Entrepreneurship, Dreams and Family Privilege

What makes an entrepreneur - this question has been thrown up at every accelerator, program and conference I have been to in the past year.

"A person who organises and manages any enterprise, especially a business, usually with considerable initiative and risk." - dictionary.com

In 2012, Forbes wrote an article agreeing with this definition saying that "Entrepreneurs, in the purest sense, are those who identify a need - any need - and fill it.".

Entrepreneurs are changing the world at this very moment, forming the newest technologies and discovering problems that are effecting the lives of communities that haven't even been realised yet. "They are the real money multipliers: the ones who turn $1 of capital into $2..." (Forbes.com).

I have grown up in a family of entrepreneurs and know that these types of people are the ones that really do make the world go round. So when I logged into Facebook today and saw an article with the following title it made my blood boil.

Entrepreneurs don't have a special gene for risk - they come from families with money

To give you a bit of background:

• My maternal Grandfather was on the founding board of Chemmart
• My paternal Grandfather owned a number of successful businesses and franchises
• My Mum is a children's book author for health education activity books and has always worked as a program manager in not-for-profit organisations
• My Dad has been a manager of a number of different hospitality franchises and is a successful teacher with a main part of his job consisting of writing curriculums for new subjects
• I am founder and CEO of not for profit Little Dreamers Australia. 

I have grown up in a family with a can-do attitude. We haven't always had a lot of money saved but that hasn't stopped us from changing the world.

Reading through the article published on Quartz, part of atlantic media, a digitally native news outlet for the new global economy, an online publication with over 550k followers I found a number of good points however the underlying message got under my skin. 

The article mentions that resilience is necessary (as seen by a number of entrepreneurs who have failed first and succeeded later) - a definite trait that comes up in every entrepreneurial discussion group. It also states that risk-taking in the stock market saw environmental factors most influenced behaviour pointing out that risk tolerance is conditioned over time - also agreed upon by many entrepreneurs...entrepreneurship is typically nurtured by those you're surrounded by. 

However, this is where my agreements with the article stop. I am completely of the opinion that entrepreneurs need some amount of money to get their ideas off the ground but for this money to have to come from "family money, an inheritance or a pedigree" is an assumption I can't stand. Connections are important in the world of entrepreneurship - but in today's world the internet and various social media channels including LinkedIn have made connections a lot easier to generate than those that come from family privilege.

Ross Levine from University of California, Berkeley says that "if one does not have money in the form of a family with money, the chances of becoming an entrepreneur drop quite a bit". I think this is a gross assumption that is based on the Bill Gates of the world. Sophia Amoruso, Nasty Gal is one of the most incredible entrepreneurs I know of and she definitely did not come from a cushy life with family money to set up her multi-million dollar fashion house. 

Finally, a 31-year-old woman who runs in social entrepreneurship circles in New York (who asked not to be named) says "Following your dreams is dangerous, this whole bulk of the population is being seduced into thinking that they can just go out and pursue their dreams anytime, but it's not true". So Ms. No Name - why isn't it true? Why shouldn't people be following their dreams? I had a dream when I was 9 years old to change the lives of people who have been put into the position of caring for an unwell parent or sibling. By simply following this dream I have raised over $50,000, supported over 100 Young Carers and begun to bring this issue into the minds of the Australian public. I will continue to do this with family privilege or not. 

Although some of the entrepreneurs that I know may have access to family wealth, not all do - I definitely didn't. What I did possess was a passion for helping others, a hardworking persona and a drive that hasn't wavered come rain, hail or shine. 

In 2016 I would love nothing more than to see entrepreneurs, especially young entrepreneurs, prove that family privilege is not the primary source of success.

MB

You don't need to come from a privileged family to make a difference.
My Mum, Dad and I at the Victorian Volunteers Award 2015.

We're back. Spin free.

Gruen made a comeback today - and my lord did it live up to its pre-show advertising.

Ironically (and definitely on purpose), the marketing for this shows return was sarcastic and right on brand. Promoting episode 1 of season 7, Gruen focused on making jokes about its TV sabbatical and promoting that the show is back spin free. This weeks episode focused on two main topics - pet food and the ice epidemic. One is definitely very topical and the other brings up interesting discussion on how to sell a concept or action to non-users. Do you know which one is which?

Pet food
Pet food advertising is interesting as you are trying to sell a product to a consumer that won't consume the product. This is done in many different industries where the main purchaser is not the main user (e.g. men's skincare, anti-acne products, gift cards) but pet food is not one that I had given much thought to before. Russell pointed out that pet food falls into the FMCG category, one that requires a really innovative marketing brain to sell as it isn't a sexy product but one that is required on a daily basis.

There were a number of ads shown tonight but the panel decided to focus on two:
1) Whiskas - feed your cats inquisitive nature
Wil Anderson made a good point, since when was curiosity good for a cat? Russell Howcroft was quite fond of this ad, saying that giving the animal human emotions was a great selling point, helping to make the purchase decision easier as you are feeding another "human". Todd however wasn't so convinced. Both panel guests, Dee Madigan (Madcom) and Lauren Fried (Pulse Marketing Group) made valuable points about the qualities being put onto the cat, saying that voice over showing the cats thoughts are useful in the purchasing decision.

Watch the commercial here

2) Sheba Cat Food - Christina Hendricks
The Mad Men alum made an appearance in this commercial, aiming to make cat food a sexy purchase. How appealing did this make the cat food look though? According to the panel tonight, not very appealing! Russell was convinced that Hendricks was an independent woman showing that cat food can be an empowering purchase however Wil pointed out a major flaw in the commercial - who opens up cat food that well, and in such a pretty dress just before a date? Todd was taken aback by the actual meaning of the ad - seeing it originally as a take on a Mad Men inspired 60s commercial showing that if the woman behaves then she will be fed, much like if the cat behaves they will be fed better. Ultimately, the ad is quite disappointing as we all know that Hendricks is much better than an attempt at a sexy cat commercial. Imagine if a man "meowed" at the end of a commercial!2) Sheba Cat Food - Christina Hendricks

Watch the commercial here

After the in-depth cat food conversation that went on for majority of the show (yes the question of why there is always only 1 cat in commercials but many dogs - apparently dogs are just more social animals - who would have thought?!) the show moved onto the Ice Epidemic sweeping the country.

A very topical point of conversation - Gruen pointed out that drugs are not a product that should be shown on advertisements. Why? Evidence has shown that advertising helps to sell a product that people sometimes don't know they want yet. Previous advertising where drugs have been shown have been found to make people more curious about trying the drug rather than avoiding it. The current campaign advertising is a remake of the Ice ad from a number of years ago, keeping the same target market - the family and friends of the drug user - with the aim of helping to show them how to help stop the user and what signs to watch out for. The question is - why doesn't the ad give you net steps or an action that you should take following watching this? If I knew someone who was an Ice addict or I wanted more information or if I was scared for my family member - what would I do? what steps should I take? I was always taught that an advertisement should have a call to action at the end of it - either to induce purchase intent or to find out more information - so why is this campaign an exception to that?

All in all - Gruen's first episode for Season 7 was definitely worth the 2 year wait!! As a self-professed marketing nerd I am very happy to have the boys back on air each week tearing apart the commercials that make people act. Good job ABC.