Is Gender Discrimination in the Tank?

Amanda Morrow

SOC498: Dr. Laura Steck

York College of Pennsylvania

Abstract: The role of gender in the business world has been a focus of a great amount of

literature of late. Studies have often discussed the role of gender in business, more specifically in

accessing venture capital, how women view entrepreneurship, and the potential discrimination

faced by women. However, no article has examined the way to access capital through the pop

culture phenomenon docu-series Shark Tank. The aim of this article is to first study the existing

literature describing disparities faced in the business world between men and women. Then

important themes regarding women in entrepreneurship will be identified and tied to a content

analysis of Shark Tank. Overall, Shark Tank exemplifies and popularizes the discrimination and

challenges female business owners are often faced with while trying to access capital.

Shark Tank premiered in August 2009 as a new reality show with the premise of

highlighting the struggles faced by new entrepreneurs in a recessed economy. The show features

five panel members called “sharks” who are incredibly wealthy investors. These investors hear

an hour long pitch from the entrepreneur and then decide if they would like to invest or “go out.”

If all five sharks go out, the entrepreneur leaves empty handed. The drama of the pitch and most

of the exchanges between the sharks and the entrepreneur is edited out for time. However, the

remaining portions that air exemplify gender as a theme of the exchanges between sharks and

entrepreneurs and even between the sharks themselves.

1

Literature Review

In previous studies there has been a great deal of research relating to women in

entrepreneurship. It is well documented in these studies that there are notable disparities between

male and female entrepreneur’s abilities to access capital and funding, there are clear network

disadvantages tied to being female, and there are seemingly limitations on the types of

businesses investors feel women are “allowed” to operate. Several of the studies reviewed were

international which provides strong evidence to the fact that these problems are not only faced by

American women, but by women in business worldwide.

The first well documented disparity that favors male entrepreneurship over female is the

differences in access to funding. Starting a business is a difficult task. Not only does it require

vast determination, knowledge, and expertise, but it also requires a steady stream of funding to

continue to operate and grow. Often, traditional means of finance, such as bank loans, are not

plausible for an entrepreneur to obtain because of unproven start-up status. Getting funding

generally means some form of venture capital, be it equity or debt. However, in order to obtain

this capital, the entrepreneur must pitch their business to investors. According to Kaplan (2014),

investors are 60% more likely to invest in a pitch given by a male, rather than a female, despite

identical content (38). This striking statistic illustrates the inequalities faced by female

entrepreneurs. It is also estimated that women-owned businesses are 16% less likely to attract

private investment dollars than their male counterparts (Wiederhold 1). The belief that women

are incapable of starting their own businesses not only hinder female entrepreneurship, but also

has a detrimental effect on the economy as a whole due to potentially lost productivity. An entire

portion of the population is being seemingly shut out of self-employment simply because of

traditional gender roles.

2

Gender roles are an engrained part of American society. They refer to the roles we play,

identities, culture, beliefs, and even our interactions with each other (Thebaud, 2010). The

traditional gender role for the woman is soft and feminine. She is supposed to take care of the

house and kids. If she does work, it is in an appropriately feminine industry such as childcare,

beauty, or food. The traditional gender role for the man is seemingly the opposite. He is strong,

tough, and supports the family financially. Reconciling these engrained and deeply traditional

gender roles with the changing times and new freedoms available to women has proven to be a

difficult task and has greatly affected women in businesses’ ability to be an entrepreneur. As a

result of various factors, all relating to traditional gender roles, men are 1.61 times more likely to

be an entrepreneur in their life (Thebaud 298), with white men being the most likely group to be

self-employed (Sena et al. 475).

With the immense amount of support backing the notion that men find venture funding

more achievable than woman, it is surprising that research suggest women who do receive

outside funding for their businesses have higher repayment rates than men. Interestingly enough,

however, they are also charged higher interest rates on average because female entrepreneurs are

considered higher risk (Brana 93).

In addition to disparities in being able to receive funding, the vetting process for funding

providers (banks, venture capital firms, etc.) is also different depending on the entrepreneur’s

gender. In general, a male seeking funding for his business venture will be asked not only about

his business but also about his family life. For men, being married and having a family unit is

considered a sign of social, and therefore person, stability, which is a good sign for an investor.

