Failure, but please call it something else: The new language of losing

Startups pivot, companies rightsize, politicians introspect, and relationships evolve. We still fail; we've simply learnt to hide the wreckage behind respectable euphemisms

Nobody fails anymore. Startups “pivot”, companies “rightsize”, relationships “evolve” and restaurants “reimagine” themselves. Failure has not disappeared; it has merely hired a PR consultant. Corporate euphemisms have escaped the office and colonised ordinary life.

 

You failed an examination, lost a match, watched a shop shut down or saw a marriage break up. There was no strategic reset, no carefully worded announcement. It was simply bad news. You lived with it.

 

Failure now arrives wearing a blazer and insisting this is not the end but “a strategic reset”. A company fires 800 people and calls it “rightsizing”; a product nobody wants is “sunsetted”; a business that has run out of money is “optimising its cash position”. A restaurant with tiny plates and large adjectives has “reimagined the dining experience”.

 

Even getting dumped has undergone a corporate makeover. The couple has “grown in different directions”. Translation: one person stopped replying to WhatsApp messages.

 

Parents no longer say their child failed an exam. The child has “faced an academic setback”. In India, someone who misses the UPSC cutoff is “preparing for another attempt”, while someone who misses a college choice is “taking a drop”. Failure can be given another appointment next year, along with coaching notes and a WhatsApp uncle forwarding Vivekananda before breakfast.

 

Cricket got there before the corporate world. A batsman does not fail; he “fails to convert”. A team loses by 150 runs, and the captain finds “lots of positives”. The scorecard remains factual, which is why nobody asks it to conduct the post-match press conference.

 

Politicians “did not receive the mandate”. Governments “review the outcome”. A candidate loses by 300,000 votes and emerges having “learnt valuable lessons”. In India, even an electoral drubbing becomes a coaching session: “introspection”, “course correction” and, if required, a committee. Failure has not been defeated; it has been sent for consultation.

 

There is something admirable about refusing to treat failure as a permanent verdict. A business can collapse, and its founder can start again. But there is a difference between refusing to be defeated by failure and refusing to admit that you have failed. If every disaster becomes a “learning experience”, the lesson gets lost in the semantics.

 

Consider the startup ecosystem in Bengaluru and Gurugram, where failure has acquired almost spiritual status. The entrepreneur who burns through millions building an app nobody uses is not a failure; he has changed direction. The app becomes a platform, then an ecosystem, then a “stealth venture”, while the investor who once called it revolutionary quietly stops taking your calls. The language changes faster than arithmetic. ~50 crore can evaporate; it has merely become a “learning”. Excel may disagree, but Excel has never raised a Series A. And everyone nods very seriously, as usual.

 

There was a time when an unsuccessful business was simply unsuccessful. It closed, people moved on, and the proprietor found another way to make a living. Today, failure gets a LinkedIn post, a photograph and a confession about vulnerability. “Three years ago, I thought I had it all figured out,” it begins, followed by lessons, grit and the declaration that failure was “the best thing that ever happened”. Nobody asks: what went wrong?

 

Modern life prefers softer edges. We “misspeak” instead of lie, “underperform” instead of fail, “part ways” instead of sack someone and “deprioritise” things we have no intention of doing. We “circle back” when we would rather avoid the conversation. Nobody is fired anymore; the organisation is “restructuring”. The meeting nobody wants to discuss? “Let’s take this offline.” Sooner or later, language becomes camouflage.

 

Perhaps this obsession with rebranding failure tells us something uncomfortable. We are terrified not merely of failing, but of being seen to have failed. Instagram has turned life into a permanent highlight reel; LinkedIn has turned it into an annual general meeting. Everyone is promoted, travelling, marrying, launching, building, healing or “starting a new chapter”. Nobody posts the rejected application, the empty bank account or the big idea that turned out to be claptrap. Even misery now needs flattering light.

 

So we rename the wreckage. Failure has always been part of the human bargain. Writers had manuscripts rejected, athletes lost finals, businesses collapsed, artists produced work nobody understood, and families made mistakes. People got things spectacularly wrong and occasionally got them right. What is new is our determination to give failure a less offensive name.

 

The dignity was never in pretending failure did not happen. It was in surviving it, learning from it and admitting when you had got something badly wrong. I say that with professional caution: I have spent enough years sending copy to editors to know that failure can return from the rewrite desk wearing red ink. A paragraph I sent as a masterpiece can come back looking like it has been arrested. Usually, the editor has a point.

 

Perhaps that is the point. Failure does not need a PR makeover; it needs an honest reckoning. Call the bad match a loss, the empty restaurant a warning, the foolish idea foolish and the rejected copy a lesson in humility. Fix what can be fixed, bin what cannot, and have another go. There is no shame in getting it wrong. We all do. The real embarrassment is spending so long finding a better word for failure that we never admit it.

 

Eye Culture is a weekly column devoted to subjects such as art, dance, music, film, sport, and science