Caitlyn Schollmeier entered the Tank during “Shark Tank Season 17, Episode 5,” pitching a mission, and not just a product. She was a labor-and-delivery nurse who turned into a certified midwife. Caitlyn built Lila to bridge a gap in the maternity wear space, which is the ill-fitting, itchy, and uncomfortable hospital gown.
Her brand, Lila Birth Gowns, offers stylish, functional garments. They are exclusively designed for labor, delivery, and nursing—garments that serve both the medical team and the mothers.
Yet despite the heartfelt story and its viral origins, the Sharks ultimately bowed out. Though she launched and sold her first 2,500 gowns in under 2 hours during her NICU stay. However, no deal was made. The real story is why the Sharks passed on Lila. Let’s dive into the details and the Shark’s reactions.
The Pitch: Strong, Emotional, Yet Risky
Caitlyn entered the Tank seeking $200,000 for 5% equity, valuing Lila at $4 million. She explained the product’s design advantages, including a front opening for fetal monitors, a lower back for epidurals, and a breastfeeding-friendly chest opening, with full wrap coverage for modesty.
She shared that Lila had achieved $2.5 million in sales in the previous year. Moreover, she projected $2.7 million for 2025. Gross margins were around 40%, and net margin was about 10%. At the same time, customer acquisition cost was approximately $4.50. Sharks like Lori Greiner complimented the fabric’s softness and Caitlyn’s passion.
But the room quickly shifted from empathy to scrutiny. The first cracks came when Daymond John noted 200 stock-keeping units (SKUs) across four sizes and five styles. Inventory held was reported at 800,000.
Then came the Sharks’ key issues:
- Retail complexity: Caitlyn aimed to move into retail, but Sharks warned that the maternity and retail apparel categories were fragmented and declining. Allison Ellsworth noted many maternity stores had shuttered.
- Thin margins and consumer spending: Apparel is famously margin-constrained. Kevin O’Leary bluntly told her that, in 90 days, her returns could turn to zero.
- Scaling risk vs. niche category: Robert Herjavec admitted he didn’t know the market well enough, and he bowed out early.
In short, while the Sharks acknowledged the product’s heart and functionality, they didn’t see enough upside or protectable advantage. They sat forward and nodded but ultimately remained in their chairs.
What the Sharks Actually Said
- Lori Greiner: She liked the product but didn’t feel passionate enough to invest. Also, she felt the product could not deliver a return on investment.
- Daymond John: Disliked the SKU overload and questioned whether scaling such a broad product line in apparel, especially in maternity wear, was realistic or not. He said he couldn’t join for that reason.
- Kevin O’Leary: Hard-edged. He challenged the valuation and warned the founder that going into retail—especially apparel—could kill their margins.
- Robert Herjavec: He said that he didn’t know the space well enough. This sealed the fate of the deal.
- Allison Ellsworth: Though she tended to the founder’s background, she ultimately concluded that growth between 2024 and 2025 was too modest for her investment appetite.
Why Maternity Wear and “Labor Gowns” Are Hard Business
Understanding the Sharks’ hesitation means zooming out to the structural challenges of the niche Lila plays in.
1. Narrow Addressable Market
Unlike everyday apparel, labor gowns are a singular event item for most women, lasting hours or days, not years. Repeat purchase frequency is very low, which means you must sell broader items like postpartum, nursing wear, and gift sets to hit breakeven and scale. Lila had attempted this, but the SKU breadth may have diluted focus.
2. Retail Distribution Complexity
Hospital‐estate boards and maternity boutiques used to be the selling channel. Retail placement requires significant cash flow to cover inventory, returns, refunds, and promotional allowances. Sharks flagged that bridging direct-to-consumer to big retail is a risky leap for the apparel industry.
3. High SKU & Inventory Risk
Apparel thrives on trends, size variation, and color variety, further leading to many SKUs. Lila already had 200. That means splits in inventory, higher warehousing costs, and greater dead stock risk. With 800K inventory, the burden is significant.
4. Margin Pressure & Returns
Even with a 40% gross margin, apparel carries high overhead for fulfillment, returns, customer service, and quality control. A net margin of 10% leaves little cushion for shocks. The Sharks saw apparel category margins as thin and volatile.
5. Category Awareness and Education
While the product may be better than hospital gowns, the fundamental question is: will hospitals, birth centers, or expectant mothers adopt it widely? Shark Robert’s question about whether most women shop for their own gowns in hospital gift shops highlighted a distribution mismatch.
Conclusion
Though her story was compelling, the Sharks’ decision not to invest didn’t reflect a lack of heart; it reflected risk from structural market realities. They saw a brand with potential but also saw hurdles. Apparel is hard, retail is brutal, and scaling is complicated.
For the founder and for other entrepreneurs, the takeaways are stark:
- A compelling mission and product help, but alone, they don’t override business risk.
- Choose your category and business model carefully. Even disruptive ideas in traditional categories (like apparel) must have defensible competitive advantages, clear distribution paths, and margin levers.
- Be cautious about SKU proliferation early on. Focus, refine, scale—don’t spread thinly before mastering one product line.
- Make sure your valuation is grounded in scalable metrics. A $4M valuation from D2C labor gowns may not sit easily with institutional investors or Sharks familiar with overhead risks.
In the end, Lila leaves the Tank without a deal but with something nearly as valuable: visibility, validation, and a clear list of challenges to address.
