# New episodes of Shark Tank start next Friday 01/20/2012



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Can't wait. I'm hoping they get rid of Foxworthy though (although he was a lot better than I thought he would be).


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

I just noticed this on my To Do list on the DVR...we've always enjoyed this show.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

This show is pure capitalism at its best. It's awesome. I'd actually like to see Trump on it, though does he know ANYTHING besides real estate?


----------



## Mikeyis4dcats (Oct 2, 2003)

mattack said:


> This show is pure capitalism at its best. It's awesome. I'd actually like to see Trump on it, though does he know ANYTHING besides real estate?


water, mattresses, ties.


----------



## Swirl_Junkie (Mar 11, 2001)

Mark Cuban for the win.


----------



## wendiness1 (Jul 29, 2005)

Yay!


----------



## GoHalos (Aug 30, 2006)

Looking forward to it! Love this show.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

Not sure if this shows garners enough posts for an episode thread so I'm posting here.

Thought the Guitar Buddy was a great idea. Even Robert "learned" in a few seconds. But what bothered me was how they were all OK with manufacturing in US (except Kevin) 'cause the inventor wanted to create jobs here. But last week they ALL were adamant that it order to succeed one should manufacture overseas. WTH?!!

I also thought the You Smell soap bars was not that great an idea. I think Robert was just mesmerized by her boobs! His offer was incredibly generous.


----------



## omnibus (Sep 25, 2001)

I'm looking for those shrimp burgers at retail. The looking back piece showed that the developer is making big bucks based on his appearance on the show alone, even though the Sharks are kicking themselves for letting him get away


----------



## Zrealm (Apr 25, 2005)

gossamer88 said:


> But what bothered me was how they were all OK with manufacturing in US (except Kevin) 'cause the inventor wanted to create jobs here. But last week they ALL were adamant that it order to succeed one should manufacture overseas. WTH?!


Manufacturing small plastic parts isn't necessarily the same problem, especially when the actual manufacturing cost is a smaller percentage of the total price.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

gossamer88 said:


> Thought the Guitar Buddy was a great idea. Even Robert "learned" in a few seconds. But what bothered me was how they were all OK with manufacturing in US (except Kevin) 'cause the inventor wanted to create jobs here. But last week they ALL were adamant that it order to succeed one should manufacture overseas. WTH?!!


Heh, I was going to bring up this exact thing, if I remembered it.. you beat me to it.

One thing I note was that these episodes were far apart in production order. I *THINK* the ok with manufacturing overseas one was the first ep of the season, this one was later. I have no idea how often they actually tape their segments. Maybe it was all the same day/set of days, maybe it was months apart.

I too noticed the inconsistency, but I actually APPLAUD them for even broaching the topic of manufacturing overseas at all. I would've thought they would be totally chicken to even suggest that. I'm glad that their "love of money" won over (at least on that one ep).


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

I just saw today on Damon's twitter feed that they taped the entire season over two weeks over the summer (2011).

I thought the "Smell of Money" guy was an idiot for not taking the 80% deal. You get to keep 20% of the business by doing NOTHING, and let Damon do all the work? Moron.



> I think Robert was just mesmerized by her boobs!


JHFC -- who wasn't?!?!?! She was selling soap?

I see next week they've replaced Barbara. Good thing -- I was getting tired of her.


----------



## chrispitude (Apr 23, 2005)

Hank said:


> JHFC -- who wasn't?!?!?! She was selling soap?


He made sure to go for the hug when the deal was done.


----------



## bruinfan (Jan 17, 2006)

gossamer88 said:


> Thought the Guitar Buddy was a great idea. Even Robert "learned" in a few seconds. But what bothered me was how they were all OK with manufacturing in US (except Kevin) 'cause the inventor wanted to create jobs here. But last week they ALL were adamant that it order to succeed one should manufacture overseas. WTH?!!


i thought it was a profit margin issue... the truck thing was too expensive to make in the US, while the guitar buddy had a good profit margin... could've been better in asia, but good enough to make money in the US and still contribute to the economy.


----------



## Ment (Mar 27, 2008)

chrispitude said:


> He made sure to go for the hug when the deal was done.


The makeup people did a fine job on Megan, she doesn't look like that in her other photos or appearance. http://7liveonline.com/Local-entrepreneur-pitches-soap-to-Shark-Tank-investors/8527774


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

Looks pretty much the same to me.

???

She looks even better here: http://the-shark-tank.com/you-smell-soap-megan-cummins/


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Hank said:


> Looks pretty much the same to me.
> 
> ???


The only difference I saw was that on the Shark Tank, she definitely accentuated her breasts and on the local interview show...not so much.


----------



## Ment (Mar 27, 2008)

That's what I mean. She is probably a dress down type and on the Shark Tank they cranked up the va va voom.


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

Watching this weeks episode (Feb 10) with the wine balloon guy, it really bugs me when the sharks start bullying like that. And the more they bullied like that, the more I thought the guy should have been taking Kevin's ofter. If Mark really wanted to get his hands on the product THAT bad, then it's probably bigger than the guy even realized.

As for the towel with a hole, did I miss something, or were the sides of the towel completely open, thus still a bit lacking in the privacy department?


