Another Policy Win for Impact Investing

This week marks another important moment in the growing global impact investing movement, and an important reminder of the critical role that government policy can play in catalyzing social progress.

In response to a 2013 call from G8 leaders for nations to designate Task Forces that would work together to identify policy recommendations to accelerate the growth of impact investing, the U.S. National Advisory Board (NAB) on Impact Investing was formed. This incredible group of cross-sector changemakers, including our own CEO Jean Case, presented its recommendations in the summer of 2014 at the White House in the form of a report—Private Capital, Public Good. The report zeroed in on a number of key policy changes that held the potential to significantly increase the amount of capital available for socially responsible business. And over the past two years, in strong partnership between the private sector, philanthropy, civic leaders and government, those recommendations are being adopted through policy change.

From Mission-Related Investment (MRI) regulations issued in September, 2015, to new Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) regulations issued in October, 2015, to last week’s issuance of new Program-Related Investment (PRI) regulations, the U.S. government has listened to stakeholders and taken action to remove uncertainty about impact investing among capital providers (foundations, charitable organization and private investors alike) wishing to invest for both financial and social returns.

The Latest Policy Win: PRI Regulations

This week, the Treasury Department and IRS finalized highly anticipated PRI regulations. This new guidance removes some of the uncertainty about impact investing among foundations by confirming new examples of the types of investments that qualify as PRIs. These examples were recommended in 2012 to modernize the list created more than 40 years ago, and identify foundations using PRIs to further their mission through:

  • Different financing methods, including equity, debt or loan guarantees—as is frequently the case in Pay for Success models.
  • Greater flexibility in determining a prudent, mission-aligned exit from an investment in a for-profit company that has become profitable.
  • Investments in both for-profit and nonprofit organizations and even to individuals through, for example, microloans in developing economies.
  • Strategies that aren’t limited by geography or charitable purpose—PRIs can go to support the arts, the environment, health, urban development and more, both within the U.S. and internationally.

This new guidance is very welcome news. Historically, limited PRI examples left many foundations that wanted to take advantage of PRIs to support their charitable efforts on the sidelines. They questioned what was “allowable,” given their unique tax status and the changing landscape of investment seeking social enterprises and revenue generating nonprofits. At a time when our communities are in great need and traditional resources are being stretched thin—we need the power of all sectors working together, and PRIs provide foundations with a powerful tool to make that happen.

We Know These Kinds of Policy Changes Can Matter

We’re encouraged by the recent steps taken by the federal government, knowing that their actions can, and have, greatly influenced market activity. If we think back to 1979, the U.S. government issued highly impactful guidance on the prudent management of pension funds—stating that investments in venture capital funds could be consistent with ERISA guidelines. Directly following this guidance, venture investment in the U.S. jumped from just over $450 million in 1979 to a peak of $5 billion by 1987, effectively catapulting venture investments into the mainstream.

Taken together, the MRI, PRI and ERISA policy changes remove obstacles (or excuses) that have stood between good intentions to seek out impact investments and action. Even a relatively small percentage increase in pension fund impact investments would add up to billions in new capital—funds governed by ERISA manage roughly half of the $18 trillion in US pension assets. And on the PRI front, a Center for Effective Philanthropy report points to the great potential to scale impact investing—of the 64 foundation CEOs surveyed, only 41 percent said their foundations are making impact investments. Of those who are, they are deploying a median of only two percent of their endowments and 0.5 percent of their grants to PRIs.

At the Case Foundation, we believe we’re on the verge of seeing impact investing gain traction like never before. The impact investing road has been further paved by this latest policy change—let’s make that road paved more with robust actions than good intentions!

For more on the new PRI regulations, visit the White House blog post: Steps to Catalyze Private Foundation Impact Investing.

Photo credit: Roman Boed

Confronting Risk in Today’s Nonprofit

Over the last four years, the Case Foundation has been actively sharing and championing a framework of principles under the title, Be Fearless. Based on research highlighting key factors that often lead to transformative social change, it calls on individuals and organizations to Be Fearless in their vision, efforts and commitment to their cause. Throughout this period, I’ve met thousands of changemakers from across the country who have embraced the concept and are actively creating change in their communities on everything from poverty and education to climate change and impact investing.

