How did we pick the contestants?

There are a lot of questions and comments being posted on why some contestants got picked when they may have appeared weak from the start.

So I'll try to explain. First, this is a show about what works when it comes to pitching for capital. It is meant to highlight what's out there in the real world and meant to share lessons that can be learned, from the good and from the bad.  You can learn from those that fail as much, if not more than from those that succeed. Further, as in the case of Jason C, the show has helped him put his venture to rest and move on to better things. It isn't just those who get money that become winners, some win from the experience. Plus just like in the real world, you have a signal to noise ratio (how much crap you need to see to find a good "signal" aka deal). I've been screening deals since 1999, have seen 2000+ deals to date (not including the show) and let me tell you, there are people like our pitchers in the real world too.

Second, a few deals coming up, we thought wouldn't make the grade and yet they landed money. In the end, even though I screen deals for a living, no one, but the Dragons, can predict 100% accurately what the Dragons will do. So everyone has a fighting chance. It is up to them what they do with that chance.

Finally, we didn't pick just winners to put on, because a) there would be no drama in that and b) we can only work with those that apply. If we get a season two (do you guys want one?) then all those who think they can do better, are welcome to apply. In fact, we alwasy new that the pool would be much deeper for season two.....but until then, we work with what we have, and we have good stuff.

Just thought you should know,

Sean Wise,

Industry Advisor & Online Host

Comments

[Lisa Cawte-Baker]

Regarding editing ... really didn't like the cut-aways of Jen's hands’ playing with her pen and "twitching" it felt like a filler and added nothing to the show.

It was also a horrible shot to boot leaving us looking at her belt buckle for too long and had I switched on the show at that point I would be wondering WHAT I was watching!

Also the LONG pauses and static shots of the dragons - again don't create suspense but instead have me switching to see what is happening on America's Next Top Model. I know you are trying to create a bit of "drama" in the den but personally I would pick up the pace and have the viewer sitting on the edge of the seat waiting for the outcome. Let the viewer feel the tension and the beads of sweat forming on the brows of the participants.

Dragons Den is a good show but episode 3 was very weak. For the last two episodes I was hooked - but on this last one... I didn't even notice when the show had finished! The only thing that stuck in my memory was the guys in the orange ties!

Also Jennifer Woods as brilliant as she is ... hardly EVER makes a contribution! She sits there looking passive and nervous. The boys dominate - and they are funny. But I would love to hear more from her because when she does speak it’s interesting but she should be a bit more part of the discussion rather than just the words "I'm out". Let us see the balls that she must have from business... rather than the passive chick.

Episode 3 was for sure VERY thin in content. I am sure you would have lost some viewers because of it. And to top it off the "ideas" that were being presented were weak and laughable - the blonde in the bikini was the ultimate dumb blonde who I am sure was on TV as eye candy or to launch her modelling career. And HOLY - the base ball guy ... OMG! You know it is not only PAINFUL to watch but the show then also loses credibility with serious and committed REAL entrepreneurs. I am both in the TV industry and an entrepreneur. I hope my comments are useful. Regards Lisa Cawte-Baker