S07.E19: Insta-Fire, Custard Stand, PRxPerformance, Rags to Raches

[designing1]

Special Sunday airing (10PM Eastern):

 

 

American entrepreneurs present products that include a fire-starting solution, and space-saving workout equipment; checking in with Three Jerks Jerky.

 

[Latverian Diplomat]

So, Kevin's niche among the Sharks is the "guy who likes to sue people". Good to know.

 

Mark used the chili people for one of his sermons on capitalism, but then no investment. Robert had the right insight there. Tastes in that type of food are very regional, it's really tough to go national, and probably not a good idea.

 

The Rags to Raches woman came in without a specific plan to use the capital, or what to do next. Mark picked up on this, but called her on it in his usual rude, misogynist way. She seems to have an approach/avoidance about tackling big retail, and coming down to Daymond vs. Robert was the choice between those two. Daymond was the right choice to actually try to extract some money from big retail, Robert is probably an OK choice to stay as a web and boutique product--I'm not sure she needs his help to do that, but whatever. Honestly, I think she just liked Robert's courtesy and enthusiasm for staying with her current business model.

 

She was right I think, to stay away from Kevin's Something Wonderful network. I don't think kid's clothes really fits with that, and Kevin just wanted to plug it (again).

 

ETA: Any idea why they do these special airings? Are they trying out other time slots? Trying to get new viewers for the regular Friday show?  

Edited February 22, 2016 by Latverian Diplomat

[designing1]

I'd like to nominate "Rags to Raches" as one of the worst product names ever. Unless you're actually aware of and interested in "Rach", the owner, it makes zero sense.

 

 

She was right I think, to stay away from Kevin's Something Wonderful network. I don't think kid's clothes really fits with that, and Kevin just wanted to plug it (again).

 

Yeah, I didn't get the tie-in either. At least Robert's millionth mention of Tipsy Elves made sense in light of her product and distribution issues.

 

 

Any idea why they do these special airings? Are they trying out other time slots? Trying to get new viewers for the regular Friday show?

 

The past few weeks they've alternated between Shark Tank and Castle in this time slot. I'm pretty sure Castle is on its way down if not out, so perhaps they're trying to drum up viewership, but isn't Shark Tank doing well? And is February still considered sweeps month? Maybe they think they'll get better audience share with these shows in this time slot as opposed to whatever their normal programming is. Actually, I found this particular episode so dull I thought they might just be burning it off.

[Crs97]

I couldn't believe the Rags woman got three offers.  Was anyone else not impressed with her product?  $40+ for a glorified onesie that would cause me to have to undress my child completely each time he/she needs a diaper change?  And then once the child is potty-training, you would be in a public stall with his/her outfit on the floor while he/she tried to go.  No thank you!  I seriously think her main market is young people without children buying her clothes as gifts for their friends who are having their first baby because I cannot imagine any parent wanting to have their child wear that construction twice.

 

Then she was ridiculously unprepared for the show and just agreed with whoever spoke last.  I didn't find Mark misogynistic, just exasperated that this woman had no clear vision and contradicted herself with every sentence.

[fivestone]

I guess I'm in the minority here, because I really liked Rags to Raches lady. I thought her personality and energy were great. I don't have kids, but I went to the site anyway to look at the selections for adults... unfortunately, there's not much there. Too bad, because I really wanted to order something. I can imagine if I did have kids I'd want them to wear something super cute and fashionable, but that's just me.

[Latverian Diplomat]

Then she was ridiculously unprepared for the show and just agreed with whoever spoke last.  I didn't find Mark misogynistic, just exasperated that this woman had no clear vision and contradicted herself with every sentence.

 

I thought Mark's point was fine, but his tone and his picking on a quirk in her speaking style was very disrespectful. She's as much of a success story as the chili people, she's entitled to a little of the respect. If he had just said, "you don't seem to know what you want to do next? you can't just agree with everyone" I would have been fine with calling her out for that. Instead he mocks her.

[LAgator77]

You know how when you accidentally FF too far on the DVR and catch a glimpse of someone and instantly hate them? That would be Rainbow Brite-hair jumper lady. She was definitely in the same league with the lady who wore a pillowcase a few weeks back (another "expert mom" IIRC).  I don't have kids, but I see I'm not the only one who thought it'd be gross to take your kids in a public bathroom and then have their jumper basically on the floor while they used the facilities. Her biz is "successful" but she's nuts, Mark calling her on this was not misogynistic. 

