- Share your favorite videos with friends
- Comment on videos and join the conversation
- Get personalized recommendations
- Enjoy exclusive offers
Purchased a FORA.tv video on another website? Login here with the temporary account credentials included in your receipt.
Sign up today to receive our weekly newsletter and special announcements.
First of all, I just wanted to thank you so much for being here and ask you to join me and thanking the Google catering team and wait staff. And also last night and you all got gifts from Pangea. And Pangea is a project of the International Finance Cooperation that invests in social enterprises through out the developing the world. I know the gift on my chair came from Cambodia. It ended up being a neck-tie that Larry Page actually wore for about 10 minutes, the longest time that Larry Page has ever been clocked in as wearing a neck-tie, as far as we know. So we also, I just want to know that there is the Arts and Crafts Center in Armenia, thanks these is the Susy Antounian who provided the beautiful center pieces that the flowers are in on your table. So I thought you would enjoy those as well. Now we want to know how we were doing. So we want your feedback through out and there are two ways to provide feedback for us. One is the quick feedback, right on your table are little sheets of paper where you can give us just quick ideas, quick reactions give them to a member of the Global Philanthropy team or else put them in one of the boxes that are distributed around. They will guide us, this kind of feedback helps us make mid-course corrections. So it guides us on the spot but it also provides us net opportunities or ideas for next year. The other opportunity for feedback is that in your - in the back of your programs you will find questionnaires, surveys. One of the wonderful things about global philanthropy members is they feel in their questionnaires and their surveys. And the reason they do that, we urge you to meet last year's extraordinary returns. In fact try to beat last year and the number of surveys back is that the answers you provide us guide next year's program. They got to use and we really we really welcome that kind of help. Now to thank you for providing us that feedback, we've got a special treat for you this afternoon and that is that Plenary 7 you are going to hear the music of my favorite voice, Angelique Kidjo and what we are going to do is ask you to stay seated after Plenary 7 while we set up the drums et cetera for Angelique's performance and the reason you or you could stand but we asked you to stay in the room and the reason for that is that outside chaos will rain because we will be in the process of setting up for this - Meet the Social Entrepreneurs segment which you are all going to enjoy this evening. So we will ask you to stay in the room after Plenary 7. Now I am going to ask and also, of course, then to enjoy the Meet the Social Entrepreneurs Segment. So I am going to ask Steve and Jean Case to come up on stage and join - join me. These are two entrepreneurs from the private sector who decided to be entrepreneurs in philanthropy as well. Join me in welcoming them. Now Jean started by saying now feel free to ask Steve the first question. I have no intention of doing so. I am going to show gender buyers just absolutely, you know, without without shame and ask you what are the qualities Jean that you found as an entrepreneur, that you found useful in applying to the task of philanthropy and social change in this manner? Sure. Well first of all thank you Jane for having us. It's a wonderful opportunity to be here with all of you. That's a question we could probably throw out to the audience and have it answered too but I will try and do the best job I can, we have many great entrepreneurs in the audience and certainly that's been our background as well. I think some of the key qualities that we see from entrepreneurs, a passion, a conviction, a sense of urgency in what they are trying to take forward. Focus on action and they are usually very, very results oriented and when you think about the things we are talking about at this conference, all of those things can be used in more supply I think in addressing the sort of key social issues of our day. And when you were, Steve when you were both at AOL, did you approach AOL as a mission driven organization? Oh, absolutely. For AOL we got started in 1985, but I first got interested in interactive services in the late 70s and so I always believed even though by the time we got started because I was a little crazy, they didn't imagine the success of the Googles and the other companies today because most people did not have personal computers and the few people that did have personal computers did not have modems and that most of the personal computers companies didn't believe it made a sense to put a modem in a computer because what would you do with it, you know, real people have no interest in this, you know, whacky hobbyist, you know, computer stuff. So it was always, you know, we are certainly, we are building a business. We some day hope they would be successful and valuable but it was much more driven by a passion about, you know, the possibilities of this new interactive frontier and the idea that we if we got enough people online, it would kind to lower the barriers to the entry and you know, you didn't have to own a printing press to be a publisher, you didn't have to own a TV, a satellite to be broadcaster, everybody could participate. So it was always a very mission driven, passion driven idea that happened to be wrapped in a for-profit enterprise and one of the things we have we have learnt over the past decade trying different things is there is a lot of commonality between those those concepts. Sometimes the things you are pursing may make sense to do through a more grant centric philanthropic prism, sometimes it may make sense to do it through a more for-profit venture backed kind of a prism and often there is a mix. Something something in the middle. It really depends on the idea you are pursuing and it depends on your interest and expertise but underlying all of them is the idea that there is some, you know, some passion, some mission that really is driving this forward. And that's very much of the theme with this conference is the range from grants to to a mission investing. So, but but back to just the entrepreneurial skills Jean, one of the one of the things an entrepreneur has to have is a willingness to take huge risks and to fail and to pick themselves up, dust themselves off and try again. Is that true in philanthropy too? Yeah I definitely think its true and, you know philanthropy and particularly the non-profit world as we have heard time and time again at this conference doesn't have the traditional capital structures that are needed to really drive great opportunities forward and we do see almost a different view of risk in the philanthropic world. Traditionally there has been a sense that, you know, an unwillingness to take great risk but, you know, we