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

LordKronos said:


> Watching this weeks episode (Feb 10) with the wine balloon guy, it really bugs me when the sharks start bullying like that. And the more they bullied like that, the more I thought the guy should have been taking Kevin's ofter. If Mark really wanted to get his hands on the product THAT bad, then it's probably bigger than the guy even realized.
> 
> As for the towel with a hole, did I miss something, or were the sides of the towel completely open, thus still a bit lacking in the privacy department?


I also hated the way Mark tried to bully both the wine guy and the new female shark. I wish she had told Mark to shut up and stop trying to high-jack her deal. Before he opened his mouth she was willing to give wine guy $500,000, then when he backed and got back in for $400,000, I wanted her to offer the guy the $500,000 again with just her. I really wish she had stood up to him.

And I agree about the openness of the towel on the sides. I wanted the sharks to have the kids change under it. That would have prove it didn't work.


----------



## Ment (Mar 27, 2008)

lol chump lost $200k. Guy got shredded by the Sharks. He should have counter offered the 600k with 300k for ownership plus 2% royalty.


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

Ment said:


> lol chump lost $200k. Guy got shredded by the Sharks. He should have counter offered the 600k with 300k for ownership plus 2% royalty.


I don't think he was a chump. He did try to counter-offer but Cuban basically said "talk to the hand" because he is a big jerk.


----------



## Ment (Mar 27, 2008)

tiams said:


> I don't think he was a chump. He did try to counter-offer but Cuban basically said "talk to the hand" because he is a big jerk.


He countered with 600k+3% royalty. After he lost leverage after the refusal on those terms he lost 200k.


----------



## Jim_TV (Mar 4, 2006)

Ment said:


> He countered with 600k+3% royalty. After he lost leverage after the refusal on those terms he lost 200k.


He should have went with Mr. Wonderful and the licensing deal at that point, rather than accept a cash buyout deal for $200,000 less.


----------



## brettatk (Oct 11, 2002)

Jim_TV said:


> He should have went with Mr. Wonderful and the licensing deal at that point, rather than accept a cash buyout deal for $200,000 less.


This. They kept saying he could walk out there with nothing which wasn't at all true. Once the $600,000 was gone I'd have countered with $500,000 and when they said no I'd immediately accepted Kevin's deal.

I also immediately said something to my wife when those kids put on the towel. No way you could change in that unless you wanted your junk shown to the world. I'm sure the first thing Lori will do is change that design. I still think she should have selected Daymond's offer since he could have simply added the towel to his production line.


----------



## Ment (Mar 27, 2008)

Jim_TV said:


> He should have went with Mr. Wonderful and the licensing deal at that point, rather than accept a cash buyout deal for $200,000 less.


I think a lower price for the company with a royalty would have been an accepted counteroffer to Cuban/QVC Gal. Reasoning: I'll reduce your risk by half for a royalty. Now they might counter my counter with a royalty of 2% or something but thats just playing the Shark game.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

Jim_TV said:


> He should have went with Mr. Wonderful and the licensing deal at that point, rather than accept a cash buyout deal for $200,000 less.


Agreed. I was hoping he wouldn't be blinded by the Cuban offer.. there's no reason they couldn't have thrown him 2% royalty. They're totally greedy bastard theives, just as Mr. Wonderful said.

I would have taken Kevin's deal the moment the other two started dicking me around. Screw me?!? No, SCREW YOU!


----------



## Mikeyis4dcats (Oct 2, 2003)

Hank said:


> Agreed. I was hoping he wouldn't be blinded by the Cuban offer.. there's no reason they couldn't have thrown him 2% royalty. They're totally greedy bastard theives, just as Mr. Wonderful said.
> 
> I would have taken Kevin's deal the moment the other two started dicking me around. Screw me?!? No, SCREW YOU!


this is why emotion gets in the way of business. he'd have screwed himself if he was doing it just to spite Cuban.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

But he would have made MORE money with Kevin.

I'm saying he should have gone with the better deal.

The cuban deal was good at $400, $500 or $600k plus a royalty. They choose not to offer any royalty and screw him over. If he took Kevin's deal, he would have screwed over Cuban out of 100% of the returns from the investment. Cuban 0. Wine Balloon. 1.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

I think it's hilarious it went down $200K within minutes.


----------



## Tivohud (Jan 11, 2003)

From the website:

"Latest Tweets
Thanks for all of the great comments from the show. Still in control of the company. Hoping to still partner with sharks. 3 days ago"

Hope he gets better than he did on the show.


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

I think that idea is worth a lot more than $400k, he should have gone with Kevin. He was smart to ask for a royalty but I can't believe he actually took their lower offer.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

Damon and Richard telling him he was crazy if he didn't is what did it.


----------



## GoHalos (Aug 30, 2006)

Tivohud said:


> From the website:
> 
> "Latest Tweets
> Thanks for all of the great comments from the show. Still in control of the company. Hoping to still partner with sharks. 3 days ago"
> ...


Does this happen often? Where the deal made on the show isn't actually completed?

Additional comment from his blog in response to someone saying that everyone should boycott the product to screw the sharks:


> ... We have NOT sold the company and cooler heads prevailed. Please dont boycott the Wine Balloon. We still own it.
> Thanks again.


----------



## Ment (Mar 27, 2008)

The Sharks can probably nix any deals depending on the status of things like patents which increase/decrease the value of a product greatly.


