Impact Initiatives

The most powerful, versatile, and—dare I say—magical strategy tool I’ve ever used is NOT a business canvas, SWOT matrix, JTBD, or a pitch deck. It's... a Go-To-Market Map. Essentially, a visual pro forma for your growth strategy. I built my first GTM Map about 10 years ago, when I was raising a seed round for Birdhouse Health. I was frustrated that I couldn't explain my growth strategy without having to walk through a bunch of different slides and tables and whatnot. I needed something super practical and informative, and easy to understand on its own. This is what I came up with (though it wasn't nearly as pretty at the time). Since then, I’ve created a whole bunch of them—for my startups and others. Forward-looking GTM Maps help to... - Spot potential points of failure before they happen - Provide context for key strategy decisions - De-risk and justify growth assumptions - Align teams on priorities - Win investor confidence Historical-view GTM Maps help to... - Drive meaningful retrospectives and post-mortems - Align stakeholders with a shared view of the past - Reveal what worked, what didn’t, and why - Drive higher-quality board discussions - Visualize and understand correlations When looking forward, a GTM Map is ????????????-???????????????? ????????????????—it bridges the gap between “big picture” and “what do we do next,” while reducing risk and increasing focus. When looking back, a GTM Map offers ?????????????? ???? ??????????????????—it helps teams make sense of the past to better navigate the future, with a shared, actionable understanding of performance and outcome. Used together, they create a ???????????????????? ???????????????? ???????? ???? ????????????????, ??????????????????, ?????? ????????????????—a cycle most startups struggle to formalize but is crucial for scaling effectively. I’m sharing a snapshot of an in-progress one here. They all look a little different. If you’re curious to see the full version or explore how to make one for your own team, shoot me a message or drop a comment. I love talking about this and building these. Have you seen or used anything like this? What would you improve?

If pulling a single funding source offline can cripple an entire sector, then the problem is bigger than money or politics—it’s the funding model itself. Regardless of opinion on USAID, this disruption is an evidence-based reminder that relying solely on philanthropy or government aid is not a sustainable strategy for solving social problems. We absolutely must be championing more resilient impact models—now more than ever. Models that generate revenue, sustain themselves, and are built for the long-term—regardless of political or economic shifts. Aid-dependent models are fragile. They leave impact orgs vulnerable to political volatility and unpredictable funding cycles. And when a primary funding source gets cut, it’s not just an organizational crisis—it’s a humanitarian one. When I'm asked why I believe so deeply in social impact tech as a model for sustainable change, this is why. It's not just an "alternative approach"—it's a necessity for building resilient, scalable solutions that can withstand a whole lot more than a funding crunch, and continue uplifting communities even if there is one. When impact itself is embedded into the business model, market forces determine whether it deserves continued investment in its operations and growth. It doesn’t have to wait for permission from a funder who may not fully understand the complexity of the problem being solved. Government and philanthropic funding are both incredibly important, and should remain so. But we need to create more space for models that align impact with economic sustainability, so that the work continues no matter who’s in office. For founders driving social impact at a profit, this isn't just a financial consideration—it’s about building systems that last. Designing models where profitability and mission reinforce each other instead of competing for priority. Reducing and mitigating risk. We have to build more resilient solutions. Social impact isn’t charity—it’s infrastructure. It should be built to endure.

?? In moments of crisis we see the true power of #SocialImpactTech. Here are 22 impact tech initiatives making a difference for CA wildfire victims. I can hardly believe my eyes watching these fires, but I also can't help noticing all the behind-the-scenes, boots-on-the-ground activity by founders and teams driven to be of service to communities in crisis. Here’s a shortlist of impact tech making a real difference right now for untold numbers of families in southern California. Who else should be recognized here? ?????????????????? ???????????????? ?????? ???????????????? ????????????????????????: Genasys Inc. - geolocation-based crisis & evac alerts Good360 - connects wildfire victims to donated supplies Watch Duty - the go-to wildfire alert app NeedsList - targeted delivery of humanitarian aid Signpost.ngo - ad-hoc digital crisis response centers Humanitarian Toolbox: open-source disaster relief software Airbnb + 211 LA partnership: temp housing for displaced Angelenos ?????????????????? ?????? ???????????????? ??????????????: GoFundMe - wildfire relief fundraisers GiveDirectly - direct cash transfers to wildfire victims Team Rubicon - mobilizing veterans for disaster relief VolunteerMatch - connects volunteers with recovery efforts After the Fire USA - helps rebuild homes and mental resilience ???????????????????????? & ????????????????????????: Eleplan, Dani Plan, and Heba: Autism health and disability care tools Everplans, CircleOf, Inc., and OurFamilyWizard: Life records and care planning BeAware Deaf Assistant and Be My Eyes: real-time support for vision- and hearing-challenged ????????: PawBoost - reunites separated pets with owners Galaxy Vets - virtual vet care during natural disasters It feels disheartening sometimes that it often takes catastrophe to bring attention to tech efforts like these, but IMO it just reinforces the need to amplify their stories now—when all eyes are open. What other tech founders/teams are providing super critical support and disaster relief right now? Link/mention them in the comments to help get the word out.

