I don't doubt that ABC approves of 'drama' since it really does help in the ratings. That said, I don't think your other two claims are well supported, that the sharks are 'arrogant' or that their valuations are too low.

Lets look at the valuations first, in any open market where prices are flexible buyers tend to feel folks ask to much and sellers tend to thing folks offer too little. If you walk away from a deal feeling like you didn't pay enough for something or that you sold it for too much money, then that market is out of balance. There are three sharks, I've not seen any credible evidence that they have any anticompetitive agreements in place, basically they seem able (and willing) to jump into another shark's negotiation and screw it up to gain leverage. So of the three of them the valuations are no doubt precisely correct. You might find an investor who is willing to give a higher valuation, but if you did that with full disclosure that these three would not agree to a higher valuation you might find it hard to justify. This disparity often arises from emotional involvement with the concept or the company. The wine-by-the-glass[1][2] guy is a classic example. They disagreed on value, he turned them down, and kept cranking. Were they 'wrong' ? No, the valuation to them was $x and to the owner $y, but they see a different business than the owner does.

As for arrogance, these folks seem to get a lot of pitches, I'm sure being on TV doesn't help with reducing the volume. The weird thing is, they still listen. You can hear that in their analysis. Arrogance would have them not listening and just telling the person pitching is wrong, but they give them a chance to explain, sometimes repeatedly. Its clear that some of the people coming on the show have done exactly zero homework, haven't even done a network search for starting a business or what it takes to run a business. I am really impatient with folks like that but the sharks take it in stride.

[1] http://www.copadivino.com/

[2] http://www.aoltv.com/2011/03/21/shark-tank-inventor-wine-by-... WARNING HUFFPO Category 5 MONETIZATION

The fact that they allow horrible entrepreneurs on the show tells me that it's more about making an entertaining show than getting some good companies through the door.

Well they are talking relatively small rounds as well, I concur that is to make it entertaining. To someone like a Mark Cuban spending $50K - $100K is not going to materially change his future outlook, its more like playing the ponies. It is certainly more entertaining than playing blackjack too.

Actually, they weed out the really bad ones offscreen. The only thing I find really fake is Kevin O'Leary's act.

Sometimes they act like spoilt children, especially when they get all sulky and declare themselves out because the entrepreneur wants to negotiate or took too many seconds to decide. That's par for the course with reality tv although I don't think the manufactured drama and cliffhangers are necessary, the process is what's interesting not the final answer.

I don't think their valuations are crazy, they're aggressive but they usually have plausible justifications for them. What is crazy is the gulf between what they do and the kind of startups here - just imagine a couple tweeners with half an iphone app successfully raising a million bucks on Shark Tank.

I think the sharks are based as hell but my favorite part is in the opening sequence when they're all getting out of private jets and sports cars and gazing over the skyline of manhattan. If I ever have the fortune to become an Angel, my opening sequence is going to be me putting on a pair of shades, and then a falcon swoops in and lands on my arm.