are seeing some some real seeds planted and blossoming now in some of the early investments particularly for social entrepreneur. We heard about a bunch of them in some earlier sessions this morning but the bottom line I think if you you are not two different people. When you are in business you are the same person you are, I think when you are trying to conduct your philanthropy and its I think important to bring the same principles to that and its not necessary to have a different expectation or avoidance of risks than you might have in the business that made you successful and gave you the resources to go forward in philanthropy. It has been a big emphasis of - of course, of late on measuring results. On ensuring results measuring measuring the return. I am wondering is there is there a balance, is there a time sometimes when we get - become so focused on demonstrating results that we are unwilling to take that that leap to make that risk and do we fall into the trap of doing only that which is clearly measurable sometimes? Yeah, but this is true in the in the business world too. I mean, there are some parallels here. Some of them you know good, maybe some not so good. You know, I'd say that the business world right now one of the concerns many have and I share it is that its too short-term oriented. There is such a quarterly results, I mean, results metric oriented focused that it is more difficult for companies particularly when they are public to be able to make longer term investments which is why there has been such a shift towards more private equity and then may we can, you make investments more in the context of a of a private companies so that - that some of the critics of some of the not-for-profit enterprise they are not, you know, metric enough driven, I think that's true but it you could also apply that critic to many companies that are too metric driven particularly when the metrics are inevitably about short term financial results. So I think in both cases there it's a it's a matter of balance making the right kind of investments, so you are showing progress. I think one of the things that, you know, is helpful is to have clear metrics that people can hold you accountable for and capital chases, good ideas back by good people who are showing good results and its harder to see that kind of results often in a not-profit sector, because the measurements, the metrics aren't as clear but at the same time it's not simply taking the easy route to short term performance and potentially seeding some of the longer term, you know, possibilities. So I think there is kind of lessons to be learned on on both sides. Yeah, that's right. Yeah, I think I'd add to that. I mean, some of it is, you know, impact and measurement no question and I think, all would agree more of that is needed in the space but some of it is really just an issue of focus or what we might call mission [0:10:26]____ you know, if you don't have clear focus around what you are there to do or that focus starts to blur or it gets, you know, bigger and bigger and bigger to where you are really out of line with what you started to do, chances are you are not going to have the impact that you started with and we do see that as kind of a critical issue and often the thing that concerns donors and rightfully so, or it concerns investors. So I think it's, you know, some of it is measuring impact and but a lot of it really is just about maintaining a very clear focus. But Jean the foundation that you run, the Case Foundation provides its grantees much more than money. Do you help with business plans, do you help develop the metrics tell us what more it provides to the grantees? Sure and it's tied a little bit to your question on metrics. I mean, metrics can be about a lot of different things right, as long as you have the focus so you know what you are looking for in the investment you are making, that's the key and because we have spend a lot of our investment of time and money at the Foundation trying to help organizations scale, sustain themselves, building new business models that can be productive for them in the long term. The measurements we are looking for are not necessarily sort of you know, end-user measurements, if you will, or end impact measurements. They are really more about did we help strengthen that organization or did we leave that organization in a stronger place to go forward than when we first came into it. But no question a big part of what we have decided is where we can play role and it was the need where we have felt there was a comfortable slot press to fit into was to take the same talents, the same skills and the same resources that worked for us in the business world and see if we might make them available to the non-profit sector as well as the social entrepreneurs and so that's where we spend a lot of our time and effort. One of the things we learned last night was that Larry Page devotes any long vacations that he has to go into the developing world and learning more about the kinds of problems he hopes to to solve. Have each of you ended up spending a lot more time in the developing world than you might have done a decade ago? That's right. So our Foundation is 10-years-old and for about the first five years we largely just did things on the domestic front. But we knew that we would ultimately go into the international markets or into the developing world but just like we did at AOL, we felt like we kind to had to cut our teeth domestically doing this work before we could go out to the broader and somewhat harder and more confusing world of the developing world. So we started to get into this work about five years ago. We have participated in some things in the Middle East and in Africa particularly. Our largest initiative today is the clean water initiative in Africa. It really has what we call sort of the tenets of what we like and where we think we can uniquely play a role and that is that our foundation as I always said has been focused on leadership collaboration and entrepreneurship and in this clean water initiative we have, we discovered it in South Africa, it won the World Bank's program in 2000 on innovation. It beat out 1500 other contestants. So it had been in our sights for a while and we went and looked out it in the field a few years ago in South Africa and there were 700 of these interventions at the time and it's a child's merry go round. [0:13:56] [audio break] Hello. I will explain what it is, it's a child's merry-go-round and the way it works. Tell me when you I will keep going. Well it's a - it's basically the idea is to put a merry-go-round on top of a bore hole. And when the kids go out and play and they spin the merry go round, it pumps water. They then store that water in a built tank but they then sell the ads, billboard adds around the tank which provides a recurring revenue stream and also a reason to go back to that village periodically to change the ads but also to make sure that the water system is working. So it seemed like a great idea that been have been working