Shark Tank

TOPIC: Applied Statistics and Marketing Research Sharks and Marketing – A Focus Group Study on Shark Tank and New Product Evaluation

D. Anthony Miles, Ph.D., MCP, RBA, CMA, MBC Joshua Garcia, PhD., MBA, BBA

2017 ACADEMY OF BUSINESS RESEARCH CONFERENCE

1

AGENDA  Background

of the

Study  Development of Study  Research Design  Results  Conclusions

2


D. Anthony Miles, Ph.D., MCP, RBA, CMA, MBC Joshua Garcia, PhD. MBA, BBA

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY 1 3

Four Marketing Theories We reviewed Four marketing theories and applied them to this study: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Source: Miles, D., (2011) Shark Tank Workshop and Activity

Value Proposition Product Timing Theory Product Differentiation Target Market

4

1. Value Proposition Definition: “What are you offering the customer?”

Unique Value

Core Objectives

A value proposition statement clearly and concisely describes the unique value of a company's products and services.

Phrased differently, it is the company's core objectives, which set it apart from the competition.


Lost at Sea According to online marketing research company Marketing experiments, A company risks "becoming lost in a sea of similar businesses" if it does not have a unique value proposition.

The Basics of a Value Proposition Is your product or service: (a) quicker/faster, (b) better, (c) easier, (d) unique, (e) more convenient (f) save money or save time?

5

2. Product Timing Theory Which Shark Are You?


6

2. Product Timing Theory THE PRODUCT LAUNCH MATRIX

Right Product

Wrong Product

Right Time

Right Product, Right Time

Wrong Product, Right Time

Wrong Time

Right Product, Wrong Time

Wrong Product, Wrong Time

Product position and dilemmas: •Right product, right time: product meets a market need; possesses a competitive advantage (iTunes; iPod). •Wrong product, right time: product does not meet a market need; but consumers want something just not this (e.g. New Coke!). •Right product, wrong time: product is good, but it tends to be ahead of its time (e.g., remember Newton, by Apple? The Zip disk?). •Wrong product, wrong time: There is no hope for this product. Product does not meet a need and either before its time or after its time 7 (e.g. remember the Palm Pilot? Ice cream for dogs and cats?).

3. Differentiation Definition: “How is your product different than all the rest of the products” The result of efforts to make a product or brand stand out as a provider of unique value to customers in comparison with its competitors. Differentiation looks to make a product more attractive by contrasting its Makes the Showcase unique qualities product more Differences with other attractive competing products. A marketing process that showcases the differences between products.

Creates a competitive advantage


Successful product differentiation creates a competitive advantage for the seller, as customers view these products as unique or superior. 8

4. Target Market Definition: A specific group of consumers at which a company aims its products. How to define your target market? Who are your current customers, and why do they buy from you? Look for common characteristics and interests. Which ones bring in the most business?.

Core objectives The company's core objectives, which set it apart from the competition.


Target customers Your target customers are those who are most likely to buy from you

Everybody is not a customer Resist the temptation to be too general in the hopes of getting a larger slice of the market.

9

Can You Out Think The Sharks?


10

Focus Groups Types Focus Groups Types: Focus Group 1 – Marketing Focus Group 2 – Entrepreneurship Focus Group 3 – General Business

Research Continues: 5 – 7 years conducting research on Shark Tank

11 TOPIC: Sharks and Marketing – A Focus Group Study on Shark Tank and New Product Evaluation

Development of the Study Stage 1

Pilot 1: Conducted a workshop with industry professionals and MBA students. Developed focus group and instrument. Piloted studies on 3 focus groups.

Stage 2

Reviewed results, reviewed instrument, made appropriate revisions.

Stage 3

Pilot 2: Further conducted studies on focus groups. Conducted statistical tests.

Stage 4

Analyze pilot studies results. 12

TOPIC: Sharks and Marketing – A Focus Group Study on Shark Tank and New Product Evaluatio

Focus Group Instructions The Shark Tank Case Study survey used a 5-point Likert scale.



