This blog post is so awesome and massive that it has to be split in two parts. The first part is pretty much a precursor to the second one. Enjoy. I guess.
For the past two comm101 sessions, we’ve gone over the definition of entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship. All I can say is: Wow, is this hard to define. Essentially what I can gather from the article provided, after digesting it for a few tasty hours, is that entrepreneurship is primarily based on an innovative idea that could potentially lead to a big payout, but with high risks to take. This concept of entrepreneurship can also be subdivided into categories, with social entrepreneurship resulting in a “big payout” in terms of benefitting various aspects of society which are NOT directly correlated with massive profits.
Now, I highly appreciate the idea of entrepreneurship, but I don’t think it’s that simple. Take for example “Silly Bands” discussed in class. Sure, they caught on quick, but I feel that that’s only half the story. Innovative products are only awesome for a short amount of time, and consumers are bound to lose interest after a while if upkeep is not maintained.
View part two for my take on successful firms exhibiting (possibly? surprisingly? discuss.) entrepreneurship.
