The image of the struggling entrepreneur with much to lose has seemingly dissipated in modern culture—although this is far from reality. Today, entrepreneurs can take advantage of social media to frame their companies as they want others to see it. With the ability to showcase one’s own company—instead of having to rely on impressing journalists or buyers—it is easier to portray it as thriving, energized, and constantly progressing. Indeed, entrepreneurs utilizing social media sites such as Twitter or Instagram can purchase followers, giving the appearance that they are popular and thriving, even if they are still unknown and struggling.
Today’s entrepreneurship, then, can be deceiving. Instagram feeds do not reveal the time, effort, and funding constantly being poured into the company. Moreover, today’s perceptions of entrepreneurship seems to equate already having money with the ability to succeed as an entrepreneur.
Although Jean-Baptiste Say’s portrayal “of the entrepreneur as a rare, exceptionally talented and motivated individual” “continues to frame much of the academic and popular discussion on the subject [of entrepreneurship],” this perception has arguably diminished. (David E. Pozen, We Are All Entrepreneurs Now, Wake Forest Law Review, 283, 288 (2008). Instead, the celebrity influx into entrepreneurship has somewhat chipped away at the idea of the entrepreneur as a “rare” figure.
For example, a blog post entitled “10 Celebrity Entrepreneurs Who Are Changing the Game” states: “Let’s face it: An A-List star  will have a much easier time launching a startup compared with the average Joe. But there are plenty of celebrities-turned-entrepreneurs who have done more than simply tack their names onto an existing company.” See Zoe Henry, 10 Celebrity Entrepreneurs Who Are Changing the Game, Inc., http://www.inc.com/zoe-henry/10-celebrity-entrepreneurs-you-actually-need-to-know.html.
With money, then, one can seemingly “tack on” to another’s bright idea, and profit. Perhaps, as well, they are better suited to assemble a team of colleagues who can help navigate the (perceived) complexities of the law and labor regulation. See Victor Mayer-Schönberger, Entrepreneurial Law, Harvard University, 2–5.
Yet, entrepreneurs are still subject to criticism—even those with the big bucks and famous names. Comparing Blake Lively’s website, Preserve, to Gwyneth Paltrow’s, GOOP, the blog states: “Unlike [Paltrow’s site], Preserve’s ‘social good’ efforts are more concrete; Lively partnered with Covenant House, for instance, donating 5 percent of sale to help provide homeless children with food, clothing, and shelter.” See Henry. (Notably, as well, Blake is portrayed as a more legitimate social entrepreneur.).
This recent development, the “celebritization” of entrepreneurship, continues to expand the image of the “entrepreneur” (despite probably only accounting for a small percentage of entrepreneurs).
Pozen writes: “Theories of entrepreneurship abound, but we have no completely satisfying synthetic account of the practice, and we probably never will.” See Pozen at 285. This sentiment carries with it an exciting, hopeful connotation. It is part of the beauty of entrepreneurship that it is always evolving; as entrepreneurs continue to experiment and innovate, theories of entrepreneurship itself expand (and, in doing so, act as a “bridge” between disciplines, see Pozen at 318).
Indeed, in my opinion, the malleability of entrepreneurship is a reflection of successful entrepreneurs themselves: flexible, adaptable, and never fully finished.