Andy Humphrey entered the stage of Shark Tank Season 2 Episode 6, with his eco-friendly lawn mower. He came in seeking $90,000 in exchange for a 20% stake in his brand, EcoMowers.
Andy pitched the product as a greener, cleaner, and safer alternative to gas-powered units. Yet most of the Sharks criticized the product, especially his presentation, further characterizing it as misleading.
Here is a breakdown of why the Sharks called EcoMowers pitch a joke, and what was wrong with the presentation.
The EcoMowers Pitch: Promises vs. Reality
Andy appeared on the Tank with his innovative product that required no gas, no batteries or blade sharpening. His eco-friendly lawn mower cuts grass quietly, with no emissions or noise. At first, his product seemed promising, as most mowers were loud and notorious for noise, but the Sharks quickly challenged his claims.
Why the Sharks Called It ‘Romanticizing the Truth’
The Sharks were skeptical from the moment he began illustrating and explaining the environmental benefits of his product. Daymond John bluntly mentioned that he was lost while giving the presentation. Even other Sharks, like Kevin O’Leary, said he was romanticizing what his lawn mower could do rather than sharing something truly distinct.
The major criticism Andy faced came from Daymond, who told him that manual push mowers already existed that required no gas. EcoMowers did not offer anything unique or distinct to justify the investment or valuation. Also, other Sharks felt the same way.
This sentiment echoed through the Tank:
- Robert Herjavec mentioned that Andy’s pitch was simply a branding play. Any competitor can relabel their existing eco-friendly mower and undercut their brand.
- Kevin O’Leary echoed the same confusion. Furthermore, he pointed out that the product does not differ from affordable mowers already on the market.
Missing Sales and Lack of Product Traction
One of the greatest red flags for the investors was that the brand had not even sold a unit of the product. Irrespective of Andy’s claims of selling D2C, his product was just a prototype with no market traction. Of course, investments made by the Sharks also rely on proven market traction and on understanding what customers are willing to pay.
On the contrary, the founder has sold other lawn-related products in the past, but none were directly connected to EcoMowers.
Thus, the investors saw this as a serious risk because of the lack of validation and a signal that the product was not even ready for investment.
Shark Criticisms: Misleading Comparisons and Weak Value Proposition
Another important issue was how the product was positioned in the marketplace. The founder claimed that existing lawn mowers were polluting, dangerous, and loud, unlike his product. However, the investors quickly pressed on this point, whether the brand offered anything beyond what existing push mowers delivered.
Consequently, Sharks like Kevin and Daymond mentioned that manual push mowers do not use any gas and produce no emissions. This meant that the environmental advantage he claimed was not anything unique.
His market positioning reflected that EcoMowers’ advantage was its blade, which did not need sharpening. For Sharks, this product was not a breakthrough innovation to warrant investment.
In short, due to the unavailability of any market validation, the Sharks had no proof that customers would pay a premium for EcoMowers when compared to established alternatives.
