"Shark Tank," the ABC television series, has become a national phenomenon.  The premise is simple…up-and-coming entrepreneurs pitch their businesses to a panel of five filthy rich investors, and then try to convince them to buy a stake in their company for financial support.  While a boring concept on paper, the show managed to score 7.45 million viewers during its season premiere this past September.  Its popularity has reached a point where entrepreneurs on the show, even if they don't manage to strike a deal with the investors, gain enough massive exposure to still potentially become successful--because of that, there has been a huge influx of applications, and we're on our way to becoming a society dominated by businesses that started out on Shark Tank.

This got me thinking…how much influence does this show really have on our society's consumers?  After thinking about it, I realized that the show is just so subjective; the businesses that score investments could be huge flops while the ones that get turned away may have the potential to be very successful.  Which got me thinking…what if major companies today had gotten their start on the Tank? Would they be where they are today?  

Apple, Inc

Background: Let's look at Apple.  Today, Apple is huge.  I don't think I ever go one hour without using some sort of Apple product, and I'm guessing that, in America at least, I'm not in the minority.  But if Apple had taken the Shark Tank route, I bet this wouldn't be the case.  Let's rewind to 2000, the year before the iPod was introduced: Apple was struggling.  The Apple II series computer, an expensive computer to produce, was draining them of money and cannibalizing their other sales.  The MacIntosh computer was generally seen as an inferior machine.  Windows was taking a ton of Apple's market share.  The 1990's showed a sizable decline in their profitability.

Pitch:  In 2000, Steve Jobs would have gone into the Tank showcasing a clunky little box that could play music without the use of a C-D or video tape.  He would have also shown the investors that music for this little machine could be acquired from a one-stop music store called iTunes, so that a wide variety of music was easily accessible.  While the last few years had been rocky for Jobs' company, he would have pushed the success he had found in the '80's and emphasize the fact that his company's new product, the iMac, was selling well.  

The Results: I think Kevin O'Leary would have hated it.  The fact that the last few years had resulted in low profits for the company would put him off, as the sharks generally look down upon companies that were once successful but suffered a major dip.  Robert Herjavec would have probably expressed concerns that a company technologically tailing Windows was attempting a revolutionary mp3 device and passed.  Mark Cuban probably would have also been out, because at first glance, the iPod doesn't really solve a problem--Walkman devices and mp3 players already played portable music and the iPod may have seemed unnecessary to him.  Unfortunately, none of the other sharks are really savvy in the technology space…I think the iPod would have not gotten a deal.  And yet, we all know how wildly successful it would come to be for Apple.

The Coca-Cola Company

Background: Coca-Cola was invented in the 19th century by John Pemberton.  However, the actual company behind the drink had a rocky start.  At one point in the late 1800's there were three versions of Coke being sold by three different businesses.  A co-partnership was eventually reached, but there was still disputes over who owned the name and who owned the formula.  By the time The Coca-Cola Company was a stable and respectable business, Pemberton was long-gone, and the product had been the subject of many legal battles.

The Pitch: Charles Hower Candler, who was the full owner of the drink by 1889, would come in and pitched a soft drink, claiming it to cure a wide range of diseases such as morphine addiction, headaches, neurasthenia, and even impotence.  The drink was on track to become wildly popular based on early sales.  The product was also proprietary in that it had a secret recipe that was heavily guarded.

The Results: Mark Cuban would be out within seconds; he's not a believer of BS and these claims for miracle cures and a secret recipe would have turned him off instantly.  I think Lori Greiner and Barbara Corcoran would have really liked the branding and packaging…the unique bottle and logo would have led them to pay compliments to the product's marketability.  However, they would also be weary of the drink's claims to cure diseases without any scientific proof.  Robert Herjavec would be worried about the legal troubles involved with the brand and the presence of other investors in the product's history.  Kevin O'Leary probably would also express concern about all of the aforementioned points, but maybe would have been interested enough in the drink's sales success to offer a royalty deal.  Either way, Candler was a smart businessman, one who would have walked away and let his brand become an American icon within 50 years of its inception.

Blockbuster LLC

Background: The first Blockbuster store opened in Dallas, TX in 1985 by David Cook, who singlehandedly grew his business to a 9,000-store phenomenon.  At one point, the store was owned by Viacom and, in 2000, turned down the offer to buy a fledgling company for $50,000…a company known as Netflix.  

The Pitch: In the '90's, Cook was on a roll, acquiring video store rivals and music stores to expand their product line.  Needing help to continue this expansion without spreading the company too thin, Cook would have highlighted his company's impressive sales, as well as the chain's ability to customize its video selection to the neighborhood of a particular store.  Furthermore, he would have emphasized the sizable range of titles his stores carried and his growing monopoly on the video-rental store market.  

The Results:  The home media market blossomed in the 1990's, and the sharks would not only have wanted to take advantage of this, but would have been impressed with Cook's single-handed success.  Robert Herjavec would most likely have made a deal only to be under-cut by Mark Cuban who uses his billionaire status to spite Robert almost every chance he has.  Barbara Corcoran, who's expertise lies in real estate, probably would have been attracted to the success of Cook's franchising strategy and pitched an offer, albeit one that would cut Cook's valuation down heavily.  Kevin O'Leary would have worried about the lack of anything proprietary about Blockbuster, claiming any store could begin renting videos and smash Blockbuster like the cockroach it is.  Daymond John, however, would have most likely made an offer simply based on the merits of Cook's success to that point.  If all offers were comparable, I could even see there being a deal that involved all of the interested sharks, and in the end, Cook would have been stupid not to take it.  He probably would have walked away with an investment, while the sharks would become stakeholders in a company that ended up failing to the unforeseen advent of streaming services.