Value Proposition (5) Very Weak



(1) Very Strong

Product Timing Theory

(5) Wrong Product/Wrong Time



Product Differentiation

(5) Very Weak

(1) Right Product/Right Time



Target Market

(1) Very Strong

13

Product 1: Polar Pro

Camera Accessories Founder: Jeff Overall  Seeking $500,000 for a 10% Stake Sharks: Mark Cuban and Robert Herjavec  Tank Deal: $1,000,000 for a 20% Stake 14

Product 2: RuckPack

Energy Drink Founder: Marine Corps Major Rob Dyer  Seeking $75,000 for a 10% Stake Sharks: Kevin O’Leary and Robert Herjavec  Tank Deal: $150,000 for a 20% Stake 15

Product 3: Drop Stop

Car Seat Accessories Founders: Marc Newburger and Jeffrey Simon  Seeking $300,000 for a 15% Stake Shark: Lori Greiner  Tank Deal: $300,000 for a 30% Stake 16

Product 4: Scholly

Application to view Student Scholarships Founder: Christopher Gray  Seeking $40,000 for a 15% Stake Sharks: Daymond John and Lori Greiner  Tank Deal: $40,000 for a 15% Stake 17

Product 5: Tree T-Pee

Tree Self-Irrigation System Founder: Johnny Georges  Seeking $150,000 for a 20% Stake Shark: John Paul DeJoria (Paul Mitchell)  Tank Deal: $150,000 for a 20% Stake 18

Product 6: Emazing Lights

Glove and Light Show Accessories Founder: Brian Lim:  Seeking $650,000 for a 5% Stake Sharks: Daymond John and Mark Cuban  Tank Deal: $650,000 for a 5% Stake and 20% of Licensing fee 19


Joshua Garcia, PhD. MBA, BBA

RESEARCH DESIGN OF STUDY 1 20

Research Design

Study Research Design

Research Study Design Instrument

Quantitative Method

Sample Size (N = 216) 21

Research Design

Methodology Study Procedures

Purpose

Objectives

Study Development 22

Sampling Frame and Data Collection

San Antonio

Sample Data Collection: • N = 216 completed surveys • San Antonio Metropolitan Area (Bexar County)

• Shark Tank Case Study survey consisted of:

• 14-item instrument • 5-point Likert scale instrument • closed-end questionnaire

•

Software Used for Data Analysis: • SPSS ® (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) Version 23.0 software • SmartPLS 3.1® was used for Partial Least-Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM)

23

Research Questions Objectives: Four research questions guided this investigation.

R1: How much of an influence does Value Proposition play in evaluating new products and decisions with the Shark Tank focus group participants?

R2: How much of an influence does Product Timing Theory play in evaluating new products and decisions with the Shark Tank focus group participants?

R3: How much of an influence does Differentiation play in evaluating new products and decisions with the Shark Tank focus group participants?

R4: How much of an influence does Target Market play in evaluating new products and decisions with the Shark Tank focus group participants? 24


Joshua Garcia, PhD. MBA, BBA

RESULTS OF THE STUDY: Descriptive Statistics - Demographics

1 25

Statistical Test 1: Descriptive Results Shark Tank

PILOT #1 TOPIC: Sharks and Marketing – A Focus Group Study on Shark Tank and New Product Evaluation Analytics

26


Gender Female 43 (54%)

Male 37 (46%) N = 80 TOPIC: Sharks and Marketing – A Focus Group Study on Shark Tank and New Product Evaluation Analytics

27


Industry Type Technology

Ethnicity Black (Non-Hispanic) Hispanic/Latino White Total TOPIC: Sharks and Marketing – A Focus Group Study on Shark Tank and New Product Evaluation Analytics

Frequency

9 48 23 80

Percentage

(11%) (60%) (29%)

28


Product / Service Frequency Percentage

Shark Tank

Focus Group Type

Product 1 Polar Pro 18 (22%) Focus Group 1 Product 2 RuckPack 16 (20%) Focus Group 2 Product 3 DropStop 16 (20%) Focus Group 3 Product 4 Scholly 16 (20%) Total Product 5 Tree-T-Pee 7 ( 9%) Product 6 Emazing Lights 7 ( 9%) Total 80 TOPIC: Sharks and Marketing – A Focus Group Study on Shark Tank and New Product Evaluation Analytics

Frequency

Percentage

34

(43%)

32 14 80

(40%) (17%)

29

Statistical Test 2: Descriptive Results V10 - Would you do this deal for venture capital?

Frequency Valid

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Yes

54

68.0

68.0

68.0

No

26

32.0

32.0

100.0

Total

80

100.0

100.0

V11 - Did you enjoy the case study? Frequency Valid

Yes Undecided Total

Shark Tank TOPIC: Sharks and Marketing – A Focus Group Study on Shark Tank and New Product Evaluation

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

59

74

74

74

21

26

26

100.0

80

100.0

100.0 Shark Tank

30

Statistical Test 2: Descriptive Results V5 - Product/Service * V6 - Value

Proposition Crosstabulation

Count

V6 - Value Proposition

Product: Scholly Very strong V5 - Product/Service

Product 1 – Polar Pro Product 2 - RuckPack Product 3 - DropStop Product 4 - Scholly Product 5 - Tree-T-Pee Product 6 - Emazing Lights

