Business

No Thanks! Companies Reject ‘Shark Tank’ Deals, Still Thrive

Published

12 years ago

February 27, 2015

In this Sunday, Feb. 22, 2015 photo, Daniel Rensing, left and his wife Stephanie, owners of The Smart Baker, pose with their first product, an apron with upside down measurement conversions, at their warehouse in Rockledge, Fla. Annual revenue for their company is close to $1 million, up from $130,000 before their March 2012 appearance on the reality TV show “Shark Tank”. (AP Photo/David Goldman)

JOYCE M. ROSENBERG, AP Business Writer

NEW YORK (AP) — With the cameras rolling, Daniel and Stephanie Rensing accepted an offer from a “Shark Tank” investor. But after they had time to think about it, they changed their minds.

Annual revenue for their company, The Smart Baker, is close to $1 million, up from $130,000 before their March 2012 appearance on the ABC reality TV show.

“Not doing the deal and having that exposure was probably the best scenario for us,” says Daniel Rensing, CEO of the Rockledge, Florida, company which sells aprons, parchment paper and other baking equipment.

Dreams of investor money have induced more than 150,000 businesses to apply to be contestants on “Shark Tank,” where entrepreneurs pitch to cast members including Barbara Corcoran, founder of a prominent New York real estate brokerage; Daymond John, founder of the clothing company FUBU; and Robert Herjavec, founder of the technology conglomerate Herjavec Group.

Entrepreneurs may be all smiles when they get an offer on the show, but the deals aren’t set in stone. Negotiations start soon after episodes are taped. Contestants can walk away if they don’t like the terms.

“When we shake hands on a potential deal on Shark Tank, the romance runs high and everyone’s excited about what could be,” Corcoran says. “In the end, the entrepreneur is in charge.”

During the first five seasons, 374 contestants appeared on TV and investors made 190 offers, according to ABC. Forty-eight contestants turned down offers during taping, executive producer Clay Newbill says. They haven’t tracked how many deals fell apart during negotiations.

The producers ask entrepreneurs and investors to make their best efforts to close deals, Newbill says.

“But we understand, just as in the real world, the reality is that not all deals will close,” he says.

SECOND THOUGHTS

Corcoran offered $75,000 for 40 percent of The Smart Baker, and a 5 percent sales royalty, during the 2011 taping. During negotiations the Rensings, disagreed with Corcoran about the target market.

“We were sticking to our guns on the market we served,” Rensing says.

Corcoran says she was disappointed, but she knows a rejection is an occupational hazard on “Shark Tank.”

“Nobody likes to be turned down, especially me,” she says.

The Smart Baker has thrived without her money. In the following year, revenue grew to $600,000. The episode also helped the company get noticed by Food Network and other media. Reruns provide a sales bump.

But a “Shark Tank” deal isn’t just about money; it also brings expertise and mentoring from a pro. The Rensings don’t dwell on what they might have missed by not sticking with Corcoran.

“There is always the ‘what ifs,’ but we don’t let that get to us,” Daniel Rensing says.

THE RIGHT MOVE?

Some contestants may turn down offers because they feel there are more important things than getting investors, says Matthew Rutherford, an entrepreneurship professor at Oklahoma State University who has studied “Shark Tank” pitches.

“What they crave over everything including money and wealth is autonomy,” Rutherford says.

Entrepreneurs who appear on the show are likely hoping for both a cash infusion and control of their companies, says Harvard Business School professor Noam Wasserman. But the money doesn’t guarantee success, and having an investor may be an unpleasant experience.

“You could end up with the worst of both worlds,” he says.

NOT AFRAID TO SAY NO

When Mona Weiss and Scott Shields pitched their company, Eco Nuts, on an episode that aired in October 2012, Herjavec offered $175,000 for 50 percent. Weiss and Shields, who wanted to sell a 15 percent stake for that amount, said no on the spot.

“It was a terrible deal, really awful. No one would give up half their company for less than they make in a year,” Weiss says. The Lawndale, California, company, which makes laundry detergent from berries, was on track for $250,000 in revenue in 2012.

A spokeswoman for Herjavec, Erin McLean, says he does not comment on deals or offers that are closed.

Some people told Weiss and Shields they were foolish.