However, a female entrepreneur in the exact same position will often be required to extensively

demonstrate her knowledge of business, in addition to answering questions about her family life.

3

For a female entrepreneur, conversely, having a family is seen as a negative because it will

presumably take focus away from her business and force her to attempt to achieve the always

illusive work-personal life balance (Brana 90). These stereotypes are a result of the gender roles

in our culture and greatly hinder the abilities of women in business to get funding because banks

often see them as having other commitments that could be deemed more important. As a result of

these discriminations and constant challenges women often start their businesses with less capital

than their male counterparts, which puts their businesses at a disadvantage (Brana 88).

Access to funding is not the only disparity between men and woman in business. Women

also suffer from network disadvantages compared to men. Networks, connections, and social

capital are all incredibly important when starting a business. Knowing the right people and

having the right advisors can truly make or break a business. According to Lutter (2015), “social

capital also facilitates the sharing and transfer of knowledge within teams and among co-

workers” (330). Lack of social capital and lack of collaboration with the right people can be

detrimental to a business. However, social capital is an incredibly difficult factor to measure in

an entrepreneur. Generally the accepted measures of human capital are education, age, and

experience (Shaw et al. 192). As a result of complicated factors including glass ceilings, familial

responsibilities, and others women generally have less workplace and managerial experience

than their male counterparts (Thebaud 289). Since, they generally lack this experience it further

impacts their social capital and the ability for investors to take female entrepreneurs as seriously

as male entrepreneurs.

One would hope that social capital and networking do not matter with a great product,

great service, and great passion. However, the fact is that all businesses need capital to grow at

one point or another. If certain entrepreneurs, despite having a great business, cannot get funding

4

to grow, it becomes important to have connections to call on to get capital infusions. The fact is,

the more social capital a person has, the better their reputation in the business world will be, and

the easier it will be for them to succeed (Shaw et al 200). As a result of these impediments it

makes it even harder for female entrepreneurs to thrive strictly because of their gender and the

implications of it. “Gender differences are both the cause and effect of social structures” Shaw et

al. 191). Traditionally, men and women have different management techniques and different

thought process to solve problems, because of this the less traditionally methods often employed

by women are viewed as weaker, simply because of their differences. Instead of using these

differences to create better business practices, they are alienated to further ostracize women in

business.

In addition to a lack of available funding and network disadvantages, female

entrepreneurs are often limited in the types of businesses society (and investors) feel they are

able to start. There is a great amount of disparity between male and female entrepreneurs by

gender and industry. Female entrepreneurs often start businesses in “feminine” industries such as

beauty, children, toys, etc. Rarely do female entrepreneurs start STEM (science, technology,

engineering, mathematics) businesses. In fact, 40% of the patents held by women in Spain are for

household products (Perez 501). There is a definite gendered trend in business literature

illustrating that most female entrepreneurs start businesses to solve the typical problems they

face, which happen to be “mommy problems.” This type of gendered commerce promotes the

idea that gender roles are central to selling certain products (Downs 4). Unfortunately for female

entrepreneurs, “women are confined to activities considered appropriately feminine…that are

neither capital intensive nor particularly profitable” (Brana 94). As Brana points out, the types of

businesses women start often relate to household problems they typically face. As a result of

5

many different factors women have a hard time getting capital to start/fund their businesses and

therefore if a woman does decide to start a business she generally does it with less capital than a

male entrepreneur would. Also, these types of domestic lifestyle businesses do not grow

exponentially or create exorbitant returns for the entrepreneur.

When women participate in gendered commerce it is simply an extension of what is

called “doing gender” (West et al. 1987). Doing gender basically refers to roles each gender is

conditioned to play throughout their lives. For instance, little girls are often commended on how

pretty they are and if they’re being quiet they are commended for being “good.” Little boys on

the other hand are encouraged to play, speak up, and be very energetic to prepare them to

become appropriately aggressive men. These types of gender roles are reinforced throughout

childhood and into adulthood which lead many women to have a hard time being assertive

enough to start a business; and if a woman does start a business she is automatically more likely

to fail because of the lack of availability of resources to her. Female-owned businesses lack

government contracts, social capital, and are constantly faced with structural and bureaucratic

discrimination (Downs 8). If a female entrepreneur does dare to break gender stereotypes and

start a business in a male-dominated field, her chance of failure increases even more drastically

(Lutter 347).

