Welcome back to Brands Pe Charcha, where we unpack the most exciting, controversial, and thought-provoking pitches from Shark Tank India Season 4. Today, we’re diving into a brand that’s trying to revolutionize the way Indian women shop for clothes. WomanlikeU is a fashion brand designed exclusively for Indian body types, offering swimwear, dresses, and co-ord sets tailored to fit every shape—apple, pear, hourglass, and more. But while the founders aimed to empower women, the Sharks had mixed reactions. Some called it groundbreaking, while others labeled it as “body shaming.” Let’s break down the pitch, the drama, and whether this brand is truly a game-changer or just another controversial idea.
The Pitch:
The founders of WomanlikeU identified a glaring gap in the fashion industry: Indian women have diverse body types, yet most clothing brands follow US/UK size standards, leaving women to compromise on fit and comfort. To solve this, they created a brand that allows women to choose their body type on the website and shop for clothes designed specifically for their shape. Starting with swimwear, they’ve expanded into dresses, essentials, and co-ord sets.
Their unique approach has resonated with customers—50-60% of shoppers use the body type option on their website. However, the financials tell a different story. Since its launch in July 2022, the brand has generated ₹4.7 crore in sales but reported a net loss of ₹75 lakhs last year.
The founders asked for ₹1 crore for 2% equity, valuing their company at ₹50 crores. But did the Sharks see potential in this body-positive brand?
The Sharks’ Reactions:
Anupam Mittal:
Anupam had the most controversial take. He felt that categorizing women by body types and naming them (apple, pear, etc.) could come across as body shaming. He also questioned the brand’s market fit and positioning, ultimately backing out.
Aman Gupta:
Aman disagreed with Anupam, stating that the branding and logo were fine. He appreciated the founders’ vision and offered a deal similar to Vineeta’s.
Vineeta Singh:
Vineeta had strong opinions about the brand’s communication. She believed the founders weren’t highlighting their core mission—helping Indian women feel confident in swimwear and other clothes. She hated the brand name and wanted to change it entirely. She offered a deal but backed out when the founders refused to rebrand.
Peyush Bansal:
Peyush appreciated the brand’s growth in just two years but felt the founders needed a clearer strategy to create a new category. He opted out.
Varun Dua:
Varun also backed out, stating that he couldn’t add much value to the brand and that the founders needed a stronger strategy.
The Deal:
After Vineeta backed out due to the founders’ refusal to change the brand name and logo, they accepted Aman Gupta’s offer of ₹1 crore for 3% equity and 2% royalty until the investment was recouped. While the deal gave them the funds they needed, it came with a higher equity stake and royalty, which could impact their profitability in the long run.
Our Take: The Good, the Bad, and the Controversial
The Good:
- Solving a Real Problem:
The founders identified a genuine gap in the market—clothing tailored to Indian body types. Their approach is innovative and addresses a long-standing issue for Indian women. - Customer Engagement:
The fact that 50-60% of customers use the body type option on their website shows that the concept resonates with their target audience. - Expansion Potential:
Starting with swimwear and expanding into dresses and co-ord sets demonstrates the brand’s potential to grow into a full-fledged fashion label.
The Bad:
- Financial Struggles:
Despite ₹4.7 crore in sales, the brand reported a net loss of ₹75 lakhs last year. This raises questions about their pricing, cost structure, and scalability. - Branding and Communication:
Vineeta’s critique about the brand name and communication is valid. If the founders want to appeal to a broader audience, they might need to rethink their messaging.
The Controversial:
- Body Shaming Debate:
Anupam’s comment about the brand potentially body-shaming women sparked a heated debate. While the founders’ intent was to empower women, categorizing body types with names like “apple” and “pear” could be seen as reductive or offensive to some. - Aman’s Deal:
While Aman’s offer provided the funds the founders needed, the 3% equity and 2% royalty could be a heavy price to pay. Royalty deals can eat into profits, especially for a brand already struggling with profitability.
Interactive Section: What Do YOU Think?
- Do you think categorizing body types is empowering or body-shaming?
- Was Aman’s deal fair, or did the founders give up too much?
- Should the founders have considered rebranding, as Vineeta suggested?
Drop your thoughts in the comments below—we’d love to hear your take!
Conclusion
WomanlikeU is a brand with a noble mission—to make Indian women feel confident and comfortable in their own skin. However, the journey hasn’t been without its challenges. From financial struggles to controversial branding, the founders have their work cut out for them. Aman Gupta’s deal might provide the boost they need, but only time will tell if this body-positive brand can truly revolutionize the fashion industry.
One thing’s for sure: this pitch left the Sharks (and us) with a lot to think about. Was it a step forward for inclusivity, or did it miss the mark? Let us know what you think!
Disclaimer: The figures and details mentioned in this blog are based on publicly available information and the founder’s pitch on Shark Tank India Season 4. This blog has been created with the assistance of Deepseek, ChatGPT and Gemini.
