[mxh]

A bit o/t, but I hereby nominate 'serial', as applied to 'entrepreneur' and/or 'founder', as the most pointless, irritating, and obnoxious word of 2007.

You don't describe someone who works a bunch of jobs as a 'serial employee'. You don't describe an athlete who competes in successive Olympics as a 'serial Olympian'. Etc.

This 'serial' business is nothing more than noise and puffery. 'Entrepreneur' tells me something, though not much. 'Successful entrepreneur' tells me a tiny, tiny bit more. 'Serial entrepreneur' tells me someone is a self-promoting git.

I even saw this term applied to PG in an article some weeks ago. Considering that PG has repeatedly written that a startup is kinda stressful, and something he'd be very reluctant to do again, I think that marked the time the term slipped into complete meaninglessness for me. (Note that PG didn't refer to himself that way, 'twas the idiot writer/reporter.)

Let's drop the adjective, and shun those who use it.

/rant

[aston]

The adjective's fine. It's supposed to be used in the same sense you'd use "serial killer" or "serial drinker," as in, someone who continually engages in some vice. It's a bit tongue-in-cheek, since there's really nothing wrong with starting companies, which makes it even more enjoyable to use.

I do oppose its misuse, however. PG's clearly not one, having only done one startup. These guys actually are, though.

[reitzensteinm]

Well, the reason why it applies to entreprenuers but not employees is because a successful entreprenuer can presumably quit after their first success.

I think the term is appropriate and descriptive if it's used in the context of someone who's successful and doesn't have to go back and do it again but does anyway. That tells you something.

I agree though, its use today is something akin to the word 'synergy' or 'web 2.0' - i.e. repeated misuse in inappropriate contexts makes the term dilute to the point where it basically means both everything and nothing at the same time.

[rrival]

Thank you! I completely agree. It is especially obnoxious when self-ascribed by very young (<25) entrepreneurs.