Useful information
Prime News delivers timely, accurate news and insights on global events, politics, business, and technology
When Abu Zoheib Jilani and Shrijal Dave climbed into the shark tank stage with women like U, their startup based in Bengaluru not only threw clothes, I was challenging a rule. Built around the idea that the various types of body of Indian women deserve a better representation in fashion, their brand promised more than just a vacation use that fits. But as its launch of RS 1 million rupees developed for 2% equity, which began as an admiration soon changed to a heated debate, not about profits, but about purpose, language and even the name itself.
Women like you stood out with your promise: an approach backed by technology where customers could identify their body type through simple questions and find adjacent adjustments to measure only for them. The concept resonated with sharks, Aman Gupta, Anupam Mittal, Vineeta Singh, Peyush Bansal and Varun Dua, who admired the quality of the product and commercial potential. But admiration did not mean easy treatment.
Vineeta Singh revealed that he was already a client, praising the design and material of the brand. However, she did not hold when it came to comments. “I hate the name of the brand and the logo and spelling,” he said bluntly, calling women like you “who sounds cheap” and not suitable for an aspirational luxury brand.
Anupam Mittal directed the conversation more deeply, questioning the language itself that the brand used to classify body types. “Using the same lexicon as pear -shaped, oval, heart -shaped, etc. Are you not yet objectifying women? If you really want to be antidiscriminatory, you have to use a different language,” he argued. Vineeta agreed, noting that while the brand was aimed at breaking the stereotypes, their terminology reinforced them inadvertently.
Despite these criticisms, not all sharks shared the same opinion. Aman Gupta and Anupam Mittal defended the brand, arguing that names and logos are subjective. They appreciated the simplicity of the brand and believed that it resonated with the target audience.
When it came to offers, Vineeta proposed RS 1 million rupees for 3% capital with an additional 2% royalties until RS 1.5 million rupees recovered, in one condition: “Change the brand and logo.” Aman responded with a similar offer, although his royalty limit was RS 1 crore and arrived without the demand for brand change.
Jilani and Dave remained firm. They declined the offer of Vineeta, which were not willing to separate from the name close to their hearts, and accepted Aman’s treatment. While they were intact with their pride, Vineeta commented: “For a lifestyle brand, the name is everything. Sugar, boat … the names mean everything. The founders are very rigid.”
The founders, however, remained unchanged. “We receive overwhelmingly positive answers. The name is close to our heart and, of course, we take many data before reaching this name. We understand that there are people who may feel similar to Vineeta, but the brand has mainly received positive answers,” they said , insurance of your choice and the future of your brand.