Total

Neutral/Not Sure

Strong

Weak

Very weak

Total

10

7

1

0

0

18

1

4

6

5

0

16

4

7

3

2

0

18

12

2

0

2

0

16

4

1

0

2

0

7

2

2

2

0

1

7

33

23

12

11

1

80


Shark Tank

31

Statistical Test 2: Descriptive Results V5 - Product/Service * V7 – Product

Timing Theory Crosstabulation

Count

V7 - Product/Time Theory

Product: Polar Pro

Right Right Product/ Product/ Right Time Wrong Time Undecided

Product: Scholly V5 - Product/Service

Total

Product 1 – Polar Pro

15

0

2

1

0

18

Product 2 - RuckPack

4

4

5

1

2

16

Product 3 - DropStop

10

2

4

0

0

16

Product 4 - Scholly

15

0

0

1

0

16

7

0

0

0

0

7

4

1

1

0

1

7

55

7

12

3

3

80

Product 5 - Tree-T-Pee Product 6 - Emazing Lights Total

Wrong Wrong Product/ Product/ Right Time Wrong Time


Shark Tank

32

Statistical Test 2: Descriptive Results V5 - Product/Service * V8 - Differentiation Crosstabulation Count

Product: Polar Pro Product: Scholly V5 - Product/Service


Total

V8 - Differentiation Neutral/Not Sure Strong Weak

Very strong

Very weak

Total

8

7

3

0

0

18

1

5

3

7

0

16

6

5

2

1

0

16

8

6

1

1

0

16

5

1

0

0

1

7

3

2

1

1

0

7

33

26

10

10

1

80


Shark Tank

33

Statistical Test 2: Descriptive Results V5 - Product/Service * V9 - Target

Market Crosstabulation

Count



Total

V9 - Target Market Neutral/Not Sure Strong

Very weak

Weak

Total

9

7

2

0

0

18

1

7

4

3

1

16

3

6

4

3

0

16

12

3

1

0

0

16

6

1

0

0

0

7

02

2

2

1

0

7

33

26

13

7

1

80


Shark Tank

34



35


Gender Female 116 (54%)

Male 100 (46%) N = 216 TOPIC: Sharks and Marketing – A Focus Group Study on Shark Tank and New Product Evaluation

36


Industry Type Technology

Ethnicity Black (Non-Hispanic) Hispanic/Latino White Other Total TOPIC: Sharks and Marketing – A Focus Group Study on Shark Tank and New Product Evaluation Analytics

Frequency

22 130 58 06 216

Percentage

(10%) (60%) (27%) (03%) 37


Product / Service Frequency Percentage

Shark Tank

Focus Group Type

Product 1 Polar Pro 42 (19%) Focus Group 1 Product 2 RuckPack 42 (19%) Focus Group 2 Product 3 DropStop 42 (19%) Focus Group 3 Product 4 Scholly 42 (19%) Total Product 5 Tree-T-Pee 24 (12%) Product 6 Emazing Lights 24 (12%) Total 216 TOPIC: Sharks and Marketing – A Focus Group Study on Shark Tank and New Product Evaluation Analytics

Frequency

Percentage

96

(45%)

72 48 216

(33%) (22%)

38

Statistical Test 4: Descriptive Results V10 - Would you do this deal for venture capital?

Frequency Valid

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Yes

54

25.0

25.0

25.0

No

26

12.0

12.0

37.0

Undecided

136

63.0

63.0

100.0

Total

216

100.0

100.0

V11 - Did you enjoy the case study? Frequency Valid

Yes Undecided Total


Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

150

69.4

69.4

69.4

66

30.6

30.6

100.0

216

100.0

100.0 Shark Tank

39

Statistical Test 4: Descriptive Results V5 - Product/Service * V6 - Value

Proposition Crosstabulation

Count

V6 - Value Proposition



Total

Neutral/Not Sure

Strong

Weak

Very weak

Total

23

17

1

1

0

42

4

19

12

7

0

42

13

18

5

6

0

42

33

6

0

3

0

42

18

4

0

2

0

24

9

11

3

0

1

24

100

75

21

19

1

216


Shark Tank

40

Statistical Test 4: Descriptive Results V5 - Product/Service * V7 – Product

Timing Theory Crosstabulation

Count

V7 - Product/Time Theory

Product: Polar Pro Product: Scholly V5 - Product/Service

Total

Right Right Product/ Product/ Right Time Wrong Time

Wrong Product/ Right Time

Undecided

Wrong Product/ Wrong Time

Total

Product 1 – Polar Pro

38

1

2

1

0

42

Product 2 - RuckPack

18

11

9

2

2

42

Product 3 - DropStop

25

2

11

2

2

42

Product 4 - Scholly

39

2

0

1

0

42

Product 5 - Tree-T-Pee

23

1

0

0

0

24

Product 6 - Emazing Lights

17

2

4

0

1

24

160

19

26

6

5

216


Shark Tank

41

Statistical Test 4: Descriptive Results V5 - Product/Service * V8 - Differentiation Crosstabulation Count