out for a decade in South Africa. We say well, how do we take this to scale more broadly and our goal now is to get this to 10 million people in 2500 villages by 2010. We think that plan, given the track record of the past decade, is durable and the core business model going back to your your point of metrics is because they had a track record here it's pretty clear what it cost to install a pump and pretty clear how many people on average would be served by it. So this initiative that we're leading is basically $60 million effort that will get water to 10 million people in three years. $6 per person for water seems like a pretty good return on investment when you know, if you go to your your mini bar in your hotel tonight you will probably pay $6 for you know, a bottle of water. But it was a proven idea that we thought it was very creative in terms of how it was leveraging, you know, simple technologies in this case, a merry-go-round essentially as a wind mill on it's side. So as you spin it around it you could generate energy and in this case it can pump water and it's telling all the kids and often it's the the girls you know, go walk two miles and don't go to school that we need some water. Now you can tell me go outside and play. We need we need more water now and you need to play some more it seems like lot you know, a better way to do it. But mirroring that with the the storage idea and billboard idea we just thought was terrific. So it was a it was a perfect example of something that we felt that if we put more, you know, capital but also assemble a team of people in terms of some of the expertise and we got other people interested in joining us in this in this effort we can take that idea to scale and we are pleased to be part of it. Now this Jean now that you have got to handheld mike, and we know that you are going to project this this is public private partnership. And tell us something about your views of of partnerships as an approach and also what are the complexities of or how do you do deal with the power and balances etcetera? What are the complexities associated with helping to forge such a partnership. Sure well I think it seems pretty obvious that if we are going to solve the great social challenges of our day, it's going to take all of this pulling together and I think traditionally sectors have looked at problems from within their sector lens. So certainly we did this in business, more or so. If you are sitting in a business, you think well what can business bring to this or even what can my company bring to this? If you are sitting in the non-profit sector you are kind to looking at the world from that lens and if you are in government you are thinking the same way. But you know what we believe strongly is that these cross sector opportunities exist in a really big way for everyone to have an appropriate role. So in the clean water initiative, for instance, as many of you know the the administration has an historic commitment to Africa for HIV AIDS. A large investment for about 13 countries in Africa. When we were there, we witnessed not only children, young girls who weren't able to go to school because they had to wait to go retrieve the water before they were allowed to go to school. We went to HIV clinics and saw it very clearly that we had invested in HIV therapies, but the water people were using to drink those therapies with was dirty water and was killing them. And that doesn't really seem too smart. Does it? So we came back and we had conversations and similarly our government built schools in Africa. But when they build the schools, they leave it up to the governments to provide the water supply and the water simply isn't there. So the food stuffs that are there at the school can't be made because there is no water to prepare the food. So there were several examples of where the government was making, in many cases historic investments in the very areas we all care about, but there was something missing, some sort of plug and role if you will, that didn't allow it to be fully leveraged. So when we came back with this commitment to go forward with the clean water initiative, the first thing we did we sat with the US government and said, "So we love what's happening. We are very excited by what's happening with US government investments and we would like a private sector initiative to ride alongside to really drive that and fully leverage it and reach more people." So and now we have partnerships with other non profit organizations throughout Africa who are doing similar things at our same site. So investing sanitation, hand washing, training etcetera. Things that so you provide almost a hub and spoke opportunity if you will. But it's an opportunity for the private sector for the non-profit sector, and the government to play a role and we just think these cross sector ways of looking at things are where the really big opportunities will come from. Well it's interesting about play pumps as an example is that the idea came from Africa. It was lead how important is that? That's critical and Jane thank you for reminding me of that. Because it's a technology that was invented in Africa for Africans and the manufacturing and distribution takes place in Africa. So really what the private sector in the US is doing is really coming along as a champion and helping to really drive it forward by bringing additional resources. But this was invented in Africa for Africans. So it's not something we are throwing over to that continent and saying, you know, isn't this great. It's something Africans determined they needed and wanted and we're just helping them take it to the next level. It also highlights and we have seen some of this some of the people attending this the importance of building bridges between these worlds because one of the founders of play pumps used to be in the advertising business. So he said, billboards, I am not sure most of us necessarily would have said, well lets build this water system and you know, create a storage tank and lets put billboards on that would - will sell ads on the on the water tanks, but he had that perspective. And for us that was one of the breakthrough aspects of it because it did provide a recurring revenue stream, as I said earlier, reason to come back and make sure that the system is working which is often a problem with these projects. They are installed and then whatever reason a few years later they are not working but you know, nobody is back there to check on it. We were talking earlier over lunch about - connecting the customer to the possibility of philanthropy, the customer to the opportunity for social change. Say a word about that as the general matter the kinds of changes that you are seeing out there with Product Red even with the American Idol. Right. All right we are delighted to see more of main stream applications of - you know, kind of hitting people where are they when they turn on the television or when they are shopping at a store, because again blurring the lines between these worlds we think is one of