'Dragons' Den: is it now a self-fulfilling prophecy?' blog discussion

superscaper

Sally87 wrote: »

Wow, I really didn't say that. I'm also not stupid - they often say the prices for the item being made, the price they sell it to the shop and the price the shop sells it at. There is quite a large difference between the first 2 at times as well. What percentage the inventor gets out of the profit has nothing to do with whether i buy the product or not, which is what I was talking about.

Think you took it a bit personally there. It was more a delving into the costings in general and wasn't intended in any way to be a sleight against you. By the time I'd got past the first sentence I thought it'd be underatandable that any "you" was the impersonal plural, not second person. I could have used "one" but I find myself coming over as pretentious when I do that.

As for the difference between what it's sold to the shop for and what it's manufactured for that also from personal experience actually NEEDS to be a large difference. I've seen sale to the shop be 3 times what the manufacturing cost is and still it's only just breaking even (e.g. one item I can think of manufacturing cost £5, sale to retailer £25, sale to customer from retailer £50, and that product's not very profitable for either the manufacturer nor the "inventor"/owner, all sorts of research costs, design costs, marketing costs, distribution costs just from the manufacturing end which aren't actually usually quoted in the manufacturing costs. That £5 sounds not much but a few pence either way can make it from profit to loss even with a supposed 5 x markup). for the manufacturing side. The difference between sale to the retailer and the cost of manufacturing doesn't denote the markup for the manufacturer, there's far more costs in there as well.

itsarichmansworld

Look at the case with Rob Law he took on the Dragons and was rejected for his idea for Trunki

Now on the back of the publicity he received from the show he sold thousands.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-475095/Dragons-Den-reject-celebrates-soaring-sales-worthless-invention.html

He thought the dragons had ruined his business!

and richard farleigh bought 2 of the cases!

meher

investors need to think what's in their self-interest and not that of a businessman's or based on their publicity strategy - when you choose a business to invest in you're not just considering how he fares amongst other business but you're also competing with other investors ie. if you're choosing someone with good publicity and fantastic track record of consistent accomplishments other investors are thinking the same and wanting to invest with this business, so it wouldn't be just the few of us investors - now this would drive down the originally expected returns although the businessman obviously benefits - so publicity is good for business and not necessarily for the investor

Doublespresso

If you ask me, the biggest publicity seekers are the so called "Dragons" themselves and they are the ones who most benefit (by far) from the free publicity the BBC is providing them with.

ormus

as far as im concerned its a very good program.
remember its their own money being invested, not yours. generally speaking i get the same results as the dragons. ie i would invest in the same peeps as them and refuse the same no-hopers.

anyone who goes on there and doesnt know the difference betweeen gross profits and net profits is just plain stoopid.
same as anyone who cant give realistic sales/GP/NP budget figures for the next 3yrs.

there will always be the missed company and also the company taken on and it fails. thats the nature of the investing game. hence the high equity asked for. i would ask for exactly the same.

re the band. i see that one as high risk and poss high rewards. if i had a few million quid spare, then i would probably take them on. but as an investment of 75k in my present situation? no thx. even allowing for the great free publicity. (poss 1m quids worth).

having a very large bank balance does make you think differently about real time investing.

Sally87

superscaper wrote: »

Think you took it a bit personally there. It was more a delving into the costings in general and wasn't intended in any way to be a sleight against you. By the time I'd got past the first sentence I thought it'd be underatandable that any "you" was the impersonal plural, not second person. I could have used "one" but I find myself coming over as pretentious when I do that.

Ok, sorry about that then, it can be kinda hard seeing the 'tone of voice' behind an internet post! I'd had a crappy day when I wrote that anyway, I was just in a bad mood :rolleyes: sorry.

superscaper

Sally87 wrote: »

Ok, sorry about that then, it can be kinda hard seeing the 'tone of voice' behind an internet post! I'd had a crappy day when I wrote that anyway, I was just in a bad mood :rolleyes: sorry.

Hey no worries. I'm sorry if I upset you (even though it wasn't my intention, I'd rather not upset people). We all have bad days. As for the tone thing, that's the danger of just using text and even emoticons and smileys don't always help. Guess I've got to keep practising at my posting technique. I'm not all that bad a person.

:beer: