FIRSTS Conversation with the Founder of AOL

JR: Welcome to First Conversations, the podcast and speaker series that puts a spotlight on the barrier breakers, glass ceiling smashers, and innovators who have help shape modern life. Each of our guests is a trailblazer who cleared a path for others and you're going to get to hear more about what it took to get there I'm Jessica Rosenworcel, the Chairwoman of the Federal Communications Commission, and today I am lucky to be joined by the internet pioneer and legendary entrepreneur, Steve Case.

He is the co-founder of America Online, the first company that really made the internet mainstream, and at its peak in the 1990s, AOL not only accounted for half of all internet users; it's iconic reading ‘You've Got Mail’ was so pervasive in the culture it became the name of a hit movie starring Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan. So, co-founding the first Internet company to go public may be the most well-known chapter in Steve Case’s career, but it wasn't the last. As the founder of the investment firm Revolution 15 years ago, he's also firmly established himself as one of the world’s leading tech entrepreneurs. So, thank you Steve Case for joining me today. It is great to have you.

SC: Great to be with you Jessica. Should be fun.

JR: Alright, so we did some research, and we found that you’re  not only the cofounder of the first Internet startup that went public. Of course, there was no blueprint for it and what you would accomplish, but our research pulled up this fact. You’re probably the only internet icon who's launching point into the tech world was Pizza Hut. So, you're going have to tell us how a Pizza Hut marketing manager in Wichita Kansas became the head of the first iconic internet company.

SC: Well, like many entrepreneurial journeys, it was a little bit circuitous. I actually got interested in the Internet and digital technology and idea of the electronic frontier in the late 1970s when I was in college. I graduated in 1980, and I was following what was happening with some of the early online services, what’s happing in other countries, like, Minitel in France, Prestel in the UK, some of the interactive TV kind of experiments in the late 70s that were staring to, you know, pop-up here and there. And I was really fascinated by it. And I also remember reading a book in my senior year of college by Alvin Toffler, the futurist, called The Third Wave that was predicting sort of this digital age. You know, you kind of talked about the first wave being the agricultural revolution, and the second wave was the industrial revolution, the third wave was going to be this digital revolution. Essentially, he was predicting what we know now as the internet. So, in the 70s I was interested in it but when I graduated in 1980, there were really no, as you know, Internet companies to go to when I graduated, and also at that time, you know,  no venture capitalist were backing 21-year-old kids coming out of college. So, I worked for a couple of years in Ohio for Proctor and Gamble and then for a year in the piece at the time was owned by Pepsi Co in Wichita, Kansas. And then I moved to the Washington DC area in 1983, joined a startup, that promptly failed. But thankfully, two of the people I met there, Jim Kimsey and Marc Seriff, and  I co-founded America Online, AOL in 1985. So, I knew long before we started the company what I wanted to do, it just took me a few years to figure out how to get there.

JR: Well, thank you for explaining the circuitous route you took. Serendipity is always part of our stories, and I think that it’s good to highlight it. So, if I were curating a museum, of Internet history, I think one of the first artifacts I would put on the exhibit would be a pile of those free AOL CDs. True story—I had so many of those we started using them as drink coasters. So, how did those CDs come about? And why did you send out so many?

SC: Well, we did get pretty aggressive there. I remember at one point we were launching a new version of AOL software for which we had to ship to our current our current members. This was of course, in the early days narrow band dial up modems so you couldn't transmit all the programs over the phone lines. We had to send a disk. And we also, as you said, trying to get new customers by making it easy for people to get online. At one point, we bought up, apparently, the entire production capacity of the country in terms of the CD productions to launch this new version. I also remember one of the tests we did was with which was probably a sign we probably gone a little too far on these free trial discs because we were bundling our free trial disk with frozen Omaha steaks so, that was maybe a bit much. The idea was to make it as easy as possible for people to try AOL, to really have their first experience with the Internet. We wanted to really make the service easy to use, useful, fun, and affordable. And we believe that if we got people to try it, a good number of them would end up deciding they wanted to stick with it. So having a free trial, no cost to buy the software, no cost to sign up, no cost for the first month getting a lot of, you know, free time getting free hours was part of that, would be a way to make it easy for people to give it a try and  the results did pay off. Most of the people who did try it did ended up being paying customers and so that’s when we accelerate at our marketing efforts to really try to reach as many people as we could as quickly as we could because we knew the market was going to get more competitive. And so our view was with Microsoft coming AT&T coming a lot of the big players coming, it was never going to be easier, cheaper to get market share so we slammed down the accelerator, and that’s when we were broadly distributing those trial discs.