the real real opportunities. So we we salute the folks at American Idol who are now making, you know, as part of the show it's you know, the top rated show in the country. Every week talking a little bit about American Idol giving back and I think in a couple of weeks now, having the show that's dedicated, the ad-raising money partly from the corporate sector but also encouraging people to give and just as importantly shining a spot light on on some of those issues, of people who are sitting there and trying to decide do they vote for LaKisha or Sanjaya or what have you. You know, also you know, are being educated about some challenges in this case in Africa. And they give an opportunity to do something that otherwise they wouldn't or a Project Red I think it's a it's a great example of gamblering the lines to get you know, companies to create products that can generate a recurrent revenue stream that provides a a level of sustainability in terms of investment which is one of the things you know, for-profit businesses often are better able to do. It's not a new idea that girl scouts have been doing it for a century. National Geographic has been doing it for a century and they started with the goal educating people about the world. But instead they are just having it done through the prism of philanthropic initiative. They created a magazine and a membership and then over time you know, television channels and other kinds of things. And now it's a billion dollar business that is doing a far, far more profound job of educating the people about the world because of those other business initiatives. So trying to encourage that kind of integration is important and looking for opportunities to really touch consumers you know, and where they live and and where they are having experiences, we think is very profound. I I have to just tell you how impressed Jean looked, when she found out that you knew who were the finalists of the American idol. I was seeking he has given it a way, we were watching. All right we do have I actually enjoy it. I think it's a lot of fun. We also have five kids and they are pretty interested in it and so we were all we were all familiar on the whole Sanjay phenomena. We would like to ask questions about that, I would be happy to give you our opinion? We will make sure to report back to your kids that you are ready to field those questions. I should note that Richard Curtis from Comic Relief will be speaking tomorrow and it was Richard's idea to go to common relief - the American Idol I mean, not to Comic Relief. And inspire them to use this as an opportunity to spread the word to a much wider audience. So yet another social entrepreneur at work. When you look at something like that Jean, when you are you are going to have to be measuring the impact in a long term. But how important is broadening philanthropy itself in that way? Yeah, I think it's huge. This issue of recognizing that the greatest power we can tap into is consumer and business spending. You know it's it's a big idea. And these are you know, some of the first efforts that we are seeing, we have traditionally seen some that Steve mentioned as well but we think it's an idea whose time has come. But I think to get there, I told Jane earlier today that I came back from Europe last week and when I was going through customs, the woman said, "What was your purpose of your travel to Europe?" and I said philanthropy. She said, "What?" And I said, "Philanthropy." and she said, "What?" She said, "What's philanthropy?" And our kids have asked us the same question. You know, we talk in the space in a language that the average person doesn't understand. Even if you have been educated in this nation there are - we still use words and phrases you would never use them in consumer marketing. It's not how you talk to people if you were really trying to get them to buy your product or become aware of what you are trying to do? So I think there is a whole language set in a whole way of looking at where we are telling our story and who we're trying to reach. That just needs to change for, you know, this true potential to fully be tapped. And it's something I think we're committed to do and looking at ways so we can partner with others around new initiatives that will really aim to do just that and tap some of the trends around social networking, some of the technology revolutions we are seeing still taking place in this day. And language is just one of the barriers to to the process of blending the private and the social sector. Say something Steve about you have done a lot of public speaking about the importance of taking Philanthropy beyond Philanthropy 1.0 and Judith Rodden started our conference on that topic. Say something about what Philanthropy would look like if you succeed in your advocacy. Well I think, I think for the reason Jean said, maybe 20 years from now that's there is a different word for it. It's more about giving or helping or what have you and less institutional but it's more having these blurred lines between the so-called businesses and the so-called philanthropic organizations. And that's where the biggest opportunity is. I they asked me ten years ago, I said well, the way it kind of works here as if your you know entrepreneurially started company and it's you know, you are lucky enough to be successful and at some point that company should create a foundation. You know, do some things that's you know, to supplement what they are doing and at some point you made a lot of money personally. You probably should create your own foundation, do some things privately which is sort of what we did. You know, AOL started up and we had AOL Foundation and we had a Case Foundation and I think that's been terrific and the kind of things we have been able to do with the reach of those, I think, been constructive. But having a more integrated view of it seems - seems to be the you know, the better answer and not simply creating a foundation within too many companies as sort of little bit of a silo with some people off on the on the side with some sort of - you know, often somewhat limited budget just trying to do some some interesting things. You know, it really should be more core - built into the company's mission and the company's core businesses should be looking at ways to to drive that that forward. American Idol happens to be a current example of that, it's not something of on the side with the American Idol Foundation. It's American Idol gives back front and center to 40 million people every week. And so to looking at ways to try to to get the most from each of these and there is a role to be made through through private contribution sometimes. It doesn't make sense for the company to take the role directly, given the nature of the issue of the amount of capital it has and people doing it more privately, I think I think make sense. But in the long run, you know, blurring reliance between those worlds we think is going to be helpful and ultimately it comes down to what are you trying to change. What impact are you