Blog #1

So far the Social Innovation Incubator course has been incredibly interesting to me because my brother and I have always been interested in getting involved in social innovation entrepreneurship at some point. In lecture, there are common misconceptions, that Professor Zak has cleared up from his insight and experience. For example, the analogy of a vitamin vs. an aspirin in terms of solutions to a problem has really stuck with me. I think the goal when designing a solution to a problem is to always have a needed and viable solution, but I had never heard it put in such simple and relatable terms. I have used that analogy in two of my other classes so far to help myself and my team work towards a solution that is directly solving the problem. Another insight from lecture that hit home was that if there is not competition in the solution space that you are working in, it does not mean that it is such a unique solution that it has not been thought of it, but more so, that it is not a good solution because there is no market. That insight was contrary to what I had previously thought, but makes so much sense. I know this is an insight that will guide me in my future endeavors where I would have made a huge mistake without having that simple insight. 

This is not directly social innovation related, but my brother was trying to pitch a social media platform for pets to my dad and I over Christmas break and I was trying to help him see the flaws in the idea, but he was not budging in his idea. Then when I was reading 'How To Get Startup Ideas' by Paul Graham (http://www.paulgraham.com/startupideas.html) for last week's readings, there were these two paragraphs in the reading:

"For example, a social network for pet owners. It doesn't sound obviously mistaken. Millions of people have pets. Often they care a lot about their pets and spend a lot of money on them. Surely many of these people would like a site where they could talk to other pet owners. Not all of them perhaps, but if just 2 or 3 percent were regular visitors, you could have millions of users. You could serve them targeted offers, and maybe charge for premium features.

The danger of an idea like this is that when you run it by your friends with pets, they don't say "I would never use this." They say "Yeah, maybe I could see using something like that." Even when the startup launches, it will sound plausible to a lot of people. They don't want to use it themselves, at least not right now, but they could imagine other people wanting it. Sum that reaction across the entire population, and you have zero users."

Those paragraphs covered the arguments my brother was making and my counterarguments perfectly. I forwarded that article to my brother and my dad immediately and we all realized that a plausible idea does not mean that it is a good idea.

I was reading an article called 'Rediscovering Social Innovation" by James A. Phillis Jr., Kriss Deiglmeier, & Dale T. Miller from the Stanford Social Innovation Review (https://ssir.org/articles/entry/rediscovering_social_innovation), it covers why social innovation is the superior solution to social problems than social entrepreneurship and social enterprise. I was initially interested in the article because that was a topic from the first day of class of how any why those three terms are different. The argument in the article is that social entrepreneurship and social enterprise are more of the means to an end of creating social value which is always done through social innovation. Social entrepreneurship is when patterns and gaps are identified and the people involved are willing to take the risk to bring the ideas to fruition. Social enterprise is delivering the innovation. While the basis and the goal of both is social innovation. Although these terms are relatively new to me, I agree that where the social value lies is where the solution lies and the social entrepreneurship and enterprise bring that value to fruition.