The free publicity could come at the wrong time when the business cannot make good use of it, and the relationship with the investors could turn sour. This, combined with the lack of consensus about the shipping issue, brought Phil to the opinion that the participation in Shark Tank was actually detrimental for the business.Īll in all, ToyGaroo is a great illustration that Shark Tank is not always a home-run for the participants. Which was not what we needed as a sudden influx into a business that depends on stock is not a good thing!”Īccording to Phil, the business would have been much better off growing slowly and organically, as this would have given them more time to deal with some of the sourcing and shipping problems we mentioned above. “Like most SharkTank appearances, we got a spike when the show aired. They wanted to get out of it to deal with the problem, but their newfound investors were against it. This was a problem because they were running a “free shipping” model. Shipping costs: the toys had very different dimensions, so shipping costs would get out of hand.They were hoping for their newfound investors to help them with contacts at Mattel, but nothing came out of it.
Sourcing prices: it was hard to source the toys affordably.Investment: Raised $250k in two funding rounds from Mark Cuban and Kevin O'LearyĪccording to founder Phil Smy, with whom we have an in-depth interview about ToyGaroo, it was for two major reasons: ToyGaroo at Shark Tank: Season 2, Episode 2 ToyGaroo’s founders: Hutch Postik, Nikki Pope, Phil Smy, Rony Mirzaians, Young Chu What was ToyGaroo: “The Netflix for toys”, a subscription service allowing you to rent different toys every month
0 kommentar(er)