----------



## plateau10 (Dec 11, 2007)

Ment said:


> The Sharks can probably nix any deals depending on the status of things like patents which increase/decrease the value of a product greatly.


In fact they alluded to that, I believe on this very same episode, when the new QVC woman just flat-out write a check on the spot for someone else. They said she wasn't even going to do due diligence on that inventor.


----------



## GoHalos (Aug 30, 2006)

Yeah, I have seen where they talk about "due diligence", etc., but the owner's comment saying "cooler heads prevailed" seems different than that to me.


----------



## plateau10 (Dec 11, 2007)

GoHalos said:


> Yeah, I have seen where they talk about "due diligence", etc., but the owner's comment saying "cooler heads prevailed" seems different than that to me.


Yes, my comment was limited to the post I was responding to. Clearly in this case they *let* him out of a deal he made in good faith, which is a bit surprising, but just goes to show a handshake means nothing and the deal isn't final until there's a signed contract. I wonder how many deals we see on screen fall through before signing.


----------



## Ment (Mar 27, 2008)

yes if I'm recalling correctly, wine guy had filed a provisional patent application. The patent status could have changed from when the producers reviewed his product for the show to now.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

Ment said:


> yes if I'm recalling correctly, wine guy had filed a provisional patent application. The patent status could have changed from when the producers reviewed his product for the show to now.


On the show he said he filed a provisional patent _application_, but he also said it was converted to a utility patent _application_.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

Doing a very fast patent search reveals several similar devices:

(these are links to google*):

http://bit.ly/AsCXIG 
http://bit.ly/yfOvFJ 
http://bit.ly/zCiuHd

What's interesting is that these other devices include a vent/exhaust hose to remove the air that is being compressed within the vessel. The Wine Balloon doesn't do this.. so my guess is that while it looks like it's removing all the air in the bottle, it's really just compressing what's in there after the balloon has sealed off the with the sides of the bottle. I'm not sure if that will have the desired affect of preserving the wine, as opposed to these other devices which vent the compressed air out. Yes, I know it has a lot to do with surface area, but it sure looks like there's a lot of prior art out there in this space.

* I had to use bit.ly links due to this problem: http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=483171


----------



## GoHalos (Aug 30, 2006)

Any of that may be true, but his comment of "cooler heads prevailed" seems to me that he backed out of the deal after taping (or as Plateau said above, they let him out of it). 

FWIW, his website currently says, "Internationally Patent Pending". 

I, too, wonder how many of the deals we see on the show actually do not come to fruition.


----------



## Ment (Mar 27, 2008)

Hank said:


> What's interesting is that these other devices include a vent/exhaust hose to remove the air that is being compressed within the vessel. The Wine Balloon doesn't do this.. so my guess is that while it looks like it's removing all the air in the bottle, it's really just compressing what's in there after the balloon has sealed off the with the sides of the bottle. I'm not sure if that will have the desired affect of preserving the wine, as opposed to these other devices which vent the compressed air out. Yes, I know it has a lot to do with surface area, but it sure looks like there's a lot of prior art out there in this space.
> ]


I think that would a minimal problem as the air would escape as the balloon expands up until the point of sealing. More problematic is that you have to periodically 'pump' as the balloon loses air pressure. If you are in the habit of checking your wine whenever you open the fridge that'd be fine but if you seal and then wait till the next weekend to finish the bottle you might be out of luck.


----------



## plateau10 (Dec 11, 2007)

BTW, am I the only one who instantly thought this was a pointless product? Actually, I know I'm not the only one, because my wife and I instantly looked at each other and laughed at it. I can't remember ever not finishing a bottle, and I'm damn sure I've never poured any down the drain.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

plateau10 said:


> BTW, am I the only one who instantly thought this was a pointless product? Actually, I know I'm not the only one, because my wife and I instantly looked at each other and laughed at it. I can't remember ever not finishing a bottle, and I'm damn sure I've never poured any down the drain.


I hear you! But my g/f and I sometimes want one more glass than one bottle provides, so we'll open a second bottle for just a little more, then have some left over for the next evening. I have been known to finish the second bottle in some of these cases, I'll admit. But I try not to do that too often, especially on a "school night".


----------



## Jebberwocky! (Apr 16, 2005)

if you use wine for cooking there is often a pretty full bottle left over, at least at my house there is. I keep forgetting to drink it during the meal.


----------



## GoHalos (Aug 30, 2006)

Hank said:


> What's interesting is that these other devices include a vent/exhaust hose to remove the air that is being compressed within the vessel. The Wine Balloon doesn't do this.. so my guess is that while it looks like it's removing all the air in the bottle, it's really just compressing what's in there after the balloon has sealed off the with the sides of the bottle.





Ment said:


> I think that would a minimal problem as the air would escape as the balloon expands up until the point of sealing.


The inventor pointed this out in his presentation. He had a clear wine bottle as and demonstrated the product - he then flipped the bottle over and showed a small bubble of air at the bottom of the bottle and mentioned that the small bubble is the only air touching the wine.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

GoHalos said:


> The inventor pointed this out in his presentation. He had a clear wine bottle as and demonstrated the product - he then flipped the bottle over and showed a small bubble of air at the bottom of the bottle and mentioned that the small bubble is the only air touching the wine.


Yeah, I realize that, but that little bubble is somewhat compressed air. There's a reason these other wine preservation patents include a vent to remove ALL air from the bottle. I don't know the specifics of wine preservation, but that could be a problem.