[KaveDweller]

The past few weeks they've alternated between Shark Tank and Castle in this time slot. I'm pretty sure Castle is on its way down if not out, so perhaps they're trying to drum up viewership, but isn't Shark Tank doing well? And is February still considered sweeps month? Maybe they think they'll get better audience share with these shows in this time slot as opposed to whatever their normal programming is. Actually, I found this particular episode so dull I thought they might just be burning it off.

 

I think ABC is just looking for filler. I think their mid season filler shows ended, but they didn't want to bring back their regular Sunday shows for a week or two and then have to break for the Oscars. They aired a Castle episode last week because they had to shift it's hiatus end date a week and needed to air an extra episode so they could end on time in May. I guess they have extra Shark Tank episodes, or they figure they don't mind having to run extra repeats on a Friday night later in the season. I'm guessing Shark Tank is relatively cheap to produce, so they can make more than the typical 22 episode season scripted shows get and drop them in wherever they have a hole. The ratings don't seem to change when it airs on different days.

 

I thought Mark's point was fine, but his tone and his picking on a quirk in her speaking style was very disrespectful. She's as much of a success story as the chili people, she's entitled to a little of the respect. If he had just said, "you don't seem to know what you want to do next? you can't just agree with everyone" I would have been fine with calling her out for that. Instead he mocks her.

 

I agree, but I don't think she even got that he was mocking her.  She just kept agreeing with everything he said and saying things like "totally." Or maybe she was just really good at letting criticisms roll off her back.

 

I didn't think much of her product, but I have no kids so what do I know? She seemed to have sales.

[bilgistic]

Did only the seven of us watch this episode? There's no pithy recap.

[NikSac]

I watched, but didn't have much to add beyond what everyone else has already said.

 

Except, I just remembered that weird fire starter stuff was on this episode too. I can't even remember if they ended up getting a deal, but I thought it was such a bizarre product. When they first started their presentation my assumption was it was supposed to be some kind of solution if say you couldn't find a match or a lighter - but then they showed you need a match or lighter for it. I also couldn't figure out why you'd need the fire to float. I guess they didn't want to give away any secrets but I was really curious what the stuff even was. It looked to me like those shavings people get for guinea pig cages, except I'm sure that stuff would burn way faster.

[starri]

I had a busy week and just got around to watching on Hulu.

 

Honestly, the gym guys were the only people I liked this week.  They seemed to have both a realistic valuation and reasonable expectations of their immediate business future.  

 

I perhaps might have liked the chili couple, but Mark's busting out his copy of Ayn Rand's Treasury of Bedtime Stories really soured me on that segment.

 

ETA:  The best thing about the episode was Daymond's fabulous pimp coat in the Three Jerks update segment.

Edited February 26, 2016 by starri

[Amarsir]

Mark used the chili people for one of his sermons on capitalism, but then no investment.

I perhaps might have liked the chili couple, but Mark's busting out his copy of Ayn Rand's Treasury of Bedtime Stories really soured me on that segment.

Did I miss something? He said "You are everything that everyone who watches this show aspires to be." Which certainly is an overstatement, but hardly 'I swear I will never live for another person nor ask them to live their life for me."

[UsernameFatigue]

The only pitcher that really bugged me this epi was the Rags to Riches lady. She dressed like she was still in the rags phase. I said to hubby that she looked like she picked her rumpled shirt out of the dirty clothes hamper. To boot I thought the jumpers were really ugly, and that she was all over the place with her presentation. The only thing I liked about her was that she picked Robert over Daymond as that pretty much never happens in clothing related businesses. I just hope she doesn't drive Robert nuts.

[NikSac]

The only pitcher that really bugged me this epi was the Rags to Riches lady. She dressed like she was still in the rags phase. I said to hubby that she looked like she picked her rumpled shirt out of the dirty clothes hamper. To boot I thought the jumpers were really ugly, and that she was all over the place with her presentation. The only thing I liked about her was that she picked Robert over Daymond as that pretty much never happens in clothing related businesses. I just hope she doesn't drive Robert nuts.

Worse I think it was Rags to Raches. You know because her name is Rachel. Awww (more like gag).

I didn't like the rompers either. I thought they didn't look that great and the idea of the kid having to take them off almost completely to use the restroom bothered me, especially in a public restroom where their clothes will be on the floor most likely. I'm sure that could be dealt with, but it didn't seem worth it for outfits that I didn't think were cute too begin with.

I'll be interested to hear an update later on.

[UsernameFatigue]

Worse I think it was Rags to Raches.