“They said, ‘it was a lot of money, you should have taken that,'” Weiss says.

But being on “Shark Tank” put Eco Nuts on a faster track to its current success. Revenue, now over $1 million, grew so much the company moved to manufacturing space five times bigger than its original factory.

____

Follow Joyce Rosenberg at www.twitter.com/JoyceMRosenberg

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Southwest: More Points Now Needed for Some Free Flights

Don't Miss

5 Illegal Tactics Shady Debt Collectors Love

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Business

Trader Vic’s Returns to Its Oakland Roots

Trader Vic’s, the internationally recognized brand and birthplace of the original Mai Tai, has officially returned to its roots in Oakland. Originally founded in 1934 on San Pablo Avenue before moving to Emeryville, the hospitality giant has launched Trader Vic’s Outpost at Oakland International Airport’s Terminal 2. The new full-service location offers travelers breakfast, lunch, dinner, and cocktails in a 108-seat space designed to celebrate the city’s status as a top national food destination. Visit the website to read more.

Published

5 days ago

October 19, 2026

Post News Group

Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee cuts the ribbon at the official opening of Trader Vic’s Outpost and Plum Market at Oakland International Airport. She is assisted by U.S. Rep. Lateefah Simon as Port of Oakland Board President Stephanie Dominguez Walton, left, and representatives from Trader Vic's, Plum Market, look on. Photo courtesy of the mayor’s office.

By Special to The Post

Oakland has always been a city of innovators, entrepreneurs, visionaries, and world-class hospitality. Trader Vic’s—the birthplace of the original Mai Tai – first opened in Oakland back in 1934 on San Pablo Avenue, long before becoming an internationally recognized global brand.

More than 50 years after it moved to Emeryville, Trader Vic’s is returning to its roots. Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee touts the return as another victory for Oakland.

“My administration is deeply committed to backing businesses like Trader Vic’s and Plum Market—partners who invest in our city, uplift our local workforce, and support thousands of local jobs,” Lee said.

The latest Trader Vic’s – called Trader Vic’s Outpost – is located at the Oakland International Airport in Terminal 2 near Gate 25 and had a soft opening in August.

With 108 dining seats, 28 bar seats and a counter for standing-room customers, travelers from around the world can have a full-service restaurant and bar experience or take-out for those with planes to catch.

Open from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., breakfast, lunch, dinner, cocktails will be served.

Trader Vic’s returning to its roots confirms Condé Nast’s decision to name Oakland the #1 Food City in America two years in a row, and just earlier this month, ranked Oakland #6 on their list of Best Cities in the U.S.!

“The opening at OAK is incredibly meaningful for us,” said Rhett Rosen, CEO of Trader Vic’s Hospitality Group, according to the company website. “Trader Vic’s was born in the Bay Area, and this new location gives us the chance to welcome travelers with a taste of that original spirit before they take off. It brings together everything people love about Trader Vic’s — great cocktails, flavorful food, warm hospitality and a little sense of escape — in a place that connects Oakland to the world.”

Trader Vic’s is an Oakland institution and one of the region’s most recognizable hospitality brands, said Port of Oakland Director of Aviation Craig Simon on the web site.

“Travelers are increasingly seeking dining options that are memorable, locally rooted, and uniquely representative of the communities they are visiting. Trader Vic’s delivers all of that while providing a high-quality food and beverage experience for our guests. We are proud to welcome this hometown favorite to Terminal 2,”

The original Trader Vic’s in Oakland:

In 1934, with an investment of $500, Bergeron opened his initially small restaurant at 65th Avenue and San Pablo, serving comfort foods for lunch and dinner and beers and whiskeys. As his clientele grew, so did his restaurant, expanding space and menu options. After visiting this establishment, famed San Francisco Chronicle columnist Herb Caen proclaimed that the “best restaurant in San Francisco is in Oakland.”

There were as many as 25 franchises worldwide, including the U.S. Trader Vic’s is now headquartered in Martinez.

Post News Group

Posts by Post News Group

Business

Oakland Coal Terminal Backed by Trump Would Be Bigger, Dirtier Than Promised, Says Report

A recent feasibility study commissioned by potential investors says an Oakland coal terminal backed by President Donald Trump could export 13 million tons a year — three times the amount estimated in an earlier environmental review. Surprisingly, the report also contradicts devel

Published

5 days ago

October 19, 2026

Post News Group

East Bay residents have been fighting alongside No Coal in Oakland for more than a decade. Photo courtesy of No Coal in Oakland.

By Post Staff

Surprisingly, the report also contradicts developers’ and project advocates’ repeated pledges that the coal would be stored in a covered terminal. Instead, the millions of tons of coal shipped annually from inland states to the West Gateway terminal in Oakland would be stored in “two open-air bunkers,” with about 150,000 tons of coal per stockpile, before being sent overseas, according to the recent report cited by the L.A. Times. (https://ruic.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Port-Study-RUIC-Bulk-Commodity-Ocean-Terminals-Study.pdf)

Residents and clean air advocates have long expressed concerns that coal dust would worsen pollution in West Oakland and throughout the East Bay.

The proposed site of the Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal (OBOT) is located at the former Army base near the Port of Oakland, which developer Phil Tagami has been trying for years to turn into a shipping terminal despite determined community opposition.

Trump announced a $75-million investment in the project in June, about a third of its estimated cost. The new terminal would be the largest coal export site on the West Coast, transporting coal to Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam and Malaysia, according to the Trump administration.

Opponents say a new terminal would undermine years of progress cleaning up the air in West Oakland, which has a history of disproportionate pollution and high asthma rates due to its proximity to the port and other industry.

According to No Coal in Oakland organizer Ted Franklin, who has been active for 11 years in the fight to stop the coal terminal, the report indicates that investors may be looking for a cheaper way to build the terminal.

“We were shocked but not surprised” by the report, Franklin said. “Basically, it seems that the plan now is to store open piles of coal, which is a less expensive project than creating a completely enclosed facility.”

The threats that the project poses are real, but it faces a lot of economic and legal hurdles, he said.

Coal production is in permanent decline worldwide, he said, wondering who was going to “invest money in an industry that has no future.”

Further, the project has not yet attracted big investors. “There’s no bank, no financing, no financial institution backing this,” he continued.

A major legal hurdle facing the project is the passage of Assemblymember Mia Bonta’s bill, AB 40, the Community-First Coal Review Act, signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sept. 30.

The law requires developers of large-volume bulk coal facilities to complete a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) before they can operate.

The law was specifically designed to block or delay the coal terminal project.

The report to potential developers was produced by consulting groups Norda Stelo and Wood Mackenzie in July and released this month. It was commissioned by the Rural Utah Infrastructure Coalition, made up of eight Utah counties that are considering investing about $43 million into the terminal to receive Utah coal.

The consultants produced their findings after visiting Oakland, examining engineering documents and holding discussions with Savage Cos., a Utah-based transport and logistics company selected to operate the facility

Research has shown that coal terminal operations can be dangerous to public health. The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach moved away from open-air coal and petroleum coke storage three decades ago.

The report says that the site could process 12 million metric tons, or 13.2 million tons, of coal each year, three times more than the terminal’s approved environmental impact report from 2002 and its 2012 addendum. Neither document mentions coal specifically, but rather bulk commodities.

The coal arriving in Oakland could also be dirtier then had been previously stated, according to the report. Project officials previously said the terminal would handle only high-grade western bituminous coal from Utah, but the recent report says it will also handle Powder River Basin coal from Wyoming and Montana, known to be much dustier.

Nor does the report mention plans to cover the rail cars to prevent pollution, though project officials previously promised they would only utilize coal transported in covered rail cars.

“It appears the developers want to build something much bigger and more polluting than anything they previously revealed, either in court or to the West Oakland community,” said Colin O’Brien, deputy managing attorney at the nonprofit Earthjustice, speaking to the L.A. Times.

The report indicates that the project may be much more expensive and take longer to complete than anticipated. The Energy Department estimates the terminal will cost about $231 million, but the report places the price at between $430 million and $625 million.

The terminal will take 53 months to complete according to the report, significantly longer than Trump’s promise of exports beginning in 2028.

Ted Franklin’s column, “Utah Study Blesses Investment in Oakland Coal Terminal but Leaves Key Questions Unanswered” is available at https://nocoalinoakland.info/utah-study-blesses-investment-in-oakland/