Today, I am delighted to announce that we are debuting a redesigned Be Fearless Hub to enhance the user experience and make more accessible the free tools and resources that our community has requested. The new Hub includes a step-by-step guide to help your organization assess and navigate change, and a set of case studies that showcase some best-in-class changemakers putting the Be Fearless principles into practice—including three exclusive new case studies featuring:

  • Community Voices Heard – empowering New York City’s poorest residents through a radical, strategic coalition.
  • Propeller – restructuring its core program to more quickly move the needle on outcomes for food, water, health and education in New Orleans.
  • Sanergy – developing a new model for addressing a global health challenge that would transform the lives and livelihoods of millions in Africa’s slums.

As I reflect on our own efforts to Be Fearless, I have come to realize that even with resources like the Framework for Action, the case studies and hands-on training through workshops, the idea of risk, and the act of risk taking, remains a paralyzing factor for many. I guess it shouldn’t come as a surprise. The word itself is such a loaded one, often filled with negative or dangerous connotation—“risk-taker,” “risky business,” “credit risk” and “risqué” (the French origin). But the research that led to the Be Fearless principles suggests another perspective when measuring and embracing risk, and that is one of: “no risk, no reward.” In other words, innovations and breakthroughs usually require taking a risk. So given this, is there a way to de-risk, risk?

One way to approach this concept is similar to how private companies view research and development. The goal of R&D in this context is to experiment and identify potential new products in a safe space—despite the fact that the return on investment is uncertain. Suddenly, experimenting, piloting and producing a minimum viable product don’t seem so daunting. It is the cost of doing good business. And what once was a disappointing failure now becomes an opportunity to learn. Expenses to cover costs on the development of products that never make it to market are now seen as an investment where the organization can apply its learnings and ultimately save costs in the long run.

Indeed, there are many different ways to look at risk and R&D from an organizational structure. At the Case Foundation, we’re embracing risk in pursuit of catalyzing our two major movements—inclusive entrepreneurship and impact investing. As we seek to increase the number of women entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs of color, we know that access to social networks is a key ingredient to success. What we don’t know, because of limited data, is whether these entrepreneurs have higher success rates as cohorts of exclusively dedicated accelerators (women-only or of-color-only) or not. While we consider commissioning research, we decided to “be the data” by partnering with a young start-up PowerMoves, an accelerator for entrepreneurs of color, and test our theory of change to see what works.

Similarly, on the impact investing front, we are embracing risk in pursuit of a big bet regarding what’s needed to tip more investors from good intent to action. Coming this fall, we will launch in beta form a data visualization tool that maps the connections between investors, companies and funds in the impact investing ecosystem. Nothing like it exists in the market yet, but our work to date (research, interviews, partner collaboration) and that from the sector suggests there is a need for it. But who knows—the feedback and iteration stage could reveal some real surprises, surprises that we value as opportunities (not risks!) of doing our business better.

Risk, in these two contexts, is elevated into a purposeful strategy and opportunity to innovate and try new things, without the assurance of a positive outcome. Imagine what could be possible if the social sector invested in a continuous cycle of R&D? What if you got regular feedback on your programs, could test new ideas with your target audience before implementing them at full scale or allowed for iterations of your product over time in order to deliver the best version possible? What kind of impact could you help create?

So I ask you now, what are you doing within your own organization? Have you developed your own form of R&D or institutionalized processes for innovation? Or are you perhaps just getting started and looking for ways to take the first step? If you are ready to embrace risk and reach the next level of changemaking, then I encourage you to check out the Framework for Action, case studies and other free resources on the Be Fearless Hub. It is incumbent upon all of us empowered changemakers to take risks, be bold and fail forward, so let’s take the next step together, now.

Don’t forget to share your experiences with us via Twitter using @CaseFoundation and #BeFearless. We hope you’ll join us!

The Art of Storytelling: Sparking a Conversation on Inclusive Entrepreneurship

At SXSW 2016, the Case Foundation took the stage to engage in an important conversation on inclusive entrepreneurship. The goal was to talk openly about and spark ideas around how to level the playing field for all entrepreneurs in order to create stronger communities, close the opportunity gap and scale creative solutions to persistent problems. We had 60 minutes, an audience that wanted to be engaged (not talked at) and a serious, sometimes sensitive topic. No big deal, right?

