Renowned investor Anupam Mittal has issued a comprehensive statement in response to the ongoing controversies surrounding Shark Tank India. Mittal firmly rejected the allegations as baseless and lacking evidence, emphasizing the importance of relying on factual data to assess the integrity of the show.
The accusations leveled against Shark Tank India include claims such as the Sharks not investing their own money, the show being scripted, and the Sharks exclusively funding profitable companies. Mittal adamantly stated that these claims were unfounded narratives without substantial evidence or credible sources. Expressing disappointment in the lack of substantial information behind the controversy, he urged for a more substantial and evidence-based discourse on the matter.
In addressing the alleged accusations, Anupam Mittal provided his perspective and clarified his stance. He acknowledged the challenge of directly addressing the allegations without specific instances or names. Nonetheless, drawing from his experience and observations within the show, he offered valuable insights.
Mittal underscored the significance of the Completion Ratio (CR) as a crucial indicator of the show’s integrity. Globally, approximately 60% of the deals on Shark Tank are successfully completed, and in the case of Shark Tank India Season 1, an impressive two-thirds of the deals were finalized, setting a notable record. With Season 2’s CR data set to be available in August, Mittal expressed confidence that the completion rates would remain favorable based on the positive deal momentum.
Exploring the factors influencing completion rates and timelines, Mittal highlighted several key points. He pointed out that many businesses featured on Shark Tank are in their early stages, often operating as proprietorships. As a result, the founders may lack experience in crucial areas such as company registration and shareholder agreements. To address these challenges, the show’s teams provide guidance and support, which can contribute to a longer duration for deal completion, typically ranging from 3 to 9 months.
Mittal also acknowledged that not all deals materialize due to various factors. Founders may change their minds, fail to meet legal, financial, or tax requirements, or fail to fulfill obligations agreed upon when accepting a conditional deal. He emphasized that these occurrences are inherent to the nature of deal-making and can affect completion rates.
Furthermore, Mittal acknowledged the possibility of founders engaging in renegotiation or seeking better deals elsewhere, resulting in delays in the completion process. While he personally discourages such behavior, he remains open to finding mutually beneficial structures that serve the interests of all parties involved.
Taking a broader perspective, Mittal highlighted the positive impact of Shark Tank India in democratizing Indian entrepreneurship. The show has received an overwhelming response, with over 200,000 entries and 388 pitches, nearly half of which were presented by women. Additionally, approximately 200 offers totaling around 150 crores have been made, showcasing the show’s influence in nurturing entrepreneurial talent in India.
Anupam Mittal called on critics to support their critiques with data and specific information instead of relying on incomplete anecdotes and expert opinions that generate sensational headlines but lack substantial evidence. He extended an open invitation to any founders who have made such claims, encouraging them to come forward. Should legitimate grievances exist, Mittal expressed a willingness to address and rectify them. However, he cautioned against baseless complaints stemming from frustrations over not receiving investment without fulfilling obligations, viewing such incidents as valuable opportunities for learning.
The controversies surrounding Shark Tank India serve as a reminder of how baseless allegations and sensationalism can overshadow the positive impact of shows like these. As Anupam Mittal rightly asserts, it is crucial to base assessments on data and specific information rather than succumbing to narratives lacking substantial evidence.