The recent Season 3 of the business reality television series Shark Tank India is coveted as one of the most-watched Hindi language SVOD non-fiction shows. According to an Ormax study, over the 10 weeks of its run, the show garnered 4-5 million audience who watched more than an episode in the week, which means that an average audience member watched the show in about three weeks, and at a modest assumption of just two episodes per week, the total Shark Tank India S3 consumption is estimated at 80 million episode views.
Add to it the clips on YouTube, social media and all the memes.
But what also fuels this viewership is the controversy surrounding it, which gets stretched to often elongated periods, giving the reality TV show further impetus.
While some of the controversies are self-induced, most are followed by contestants’ real and awful experiences, say industry observers and show watchers.
Surprisingly, 80% of the deals made on Shark Tank India are never completed, according to the contestants of the show.
Often Shark Tank judges are accused of ‘ghosting’ contestants after striking deal.
In 2022, a former Shark Tank India contestant, named Akshay Shah, CEO, iWebTechno claimed that he had met a pitcher, who not only participated in the first season of the reality show but also got a deal from two of the sharks. However, after the show concluded, the sharks never met or even responded to his emails.
He is not alone. Many participants, over the years, have often pointed out that the Sharks deliberately delayed investments under various pretexts, some even alleged they derided their business models after promising investments on air.
In another instance, most recently, the founder and CEO of the nutritional food brand Fit & Flex, Pathik Patel accused Sony TV of unjustly targeting him and others for trademark violations without any prior notice.
The broadcaster struck the founders’ social media posts containing clips from the Shark Tank episode, blocked their ad account, unpublished their Facebook page, and disabled the collaboration feature on the brands’ accounts as well.
Ideally, the contestant would have aired the episode for marketing purposes for three months from the said date. However, their content was pulled down within 25 days.
In response, Patel sent a legal notice to the channel over the suspension of their ad account.
“We have also lost our collaboration feature on Instagram, which has been quite unfair on their part. This has eventually led to the downfall of our online business. This unfortunate event has made the experience quite frustrating and negative,” Patel tells Storyboard18.
“I would say it’s more of a cash-grab machine for broadcasters as the content is edited and presented in a manner where it’s more about the channel’s TRP rather than a brand and founder’s story. The format of the show has gone from being somewhat empowering in Season 1 to more of a controversy driving style. Especially in Season 3 it was just about passing sensational statements and using buzz words and not giving of constructive feedback or genuine help to the founders,” he shares.
Patel remarks that the showmakers drive the content and they have full control over how to present a particular pitch which they do in a manner where some sensation gets stirred up.
“They are not sensitive to the fact that a founder puts in his heart and soul to build a brand and what they portray to get more views/TRP could affect them for a lifetime,” he shares.
Another contestant, Vivek Krishna, Founder of men’s sexual wellness brand Sukham, notes that the whole banning of ad accounts in the name of counterfeit has a big issue.
A lot of startups that are doing well in their regions go to Shark Tank to get the social proofing of the show and to use the “as seen on Shark Tank” clips to connect with their audience and create a recall. This practice has been done globally by Shark Tank brands and has never faced the wrath of the channel or the show like us, he says.
“This is something the team should look at and allow startups to use their show as it’s a codependent relationship and we also promote the show on our level and help them be what they are,” he says.
In response to Storyboard18’s query, Sony Pictures Networks India shared that because of Shark Tank India’s growing popularity, some participants are using the show’s content and branding without permission for their own commercial ventures, clearly violating SPNI’s intellectual property rights (IPR) and copyright laws. In response, it has taken “decisive action to curb such infringements, implementing rigorous checks to safeguard the IPR while also recognising and respecting the contestants’ achievements.”
That apart, Sharks have often been accused of dragging the process of closing the deals for 9-12 months, expecting contestants to stop contacting them eventually.
Krishna shares that an investment deal like Shark Tank is a non-binding agreement and does not necessarily have to close. If the Sharks and the startups both agree on valuation and other terms, the deal usually closes. But if not, then both have the right to back out as there is no binding term sheet or agreement to the deal offered on television.
It is to be noted that Shark Tank, whether the original American, which in turn was based on the Japanese Dragons’ Den, or its Indian avatar, is ultimately a reality show, and therefore its primary aim is to generate eyeballs and generate TRPs so that the show itself can make money from advertising and sponsorships.
Having said that, it’s in the show’s interest to ensure that it is not reduced to a sham, because its popularity can only be sustained by ensuring that its authenticity and credibility remain intact, remarks Samit Sinha, Founder and Managing Partner, Alchemist Brand Consulting.
While the occasional controversy will not harm its viewership – in fact sometimes it can have a temporary positive effect – but, if there is a steep decline in the participation of new entrepreneurs and start-ups, it can kill the show eventually, an industry executive warns.
“There are always two sides to a story and I don’t think there is enough evidence to conclude that the show has lost credibility. I’m sure there are some genuine grievances as well as some instances of sour grapes, but the show’s producers should take note and address these concerns so that it does not snowball into a crisis,” according to Sinha.
The marketing goods
Besides sour experiences, one thing most agree upon is that Shark Tank funds all brands with exposure regardless of whether they are funded or not.
Shark Tank is great marketing opportunity but it is still a flash in the pan kind of thing. “Pitchers who had been on the show have vouched for it that an appearance on the Shark Tank had given them a short burst of marketing push and an increased number of visits on their store/app/website but the impact is very short term and if the product/service is not up to the mark then it generally do not last long,” shares authorpreneur and consultant Ankit Uttam.
Shark Tank is an entertainment show and it is created to serve only that purpose, believes Uttam. So, saying that Shark Tank India is “empowering the startup ecosystem” is similar to saying that a lone fish is “empowering the whole river ecosystem”.
“Shark Tank India was created to ride the wave of start-up frenzy that was already happening in India. And because the show primarily exists to make money via ad slots and for TRP ratings, its primary aim is to create drama and tension to keep the audience hooked. And there is nothing wrong with that. It is TV and it is meant to entertain its audience. This is the same case for the Shark Tank versions in other countries. So, it is always better to view this show for what it is rather than what the PR wants you to believe,” he explains.
Sharing his experience, Krishna says that being on the show is a huge exposure for every brand as they get recognition on a national level and not only Indians living in India but Indians living in other parts of the world also get to know about these brands.
“The show truly gives a national perspective to all businesses as most of the startups that come on the show are smaller state-level players and usually don’t have the budgets to market their brand on the scale at which the show operates,” he says.
He further suggests that anyone going on a show like Shark Tank have to be very open to all the pros and cons of taking their businesses to be interrogated on national television.