trying to achieve? And what's the best way to achieve that impact? And in some cases it will be through this prism, and some cases would be through that prism. And many cases it will be through more of a integrated hybrid prism. So it's less about make the money over here and throw it over the wall and you will try to you know, give back and more trying to kind of live it and breath it every day in a more integrated kind of way. I am really using whatever tools are in the arsenal, sometimes it's a hammer and sometimes it's a saw and sometimes it's you know, something else to to have the kind of impact you are hoping to achieve. And we are seeing a lot of that in the information technology space and obviously in the health space, I mean, big pharmaceuticals and providing vaccines and treatments for the diseases of the poor. But what's happening in the financial community. When Goldman Sachs makes makes the environment part of a of a deal, are you starting to see a real shift in the world of finance as well? Well I think it's a broader corporate shift. I wouldn't limit it to finance. And I think it's driven by a recognition that people want to do businesses with companies and work for companies that have more than just this quarterly's profit target in mind. There is there is a purpose to it, a mission to it or some kind of calling to it and in a global battle for talent attracting people who want to be part of that effort is very important and a global battle for customers having people want to do business with their company obviously the court benefits of the product or service, your product have to be have to be there as well. But there is something more that the company stands for. I think there was a recognition that we are moving into that, here and sort of the next, you know, wave of capitalism, if you will, will have that aspect to it. And I think you know, savvier companies are trying to get in front of that. And and really take positive steps. I think a lot of it is because they really do believe it themselves. It's not is not just opportunistic but there are some aspect that also is recognizing that's that's where the puck is going. We'd better Wayne Gretzky was a great hockey player, not because he looked at where the puck was, he looked at where the puck is going and the puck is going in the business world towards this, you know, companies doing more than just making money. Jean you had as part of your strategy funding, the foundation strategy funding hybrid models. Play Pumps being an example, is Kick Start also an example of hybrid? Yeah KickStart a good example of the hybrid model. KickStart for those of you that are not familiar with it is an effort again, largely in Africa, focused in Africa. They are pumps that are affordable to small African farmers, that are irrigation pumps and it's almost like a treadle pump is what's called what's the exercise machine that we use that does that. I can't think the name of it right now. Stair master. Stair stepper. Stair stepper, yes. Like a stair stepper that you stand on and it irrigates. If you have a hectare of land and now you have an opportunity to irrigate that land. Suddenly you can get lot more, sell that products and get two hectares of land. So it's really taking economic development kind of, to a new scale across Africa with those small intervention on farms. That's another hybrid model and what we loved about that was they are selling to small farmers, they feel, you know, they will save all of their family's meager and meager earnings for a long, long time to buy this pump. The whole family will use it often. Your cousin will take it when you are not using it and then your neighbors is going to, you know, pay it to use it on Saturday and it's a way that we're seeing some real economic development progress happen. Someone said in an earlier session you really shouldn't always be so focused on the millions and millions that you need to get to in scale that there are some small opportunities. This started as a small opportunity but we're seeing it really sort of take hold across Africa and we are very excited by that but this idea of the blended model is something again in terms of just, you know, big ideas getting out of that old way of thinking that, you know, today you are doing philanthropy so you do these things and tomorrow you are doing business, but asking what are you core assets and skills. If American Idol had formed the American Idol Foundation and it sat off to this side they were, you know, anybody want to donate to us. They wouldn't have nearly had the impact of taking their core competency. What are they good at, their strategic assets and applying them in this space. So I think, you know, that's the blended world and Steve's new company is a great example of the blended world as well. I mean, in that particular situation he is focused on health care that could have been a foundation initiative but it probably wouldn't have been very successful as a foundation initiative. We are thinking that the best bet is to make that a for-profit bet to address the healthcare needs. Another example of sort of how we view this blended world. I will return to you and ask you about revolution but first - StairMaster remind that when I when I was in a policy world of Washington DC they always used to say that StairMaster was the ultimate Washington exercise thing. It was a stair way climbing to now where. And so it's compared to all process. So here is an example of something that is a climbing to a social change but tell us about about revolution because here is an example of putting a company to the service of a social objective. Yeah it was a mix of things coming together. I started this about three years ago with the idea that there is always going to be things that are best on through Case Foundation for example, in healthcare one thing we are doing, not many of you knew my brother, Dan who was an investment banker here and took a lot of companies public and he died from a brain cancer about five years ago and so we funded a not-for-profit initiative called accelerate brain cancer cure to look for therapies and drive more collaboration and innovation in that space and we feel like we were making some progress and we have then more recently created a venture fund focused on brain diseases because I think, that is an opportunity to actually makes some money as well doing some good not just you know brain cancer but allows ALS and Alzheimer's and other kind of things but for me the real opportunity became trying to, you know, drive the healthcare system particularly in this country to be reorganized more around the consumer. Really put the patient back at the center of the health care system for 60 years given the way payments were set up after World War II. It's really been an institutionalized system and consumers are really not part of it. They are only they are part of it when they are doing things to stay well. There is a whole business about the fitness clubs and nutritional supplements and getting a massage that really