yahoo bought it), but over the years, he's definitely seemed like someone who knows how to make smart business decisions and bring on the right people.

I definitely wouldn't have any hesitation to do business with him, given the opportunity.

Before seeing Cuban on the show, I really didn't like him much. I had read things by him and heard things. It was all just impressions. I've watched (with my son) every episode of Shark Tank. He is now my favorite investor on the show. By far.

I remember on one show it went off on a guest for their having a patent on something stupid. Cuban went on a tirade about patents and it really warmed my heart.

It may be this one you're talking about: http://techcrunch.com/2012/03/07/a-very-special-episode-tv-t...

I can't claim to know Mark, but I have met him once, and had a brief conversation with him. I also got to listen to his keynote at the event and see him interact with the rest of the people who mobbed him trying to get a word (or a pitch) in edgewise after his keynote.

My impression was very favorable, to be honest. I thought he seemed like a laid back, down to earth guy.. not at all like what I thought a billionaire would be like. He was just a guy in jeans and a polo shirt, hanging around in front of the stage talking with people. If you had not known who he was, there was no clue that he was ultra rich or a celebrity, other than the crowd milling around him.

FWIW, his response to our company idea was basically "sounds good, you just have to execute". :-)

His reddit AMA was rather funny as well. He came across really well in that.

While I love Mark Cuban, this move is clearly not just out of the "goodness of his heart". He is a savvy investor. The production company (Finnmax) was receiving the equity stake, not the sharks. He rightly felt that the clause was limiting the quality of startups trying to get on the show. Now that he's used his leverage to get rid of it, he will get better opportunities to invest in.

He also gets the benefit of now seeming more entrepreneur friendly than the other sharks, which increases he chance of participating in deals.

Because surely, when self-interest and altruism align, the real cause must be self-interest.

In retrospect, that's an easy argument to make, but maybe there was some risk they'd accept his ultimatum and not bring him back for the second season?

He also doesn't have to share stake in a company with a detached investor who literally got paid to get the equity.

If you think about it it's kind of insulting to his time where his only payback for being on the show is payback from deals he makes.

Where as Finnmax gets paid to produce the show, then takes a cut of every company, and likely does little to help the company advance. This would be extra telling for multi-million dollar valuations where the sharks end up getting single digit shares themselves and are expected to bring many contacts and continue to work with and mentor the investors.

Savvy entrepreneurs aren't willing to trade an automatic stake in their company for appearing on a show without a deal

Kinda sounds like a jab at all the entrepreneurs that have appeared on the show already in exchange for an automatic stake.

A show like this really needs someone like Mark Cuban in a very strong position as the equivalent of a creative director. The reality TV people could be good at turning whatever goes on into a good episode (or using enough nasty tricks to keep you watching for the next 5 minutes). To be a great show they need great material. In this case, that means the best companies need to want to pitch. The deals need to be envied by other investors. That's hard to manufacture and it probably won't be achieved unless someone like Mark Cuban is making it happen. A TV producer thinking from the perspective of shots & scenes & backstory shouldn't be making any decisions about deal terms.

Exhibitionist fundraising might actually work if the deal terms were acceptable and your intended market happened to watch Shark Tank. Imagine square raised-launched on this kind of show.

That was always my biggest gripe with Shark Tank and the main reason I would advise people to stay away. I'm glad they finally fixed that.

> Cuban said the clause was removed retroactively, meaning every contestant who's appeared on the show since Season One will be relieved of the commitment.

That's probably a huge sigh of relief for all past entrepreneurs.

I wonder if they will be paid back any funds that were paid to the production company.

Wow, he's the real deal looking out for the entrepreneurs. Kinda reflects badly on the other sharks that they weren't agitating to end the Finnmax abusive equity grab too. I concur that a better class of startups can now show up, versus just desperate ones who would give away 5% of their company to extortionists.

This is an awesome step in the right direction. Hoping to see some better companies and more balanced deals.

Recently, the I Love Marketing podcast had an hour discussion with former-Shark Kevin Harrington:

http://ilovemarketing.com/episode-118-the-one-with-kevin-har...

Harrington details why he left the show, mainly because all the little deals were sucking his time and it would be a full time, low return occupation managing them. Apparently Barbara Corcoran now does nothing other than tend to her Shark Tank flock.

I watch the show regularly and I've heard Cuban mentions this nearly every time he says no. My time is what's valuable, etc. etc.

I always suspected that ABC (or whoever) got equity in the companies, because they have (or used to have) a brief notice at the end of the show at the bottom of the screen with suggests that. But surely this must have tainted the whole process, because while an entrepreneur is considering a deal with the sharks, they would also have to take into account the equity they give away by just being a part of the show. I'm glad that's gone now.

It probably means though, that the entrepreneurs will be able to buy back the equity, or buy their way out of the profit sharing agreement, more than likely at the highest possible valuations. But at least there is a way out. And it's good to know that future contestants won't have that to deal with.

I'm really glad I read this. I thought from the headline that it meant he wanted the sharks to have more wiggle room to get out of deals made on the show, or something similar that would make me think less of Cuban.

I couldn't have been more wrong. This is great for entrepreneurs. Giving up five percent just for the chance to make a deal is BS. Giving it up to a TV production company is even more BS. I greatly admire and respect Cuban for having the guts to stand up for these startups. (And it really does turn out to be in his interest too -- smart founders should balk at having to give up five percent just to appear on the show!)

I know everyone here is cheering for that move and inherently it probably is good. But what will inevitably happen is that we will see more people that come on the show for solely/mainly publicity reasons. We already see that happening right now occasionally when people ask for like 5% equity with clear objective or not making a deal with the sharks

Sure, but now that the show is well known, the producers probably have options to pick from among candidates.

So its at their discretion to allow so called "publicity whores"

I always wanted to pitch to shark tank and this equity clause was the only good reason I could think of not to. Most of the entrepreneurs were probably happy to give it up because of the exposure, but now it feels like trying to pitch on tv is an even better idea.

I still don't think many "savvy entrepreneurs" would/should turn to reality television for VC, but glad this ridiculous term got removed.

Any other VC who demanded equity just for a meeting would've been laughed out of town years ago.

I still don't think many "savvy entrepreneurs" would/should turn to reality television for VC

Looked at another way, it's instant exposure of your company to 6+ million viewers. Seems like a great deal in some circumstances.

I agree with freyer here. Unless you have a business that won't benefit (or will be harmed) from massive exposure I don't see the downside.

True but this isn't exactly a normal meeting. It's 10-15 minutes of television coverage in front of ~6 million potential customers. Estimates have put the value of that advertising at about 600k. 5% of one's company is actually a pretty good deal for a lot of small B2C businesses when you look at it that way. If you already have a product being sold and it would do well on a show like QVC then the deal was pretty good. If, on the other hand, your company is B2B, or too big, or the product isn't being sold yet, than it's a lot more questionable.

I'm glad they made the change. We'll probably start seeing a more diverse range of companies appear on the show.

Just to add to your post, I don't remember ever seeing anyone getting a deal at 5%. It's usually more around the 20-30% range, and sometimes with equity stakes on top of that.

The GP is referring to the equity given up just for being on the show (not the equity given up if a deal is made.)

It's not just a meeting - it's advertising on national TV.

A small % could make sense for a start up selling consumer products, but probably not much else.

This was the reason we didn't try to get on Shark Tank, maybe well apply now :)

mark cuban, obviously not a traditional VC. and that is a good thing.

Bravo.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com