Accounting for all the aforementioned inequalities in the way entrepreneurs are treated

simply based on gender, the biggest question that needs answered is why? Why do these

disparities exist? Why are they so strongly rooted in American culture and around the world?

One important potential reason that entrepreneurship doesn’t seem to be a suitable career choice

for women is that the word “entrepreneur” itself is gender masculine (Lewis 253). Perhaps

potential female entrepreneurs cannot reconcile the conventional version of entrepreneurship

6

with their self-identity. Many common aspects of entrepreneurship and professionalism, when

asked to describe them, are gender masculine including detachment, expertise, and tenacity

(Lewis 257). Also, since an entrepreneur’s self-identity and social identity have to be reconciled,

a female may have a harder time seeing herself as a legitimate entrepreneur when society doesn’t

(Lewis 253). Often, women also hold themselves to a higher standard of required knowledge and

competence before attempting a project, which in this case leads women to feel they lack the

credibility to be an entrepreneur (Thebaud 291). For example, Thebaud found that men were

2.27 times more likely to feel they are competent enough to be an entrepreneur than women,

despite having similar skillsets (300).

Another potential reason for the differences in male and female entrepreneurship is the

undisputable fact that there are gender differences. For example, females are more risk-adverse

than their male counterparts, which often automatically deters them from the risky profession of

entrepreneurship. Women also traditionally have to give preference to raising families while the

male in the family works to financially provide for the family. Because of this traditional gender

role, women as whole are usually less motivated by wealth and career advancement than males.

Also, females hold themselves to a higher standard of competence than men so they often feel

they lack the necessary skills to start, and succeed, at their own business (Brana 90).

A final potential reason for the inequalities in male and female entrepreneurship is the

simple fact that women usually know of these disparities before they begin their quest to start a

business and because of that, often they simply decide not to try (Sena et al. 468). Women

generally lack the collateral to get loans for their businesses. They often lack the social capital

the business world requires for success. Many women tend to have family commitments that

7

hinder their ability to focus on a growing business. Finally, because of gender roles and

stereotypes it is hard for women to see themselves as a CEO (Sena et al. 470).

Through understanding and acknowledging disparities and beginning to understand why

they exist businesspeople can begin to rework the implied meanings of professionalism and

entrepreneurship to make it an accessible term for women to relate to. In theory, many women

want to be entrepreneurs for the flexibility, the ability to not be bound by glass ceilings and pay

gaps, and to escape workplace discrimination (Downs 7). But, unfortunately these problems and

more still seem to be huge challenges for females wanting to explore entrepreneurship as a career

choice.

Method

The goal of the research for this project is to conduct a content analysis of the television

show Shark Tank to examine gendered patterns of investment and business. For the purpose of

this research I viewed seasons 1-4 of ST, inclusive. In total, I watched 64 episodes at around 44

minutes long. I developed a spreadsheet to code the information of every entrepreneur featured

including name, gender, age, business, type of business, what amount the entrepreneur was

asking for, what offers (if any) were made, gender of the investor, and if/which offers were

accepted/declined. In total I coded information on 263 businesses with single male entrepreneurs,

single female entrepreneurs, co-ed groups, and single gender groups. In addition to the basic

information coded, I also took detailed notes on each entrepreneur and their interactions with the

sharks, and the shark’s interactions with each other.

Contestant Demographics: Single Entrepreneur GroupMale 121 37Female 59 14Co-ed N/A 32

8

Themes and Discussion

As previously mentioned in the literature review section, women owned businesses are

more likely to fail because of lack of access to funding, gender discrimination, and a lack of

capital in the real world. Also, women typically pursue feminine businesses rather than STEM

businesses because they generally aren’t seen as capable to run these types of businesses and

can’t get funding due to discrimination and risk aversion. Female entrepreneurs also suffer from

network disadvantages and tend to interact and build their networks differently than men, which

hurts them in the long run. All of these factors come into play when looking at Shark Tank

through a gendered lens, but in ways different than one might expect.