Embracing our “be bold, take risks” attitude, we tried a somewhat unorthodox route. Inspired by NPR’s popular “Wait, Wait…Don’t Tell Me!” show, we crafted a series of stories to share with the audience, who then had to decide whether each one was true or false. Each story was specially crafted to confront a myth of entrepreneurship—stories that pervade our culture, our media and our minds—head on. These are stories that we felt were important to flag because they may have the unintended consequence of keeping entrepreneurs from tackling some of the world’s greatest challenges and may be particularly holding back women entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs of color. The stories were told by some of the sector’s most inspirational changemakers, while Jean Case and I did our best impersonations of Peter Sagal and Bill Kurtis, the stewards of the real show. Check it out here and play for yourself!

story1SXSW[InHand]

Not far from the slot machines and neon lights of the Las Vegas Strip, a few dozen tech companies hammer away at the future. That’s where you’ll find young African American Frederick Hutson, CEO of Pigeon.ly, a company that helps prison inmates stay connected to family by providing them with simple ways to receive hard-copy photographs and place inexpensive long-distance phone calls. Its secret sauce is a proprietary 50-state prisoner database that makes locating inmates as easy as typing their names in a search box. Hutson knows this problem first hand—he did 51 months in jail after being busted for marijuana distribution, his last “successful” venture. He put the same skills that made him a good drug dealer—high tolerance for risk and a desire to solve problems creatively—to use in starting this legitimate, innovative company. Pigeon.ly has successfully scaled from the $1 million in seed funding it originally received from top Silicon Valley players.

So what do you think? Is this story true or false? Did this former inmate have a million dollar idea? The majority of our audience thought it was true… and they were right! But there was much to this story that should have given the audience pause. Frederick’s profile certainly doesn’t fit the image or the data of who is an entrepreneur—the latest U.S. Census data shows that 79 percent of entrepreneurs in the U.S. are white and recent analysis shows that only 1 percent of venture capital funded startups have African American founders. Nor is the market Frederick disrupted an obvious one. Which is why this story is so important—it busts the myth that only well-connected, well-resourced white guys can succeed in the startup world, and it also demonstrates the existence of niche markets with great potential for investment that often go untapped. At his very core, Frederick is an entrepreneur, a problem solver, who re-applied his entrepreneurial talents from an illicit community business to a legitimate, job-creating, community-strengthening venture. It makes us think hard about the potential to drive social change by creating more onramps for diverse entrepreneurs.

 

story2SXSW[2]

In 1867, Clifford Jackson was born to Elsie and Thomas Pinkton. Elsie worked in the local salon and Thomas was a baker. They were your average white, middle class family and lived a good life in St. Louis. Young Cliff would go to the salon that his mother worked in after school and saw many women coming in and requesting help with hair loss issues—he knew there had to be a better solution than a scalp massage and a butter-based application. So Cliff did his research, toiled away in his parents’ garage and, voila, concocted his own solution. His initial investment was $1.25. The free samples flew off of the shelves at the salon where his mother worked, and soon, with more orders than he could fill himself, he started a business focused on selling “CJ’s Wonderful Hair Grower.” The picture of his smiling face, thick blond hair and pale white skin was the picture of health and happiness. Customers were hooked! The product was particularly popular with the black women in his town, and they appreciated his research and in-depth knowledge of the hair styling challenges they faced on a daily basis. The organic success of this product drew white investors in particular to this untapped market. Cliff went on to corner the black hair care product market in the U.S. and became a billionaire by the age of 57.

What do you think? Is this story true or false? Could Cliff, a young white man, corner the black women’s hair care market? Well, Kesha’s animated delivery of the story fooled our audience, despite what we all know grounds successful ventures—personal knowledge of the problem you are trying to solve and persistence (the “Eureka moment” really is myth!) in proving the profitability of untapped markets! The actual inspiration for Kesha’s story was the real life success of hair tycoon Madam CJ Walker, whose deep knowledge of the market and true grit aided her in building a client-base for her product and led her down the path of becoming the first black American female self-made millionaire. So why did our audience, and maybe you, find the Cliff story so easy to believe? Maybe it’s because Cliff’s demographic remains the dominant profile of an entrepreneur. Maybe it’s because the link between personal experience and the problem being solved still does not prevail in today’s narrative of successful entrepreneurs. Sadly, almost 150 years later, the uniqueness of Madame CJ Walker’s success as a startup founder remains true today—a recent study cites only 11 black female founders have raised more than $1 million; only 9.7 percent of venture-backed companies have female founders; and less than 1 percent have an African-American founder. Against the backdrop of data showing women-founded ventures outperforming their male counterparts and companies with diverse (gender and race) leadership teams provide greater returns for investors (McKinsey and Harvard Business Review), this story helps shape a conversation around why.