Product: Scholly V5 - Product/Service


Total

V8 - Differentiation Neutral/Not Sure Strong Weak

Very strong

Very weak

Total

12

20

8

2

0

42

4

16

8

14

0

42

16

15

7

4

0

42

24

13

3

2

0

42

19

3

1

0

1

24

12

6

4

2

0

24

87

73

31

24

1

216


Shark Tank

42

Statistical Test 4: Descriptive Results V5 - Product/Service * V9 - Target

Market Crosstabulation

Count



Total

V9 - Target Market Neutral/Not Sure Strong

Very weak

Weak

Total

20

19

2

1

0

42

6

19

8

8

1

42

8

17

10

7

0

42

32

6

3

1

0

42

21

2

0

1

0

24

7

9

7

1

0

24

94

72

30

19

1

216


Shark Tank

43

TOPIC: Applied Statistics and Marketing Research Sharks and Marketing – A Focus Group Study on Shark Tank and New Product Evaluation Analytics

D. Anthony Miles, Ph.D., MCP, RBA, CMA, MBC Miles Development Industries Corporation®

RESULTS OF THE STUDY: Pilot Study 1 – PLS-SEM Research

1 44

RESULTS OF THE STUDY: Pilot Study 1 – PLS-SEM Research Shark Tank


45

Statistical Test 4: Pilot Study 1 Multivariate -Partial Least SquaresStructural Equation Modeling Path Model Analysis For this study, we conducted Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Model (PLSSEM). This was used for:  Confirm the conceptual model with the latent variables  Examine the relationships between latent variables. Materials Used  SPSS 23.0. All statistical analyses were performing using SPSS 23.0.  SmartPLS 3.1. SmartPLS Version 3.1 was used for the Partial LeastSquares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) was used to conduct the SEM.  Sample Size. From the three focus groups we collected data from 80 participants (N = 80).

TOPIC: Sharks and Marketing – A Focus Group Study on Shark Tank and New Product Evaluation Analytics

46

Conceptual Model 1: Pilot Study 1 Multivariate Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Hypothesized Conceptual Model for Shark Tank Focus Group Study

Product Evaluation Criteria

Final Decision

Demos

Product


47

Statistical Test 4: Pilot Study 1 Multivariate -Partial Least SquaresStructural Equation Modeling PLS-SEM Results for Shark Tank Focus Group Decision Analytics: Pilot Study #1


(N = 80)

48

PLS-SEM Results Shark TankFocus Focus Group Group Decision Pilot Study #1 #1 PLS-SEM Results for for Shark Tank DecisionAnalytics: Analytics: Pilot Study

(N = 80)

(N = 80) 49

Pilot Study 1: Conclusions and Critical Observations Based on the results of Pilot Study 1 and the PLS-SEM results, there were three key findings and conclusions of the study: •

Sociodemographics. When we further examined the PLS-SEM path model, we found that: (a) sociodemographics had a strong influence on the variable, Product Type; (b) sociodemographics had a weak influence on the variable, Product Decision; and (c) sociodemographics had a weak influence on the variable, Product Evaluation Criteria.

•

Product Evaluation Factors. We found some other findings in the PLS-SEM Model: (a) the variable, Product Evaluation had a strong influence on the variable, Product Decision; (b) the variable, Product Type, had a weak influence on the variable, Product Decision; the variable, Product Type had a weak influence on Product Evaluation.

•

Product Type. In the sociodemographics the variables, (a) Focus Group and Product had high factor loading coefficients; however, the variables, Gender and Ethnicity had low factor loading coefficients; (b) the variables, Value Proposition, Target Market, Differentiation, Product Timing all had high factor loadings in the data; concerning factor variance, Value Proposition had a low factor variance coefficient; Product Evaluation had a very low factor variance coefficient; Product Type had a very low to moderate factor variance. 50

RESULTS OF THE STUDY: Pilot Study 2 – PLS-SEM Research Shark Tank


51

Statistical Test 5: Pilot Study 2 Multivariate -Partial Least SquaresStructural Equation Modeling Path Model Analysis For this study, we conducted Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Model (PLSSEM). This was used for:  Confirm the conceptual model with the latent variables  Examine the relationships between latent variables. Materials Used  SPSS 23.0. All statistical analyses were performing using SPSS 23.0.  SmartPLS 3.1. SmartPLS Version 3.1 was used for the Partial LeastSquares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) was used to conduct the SEM.  Sample Size. From the three focus groups we collected data from 216 participants (N = 216).