Shark Tank

Shark Tank is a reality show that premiered in August 2009. The goal of the show is to

help entrepreneurs affected by the economic downturn get funding from experienced investors to

help grow, start, or save their business. Each episode features a panel of five investors called

“sharks.” All of the sharks ever featured on any researched episode are as follows:

Kevin Harrington: a home shopping mogul

Jeff Foxworthy: redneck comedian and entrepreneur

Robert Herjavec: technology mogul

Kevin O’Leary: notorious billionaire venture capitalist

Mark Cuban: owner of the Dallas Mavericks, technology entrepreneur

Daymond John: fashion mogul and icon

9

Lori Greiner: the “queen of QVC”

Barbara Corcoran: real estate mogul

The show desperately tries to promote itself as helping the entrepreneurs that seek to be

featured. However, the gender differences on the show are apparent in the way sharks

interact with entrepreneurs pitching their ideas, depending on their gender. As a recent

Jezebel article points out the show “waffles back and forth between advocating for female

empowerment and reinforcing antiquated ideas of what women can and should do” (Dries 2).

For example, male entrepreneurs on Shark Tank never seem to be asked about work/home

life balance, while female entrepreneurs are constantly hounded about it. The sharks

undoubtedly question the commitment of female entrepreneurs to their businesses much

more than males because they often feel women have other things they should worry about.

Kevin O’Leary in particular likes to question the loyalty of entrepreneurs to their businesses.

Interestingly enough O’Leary rarely invests in female entrepreneur’s businesses, despite

having made his millions from a lucrative toy deal, an industry female entrepreneurs on

Shark Tank are often in. The “sharkettes” Lori and Barbara often invest in female

entrepreneurs, even if they aren’t in their industry expertise range. Daymond John often

invests in women, but this is probably due to his fashion expertise. Interestingly, Cuban

invests in a significant number of female products (Dries 5). Dries also points out that most

of the female entrepreneurs on Shark Tank are stay at home moms who created a product to

solve a “mommy problem” and seem to view their business as a sort of lucrative hobby.

These types of lifestyle businesses can be great—however they often don’t need much of a

capital infusion to start and grow and they aren’t particularly profitable, certainly not

profitable enough (usually) for an investment from one of the sharks.

10

Notable Statistics

Despite overwhelming evidence in the literature review of women being denied

funding more often than men for a variety of reasons, it was fully expected that my research

would find this would be the case in the Tank as well. My findings actually support the

complete opposite. Women were more likely to get deals than men on Shark Tank, especially

if in an appropriately feminine industry. However, women often faced other discrimination in

on Shark Tank that will be detailed later.

Gender Statistics in the Tank

Important Statistics Companies with at least 1 female entrepreneur 39%Number of co-ed groups 27.8%Number of single female entrepreneurs 56.7%Number of female groups 15.3%Companies with at least 1 female present in a female industry that got a deal 85%

From these statistics it is clear to see that companies with at least one female entrepreneur

in a feminine industry have a very good chance of getting offered a deal with one or more of the

sharks. In general, roughly half of all pitches get offered a deal.

As refreshing as it may seem that women and minorities on Shark Tank are seemingly

more likely to be offered a deal than men for their businesses, if the interactions of the episodes

are closely examined, a pattern of gender discrimination will be found in the interactions despite

it not showing up in the numbers. A simple explanation for women’s phenomenal numbers in the

Tank is that most of the women featured have great products that solve household problems that

are easy to relate to. These “mommy problems” appeal to a wider range of people than STEM

businesses often pitched by males on Shark Tank that don’t get offered deals because the

11

business is too hard to relate to for the average person. As with in the “real world,” in Shark

Tank world women’s success rates of getting capital go down dramatically if they stray from

appropriately feminine industries.

