Exclusive: America's Greatest Makers Carol Roth, on judging the new TBS Tech-Talent Show

From TBS and the producers of Shark Tank, Survivor and The Apprentice, comes America’s next reality-competition show, America’s Greatest Makers. United Artists Media Group have begun the search for the perfect contestant who will be able to create the next big wearable or smart-connected device using Intel software. Judged by Carol Roth, Brian Krzanich and Kevin Pereira, each episode follows contestants facing the panel of judges, which also
features a special guest star judge each week (including the likes of Big Bang Theory's Mayim Bialik). Successful contestants enter the next stage of the competition, as they are given the opportunity to be mentored by Intel engineers to make their ideas a reality. In the finale of the show, the winner will be rewarded with a million-dollar prize.

Carol Roth a media personality, investor, speaker and judge on the show talks exclusively to TVmaze about everything America’s Greatest Makers – she explains why she decided to join the show, how the show can be an inspiration to those watching at home, and which inventions were the best and worst. Read the Q&A to discover what she had to say:

How would you describe the show to our readers?

America's Greatest Makers is a first of its kind reality technology competition show, where 24 teams of inventors and innovators who have come up with inventions that span the fashion, medical, health & beauty, fitness, music, toy and other industries, compete for a $1 million prize-- and the coveted title of "America's Greatest Makers". It was created by Mark Burnett, the producer behind mega-hits such as Shark Tank, The Voice, Survivor and The Apprentice in conjunction with Intel Corporation.

Can you run through the various stages of the competition and what each stage entails?

We start with 24 competitors, who pitch the judges on their innovations. We narrow the 24 down to 15 based on criteria that ranges from creativity and innovation to the viability of the product as a business and more. Those 15 receive additional mentorship from Intel and related resources and improve their technology-based products. They pitch us again and we narrow the 15 down to 5. Those 5 receive $100,000 and even more mentorship via Intel to make their final pitch. The final five pitch one last time, leaving everything on the stage, for the chance to become "America's Greatest Makers" and win the $1,000,000 prize.

What makes this show different from similar series that features pitches made to a panel?

The format is different than say, a Shark Tank, in that the inventions all solve a problem and use technology to do so. The judging panel doesn't invest-- rather, we decide who stays and who goes each week as the competitor field is narrowed down from 24 to the million-dollar winner. Not to mention that we give them suggestions for improvement and coach them on what could make their products stronger. Additionally, in having the competition format, the viewers at home can follow the progress of the team's and their inventions throughout the competition, which adds an extra di

What made you decide to join the panel?

As a long-time advocate for small business and entrepreneurs, I'm always eager to participate in initiatives that advance problem solving, innovation and commerce, and support the individuals that are the backbone of our economy. As technology has become democratized, so that it's available and affordable for individuals and small teams of entrepreneurs, inventors, and makers, it is enabling a second industrial revolution that will help meet more consumer and business needs, make our lives better, and create a new set of entrepreneurial
problem-solvers.

How could I not want to be part of a competition that celebrates the very essence of that.

What were the rest of the panel like to work with?

It was a fantastic panel of judges that all brought something different to bear, yet all had a similar set of core values. So, while we didn't always agree, there was a high degree of respect between the judges and many, many laughs along the way too.

Do you have a favourite guest panellist who appeared?

That's like choosing a favourite child! I liked the variety in backgrounds that the different judges brought, so it would be hard to pick a favourite. Kenny Smith was there for the very first pitches and he is on his A-game. Shaq was hilarious and I ended up in tears from laughter during his stint. Mayim Bialik has a PhD in Neuroscience, so she brought some extra insight. Massimo Banzi has a true depth of experience in the "maker" community. And Mike Rowe brings a ton of real-world experience and common sense. They were all a pleasure.

What element does the guest judge add to the panel?

I think that the guest judge does two very important things for the show. One, they bring more of the consumer perspective into the judging. They also give a fresh set of eyes as we progress through the rounds, as after the first round, the permanent judges are already familiar with the products and have some legacy thoughts about the teams and their products and the guest judges get to see the pitch for the first time, so they can judge the pitch "as is" without knowing the baggage and process of earlier rounds.

What are you able to offer the contestants?

I have a broad and deep background in all aspects of business advisory and deal making that spans more than two decades and has accounted for billions of dollars’ worth of transactions and transformational initiatives. I have worked with start-ups and Fortune 500 companies alike, on everything from raising capital to merger and acquisition transactions, joint ventures, licenses and partnership deals and more. I have made investments into and held private stakes in a variety of companies, including a technology company that was acquired by Jawbone. My experience- as well as my very authentic and straightforward personality- gave the contestants feedback on what I thought they needed to both stretch the technology-- and themselves-- to not only win the competition, but to viably bring their products to market.

Is it easy for you to tell those who have taken the show really seriously, from those who were there to just be on TV?

The 24 who competed were all committed makers, but I have a very good read on people and I could definitely tell the couple that may have been "slightly" more enamoured with the TV process, so to speak.

After the finale, is the successful contestant given the support and opportunities to build on the experience gained from the show?

There are so many opportunities for all contestants- not just the winning one- to receive additional support after the show. Not only are the makers connected in a way where they will support each other as a community, but Intel has said they will continue to be a resource. I have also let certain contestants know that once the show airs, that I will be an ongoing resource and may consider investing in one or more of the teams and their products.

Is the prize money for the winning contestant to start them off in their enterprise or for them to use as they choose?

The $1,000,000 prize is given to help the makers with the commercialization of their winning product, but I don't believe there is any contractual obligation for them to use it in a particular manner. I do believe the winner(s) will use the money in that manner.

Are you hoping to inspire the next generation of inventors at home, when viewers finally get to see the show?

The show is inspirational on so many levels. I think it's inspirational to see people who have discovered a problem, set out to find a solution and who won't give up until they do. I think it's inspirational that many of the "makers" are young (several are in high school) and/or had no technology background coming into the competition and how technology has been democratized to the point that anyone at home can use it to
make the world better. Plus, many of the competitors will go on to be successful entrepreneurs, with products that make lives better and create jobs. That is inspirational as well!

How involved were the Intel team on what inventions went through and what didn't?

One of my favourite aspects of the show is its authenticity. The judges' votes entirely decided who went through- there was no outside influence
from Intel or the producers or the network. Obviously Brian Krzanich (Intel's CEO) is one of the judges, so he had a say, but there were times when he was outnumbered and his choice didn't progress.

Lastly, if you could pick the best and worst inventions out there already what would they be and why?

I think you have to blame the people using the invention when it goes bad, right? I mean, some of the best inventions are also the worst inventions in a way because of overuse. The Internet, email, the microwave- they have all made my life much better and much worse at the same time!