52

Conceptual Model 2: Pilot Study 2 Multivariate Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Hypothesized Conceptual Model for Shark Tank Focus Group Study: Correlation

Value Prop.

Product Differ.

Demos/ Product

Product/ Timing


Target Market

53

Statistical Test 5: Pilot Study 2 Multivariate -Partial Least SquaresStructural Equation Modeling PLS-SEM Results Shark Tank Focus Group: Correlations: Pilot Study #2


54

PLS-SEM ResultsResults for Shark for PLS-SEM Tank Focus Group Decision Shark Tank Focus Analytics: Pilot Study #2

Group Correlation: Pilot Study #2

(N = 216) 55

Pilot Study 2: Conclusions and Critical Observations Based on the results of Pilot Study 2 and the PLS-SEM results, there were three key findings and conclusions of the study: •

Sociodemographics. When we further examined the PLS-SEM path model, we found that sociodemographics had no correlation to the four key marketing theoretical constructs: (a) Value Proposition; (b) Product Timing; (c) Target Market; nor (d) Product Differentiation.

•

Product Evaluation Factors. We found some correlations in the PLS-SEM Model: (a) Product Timing had a strong correlation to Value Proposition; (b) Value Proposition had a low to moderate correlation to Product Differentiation; (c) Product Timing had a low to moderate correlation to Target Market; (d) Value Proposition had a weak correlation to Target Market; (e) Product Timing had a very weak correlation to Product Differentiation.

•

Product Type. In the sociodemographics the variables, (a) Focus Group and (b) the variable, Product had high factor loading coefficients. Concerning factor variance, the variable (a) Target market had a moderate to high factor loading; (b) the variable, Product Timing had a very low factor loading.


56

TOPIC: Applied Statistics and Marketing Research Sharks and Marketing – A Focus Group Study on Shark Tank and New Product Evaluation Analytics

D. Anthony Miles, Ph.D., MCP, RBA, CMA, MBC Miles Development Industries Corporation® Joshua Garcia, PhD. MBA, BBA Palo Alto College

CONCLUSIONS OF THE STUDY 1 57

Overall Conclusions and Critical Observations Based on the results of the pilot studies, we drew four conclusions from the observations of the pilot studies: •

The Final Decision, latent variable is influenced by on two other factors in the studies. We need to focus our attention of the variable, Focus Group and why it such a major influence on the Final Decision latent variable. It is a major influence on Shark Tank.

•

Examine the Criteria. We need to examine the Product Evaluation Criteria factor and why we had inconsistent findings on the Final Decision latent variable. It should be a strong influence on decisions made on funding ventures on Shark Tank. That was a surprising findings compared to the previous pilot study.

•

Gender is an influence. Gender is an unexplored opportunity for the researchers to examine if gender is an influence on the decision on Shark Tank. Both genders process information differently and framework their decisions.

•

Product Type was not a factor. When we examined the variable, Product Type, we observed that it had no major influence on the other three factors. We need to examine that further. We will collect more data for the formal study.

•

Focus Group. We need to be sure that the participants completely fill out the survey in the focus groups. The issue of missing data is affecting the results and we ill rectify that in the focus groups. When we fix that issue the results of our study will be much better. TOPIC: Sharks and Marketing – A Focus Group Study on Shark Tank and New Product Evaluation Analytics

58

Summary  Background

of the

Study  Development of Study  Research Design  Results  Conclusions

59


QUESTIONS? 2017 ACADEMY OF BUSINESS RESEARCH CONFERENCE

1 60

Researchers’ Contact Information Dr. D. Anthony Miles, Ph.D., MCP, RBA, CMA, MBC Co-Researcher Link: www.MDIcorpventures.com Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

Dr. Joshua R. Garcia Ph.D., MBA, BBA Co-Researcher Link: https://www.linkedin.com/in/joshua-r-garcia-phd-6418b21a Email: [email protected] TOPIC: Sharks and Marketing – A Focus Group Study on Shark Tank and New Product Evaluation Analytics

61


D. Anthony Miles, Ph.D., MCP, RBA, CMA, MBC Joshua Garcia, PhD., MBA, BBA

2017 ACADEMY OF BUSINESS RESEARCH CONFERENCE

1