Content Analysis

From the seemingly contradictory findings that women actually appear to get more deals

on Shark Tank than men it may appear that Shark Tank is a great way for female entrepreneurs to

get capital infusions. However, what the statistics are lacking is detailed accounts of the

harassment and discrimination those same female entrepreneurs had to go through to get their

deals. Throughout the four seasons of Shark Tank viewed it became clear that there were a few

consistent themes in behavior patterns of, and towards, the female entrepreneurs. The easy to

identify themes were beautiful women in skimpy clothing getting great deals from the male

sharks, the Sharkettes (Lori and Barbara) playing up their gender to get the entrepreneur to take

their deals, crying and showing of emotion by the contestants, which often helped a few sharks

decide to come back into negotiations and offer a deal, and male sexism towards female

entrepreneurs, and in some cases, the female sharks.

It is very clear even from the very first episodes of Shark Tank that sexism is alive and

well in the Tank. Many times male sharks seem to not simply focus on a female entrepreneur’s

pitch and business, but they also seem to be very focused on the looks of their potential business

partners. In the third episode ever of Shark Tank this phenomena became very clear with the

pitch of Marian Cruz, a beautiful entrepreneur with the idea of a TurboBaster cooking device.

While her pitch wasn’t impressive as it was clear she had done little research in preparation for

12

the Tank the sharks still complimented her by calling her “adorable.” However, that is a

demeaning insult to give a grown woman as it implies attributes such as child-like,

unknowledgeable, and unprofessional. But because she was “adorable” she ended up getting

offered a deal.

The trend continued in episode 107 when Leslie Haywood, a beautiful 30-something

entrepreneur in a very sexy dress pitched her business, Grill Charms. Barbara, the only female on

the panel at the time, immediately went “out” of the deal. The male sharks, however, went crazy

for not only Grill Charms, but also for Leslie. Barbara ended up acting as a sort of referee as the

males fought for her attention. Barbara even went as far as calling the male sharks “high school

boys” and pointing out that they are only this interested because she’s pretty. Leslie, of course,

got an outstanding deal with Robert Herjavec.

A similar experience happened when Kirsten Hathcock of ModMom Furniture entered

the tank. A beautiful woman in a low cut dress sends the male sharks into a feeding frenzy for

the chance to work with her after the only female on the panel goes out. Kirsten, also, ends up

getting a deal with Robert Herjavec.

A discussion of beauty helping to get deals on Shark Tank wouldn’t be complete without

mention of Paige Dellavalle and Ashley Jung. In episode 425 these two beautiful young ladies

were pitching their jewelry business in barely there dresses. Daymond even went so far as went

to say, “I’m going to have to close my eyes because you’re gonna convince me.” They end up

getting a deal with Mark and Lori.

Some of these female entrepreneurs seemed to work their feminine beauty to their favor

to get a deal, which is in a sense empowering while at the same time incredibly demeaning.

13

Nikki Pope, of Toygaroo, also used this strategy to get a deal. She spent much of her pitch

flirting with Kevin O’Leary which resulted in her getting a generous offer from him and Mark.

Also, Megan Cummins of You Smell chose to come to her pitch in a cleavage bearing shirt. She

pitched a soap company with no sales and Barbara made a comment about writing her off as

soon as she walked in, but she slowly changed her mind. Megan went home with a deal with

Robert. Without conventional attractiveness playing in their favor, it is hard to say if any of these

women would have gotten a deal offered.

In addition to female entrepreneurs giving pitches highlighting their best assets in hopes

to make deals with the sharks, often the female sharks on the panel play the “girl card” to get

entrepreneurs to say yes to their deals. For example, in episode 405, Aly Lessor of Cozy Bug,

pitched her grow-able kids clothing that she created after being fired from her sales job for not

being able to breast pump. For Lessor, entrepreneurship was a way to solve a “mommy problem”

and give her flexibility. This gave a sense of entrepreneurship by necessity, rather than the pure

desire to be an entrepreneur. This concept was central to Thebaud’s study, previously mentioned.

The sharks love her idea and her story and they fight to get a deal with her. Lori points out that

she’s the only female on the panel that really understands and that a “female will be the best

partner.” However, she is unable to convince Lessor, who decides to go with Daymond.

In episode 109, the sharks are pitched Virtusphere, which is the ultimate video game.

