War Bred Innovation
At the very end of his lecture during the question portion, Dr. Russell Sobel remarked that the world would be a much more productive place if we choose to aim our resources at innovation instead of war. Although I understood that his point was more so about ending the conflict which inhibits innovation rather than a direct opposition to war, I would argue that war itself breeds time of necessity which leads to increased innovation. As discussed in the lecture the profit and loss system most greatly breeds innovation and since times of war created plenty of space for profit to be made I would argue that times of conflict are actually one of the world's most inventive times. During World War I when a great portion of the men had left to join the military there was a large gap in the marketplace where once razors were sold to men, this actually led to a shift in the marketing of razors towards women. Razor companies realized that if they did not seek out a new marketing tactic than they would be at a great loss for revenue and thus they began to market razors to women to help them achieve the “nylon look” as trends in women's clothing were beginning to change thus creating space for razor companies to come in and market to women. I think this most closely embodies the broad definition of entrepreneurship that Dr. Sobel gave as it directly exemplifies this “agent of change” mentality.
Where some might not consider this to be true entrepreneurship as the product had already been created and was offered on the market, I would argue that it is because of this change that the beauty industry exploded in a new facet. Makeup, hair products, and nail polish already existed but this new change in beauty standard actually created room for complimentary products to be produced. Now there are razors specifically for women, travel cases for razors, shave gel, shave oil, and a wide variety of other accessory products that never would have been created if it were not for this “agent of change.” This shift in razor marketing also exemplifies creative destruction as when razors became popularized by women suddenly there was little support for the “nylon” industry. A once booming piece of the fashion industry is now rarely purchased and mainly marketed towards the ballet industry where once it was a staple part of every woman's wardrobe with drawers filled with all colors and styles of nylons.
Although this prior example does suggest that innovative discovery is incentivised solely by financial profit, I would argue that this is not always the case as some of our most crucial innovations and pieces of discovery have been incentivised by threat. This can be best exemplified by the creation and wide spread use of The Internet, GPS systems, Canned Food, and Duct Tape. All of these inventions were created in times of war which suggests that their creation was spurred by necessity and an aim to save as many lives as possible. It is in this case that I would suggest that “profit and loss,” should be better defined in regards to entrepreneurship as “profit” does not always mean financial profit as is exemplified by these cases. It is my opinion that discovery absolutely relies on the concept of “profit and loss” however, I would go as far as to argue that each individual case of innovation hinges either on increased profit or mitigation of loss. In this case I would argue that these inventions led to a mitigation of loss as they were essential to war time tactics and survival, I think their creation was much less based on making continual profit and much more on providing necessary equipment in times when there was an active safety threat.
My prior opinion in regards to the definition of entrepreneurship
Dr. Sobel proposed three different definitions of entrepreneurship and although I have been a business student for three years, I realized I have never been asked to think about how I choose to define entrepreneurship. In my past classes the definitions have been much more geared towards the narrow definition of entrepreneurship suggesting that you have to have invented or innovated something in order to be considered a true entrepreneur. Although we have talked about franchising and investing in prior entrepreneurship classes there has always been much more of a push towards creating something brand new in order to be considered an entrepreneur. Our projects have consistently centered around discovery of a new way to use current resources rather than change to the current system. I deeply enjoyed Dr. Sobel’s new perspective that an entrepreneur could be any agent of change and I agree that innovation does not always inherently mean a discovery of something completely new. I am of the personal opinion that as long as you are bringing a new idea to the table in some fashion then you should be considered an entrepreneur. However, when it comes to franchising or working in an industry such as Uber or DoorDash as Dr. Sobel mentioned, I am of the personal belief that you are not considered an entrepreneur but more so an employee of the parent company. Although you may be creating change through the level of your service with Uber or changing the atmosphere of your favorite chain that you franchised you are not creating true enough change industry wide to be considered an entrepreneur. If for nothing else other than the fact that you are bound to the rules and regulations of the company you work under.