Why Did Shark Tank Failed to Invest in Big Bee Little Bee?

Why Did Shark Tank Failed to Invest in Big Bee Little Bee?

The failure of Big Bee Little Bee to secure a deal on “Shark Tank” was primarily due to financial instability, a perceived lack of focus, and concerns about the overall viability of the business model.

While the sharks recognized the innovation and effort behind the products, these factors ultimately overshadowed the positive aspects of the pitch.

Big Bee Little Bee, founded by Amy and Marlo Leinbach, appeared on “Shark Tank” during Season 14 seeking $100,000 for 20% equity.

Amy and Marlo Leinbach entered the tank with high hopes, asking for $100,000 in exchange for 20% equity in their company, Big Bee, Little Bee. The main product they pitched to the sharks was the Marker Parker, an innovative marker holder designed by Marlo herself.

The Marker Parker is designed to keep markers organized and prevent them from rolling off the table, while also ensuring that caps are easily accessible and don’t get lost, thus extending the life of the markers.

Why Did Shark Tank Failed to Invest in Big Bee Little Bee

Analyzing why the sharks chose not to invest reveals a combination of financial concerns, strategic misalignments, and product focus issues.

Financial Concerns:

The primary reason for the sharks’ reluctance was financial. The Leinbachs’ business faced significant financial challenges. At the time of their appearance, Big Bee Little Bee was struggling with profitability.

 They had reported a gross revenue of $110,000 for the year but had incurred a loss of $77,000. This alarming financial discrepancy raised red flags for potential investors.

 Kevin O’Leary, known for his focus on numbers, was quick to cite the lack of profitability as a key reason for his decision to opt out. Investors typically seek businesses with solid financial health or a clear path to profitability, and Big Bee Little Bee’s current financial state did not meet these criteria.

Product and Market Focus:

Another major concern was the company’s product strategy. The Leinbachs pitched the Marker Parker, a marker holder designed to help children keep their markers organized. While the product had merit, the sharks were concerned about the company’s broad product range.

 Amy and Marlo not only offered the Marker Parker but also discussed other products such as silicone sandwich holders and various cleaning tools.

The presentation of multiple products suggested a lack of focus, leading Mark Cuban to comment that the entrepreneurs suffered from “inventor-itis”—an overextension into too many product areas without a clear market leader.

The sharks’ feedback emphasized the importance of concentrating efforts on a single product or product line.

Robert Herjavec, for instance, was initially interested but withdrew after realizing the company was spread too thin with multiple product lines.

This lack of focus was seen as a barrier to scaling the business effectively. The sharks preferred to see a clear and compelling vision for one flagship product, which they felt would increase the likelihood of a successful investment.

Perceived Business Viability:

The broader context of Big Bee Little Bee’s business viability also played a role. While the Marker Parker and other products were innovative, the company had not yet demonstrated a strong, scalable business model.

 The absence of substantial profits and a clear strategic direction made it difficult for the sharks to envision a high return on their investment.

 Lori Greiner and Emma Grede echoed concerns about the company’s product proliferation, which added to the overall apprehension regarding the business’s future prospects.

Personal and Emotional Factors:

Although not a direct reason for the lack of investment, the emotional and personal story behind Big Bee Little Bee added a poignant dimension to their pitch. The story of a mother and daughter duo working together was compelling and resonated with the sharks on a personal level.

However, while this emotional appeal might have garnered sympathy, it was not enough to override the pressing business concerns. The sharks needed to see a stronger alignment between the company’s financial performance and its market strategy.

Post-Shark Tank Developments:

Despite the setback on Shark Tank, Big Bee Little Bee continued to operate and even thrive in some respects. The company leveraged the “As Seen On Shark Tank” label to gain visibility and attract attention.

They maintained their business operations and saw positive reviews for their products on platforms like Amazon. This post-show success demonstrates resilience and the potential for growth despite the initial rejection from the sharks.