While I'm empathetic towards the founders who got the short sticks on this episode, I just watched episode three (having not been aware of the show before reading this post) and it was exactly what I'd expect a show like this to be. If an incubator gave me an ultimatum like "reality documentary or hit the curb" I'd run the other way as quickly as possible.
Melanie might be strong and brilliant, but there's real live footage here of her being unrealistic, ineloquent and covering for a weak business model (in which she appears to have zero unfair advantage) by hiding behind a claim that "developers just don't get fashion".
This show might be trash but her responses to medium-hard questions about her business model don't suggest CEO DNA. I've never met a competent CEO that says "like" constantly and says what they think VCs want to hear.
This isn't a fair criticism in my opinion. Anybody who has a camera in their face all day can be made to look stupid. That even goes for the most practiced politicians.
Even the best first time start-up CEO's require hundreds of run-throughs to get their story polished. TechStars exists in large part to give entrepreneurs this opportunity to practice.
It just seems unfortunate that the practice which they are supposed to be doing is filmed, edited and put in front of people in perhaps the worst light possible to tell the story someone else wants to tell.
Melanie might be strong and brilliant, but there's real live footage here of her being unrealistic, ineloquent and covering for a weak business model (in which she appears to have zero unfair advantage) by hiding behind a claim that "developers just don't get fashion".
This show might be trash but her responses to medium-hard questions about her business model don't suggest CEO DNA. I've never met a competent CEO that says "like" constantly and says what they think VCs want to hear.