is already very consumer centric. But when you get a cough or you knee hurts, you work you know, move into some other system. It's called healthcare but it's really sick care and that's organized in a fundamentally different way. And my belief and my hope is in next 10 years or 20 years that will change and that will become more about consumers choosing and therefore building a company which we're calling a Revolution Health that gives consumers more choice in controlling. Conveniences is is the core idea we are launching a revolutionhealth.com website a week from today and that's the beginning of a broader strategy. So for that it was more about building a set of businesses. We we committed over a $100 million of initial capital mostly from us but also from other co-founders and Jim Barksdale, many of you knew, because he ran Netscape and Carly Fiorina and Colin Powell and others together created this company and said you know, we're going try to build a company that really can be a disruptive force and can be a change agent and we hope it will be a you know, successful and some day you know, very valuable. We also help it will help push the system to be a little more consumer centric. So in that particular instance there were some things that goes back to this issue of there is a spectrum and that kind of depends on what problem you are trying to solve. What what's the right tool, as in some cases in terms of driving innovation around brain cancer, a a philanthropic effort seems best. In terms of trying to create more capital flow into companies that are doing interesting things related to brain diseases, either therapies or technologies or venture funds, you know, seemed like the right thing they do. In terms of building a trusted consumer brand and that over time it could have a broader impact on the health care system having a a company seem like the best thing to do. There is not a right or wrong answer it really depends on the situation. But also I think it depends on your own interest and strengths. I mean, not everybody can play basketball, not everybody can you know, do ballet. You know, some people have skills, other peoples don't have and trying to leverage your own skills in the most constructive way make senses and I think there is not lot of things I do well. But one of the things I do well is you know, start companies and so starting companies that can change the world is really what revolution is all about. Larry and Sergey have a great idea for a maxim for revolution, it's "Focus on the user and the rest will follow." That's that counts for a lot. But steal that idea. Let me let me there is so much of what we have focused on in the last day and a half and will be focusing on is the whole question of mission investing and you just talked about a huge investment that the two of you have decided to make. This notion of using your assets on the one hand philanthropists think about how to use the draw down from their endowment to to make grants. But but this is the whole question of using your assets to make investments that, that will advance your social goals. How how large a part is of of your lives has that become mission investing? It's I think become a big part of my life particularly because I have been running the Foundation now for 10 years so it's what I focus most of my time on and I have to say you know we went into it knowing that there was a lot more that we didn't know than we knew and I am not sure how far down the line we are, as we sit here today. But I think it's still really, really hard to figure out or to find really great opportunities for investment. And when we do we realize that what they need most is a spotlight so the other people know that there are great opportunities for investment. And we heard this today in the conference which was you know, how do people learn about and there is capital available. How do people learn about it? And so it's something where you know, really focused on but I can tell you I think it's a lot easier for both of us to find great business investments and you know, feel good about this than it's still is today to find great social investments. So it doesn't mean they are not out there. I am just simply saying that they are still harder to find today in my view than you know, great opportunities to investment in strictly businesses. But some of that goes back to this issue of capital structure and capital flow because one of the one of the reasons the hybrid approach I think, has a lot of legs is the reason people are often eager to invest in a new company is they believe that if they write that check, they not only get their money back but they might get a lot more back still. And on the other side typically on not-for-the-profit side recognition is you write that check, you are actually going to not get any of it back. And almost certainly going to need be asked again to make another contribution. So, I think, it's sort of the reverse case where essentially it's saying well, basically if I start writing checks, then I can't stop writing checks is one lesson that we learnt you know, 10 years ago. We thought we would make a grant and we realized that's sort of there was almost an expectation that that will continue, then we started creating kind of like longer term five year grants and made it very clear there is no six year, we are trying to jump start this, but we are not going to you know, be there forever. And so looking at models where there is a little bit more of a hybrid and there is the ability to leverage capital is very powerful. AOL we built you know, $100 billion company on the back of $10 million in Venture Capital including Alan Patricof, who is sitting in front here, is one of our venture capitalists. So we took you know, relatively modest amount of capital at the time we were competing against Prodigy they had a billion dollars from IBM and Sears. We had a passionate team that really believed in this idea and we are able to build a significant franchise on that and the people who invested in that, you know, got a lot of return financially and also felt that they helped create a a revolution. And even more recently I mentioned some of things we are doing on the health care side, people I know and they are including some in this audience that they think I am calling to ask them for a donation to accelerate brain cancer cure. You know, that's not that many - somehow, but not that many people have called me and said I'd like to write a check. When I announced Revolution Health care, I had a bunch of people who called me and said "Will you take my check?" And the reason is because they thought there was some possibility that there would be a significant return here and it was less clear there. So that's the challenge in terms of - of the sectors, how do you how do you use capital strategies and ultimately comes down to kind of a sustainability and scalability and taking a little bit of money and turning into something something big and that's one of the challenges we are trying to focus on. You hear this