 

story3SXSW[2]

There is plenty of debate over whether entrepreneurs are born or made. Two prominent and opinionated researchers duke it out. Koch, president emeritus at Old Dominion University and co-author of the 2008 book Born, Not Made: The Entrepreneurial Personality, argues that many entrepreneurs are simply wired that way, giving them a natural advantage in the business world. Julian Lange of Babson College, on the other hand, says her research in the past five years indicates that exposure to the ideas and lessons of entrepreneurship can have lasting effects on students, even if they are not “natural” entrepreneurs.

Forbes 10 Under 10 competition settles the debate—entrepreneurs are born! Who can argue with 9 and 10-year olds Tracy and Jackie Tsang, whose award-winning app Binky Meets Cradle is solving one of the world’s most pressing problems—boring playdates? Or with 10-year-old Ryan Pohlson’s company, Duck Duck Duck, which is disrupting the bath time industry with rubber ducks and big data? Says Pohlson, “It’s like Uber but for Ducks.” And fan favorite, Aaron Rogier, who at five conceived of Napchat, a wildly popular app for kids to behave for their parents while also innovating on the nap concept, making it, you know, like “mobile-y and socially.” When asked what advice they’d give their younger selves, the under 10-year-olds said, “they wished they’d dropped out of school sooner and bought more bitcoins.” After all, “It’s tough to stay relevant in the Valley past a certain age,” one kid remarked.

When it comes to Forbes 10 under 10, what do you think? Is this story true or false? Our audience had a harder time deciding and the vote was fairly divided. The correct answer was false, built around both a very funny video and the very real academic debate between Koch and Lange (and many others) on whether entrepreneurs are born or nurtured. I suspect the divided vote is emblematic of two things: (1) the continued impression that startups are purely a young person’s game, with particular glorification around college dropouts making it big—Bill Gates, Rachael Ray, Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, Mary Kay Ash, Jack Dorsey; and, (2) an honest debate with little data to prove whether entrepreneurs are born that way, or whether many have the innate potential to create and drive businesses, but without nurturing of that potential they move on to other things.

This story helped us and the audience confront the role myths might be playing in leaving teams of entrepreneurs on the sidelines—particularly women and entrepreneurs of color. For example, the actual average age of today’s startup founders is 40. If people knew that, would they drop out of school so fast? Or what if we had entrepreneurial talent scouts like we do for sports and music—would that make a difference? (Check out Gallup’s entrepreneurial talent finder.) And is there an important role for startups dedicated exclusively to women or entrepreneurs of color to help level the playing field? Regardless of where you sit in this debate, there seems to be a widely shared support for exposing youth early to entrepreneurship as a life and career path, as well as encouraging mainstream media to showcase more diverse entrepreneurs as role models. Regardless of nature or nurture, the quote, “you can’t be what you can’t see” captured the audience.

 

story4SXSW[3]

Picture this! It’s a beautiful sunny day in Palo Alto in April 2012. I am over the moon excited to pitch my new idea—CODE2040. I am bouncing on my toes to diffuse my nerves as I wait for my turn to try to win $80,000 in support for my work. I knew CODE2040 was a great idea and I knew that if we could execute well, it was going to change people, communities and industries for the better. I mean, there was such an obvious market for our business—addressing the problem of inequality of opportunity for talented entrepreneurs who don’t have access to the social networks, and family and friends startup capital, that other entrepreneurs can tap into. The judges would obviously understand this, and see past the fact that we only had two months of operations under our belts. No impact data. All I needed to do was convince them that our idea was a great idea! I got this! My materials are great! I walk on stage. I look at those judges standing between me and the $80,000 that is going to launch CODE2040.