Barbara says that it is such a boy toy and she couldn’t invest because she didn’t understand it.

They men pitching it ended up not getting a deal due to other issues. Jill Quillin of Lipstick

Remix pitched her homemade lipstick product in episode 113. Without a doubt Jill had a great

idea and a great product, however without Barbara stepping in a saying how great of an idea it

was, the male sharks were clueless because they couldn’t relate to it. After Barbara convinced

14

the others this was something a woman would use, she ended up getting a deal with Kevin

Harrington, Barbara and Daymond. Throughout the series there are countless comments made

about products being for females and that only a female would understand how to market certain

products.

In episode 304, Mark comments that he doesn’t like the girl power trend on ST because it

seemed that all the promising female entrepreneurs would only say yes to Lori or Barbara. In

episode 312, Lori offered a worse deal than Kevin O’Leary for a piece of Nail Pak, but after

pointing out that Kevin O’Leary knows nothing about nail polish, Lori’s deal was accepted. In

this case it seems that Lori, instead of downplaying female stereotypes, played them to her

advantage. This could be looked at as a way she is performing gender in her life by bidding on

traditionally feminine businesses that she has extensive knowledge of due to the performing of

her female gender for her entire life.

The male/female power struggle is exemplified throughout the series as the sharks

constantly fight to play up or play down gender roles depending on what it suits them to do so.

However, for male entrepreneurs pitching female-centric businesses, their lack of the female

touch often hurts them in Shark Tank because they are using statistics, instead of solving a

problem that directly relates to them. In business on the cusp of being feminine the sharks seem

to offer deals more when there is a female partner involved. Perhaps this is because doing gender

and gendered commerce works both ways and violating these norms are generally unsettling

enough to put off investors.

There is also a pattern of the female entrepreneurs on Shark Tank being driven to tears or

other strong emotional responses because of the sharks’ harassment. For example, in episode

408, Ginell Mills of Cool Wazoo completely failed in her attempt to give a compelling

15

presentation and after all the sharks were out, Mills broke down crying. Lori jumped back in and

offered her a deal. Daymond pointed out that, “her tears got Lori,” and Robert asked, “Did you

invest in her because she cried?” Lori stood by her offer.

Later that same season Suzie Taylor of Bibbitec broke under the strain of the sharks

ridiculing her idea. When the sharks asked her why she didn’t have any sales she snapped, “I’m

not selling because my kids come first.” Needless to say, she left without a deal from anyone.

Deidrea Haysel of Hot Momma Gowns also broke down in tears after the sharks harassed her

about her company’s financials and general idea. After she cried and noted that she felt

personally attacked, Barbara swooped in and offered her a deal, while all the men make fun of

Barbara for her actions. Deidrea declined Barbara’s offer.

Another notable presentation was that of Dominique McClain Barteet. While, Bareet

never cried, her presentation was incredibly professional and well received by the sharks,

however, every time they asked her a question she didn’t know she put herself down in a self-

deprecating manner. It was clear she felt she lacked the skills to be a successful entrepreneur.

After much pumping up from the sharks, she made a deal with Daymond for her business One

Sole. This lack of confidence in female entrepreneurs appears to support Thebaud’s findings

citing that women feel less capable to be a successful entrepreneur because they hold themselves

to a higher standard of competence than their male counterparts.

The fourth obvious trend in gender relations on Shark Tank is male sexism. It is apparent

in the way the sharks treat not only the contestant female entrepreneurs, but also their fellow

female sharks. There is a lack of respect, vulgar and insulting comments, and an overall power

struggle between males and females in the Tank. This seems to stem from a lack of respect for

each other and the heavy competition for such limited resources.

16

There are many examples throughout the series of sharks being overtly sexist towards the

budding entrepreneurs. For instance, in episode 412, Megan Gage of Hot Tot, gave an incredible

presentation for her children’s hair care line. She was an incredibly beautiful and professional

woman with great answers and a great presentation. However, after she mentioned her master’s

degree in social work, Robert incredulously remarked, “oh so you’re not a hair stylist?” Also, as

Connor Riley and Samantha Meis were pitching their idea of Mistobox, the sharks couldn’t seem

to focus on the opportunity being pitched but rather harassed the two about if they were dating or

considering doing so as Riley and Meis desperately tried to keep the topic of conversation their

business.