afternoon that Alan Patricof is is still up to it, he is now thinking about establishing a sniff on the small and media enterprise bond for focused on Africa to build sustainable economy there, to build a successful enterprises there. You have talked a lot about the ABC too and one of the findings of the foundation strategy growth, when they took a look at the question of what makes for an effective philanthropist, was it those who had experienced the problem they were trying to solve were sometimes the most effective. Did you find that that your experience with your brother transformed you as a philanthropist? Sure transformed me as a philanthropist is probably a little broad but absolutely experience of understanding the difficulties of that disease and specifically we got a call six years ago in the middle of the night that you had - he had a brain tumor and you know, don't worry about it didn't know a lot about brain tumor but knew probably you should worry about it and then he got his diagnosis after surgery and you know, two weeks later and basically we told to give him the stage that that he probably had six months to live. So we all - sort started asking basic questions. You know, what causes brain tumors nobody knows. What are the therapies available to treat tumor not many, none of them worked particularly well. What's, you know, the prognosis, you know, it's kind of distance. And he said being an entrepreneur and we helped build Genentech and Electronic Arts and Apple and many other companies. That's not good enough and that really led to the creation of this initiative trying to you know put more focus on this and trying to you know build it up. I would also say though broadly on healthcare some of it is informed by our own personal experiences, just having five kids. Who get sick every once in a while and one of the businesses we are funding is a Convenient Care Clinic business we are doing with partnership with Walgreens and Wal-Mart and others because you know, people have kids that get sick on Sunday mornings and right now they have two choices. One is they go to the emergency room and wait around all day. That's a complete waste to that resource you know to do that. But the other is they wait till Monday morning and pick up the phone at 7:31 hoping they will get an appointment, it's like calling ticket-master to get, you know, you too get tickets. You know busy busy and if you are lucky enough to get through and lucky enough to get an appointment, inevitably it's still in the afternoon, you are going to miss a day at work. And you know, it was like the question was is it a soar throat or strep throat. Its not that hard and so creating a network of clinics that you know, someday there should be thousands of them. There is 12000 Star Bucks, wouldn't there be a few 1000 Convenient Care clinics, we think there should. And so that's based on that kind of experience our experience with dealing with the system and the whole issue of electronic medical records and how you know crazy it is and how complicated it is. You know, it just it just that personal experience and formed the opportunity to create that business, no differently than the personal experience we both had 2025 years ago, just sensing there was something in this interactive world. Someway that maybe some day this would more of a main stream phenomenon because when we got on you know, we are using it, we thought it's pretty cool. We understand why 99 percent of people in the country at the time were not you know connected to these these services. Someday we believed it would be a mass market. So I think there is always some personal dynamic that makes you particularly passionate about a particular idea whether it's a business idea or a philanthropic idea and in that passion I think is critical for the success of any venture but the only other point I'd make which is which is critical is execution. There are a lot of good ideas out there but there is not a lot of great execution out there and this is true across all sectors and Alan said that you know, vision without execution is a hallucination. So don't tell me about all of us have heard all kinds of great ideas most of which don't succeed and it's not because they weren't great ideas. They probably were great ideas, you know, it didn't have the capital or didn't have the talent in the team, and didn't have something. So it's it's not enough to say I have a great idea. Its in, you know, you have to then figure out how to put that into action and what are the strategies to do that and some of it is about aggregating talents, some of it is about, you know, aggregating capital, and a lot of it is about hard work. Now, well some portion of us hallucinate Jean, could could you say a word about right now is there a particular passion right now that is driving you and driving your philanthropy or - are you feeling like you are on the track you mean to be on is there something that's propelling you or? Well I'd probably remove it just the little bit from sort of me personally and more to say that I think there is a sense that we are at a point in time where we all recognize the big problems in the world and in our communities the same old way isn't going to get us there, I mean that's just the bottom-line. So I think we are all, you know, passionately searching for what are at the few levels, few approaches we might use to really change things, I mean really start to have impact in ways we haven't been able to before. And I am not so convinced that it really, ultimately comes down to just a money problem, you know, that's why we are so excited I mean, following off on what Steve just said about vision and execution and going back to your earlier question about, you know, the role of other sectors or whatever, so, you know, in this small little clean water space, you know, the opportunity was there, the model had been proven. We are sitting in Washington DC in the United States, what the heck are we going to do about execution on the ground in Africa. Turn to the US Government and we had to wait to actually scale this thing. There is sort of boots on the ground, in fact the Navy is a partner with us now but I mean there is The navy is your partner? Yeah, but its this understanding that if we work together and we all brought our core competency and sort of our unique skills and assets well then if everybody does a little bit you can really get far but if we come back and said oh this is about us and we are going to try to, it never would have worked, its not about us. It's about sort of looking out and being smart and picking partnerships and collaborating with all the sectors so everybody is doing what they do well and that can a sure execution beyond the vision. I mean the vision thing is so easy the execution thing is so hard, right. And you know, I just, I wanted to just underscore something that Steve said because it's a, may be easy to understand how he might have received, you know, phone calls when he started Revolution but I think just in the little brain cancer world as