 

OMG you are right - I totally missed that! But the name does go with the blue hair, rag she was wearing and spacey persona. Ugh! I looked on her website and didn't see one romper that I thought was cute. And ya, I don't see the advantage of a stretchy neckline but do see the disadvantages.

[Latverian Diplomat]

Did I miss something? He said "You are everything that everyone who watches this show aspires to be." Which certainly is an overstatement, but hardly 'I swear I will never live for another person nor ask them to live their life for me."

For me personally, I am fine with complimenting people on their hard work and sacrifice to make a business successful. 

 

But for every person that succeeds, there is at least one and probably more than one person that fails. Not because those people didn't also work hard and sacrifice. Maybe they had an idea that looked good on paper, but didn't quite work in the flesh. Or there was an economic downturn at a crucial time. Or they got screwed by a supplier or any of the hundreds of things that can sink a startup.

 

To me, Mark is pushing the idea, and maybe he believes it, that hard work alone separates success from failure, and that anyone can be a millionaire if they are just willing to "grind it out". This is just not how life works. And it's especially "rich" (pardon the pun) coming from Mark, who owes most of his fortune to being in the right place at the right time, even though what he sold (broadcast.com) did not pan out for the company (yahoo!) that bought it, but they were floating in Internet bubble cash and making all kinds of highly speculative acquisitions. Mark wants to be the poster boy for hard work, and I have no doubt that he worked very hard, but he is just as easily the poster boy for being lucky.

Edited February 28, 2016 by Latverian Diplomat

[Auntie Anxiety]

Those Rags to Raches rompers looked very flimsy and I abhor droopy pants, on adults and on children.  

 

Shallow note:  Robert appears to be a sweet guy (I just read that he's engaged to his DWTS partner....at least he had the good form of getting divorced before getting engaged and/or impregnating another woman so props for that; cultural standards have gotten very low these days) but I think he's gotten too thin and now his head looks out of proportion to the rest of his body.  Or maybe that's what happens when you sit next to Lori, also of the big head.  Plus, those beltless pants he insists on wearing look like they are right out of the Johnny Carson 1970's collection.  Maybe his new bride can change all that.

[Amarsir]

To me, Mark is pushing the idea, and maybe he believes it, that hard work alone separates success from failure, and that anyone can be a millionaire if they are just willing to "grind it out".

I think Mark would agree with the "grind it out", except that his interpretation includes

1) changing to something else if the first idea isn't working

2) seeing setbacks as an opportunity to double down when the competition is weak

and

3) knowing the difference.

So I think he would say that luck comes around and being in position to take advantage of that luck is what matters.

 

And as for Broadcast.com it was sold for Yahoo stock, not cash. If Mark had decided to ride out that one idea and stay invested in Yahoo instead of diversifying, he wouldn't be a billionaire today. Fortunate timing to be sure, but if it was just luck his story would be over.

 

I get your point. But all he said in this case was "you've achieved what other people want". He didn't add "... and would have if they weren't so lazy". The chili couple referred to themselves as "The American Dream" and every Shark agreed. Mark was just a little more robust at it.

[Kel Varnsen]

Lori's "I'm out" speeches are usually pretty dumb, but saying she couldn't invest in the business because she likes her chilli spicy was probably the stupidest one I have seen.

[starri]

She's also gone out on other deals because she doesn't like honey and is allergic to lemons.

 

It's pretty par for the course.

[bilgistic]

Yet, she's childfree and has invested in baby/kid deals. She's totally random.

[Kel Varnsen]

She's also gone out on other deals because she doesn't like honey and is allergic to lemons.

 

It's pretty par for the course.

The honey thing makes her sound dumb, saying she can't invest because she likes her chilli spicy makes her sound really stupid.

[NikSac]

Maybe it's only because I've had really sweet chili before but I kind of understood that one. Some areas seem to really pour a lot of sugar into chili (also spaghetti sauce), and to me it's gross. If that's not what she's used to I can see saying no way.

[Meushell]

Despite what she says, I can picture that Rags to Raches jumpsuit causing peepee accidents, particularly with kids who don't want help. Either that, or the neck area is going to stretch out really quick and start slipping off the kids.

[aradia22]

 

Worse I think it was Rags to Raches. You know because her name is Rachel. Awww (more like gag).

To be fair, she came up with a random account name to sell hand me downs and then was stuck with it. For every vlogbrothers there are countless content creators and businesses online that would have probably chosen other names if they thought they were establishing a brand. Rachel herself did annoy me.