----------



## GoHalos (Aug 30, 2006)

Hank said:


> I don't know the specifics of wine preservation, but that could be a problem.


Could be a problem, I don't know either. He certainly presented it like that small amount of air doesn't affect the wine. I guess it could be worse if you had less wine in the bottle as well (higher proportion of air to wine).

Anyway, we don't drink a lot of red wine, but when we do I don't use any of these "saver" products as the bottles are almost always empty at the end of the night.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Ment said:


> The Sharks can probably nix any deals depending on the status of things like patents which increase/decrease the value of a product greatly.


I seem to remember there's something in the fine print at the end of each episode that says this too..


----------



## TonyTheTiger (Dec 22, 2006)

A verbal contract ain't worth the paper it's written on!

If these are, in fact, real negotiations, then both sides can back out at any time before contracts are signed. I doubt any court in the land would uphold a "He agreed to it under the pressure of the TV cameras" argument!

As for $400k guy, if he had ANY sense, he'd realize that if the sharks are fighting to sign him like that, there's money to be made and he should hold off from selling the entire company.


----------



## Jebberwocky! (Apr 16, 2005)

TonyTheTiger said:


> A verbal contract ain't worth the paper it's written on!


That's wrong, verbal contracts are often valid. In the case of the Shark tank they are allowed to do their due diligence to make sure that the representations made to the sharks are in fact true.

When the Lady cut the check to the Woman last week, Mr. Wonderful commented that she was bypassing her due diligence which they never do (or had done previously)


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

I agree....the bottle = 1 serving size. Just like Girl Scout cookies! lol


----------



## GoHalos (Aug 30, 2006)

Jebberwocky! said:


> That's wrong, verbal contracts are often valid. In the case of the Shark tank they are allowed to do their due diligence to make sure that the representations made to the sharks are in fact true.


Right, but in the case of the wine balloon guy, it doesn't appear that there was a misrepresentation made to the sharks, just that "cooler heads prevailed", and the deal is no longer in place.

ETA: "cooler heads prevailed" was his phrase (the owner), not mine.


----------



## Mikeyis4dcats (Oct 2, 2003)

there is air in a sealed wine bottle....take a look at one sometime. You just want to minimize the amount.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

Mikeyis4dcats said:


> there is air in a sealed wine bottle....take a look at one sometime. You just want to minimize the amount.


Don't (most/some/all) wine bottlers fill that space with nitrogen?


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

boy did those Sharks go crazy of the young girls and their jewelry line. They almost fell out of their chairs when the girls told them they were already in 1000 stores and had $millions in sales. That was fun to watch.


----------



## Ment (Mar 27, 2008)

The lady with the buxom pillow wasn't made for business. She could have quadrupled her paltry sales by advertising on cosmetic surgery forums. I loled at the garbage lid replacement - can't believe Daymond bought that stupid thing.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Ment said:


> The lady with the buxom pillow wasn't made for business. She could have quadrupled her paltry sales by advertising on cosmetic surgery forums. I loled at the garbage lid replacement - can't believe Daymond bought that stupid thing.


yeah...I'd like to see video of a garbage man "dealing" with that cloth lid.


----------



## jschuman (Feb 20, 2001)

Yeah the whole time the sharks were (agreeing with my wife and I and) talking about how stupid the garbage can lid was, and then Daymond gave them some money!


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

jschuman said:


> Yeah the whole time the sharks were (agreeing with my wife and I and) talking about how stupid the garbage can lid was, and then Daymond gave them some money!


well he did say that he was actually looking for a trash can lid earlier and couldn't find one! lol


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

jschuman said:


> Yeah the whole time the sharks were (agreeing with my wife and I and) talking about how stupid the garbage can lid was, and then Daymond gave them some money!


I kept thinking how nastily dirty that "lid" would get, and there is no way I would put it in my washing machine.


----------



## jschuman (Feb 20, 2001)

tiams said:


> I kept thinking how nastily dirty that "lid" would get, and there is no way I would put it in my washing machine.


Yeah there are just so many things wrong about that lid. Can't believe anyone would find them all that beneficial.


----------



## Mikeyis4dcats (Oct 2, 2003)

A better invention would have been a strap to connect the lid to the can.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Mikeyis4dcats said:


> A better invention would have been a strap to connect the lid to the can.


Exactly. They made a point of saying that the clip was the key to the whole thing....so why not just design a clip that attaches the lid you already have to the can so they can't be seperated/lost?


----------



## brettatk (Oct 11, 2002)

The Last Lid has to be the worst idea I've ever seen on the Shark Tank. Of course when Daymond sneezes he uses $40,000 to wipe his nose. I was just surprised he'd waste his time with something like this even though he had been searching for a lid.


----------



## Jebberwocky! (Apr 16, 2005)

I liked the lid idea. Color me crazy but there are many different ways that this would work.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

I think the garbage collection guys would have big problems with "attached" lids. They would swing around, get caught on the truck, become a work hazard (hands getting caught in the rope/wire), etc. At the first pick up, those attached lids (original or cloth)would get ripped right off. Now the cloth lids present less of a hazard, but still, I can see garbage collection people finding a way to prohibit things like that (if they don't already).