And, I choke. I can’t find my words. I fumble through the material, reading half of it off my slide notes. When it was time for Q&A, I was shaking with nerves, and when one of the judges, a white male professor with no knowledge of my market or the community we hoped to serve, became increasingly belligerent, insisting that the concept had no legs and we were seeing problems where there were none, I was stunned to speechlessness. I failed. I did not walk away with the $80,000 prize. And that day, the best pitch did indeed win, but it was not the best idea of all those pitched. As crushed as I was to lose in 2012, I knew that this would be the first of many defeats and no’s, and that I needed to use the experience to fail forward, learn from my mistakes, and go back the next year with a pitch that took into account the skeptics. One year later, picture this! A beautiful sunny day in Palo Alto and I am bouncing on my toes again outside the very same room. I pitch. I answer questions. And I win! And that early money paved the way for me to go on to raise about $10M in support for CODE2040 to date.

Was Laura’s pitch the real deal or was her story made up? If you thought her story was true, you were right! Thankfully, Laura did win that second pitch and CODE2040 exists today. The reality of Laura’s story though shows how pitch competitions can be flawed. Often times the best idea is not the winning idea and vice versa. For women in particular, the pitch competition model can be extremely disadvantageous. While certainly not the case for all women, studies have shown that women tend to be less willing to assume risks that may accompany failure (Koellinger et al., 2008; Minniti, 2010). Could a pitch competition be that detrimental to a business? It can be when the reality is that women are twice as likely as men to shut down their businesses because of lack of capital—capital that may be coming from a singular source, pitch competitions. As if the cards weren’t stacked against women enough, a recent study showed that attractive men are most likely to win pitch competitions (even when the same pitch is delivered by a woman)!

So how did you do?

Could you tell fact from fiction? More importantly, did reading these stories help you better understand the challenges women entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs of color face in the startup world and why it’s vitally important that we work together to create change? We challenged the audience at SXSW and now challenge you, our readers, to help usher in meaningful change through your own channels—change that involves building stronger entrepreneurial ecosystems, unlocking venture capital funding opportunities, helping address policy issues and disrupting the dominant narratives about entrepreneurship so that the stories reflect more diversity.

Want to read more myths? Check out our ongoing blog series.

Do you have your own true/false story that you want to share with us? Tweet your headline to us @CaseFoundation using the hashtag #Ent4All and we might profile your story next!

Jean Case on Forbes: There are No Limits to Innovation in the Steel City

Today, our CEO Jean Case is in Pittsburgh—a city with a long and storied tradition of innovation. And fortuitously, today is also the first day of Pittsburgh’s first-ever Inclusive Innovation Week.

Throughout the day, Jean will have the chance to tour the ALMONO site in Hazelwood, new home to Uber’s self-driving cars testing facility, meet with students at the University of Pittsburgh, join innovators and Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto at AlphaLab Gear and more. Through all of this, the message is clear: There are no limits to innovation in the Steel City.

In her piece on Forbes this morning, Jean shares how innovators in Pittsburgh are reinventing their city, helping this steel town experience a resurgence in the form of a technology boom, and how innovation can come from people and places that might surprise you. Read the full Forbes piece, here.

Photo Credit: “Always Shooting” on Flickr.

(panoramichealth.com)

‪Innovation Madness: Champion

With UNC and Villanova duking it out for the men’s NCAA Championship, and Connecticut and Syracuse set to face off in the women’s playoff bracket, so too have we come to the end of our own March Madness. Over the last ten days you’ve played along with us as we sparked #InnovationMadness and directed the social media spotlight on 16, then eight and then four female innovators who have made big bets and made history. Thank you to everyone who voted throughout #InnovationMadness and helped to shine a light on the incredible accomplishments of these innovators.

Today, we’re ready to reveal the woman who inspired you the most with her story of perseverance and ingenuity: Marie Van Brittan Brown.

IMChamp

#InnovationMadness10: Marie Van Brittan Brown, creator of the home security system
Chosen by Jade Floyd, Senior Director of Communications
Today’s home security systems feature all the bells and whistles, from infrared cameras to home automation technology to electronic control of every light and lock. But did you know that the first modern-day home security closed-circuit television system (CCTV), alarm and entry buzzer to allow guests in was invented by Marie Van Brittan Brown in 1966? An uptick in crime in her neighborhood drove her to create the system so she would feel safer while at home alone. She invented the remote monitor and control-operated door that laid the groundwork for a now multi-billion dollar market, and she takes the championship place in our bracket today.