we have talked about this Spring cancer initiative we have had for sometime now, you know, we also noted that there was a real gap in the market and our philanthropy couldn't address that gap just because of the way the weird structures work between what you can do as a business and what you can do as a as a non- profit and it was specifically investing in small companies with great ideas or maybe some, you know, some molecules that show great promise that could lead to therapies in this space but the philanthropy couldn't technically invest in it for a lot of different reasons and we couldn't because of our role in the non profit and it wasn't something that traditional drug companies wanted to do because the risk was too high. So going back to this whole issue of how people think so differently right, the same people that we, you know, sort of knew had been touched by brain cancer whatever that hadn't invested in our brain cancer initiative when we went to them and said, okay we are going to have a brain trust fund and it's the first launch of a $25 million fund that we are putting together and were it's a really high risk deal. I mean it's, you know, these are high risk investments but if they pay off they are going to pay off big and there might actually be a therapy for brain cancer which doesn't exist today. You know, people were just jumping into that opportunity and so these hybrid models that we are talking about, I guess, the reason we are so convinced they make a lot of sense, is because, you know, when people write a million dollar check into that fund we have said to them you may not ever see that million dollars again but if they done it on the brain cancer non profit they know they wouldn't see it again. There is no chance, they will see, they are writing and its gone and somebody else is spending it. But over here on this fund there is some chance they may get it back and may get it back handsomely and they know they are a making a big difference. So the whole hybrid side we think is just, you know, really powerful and I think that's excites us greatly in this day. Just to did you want to add something? I wanted you to just close with this talk that is that number one you made me think of a real maxim that those who don't see credit or those who end up being the most powerful in achieving their goals, so this collaborative message, I think, it's such an important one but your offices are now six blocks from the White House. You have the US Navy as your partner. So we know how to get there at least through the Panama Canal from here. Tell us something about the importance of the convening power of the philanthropic world and how that might be used? We have to convene among our selves to decide who is going to answer the question. Now we we We recognized that there is a learning process for all of us. We one last thing we learned really on is - is that if you are too front and center, there is not a big enough 10, it is not as interesting to as many people. We started almost 10 years ago now - on a initiative called Power Op and it's designed a bridge the digital divide and we were successful and then we created a 1000 technology centers and you know, Cisco and Microsoft and Hewlett Packard and others joined on us on the effort, you know, boys and girls clubs and lot of different everything but all we, to get that started we would say we would provide most of the capitals. We invested tens and millions of dollars in that venture and people kind of thought like it was the Case's thing and we realize that it would be better to have a, you know, kind of a broader kind and get more people involved and so that's one lesson. The second lesson and it was a little bit bizarre, but it was, even the Case Foundations capital came from AOL which helped make the internet a mainstream phenomenon. When we have launched the Case Foundation we didn't have a website. We only did one like three years ago. The reason is we didn't really want a, you know, talk about what we are doing, we just wanted to, you know, quietly do it and we didn't want to like be kind of like, you know, beating our chest. What we have learned was that we were being selfish that our attempt not to, you know, be out there in terms of, you know, declaring, you know, what we are doing here, what we are doing there actually was depriving the organization we cared so passionately about with the ability to, you know, shine a spot light on what they are doing and potentially to attract the interest of others, so we did launch a site that really is designed to do just. We are looking at - as Jean mentioned looking at ways to expand it. So that we recognized that, you know, one of the assets we bring to bare is some brand name or credibility or network or what have you and how do we Washington DC, you know, we have use that in an appropriate way to try to get behind some of the of the ideas that we really think are powerful and that also ties in terms of Washington DC, you know, we have been there for over 20 years. AOL was one of the big business success stories of the area, we got to know. A lot of different different people and how do we, you know leverage to had an again in appropriate way to try to get traction around some of these ideas and create an environment much like what you are trying to do here where people can get together and kick around different, different ideas. So its less about, we learned it's less about us funding, even less about us what spot light we chose to have or didn't chose to have and more leveraging that convening, ability or that, networking ability or that, ability to generate attention and so forth to try to drive some of these ideas forward. If you had one piece of advice either of you to give to those newest philanthropists in this room, what would it be? I'd probably say recognize who you are and what you are and what you bring to the party and use that most effectively because chances are that's where your passion and your talents and your skills are. Don't reinvent yourself when you think about philanthropy, take what you already do well, what you already have and see how you can use it in this space because that's where I think you would be most effective. Yeah, I would say it's essentially the same thing which is focus on the things that you really are passionate about that fully leverage your skills. I think too often people are, you know, think they should be playing some other role, kind of wearing some other hat and it doesn't necessarily play to their their fully to their strengths. So try to leverage that, I think there is a particularly in terms of people that are younger and came in the money from Google or some other company get out there and try out things, you know, don't be don't be afraid to fail. It's a learning process, we described it's in the learning, we have gone and, you know, I think you got to get started and you kind have to start walking down that path and it will - iterate over time and you know, some doors will open and some doors will close. But you just have to -