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

We don't have garbage men. We have trucks that have an arm that grabs the can and lifts it over the trunk and dumps it in. We all have the same can and the lid is on a hinge.

Same thing with recycle.


----------



## andyw715 (Jul 31, 2007)

pmyers said:


> We don't have garbage men. We have trucks that have an arm that grabs the can and lifts it over the trunk and dumps it in. We all have the same can and the lid is on a hinge.
> 
> Same thing with recycle.


I'm surprised more companies haven't gone to this type of can.
~90 gal can.

Monthly service fee is dependant on # of cans and weekly pick up frequency.

We have the same can, but don't have the arm that grabs the can. It's old school, 2 guys hang off the back of the garbage truck and hook the cans onto the truck. The truck has a dumping mechanism. Simple.


----------



## brettatk (Oct 11, 2002)

pmyers said:


> We don't have garbage men. We have trucks that have an arm that grabs the can and lifts it over the trunk and dumps it in. We all have the same can and the lid is on a hinge.
> 
> Same thing with recycle.


What do you call the guy who drives the garbage truck or the guy who rides on the back and hops off to make sure the placement of the can is to where the arm can pick it up? I'd think it almost impossible that every one on the route would have their can exactly where the arm would be able to grab it or the time it would take the driver to position the truck to grab the can. Ours is like what anydy715 described. No way one driver could do it by himself.


----------



## GoHalos (Aug 30, 2006)

pmyers said:


> We don't have garbage men. We have trucks that have an arm that grabs the can and lifts it over the trunk and dumps it in. We all have the same can and the lid is on a hinge.
> 
> Same thing with recycle.


Us too. We also have a third can for yard waste. We've had this setup since we moved to this city 12 years ago. The city where I grew up (and my parents still live) just switched to this system a couple of years ago as well.


----------



## GoHalos (Aug 30, 2006)

brettatk said:


> What do you call the guy who drives the garbage truck or the guy who rides on the back and hops off to make sure the placement of the can is to where the arm can pick it up? I'd think it almost impossible that every one on the route would have their can exactly where the arm would be able to grab it or the time it would take the driver to position the truck to grab the can. Ours is like what anydy715 described. No way one driver could do it by himself.


In our neighborhood, 3 different trucks come by (one for each type of "trash"), but there's only one guy in each truck. The driver does get out and move the cans if necessary.


----------



## brettatk (Oct 11, 2002)

Ah ok. So people who have this type of system do not have garbage men, just a garbage man.


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

Around here we also have the automatic trucks. The arms can be controlled and moved around a bit to "grab" the can. If you don't put your can on the side of the road where they can pick it up, your trash just won't be picked up. That's incentive right there. They don't get off their truck to re-position. 

I was mainly thinking that a lot of places are going to these automatic trash pickup because they save a lot of money. So you are just given your trash cans that work with the truck and nobody around here would have any use for a trash can lid.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

pmyers said:


> We don't have garbage men. We have trucks that have an arm that grabs the can and lifts it over the trunk and dumps it in. We all have the same can and the lid is on a hinge.
> 
> Same thing with recycle.


Yes, in these cases, the equipment is designed to work with a permanently attached, hinged, lid.

For purposes of this discussion ("The Last Lid"), we're still talking about old-school round cans with detached (or lost) lids.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

DancnDude said:


> Around here we also have the automatic trucks. The arms can be controlled and moved around a bit to "grab" the can. If you don't put your can on the side of the road where they can pick it up, your trash just won't be picked up. That's incentive right there. They don't get off their truck to re-position...


correct. you put your can out on the street and the arm grabs it. If you put it someplace else or a car is blocking the truck/can, you don't get picked up. Only 1 guy in the truck and I've never seen him get out, even when the can gets knocked over when the arm sets it down.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Hank said:


> Yes, in these cases, the equipment is designed to work with a permanently attached, hinged, lid.
> 
> For purposes of this discussion ("The Last Lid"), we're still talking about old-school round cans with detached (or lost) lids.


I understand. I was just trying to make the point that this is a limited market (which they always talk about on the show). I would predict that the days of garbage men are becoming numbered and shifting toward my current setup, thus dwindling the already limited market for this product.


----------



## GoHalos (Aug 30, 2006)

pmyers said:


> correct. you put your can out on the street and the arm grabs it. If you put it someplace else or a car is blocking the truck/can, you don't get picked up. Only 1 guy in the truck and I've never seen him get out, even when the can gets knocked over when the arm sets it down.


So some jerk parks their car close to your trash can and that causes you to not get your trash picked up? That sucks.

As I mentioned, our guys do get out of the truck to move the cans if necessary (but not to pick up the can if it tips over when setting it back down). Also, we live on a cul-de-sac, so the trucks have a hard time getting to the cans on the end of the curve, so he sometimes has to get out of the truck for those as well.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

GoHalos said:


> So some jerk parks their car close to your trash can and that causes you to not get your trash picked up? That sucks.
> 
> As I mentioned, our guys do get out of the truck to move the cans if necessary (but not to pick up the can if it tips over when setting it back down). Also, we live on a cul-de-sac, so the trucks have a hard time getting to the cans on the end of the curve, so he sometimes has to get out of the truck for those as well.


In the 8 years I've lived here nobody has ever done that. Our neighborhoods might be different than yours though....the only people who would ever park in front of my house would be guests of mine and I would know it.

that said...maybe he would get out of the truck to help out, but I doubt it. Like I said, I've seen my can knocked over and half way in the street after he's left.