When I launched Birdhouse for Autism, my first social impact tech venture, I couldn’t bear the thought of “withholding” help from families who needed it just because they couldn’t afford our app. We experimented with multiple pricing models, but in our effort to accommodate everyone, regardless of their means, we jeopardized our financial sustainability, and ironically, our ability to help anyone at all. No telling how far this set us back, but it did, and it was such a painful lesson to learn. I see so many social impact tech founders fall into a similar “empathy trap” that I’m genuinely surprised when I see a team that has managed to avoid it. But it’s led me to a critical insight: ??????????????—?????? ?????????? ???????? ???????????? ???? ???? ?????????? ???????????????????? ???????? ???????????? ???????????? ????????????—???? ?????????? ?????? ???????? ?????????? ???????? ???????????????????? ?????? ?????????????? ???? ???????? ?????????? ?????????????? ????????????????????. Empathy’s a remarkable thing! It allows us to: - Understand diverse perspectives and mental states - Recognize and value different lived experiences - Share in the highs and lows of others' journeys - Sense and connect with others' emotions - Anticipate needs with care and intuition It's what fuels our motivation to create tech that aligns with our values and solves pressing societal issues. But left unchecked, it’s also what can lead us astray. Here are 8 “empathy traps” that can quietly undermine your business: 1?? ???????? ???? ?????????????????? ???????????? → ?????????? ?????????????????????????? ??????/???? ???????????????????????? 2?? ???????????????? ???? ???????? ?????????????? → ?????????? ?????????? 3?? ???????????????? → ?????????? ???????????????? ???????????? ?????????????????? 4?? ????????-???????????????? ???? ?????????????? → ?????????? ???????????? ???????????? ???????????????? 5?? ?????????????????????????? → ?????????? ?????????????? ?????????? 6?? ???????????????????????? ???? ???????????????? → ?????????? ?????????? 7?? ???????????????? ???????????????? → ?????????? ?????????????????? ?????????????????? 8?? ???????? ???? ?????????????????????????? → ?????????? ???????????????? So what’s difference between impact teams who avoid empathy traps versus those who succumb to them? I’d argue it’s their capacity for self-awareness. I could devote an entire post to each of these traps. But I feel what would be more constructive is to help impact founders recognize the natural predisposition within themselves to this particular character trait and help them to navigate it. -- So, tell me: Have you fallen into any of these empathy traps? What other empathy traps would you add to this list? -- #socialentrepreneurship #socialimpact #techforgood #empathy #startups

Every conversation I have with someone about social impact tech starts with having to align on what it actually means ???? I have ideas about why, and how to fix this, but I'd love your input too. In terms of a recognized sector, social impact tech is still in its Wild West years. Founders, investors, for-profits, nonprofits, agencies, accelerators, just scattered all across a vast, poorly mapped landscape with few clear pathways to connect the right people to the right resources. Crazy thing is it was like this in '08 when I started here, and 16 years later… nothing’s changed. A few days ago Adam Berk and I were picking apart the gaps impact founders fall thru in Michigan's support networks and realized immediately we were defining impact tech completely differently from one another. This misalignment—even between those who are deeply clued in on this stuff—is a huge reason this sector struggles to move forward. But we need to move forward! So let’s start getting aligned. My take: Instead of trying to define impact tech, we need better frameworks. To that end I've found it helpful to view the space thru the lens of how each participant *contributes*. If the focus is shifted from definitions → contributions it's easier for me to understand roles and value. Thru this lens I see 5 distinct "Contribution Models", ie primary ways orgs create and drive social change. They are: 1?? ?????????????????? ???????????? ?????????? Focuses empowering specific demographics or communities through targeted initiatives. → Examples: VCs and accelerators that invest in and support female or diverse founders to close opportunity gaps in tech. 2?? ?????????????????????? ???????????? ?????????? Creates direct or collateral impact through its internal or service delivery operations. → Examples: A buy-one-give-one ecommerce company, or a tech consulting firm that trains and employs underrepresented talent in foreign markets as part of its project delivery. 3?? ???????????? ???????????? ?????????? Addresses social issues directly through products or services. → Examples: A mobile app that provides real-time visual assistance to users with impaired vision, or a fintech app helping low-income families manage SNAP benefits and access critical resources. 4?? ???????????? ?????????????? ???????????????? ?????????? Tech used to influence policy and raise awareness for social causes. → Examples: A digital platform that connects grassroots advocates with decision-makers to advance policy reforms, or an organization that educates the public on the ethical and societal implications of emerging tech. 5?? ???????????? ???????????????????? ?????????? Provides tools and platforms to empower others to create impact. → Examples: Workplace giving and volunteering platforms, or SaaS tools to help nonprofits fundraise more effectively. --- What do you think? Does this resonate? What model do you use?