IM-BracketChamp

Marie Van Brittan Brown may be the overall winner here, but the 16 women we highlighted represent the countless other woman around the world who have, and continue to, break barriers, forge new pathways and ultimately create a better tomorrow for all of us as a result. “You can’t be what you can’t see,” and as we look for ways to lift up an inclusive and diverse set of entrepreneurs, we hope that #InnovationMadness has inspired you to think about how you can help level the playing field for all entrepreneurs—particularly women and people of color—in all places in order to create stronger communities, close the opportunity gap and scale creative solutions to persistent problems.

Learn more about the Foundation’s inclusive entrepreneurship efforts.

Innovation Madness: Final Four

It’s that time: we’ve made it to the Final Four in our #InnovationMadness bracket! You’ve cast your votes and helped us narrow down the field of fearless female innovators to the uber elite. Next, all four of these incredible innovators will go head-to-head in our final showdown. Now is the time to pick your final favorite innovator and vote for her on Twitter using her unique hashtag. Your vote could be the one that leads her, and the staff member who chose her, to victory.

We’ve had a lot of fun playing #InnovationMadness with all of you, and honoring the important and often unsung work of the women who were featured here and more broadly throughout history. Hopefully along the way you’ve learned about some impressive women innovators and the next time someone asks you to name your favorite female inventors, you’ll be able to rattle off at least 16 of them. (Check out the original #InnovationMadness post to learn about all the inspiring women we featured.)

IM-BracketFOUR

Head on over to Twitter and vote your chosen champion to victory! We’ll announce the #InnovationMadness winner on Monday morning, April 4. Vote often until then to make sure your favorite innovator is chosen.

FINAL MATCHUP: Mary Anderson vs. Lizzie J. Magie vs. Marie Van Brittan Brown vs. Hedy Lamarr 

IMFinal4

#InnovationMadness2: Mary Anderson, inventor of windshield wipers
Chosen by Julia Power, Office Coordinator

There are about 253 million cars and trucks on U.S. roads today. Before Anderson’s 1903 invention of the windshield wiper, drivers would have to stop their car every few minutes to physically wipe the buildup from their windshield. Not only was this inefficient, but it was also extremely dangerous! Anderson’s invention has been helping drivers with their commutes ever since.
Vote for Mary Anderson by tweeting #InnovationMadness2.

Versus:

#InnovationMadness7: Lizzie J. Magie, creator of the Monopoly game
Chosen by Sheila Herrling, Vice President of Social Innovation

In 1903, Lizzy Magie was troubled by the vast income inequality she saw, and a capitalist system that could either put private capital to public good (think early impact investing), or benefit the few already well off. She used that personal passion to invent the board game—Landlord. The original game had rules that allowed players to live and learn the tension between and tactics for pursuing the two philosophies. Many believe that this game was the inspiration for Charles Darrow, who in 1932 turned it into Monopoly and sold it to Parker Brothers. Lizzy Magie fought for its rights, received $500 for the Landlord’s patent (no royalties) and her role as true founder of the Monopoly concept continues to be debated in the history books, but you can vote her into victory here!
Vote for Lizzie J. Magie by tweeting #InnovationMadness7.

Versus:

#InnovationMadness10: Marie Van Brittan Brown, creator of the home security system
Chosen by Jade Floyd, Senior Director of Communications

Today’s home security systems feature all the bells and whistles, from infrared cameras to home automation technology to electronic control of every light and lock. But did you know that the first modern-day home security closed-circuit television system (CCTV), alarm and entry buzzer to allow guests in was invented by Marie Van Brittan Brown in 1966? An uptick in crime in her neighborhood drove her to create the system so she would feel safer while at home alone. She invented the remote monitor and control-operated door that laid the groundwork for a now multi-billion dollar market.
Vote for Marie Van Brittan Brown by tweeting #InnovationMadness10.

Versus:

#InnovationMadness15: Hedy Lamarr, creator of spread spectrum technology
Chosen by Fatimah Shaikh, Social Innovation Intern

Hedy Lamarr was not only a 1930s movie star, she also gave us an invention that still stands at the forefront of technology even today: the spread spectrum. With the help of Georg Antheil, an experimental musician, Lamarr invented the Secret Communications System, which they tried to give to the U.S. military during WWII. However, it was not until the Cuban Missile Crisis that the value of spread spectrum was realized. Today, Lamarr’s Secret Communication System is the backbone of all technological machines with wireless operations.
Vote for Hedy Lamarr by tweeting #InnovationMadness15.