----------



## GoHalos (Aug 30, 2006)

pmyers said:


> In the 8 years I've lived here nobody has ever done that. Our neighborhoods might be different than yours though....the only people who would ever park in front of my house would be guests of mine and I would know it.


A lot of people in my neighborhood park on the street because they have their garages full of junk and more than 2 cars (2 fit in their driveway) -- but that's an annoyance for another thread.


----------



## Jayjoans (Jan 23, 2003)

Good for Cuban. I love that he called out the scammer from the very beginning. I have friends that completely believe that stuff, and my opinion of their intellect dropped dramatically.

I thought the eyeglass thing was intriguing, too bad the glasses have to hang on the outside of your shirt though. Women aren't going to like that (well, at least my woman isn't)

The furniture guy was annoying as ... I liked this episode, they called out the losers in no uncertain terms. As far as I can tell, you could only build square boxes with his system, how is that furniture? Shouldn't it be called the "Square Box Company"?


----------



## Regina (Mar 30, 2003)

Jayjoans said:


> The furniture guy was annoying as ... I liked this episode, they called out the losers in no uncertain terms. As far as I can tell, you could only build square boxes with his system, how is that furniture? Shouldn't it be called the "Square Box Company"?


..Man, was that guy STUPID!!!!  He should have taken the money and ran far far away! Didn't he say he was no stranger to getting paid to walk away? So, seriously, dude-they are trying to pay you to WALK AWAY! 

And Mark Cuban owns Landmark Theatres? I had no idea!! I love Landmark!!


----------



## Ment (Mar 27, 2008)

Jayjoans said:


> Good for Cuban. I love that he called out the scammer from the very beginning. I have friends that completely believe that stuff, and my opinion of their intellect dropped dramatically.


Yep, Cuban is familiar with that fraud as Power Balance bands are frequently pitched to athletes. They work the same way lucky socks work..

Good one for Daymond pointing out the designs weren't original either. 







Rumbatime


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

Jayjoans said:


> The furniture guy was annoying as ... I liked this episode, they called out the losers in no uncertain terms. As far as I can tell, you could only build square boxes with his system, how is that furniture? Shouldn't it be called the "Square Box Company"?


If you mean literally square, then no. You can build rectangles. If you looked carefully he had a white shelf that you could see how it was done. It had a diamond shape insert that you put in and twist.


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

Yes, the positive ion thing is bunk, but if a shark wants to make money off of it why not? It is not the shark's responsibility to save stupid people from themselves. I felt Cuban shamed the rest of them out of giving the guy a deal. Cuban has really been rubbing me the wrong way. I liked him last season.


----------



## Jayjoans (Jan 23, 2003)

Regina said:


> ..Man, was that guy STUPID!!!!  He should have taken the money and ran far far away! Didn't he say he was no stranger to getting paid to walk away? So, seriously, dude-they are trying to pay you to WALK AWAY!


I could barely hear that guy talking due his investors yelling "TAKE THE MONEY AND PAY ME BACK! I JUST WANT MY MONEY BACK"



tiams said:


> Yes, the positive ion thing is bunk, but if a shark wants to make money off of it why not?


No way could they personally do that on national TV, knowingly invest in a huckster while the world watched. The lady even mentioned that, without some sort of lab or research to back it up they can't make those claims. There was nowhere that product can go that it already hasn't been....internet, mall kiosk, word of mouth, etc. In a dark alley, maybe one of them invests, but not on national TV.


----------



## Mikeyis4dcats (Oct 2, 2003)

baseball legend George Brett is currently being sued over a product very similar to the ion watch. it is a total scam, and any sort of health improvement claim will get you investigated and in trouble without proof.


----------



## wendiness1 (Jul 29, 2005)

I thought they were unnecessarily rough on the pretzel lady. Sure, like any other food product, anybody else can make them. So what? She has the ball rolling and the attention of Sam's Club and Nordstrom's. Sheesh.


----------



## wendiness1 (Jul 29, 2005)

I think a lot of these folks could benefit by having their pitch critiqued. Some cross the line from confident to cocky and I don't think they realize it.


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

Mikeyis4dcats said:


> baseball legend George Brett is currently being sued over a product very similar to the ion watch. it is a total scam, and any sort of health improvement claim will get you investigated and in trouble without proof.


Gullibility and litigiousness must go hand in hand.


----------



## Mikeyis4dcats (Oct 2, 2003)

tiams said:


> Gullibility and litigiousness must go hand in hand.


you simply can't claim something improves your health without proof.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7...-george-brett-made-false-claims-necklaces-ads


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

wendiness1 said:


> I think a lot of these folks could benefit by having their pitch critiqued. Some cross the line from confident to cocky and I don't think they realize it.


The problem that I saw was that half of them seemed like they were pitches right out of the expo hall at the state fair -- cheesy and overly bombastic. They seemed to forget they weren't selling their product to consumers - they were selling their company to investors.


----------



## GoHalos (Aug 30, 2006)

LoadStar said:


> The problem that I saw was that half of them seemed like they were pitches right out of the expo hall at the state fair -- cheesy and overly bombastic. They seemed to forget they weren't selling their product to consumers - they were selling their company to investors.


