Some (most) of the success stories I've seen lately make my blood boil.

Some person will be held aloft as some kind of knight in shinning armour to the struggling masses of entrepreneurs. And yet, in reality, this person is not an entrepreneur at all. All they are is a lottery winner.

Do you remember Poppy King... the young "entrepreneur" who came from obscurity into the cosmetic limelight?

Fraud. Her parents funded everything and used all the contacts THEY already had in business. She did bugger all to make Poppy happen.

Calvin Klein? Borrows $100,000 from a friend to start. Um, well excuse me, but what's that in today's money? $1M? $2M? And he borrows that from a friend? A friend who is a business partner. So this guy was already successful and lends the equivalent of over a million dollars and does nothing? I think not.

I like reading Ben Suarez's story, bar one part. That part? Where he gets $80,000 worth of free advertising because the ad agency will fund it.

Heard of FUBU clothing label? They started off making their gear in the basement of their house. I love the story of their beginning. But what made them take off was having Ivander Hollyfield wear one of their t-shirts. How did that come about? They sent him a t-shirt. So the question then is, out of all the hundreds (maybe thousands) of companies who sent him t-shirts, why wear the FUBU one? Obviously he liked it and so wore it. But why FUBU in particular?

There'll be some "successful internet entrepreneurs" show. And the show will be about some twenty something person who's the CEO of some 100 million dollar dot com. And there'll be much rejoicing. Question? How did that come about? Oh, mum and dad just happened to have a whole bunch of "connections" and.... well... tell me no more.

All I'm saying is... I don't like seeing someone heralded as a brilliant entrepreneur when their success was either like winning the lottery and had nothing intrinsically to do with them. Or, those who are "heads" under someone else's (mum, dad, already established successful businessman, etc.) expertise.

Do something based on your experience, fine. Work some wonderful deal to do with something, fine. Come from nothing to be a roaring success, fine.

But be a "silver spoon" success, then not fine. That's not what I call true entrepreneurialism.

I like to see the story of the guy who did it all. The one who got off their butt and made it happen.

Something like,

Some guy loses his job, goes and starts a "paint house numbers on gutters" business. Then takes the profits from that and invests them into something else and makes a success of that. And so on.

Okay, so this may come across as a sort of bitterness. It's not. I don't begrudge success not matter what the reasons. But I appreciate true talent. And am sick and tired of talentless people being held aloft as something to aspire to.

Take ELO... they wrote the songs, wrote the music and sang the songs. Heck, Lynn even learned to be a producer. THAT is talent in my eyes.

Some put-together band of people with no singing talent, who are handed songs to sing and whose voices are modified during recording, is not talent.

Form a strategic alliance and leverage from that, fine. You're an entrepreneur. But to take credit for, or be given credit for, things that are not a result of your entrepreneurial spirit, then not fine.

Think Kerry Packer... the media mogul. Sure he's a success. But didn't he inherit the newspapers his father already owned?

I like to read about success which came about from creative-intelligence and not already established nepotism, or flukes that can't be duplicated.

Why?

Because most people don't have those same nepotistic contacts and most people don't win the lottery.

I'm reminded of something I read on a screenwriting website. The site's owner was discussing some of the workshops other writers put on and ran this scenario...

Someone in the audience asks, "So how did you get Steven Spielberg to become involved in your movie idea?"

And the writer says something like, "I was on the backlot at Warner Bros and just bumped into him. We got to talking. One thing lead to another and I gave him a copy of the script I always carry around."

The above sounds good, right? But as the site's owner says... HOW did this writer get onto the backlot in the first place??? It's a situation most other aspiring screenwriters cannot duplicate until after they're a success.

I want to read the story of the guy who starts with $2,000 of his own money and no more. Not the guy who starts with $2,000 and then borrows $100,000 from friends and relatives.

I want to read the story of the guy who comes up with an idea, goes out and forms a strategic alliance and then succeeds. Not the guy who uses already established nepotism, either formed from previous success or parents, to forge ahead.

I want to hear stories like those of Ita Buttrose - starts as the coffee girl come gofer and works her way up the ladder one rung at a time to be the head. Not the one who is given the head job because of a friend of a friend or because the parents own the thing.

Sure I like reading about the guy who bought a $50,000 business and turned it into a million dollar business within 12 months. But, where did the spare $50,000 come from in the first place?

If the spare $50,000 came from real-state profits after a sale, then how did the initial purchase come about?

Was it a "no money down" deal? Was the purchase price funded from retirement lumpsum payments from a previous job? Was it inherited? Can someone else do the same thing?

That's what it really comes down to... can someone else do the same thing? Is it able to be duplicated if someone else sets their mind to it?

All passed on knowledge is valuable. And I do enjoy reading about the exploits of successful people even if their success can't be duplicated by others (like Donald Trump who grew up in the construction business for example). But for mine, the true entrepreneurial underdog is what I enjoy reading about the most.

HA! Migrant Success. :o)

Michael Ross.