In episode 308, Litter, a high-end body jewelry line was pitched by two young women.

The women were designers but had taken a fledgling business and made it decently successful.

However, Mark and Daymond figured out that they simply wanted to be designers and made

them a low offer, which they accepted. After acceptance, Barbara pointed out that they would’ve

never made that offer to a male designer and they low-balled them because they were women.

This is another great example of doing gender. These women were soft spoken and seemed to be

afraid to speak up for themselves. They were bullied by the male sharks into taking a low offer

because the men kept repeating how they were just designers and implied that they didn’t have a

place on the business end of things.

Not only do the sharks exhibit sexist towards the contestants pitching their businesses,

but the contestants themselves are also sometimes sexist towards the sharks and the sharks are

sometimes sexist among themselves. Michael Sang, a young male entrepreneur pitching his

business Plate Topper had a great product and presentation but in the negotiating phase seemed

to want to avoid doing a deal with Lori at all costs. He was very rude towards her and seems to

17

almost refuse to speak with her or acknowledge her, because of this he blows a deal worth ten

times what he was asking for. Eventually he takes her lessened offer, but only after all other

sharks were out. This could perhaps be explained by Sang not wanting to take an offer with Lori

due to perceived challenges a woman in business would encounter, most notably in this case

network disadvantages, that could, in theory, hurt his product’s success. However, this complete

lack of respect for Lori in this encounter was truly appalling.

Another example is shown after Barbara makes Frank Scozzafava and Adam DiSilvestro

a deal for their business Mix Bikini. Instead of being grateful for her connections and experience

they say, “thank you for the woman’s touch.” The male sharks are also seemingly sexist towards

their female panel members. At one point during a pitch about an energy drink for cougars

(attractive older women) O’Leary turns to Barbara and exclaims that she used to be a cougar.

Daymond also exhibits sexist behavior towards his female counterparts, at one point even going

so far as calling Lori a “vicious backstabbing shark.”

Throughout the series it is clear that gender differences are a common theme and whether

it is organic or producer-driven, sexism and gender-driven differences seem to always be at the

forefront of negotiations with the sharks. As a result of this, Shark Tank waffles between helping

female entrepreneurs by statistically giving them more deals than their male counterparts and

exemplifying the discrimination and stereotypes females in business, and in general, face on a

daily basis. The question boils down to the individual entrepreneur, is it worth it? Is it worth

getting an equity capital infusion but potentially being ostracized, harassed, and hounded about

work-life balance? This comes down to how badly the entrepreneur needs money and

connections, for some women it may be worth it, for others it certainly wouldn’t be.

18

It is clear from the exploration of the four themes presented in the Content Analysis and

from the previous research that gendered commerce is prevalent on Shark Tank. If it can be

deduced that Shark Tank is a micro chasm of what capital funding is truly like, this lends support

to all the previously cited findings. Women do suffer from disadvantages stemming from gender

differences and stereotypes in society. Women do want to be entrepreneurs to have flexibility

and to break through the glass ceiling, but find this hard to do in practice. Women in business do

perform gender by starting businesses related to them, thereby making them feminine. Despite

the fact that having at least one female partner in the Tank increases your chances of getting a

deal, the disparities noted in the literature review still apply to the entrepreneurs of Shark Tank.

Conclusions

While most of the literature about female entrepreneurs points out the challenges and

disparities in funding male versus female businesses, it appears that Shark Tank has the opposite

effect. Women pitched businesses appear to have greater success on Shark Tank than male

pitched businesses. However, this increased chance of success appears to come at the cost of

harassment from the sharks about not only the entrepreneur’s product, but also about their looks

and lifestyle choices. Some potential reasons for the seemingly better chance of a woman getting

funding than men on Shark Tank are that most of the products on Shark Tank are consumer

products that solve “mommy problems,” and who better to pitch a “mommy” product than an

actual mommy? Also, many of the women that pitch on Shark Tank are not career entrepreneurs,

they usually have started a lifestyle business out of necessity because of discrimination in the

workforce or out of boredom because they are stay at home mothers.