I agree. I've seen a few in the last couple of episodes (and possibly 2 in just this last one?) where the presenter either threw the "bad" product over their shoulder or dramatically threw it to the ground, in a cheesy, infomercial-like way.


----------



## Frylock (Feb 13, 2002)

wendiness1 said:


> I thought they were unnecessarily rough on the pretzel lady. Sure, like any other food product, anybody else can make them. So what? She has the ball rolling and the attention of Sam's Club and Nordstrom's. Sheesh.


Yes, seriously. Mrs. Fields is not some super special product either. Anyone can make a cookie. It's all about sales and getting into stores. Kevin clearly just was being a moron there. With the 2 million Sam's Club deal, that was a great buy. You basically turn a profit right away!


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Frylock said:


> Yes, seriously. Mrs. Fields is not some super special product either. Anyone can make a cookie. It's all about sales and getting into stores. Kevin clearly just was being a moron there. With the 2 million Sam's Club deal, that was a great buy. You basically turn a profit right away!


Before she made her pitch I told my wife exactly what Kevin would say...and he did just that. He always says the same thing with anything that isn't proprietary or has a patent....food, that cleaner solution.

I see his point about anybody being able to get into the pretzel business tomorrow.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

BTW...I have to say that this past episode was the absolute best and I loved every minute of it.

I LOVED that Cuban called out that qwack!


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

pmyers said:


> BTW...I have to say that this past episode was the absolute best and I loved every minute of it.
> 
> I LOVED that Cuban called out that qwack!


I'm surprised the qwack got through the several layers of pre-screening before getting on the show. Maybe they knew it was a setup and the sharks would never go for it, and it would just make good TV.


----------



## andyw715 (Jul 31, 2007)

Frylock said:


> Yes, seriously. Mrs. Fields is not some super special product either. Anyone can make a cookie. It's all about sales and getting into stores. Kevin clearly just was being a moron there. With the 2 million Sam's Club deal, that was a great buy. You basically turn a profit right away!


Right. But this is exactly what the sharks were asking for. Instead she tried to sell them her emotion and story. 
They wanted to here that her pretzels would become the next Mrs. Fields.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

wendiness1 said:


> I thought they were unnecessarily rough on the pretzel lady. Sure, like any other food product, anybody else can make them. So what? She has the ball rolling and the attention of Sam's Club and Nordstrom's. Sheesh.


I agree with you on this 100%.
To me, the best problem in the world to have in business is having too many orders and not enough capital to fulfill those orders. That's an investor's dream. It lovers the risk as you know the product is successful, and your $$$ will go directly into the business. She was clearly passionate about her business unlike the guy with 80 other business ideas floating around out there. And a $2 _million_ order just waiting in the wings to be filled by Sam's Club for her pretzels? The Sharks should have been fighting to get in on that deal.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

inaka said:


> I agree with you on this 100%.
> To me, the best problem in the world to have in business is having too many orders and not enough capital to fulfill those orders. That's an investor's dream. It lovers the risk as you know the product is successful, and your $$$ will go directly into the business. She was clearly passionate about her business unlike the guy with 80 other business ideas floating around out there. And a $2 _million_ order just waiting in the wings to be filled by Sam's Club for her pretzels? The Sharks should have been fighting to get in on that deal.


Fair enough...but then the first line of your pitch should be "I have a $2million order that I can't fill right now...blah blah blah...."


----------



## Ment (Mar 27, 2008)

Sometimes people who make good products can't pitch their way out of a bag. Wonder if SharkTank would allow a hired pitchman to hawk a product for the inventor. I'm imagining a Billy Mays type in front of the Sharks. That'd be hilarious.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

pmyers said:


> Fair enough...but then the first line of your pitch should be "I have a $2million order that I can't fill right now...blah blah blah...."


True, but even then as an investor, I would ask that question. She mentioned how she had to turn down another order in the neighborhood of $150k, so I would ask (as a Shark) are there other orders you have in the pipeline that you are worried you can't fill? What are your future orders? Do you have a commitment from Neiman to reorder this fall? How would the investment help your production exactly, etc.

That $2 million order is bound to come up no matter what even if she was foolish for not leading with it. It was only until the very end afar Robert gave her a hail mary second chance that it came up. Both sides (her and the sharks) were not handling the pitch well in my opinion.


----------



## Jebberwocky! (Apr 16, 2005)

I always cringe when they (the person trying to get funding) tells the sharks that they have no sales ability. It's okay to not have that ability but to admit it to a potential investor??


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Jayjoans said:


> No way could they personally do that on national TV, knowingly invest in a huckster while the world watched.


But "Mr Wonderful" seemed like he was interested, at first.. even knowing it was bunk.

Which brings up two questions.. I may have known the answers in the past, but don't remember anymore.

Why is he called Mr. Wonderful? (I guess in some ways, I could compare him to George on Seinfeld.. the one you DON'T like at first, but then realize he's probably the most realistic of any of them.)

What happened to the old old lady? There's now the shopping channel lady.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Jebberwocky! said:


> I always cringe when they (the person trying to get funding) tells the sharks that they have no sales ability. It's okay to not have that ability but to admit it to a potential investor??


1) They're honest
2) The sharks DO have the sales ability.


----------



## Jayjoans (Jan 23, 2003)

mattack said:


> What happened to the old old lady? There's now the shopping channel lady.


Did you miss the preview for next week? Take a dramamine before watching...:down:


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

I usually skip previews..


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

ABC has ordered two additional episodes, bringing the current season order to 15. They'll create them by splicing together previously unused footage.

http://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/shark-tank-abc-episodes-22244/


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

Mikeyis4dcats said:


> you simply can't claim something improves your health without proof.
> 
> http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7...-george-brett-made-false-claims-necklaces-ads


An "ion watch" doesn't cause any damages that anyone should be allowed to sue for. That watch and products like it are neither helpful nor harmful. People in this country need to take responsibility for their own actions and decisions instead of trying to hit the jackpot with lawsuits. If someone is dumb enough to buy one of these products then I consider the price on the sales tag to be an idiot tax. I didn't hear any medical benefits being claimed. He said a bunch of mumbo jumbo about ions and electronic products.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

when you make medical claims/benifits then you ahve to be able to back them up with actual proof.


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

pmyers said:


> when you make medical claims/benifits then you ahve to be able to back them up with actual proof.


What medical claims were made?


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Well from the original product that Cuban was referring to and what this product is ripping off:



> A lawsuit filed Monday in federal court in Des Moines claims Spokane Valley, Wash.-based Brett Bros. Sports International Inc. has falsely claimed its Ionic Necklaces help customers relieve pain in the neck, shoulders and upper back, recover from sports fatigue and improve focus. The company has also falsely claimed its bracelets, which include two roller magnets, would relieve wrist, hand and elbow pain, the lawsuit said.


And from the Esso website:
http://essowatches.com/health/esso-watches-on-shark-tank


> Marc Cuban some sincere doubts about negative ion products, so we wanted to share some information in which you can research for yourself.
> 
> There are many research journals which talk about the harmful effects of free radicals on the body. Here is a quote from a blog which does a great job explaining how too many free radicals in your body can be negative
> 
> On the contrary, the more Positively Charged Ions,( i.e. free radicals) there are in the blood, the slower and less efficient the cell's metabolism. This causes the body's cells to become weak and the body will tend to get sick more easily and age faster. It will cause the body`s immune system to completely shut down


It was funny to me because I had a buddy who bought one of those original bracelets and did the same exact "test" to all of us to show how it "worked".


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

I don't consider "improving focus", "recovering from fatigue", "decreasing pain" to be medical claims. It's not like they are claiming it cures diseases. And it doesn't do any harm. If someone wears an ion watch, it is going to do absolutely nothing to them. 


The demonstration the guy did with being able to resist downward pressure is a trick. It has to do with the way the person is positioned. You do it one way and then subtly change position which changes the center of gravity. It's mechanics. There are probably many youtube video explaining it. I think I saw it done on Stan Lee's SuperHumans.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

well if you don't agree that the things I quoted are medical claims, then we don't really have any common ground to debate.

I hope you enjoy your watch


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

I would never waste money on one of those watches or anything similar. We agree they are bunk. I just don't agree that anyone who is dumb enough to buy one has a right to monetary compensation via a lawsuit.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

Well, if you make a false claim about your product, then that's wrong. Just because we know these are obvious frauds, many people may not, especially the elderly who are usually more susceptible to scams, etc. I have no problem seeing a company who makes completely bogus health claims and sells an item that counters the "harmful effects of free radicals" as one that might be open to a large lawsuit and/or fines from the FTC.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

tiams said:


> I would never waste money on one of those watches or anything similar. We agree they are bunk. I just don't agree that anyone who is dumb enough to buy one has a right to monetary compensation via a lawsuit.


So we do agree! lol. I'm just explaining what the law is and why the Sharks wouldn't touch this with a 10' pole because of the legal implications. No way you could go on QVC and make those claims.


----------



## Mikeyis4dcats (Oct 2, 2003)

fraud is fraud. there is no allowance for the target of the fraud being stupid.


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

I was at the Dallas Mavericks game last night, at one of the concessions they had the pretzels for sale.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Weird.. top show in teens 12-17??


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

GoHalos said:


> Right, but in the case of the wine balloon guy, it doesn't appear that there was a misrepresentation made to the sharks, just that "cooler heads prevailed", and the deal is no longer in place.


Here's a bump to this thread. 
Remember the Wine Balloon from Shark Tank?

Well, I'm watching a show on the food network called Invention Hunters, and the very same Wine Balloon guy named Eric is there. Although he got a $400k deal on Shark Tank, it must be dead because he was pitching the very same wine balloon product on Invention Hunters. Same exact product, but they changed the packaging and called it the Air Cork.

If anyone likes shows like Shark Tank, Invention Hunters is a bit more like the old Billy Mays Pitchmen show. Only rub is that since its on the Food Network, all inventions must be food related. Still interesting though. Just FYI...


----------



## GoHalos (Aug 30, 2006)

Interesting, I'll have to check it out, thanks. I like both invention shows and food shows, so I'll probably like it. Yeah, it was clear from the inventor's comments on his website after the show aired that the deal was dead.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

Just FYI:
Here's the OLD product name and packaging:










Here's the NEW product name and packaging:










What's really funny is that in the pitch on the Invention Hunters show, one of the "cons" the Head Honcho guy said was was that it had a balloon and that a balloon is hard to pump up or use. Really? How f'n lazy is that guy?? LOL


----------