It is also important to discuss the limitations of the research done. First, this research does

not account for the screening process that Shark Tank uses to choose its entrepreneurs. It

19

potentially could filter out more males than female with un-investable products. Second, the

actual pitches given and the ensuing question and answer session are actually hours long. The

producers take that film and cut it down into roughly ten minute segments per entrepreneur. It is

possible, and likely, that they cut out any boring negotiations and instead choose to focus on

conflicts, such as gender. Since there are so many factors that happen in these negotiation

interaction it is incredibly hard to isolate gender as a specific variable in getting a deal versus not

getting a deal because of complex relationships. Additionally, it is very hard to account for the

people on Shark Tank who were offered deals, but chose not to take them for a variety of

reasons. Gendered interactions in relation to what constitutes a “feminine business” is also very

hard to define. Are books considered feminine? Or a technology based toy company? It is

incredibly difficult and subjective to say what would be considered “appropriately feminine” and

what wouldn’t be. For the reason of these limitations it is hard to say that gender is a deciding

factor in the deals on Shark Tank or in real-life capital negotiations—but patterns are definitely

apparent.

However, despite the difficulties in identifying if gender is truly a deciding factor in

negotiations, it opens up a great deal of material for potential research opportunities. One great

opportunity would be to explore how business professionals can work to change the connotative

meaning of “entrepreneur” and “professionalism” to make it an attainable goal for women, or

even make it more gender neutral. A process needs to be started to help re-characterize

entrepreneurship to make it an achievable identity for women. Since gender is so fluid and

subjective, it is incredibly hard to study and create definitive results so, studies need to focus on

more than metrics. Gendered entrepreneurship needs to be studied in interviews, conventions,

and focus groups. A dialogue must be started on how to patch the inequalities faced by women.

20

It would also be incredibly interesting in future studies on gender and venture capital to focus on

what other factors work in conjunction with gender to contribute to—or work to eliminate

discrimination, for example looks, voice, presentation, etc. Using these opportunities for future

research we can work to create solutions to close the gap between men and women in business.

21

WORKS CITED

Brana, S. (2013). Microcredit: An Answer to the Gender Problem in Funding? Small Business

Economy, (40), 87-100. Retrieved April 1, 2015.

Downs, H. (2005). The Role of Gender in Female Entrepreneurship. 3-27. Retrieved April 1,

2015.

Dries, K. (2014, May 17). Shark Tank's Endlessly Weird But Always Entertaining Gender

Obsession. Retrieved April 1, 2015.

Galvez-Munoz, L., & Fernandez-Perez, P. (2007). Female Entrepreneurship in Spain during the

Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. Business History Review, (81), 495-515. Retrieved

April 1, 2015.

Kaplan, S., & Vanderbrug, J. (2014). The Rise of Gender Capitalism. Stanford Social Innovation

Reviewq, 36-41. Retrieved April 1, 2015.

Lewis, P. (2013). The Search for an Authentic Entrepreneurial Identity: Difference and

Professionalism among Women Business Owners. Gender, Work, and

Organization, 20(3), 252-267. Retrieved April 1, 2015.

Lutter, M. (2015). Do Women Suffer From Network Disclosure? American Sociological

Review, 80(2), 329-358. Retrieved April 1, 2015.

Sena, V., Scott, J., & Roper, S. (2012). Gender, Borrowing Patterns and Self-Employment: Some

Evidence for England. Small Business Economy, 467-480. Retrieved April 1, 2015.

Shaw, E., Carter, S., & Lam, W. (2012). Business Ownership, Finance, and Gender. 188-205.

Thebaud, S. (2010). Gender and Entrepreneurship as a Career Choice: Do Self-Assessments of

Ability Matter? Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(3), 288-304. Retrieved April 1, 2015.

22

West, Candace and Don Zimmerman. (1987). “Doing Gender.” Gender & Society. 1(2). 125-

151.

Wiederhold, B. (2014). How Can More Women-Owned Technology Businesses Get Funding?

Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17. Retrieved April 1, 2015.

23

24