JR: So, those CDs were one thing. but you also had competitors at the time. you mention some of them like Prodigy and CompuServe, and I am wondering, in addition to the CDs marketing efforts, what is it that really distinguish you from those players?

SC: I think a few things. One I mentioned: we really did try and make it easy to use, useful fun and affordable. We were the first to have a monthly fee that included some number of hours so everybody else was charging per hour. So, it made it a little bit more affordable. We also had a real focus and biased toward community. We believe that the killer app of the internet was people. Some of our competitors that you mention, CompuServe, was more focused on content; Prodigy was more focused on commerce. We were focused on communities. We launched things like people connection chatrooms, and message boards and instant messaging and other ways to connect people. So, I think that was important. And the final one is we really had a biased towards partnerships. We were a small little company when we started, you know, we only raised a million dollars to get going and a few dozen employees in those early days. And so we knew we could be beat these big players by, it was head to head combat, so we establish partnerships, particularly with some of the personal computer manufacturers in those early days, Commodores & Candy, Apple, and IBM and others. And those partnerships really allowed us to reach more people than we could on her own. So, it was some mix of that ease-of-use, simple, affordable, you know, pricing, with a focus on community and a strong reliance on partnerships that allowed us to go from a little company that nobody knew or cared about to, at one point as you said in the intro, the leading Internet company with about half the internet traffic in America.

JR: So you said something a few moments ago that I can’t stop thinking about which is that you founded at AOL in 1985. I mean that was years before the commercial Internet even existed, before we were talking about the information superhighway, and it really goes to show that the success you had with it required a lot of patience and probably some perseverance. So, I’m wondering, along the way, were there some moments where you questioned if this was going to work out, if this technology was really the thing, and you know, at the same time, I’m wondering what was the big moment when you realized in fact it was, and that this was going to be a phenomenon?

SC: Well, I would say, I always believed in the idea of the internet, but there were definitely some moments particularly in the late 1980s where wasn’t clear our company would survive. We did have number of situations where we had gone through layoffs and running out of money, you know, partnerships we thought would help us ended up not having the results we expected. Definitely some difficult times including some times where my parents would call with sort of suggest that maybe it was time to give up the entrepreneurial achieve dream and get a real job at like a real company but we did stick with. We had a team that really believed in what was possible in building this internet medium in building what we are trying to do in a specific way with AOL. So, thankfully we are stuck with it. In terms of moments that the very early days, I remember when we first launched that first service in the fall of 1985. Of course, I was online at the time. We only had a few people at the time online and so it was just watching it go from just this very small number of people online to hundreds of thousands and millions and then the tens of millions. So, that was interesting journey. I also do you remember, you mentioned it in the intro, we were the first internet company to go public in 1992.  That was sort of a moment where it felt like the Internet was coming of age and sort of was  arriving. And the other moment which was a difficult one for us actually but it ended up being, in retrospect, important is that I think it was probably 1996 maybe something like where we went from charging by hour to basically a flat rate unlimited pricing. It was essentially 20 dollars a month, and you could use as much as you could, and as expected, usage really skyrocketed, but it skyrocketed more than we thought it would, and so, at one  point, the whole AOL system was down for like I think 23 hours which was disappointing at one level because, obviously, people were starting to count on us and we had let them down. But it was interesting because it was the lead story on all three of the TV networks news and lead headline in most newspapers in America that America Online was down for 23 hours and it was interesting because just five or ten years earlier, nobody would’ve known or cared if we had been down. Nobody was really online, nobody thought the internet would be a mainstream phenomenon. So, those were some of the moments that I recall.

JR: So, in those early days of the commercial Internet, what do you think government got right and what do you think government that wrong?

SC: Well, I would say mostly got it right, starting with, as you well know, the investment through the defense agency DATPA to really create the internet. Without that investment, Internet wouldn’t have existed. or at least the Internet that we all know if today would have existed. The investment and basic R&D was I think the right call. The second was, as you mentioned, commercializing access to the Internet. When we did it started in 1985 the Internet was still restricted to government agencies and educational institutions so if you worked for a government agency like the FCC or you’re on the university campus, you could connect to the Internet but if you were a consumer at home or a business at an office, you couldn’t connect to the Internet. It was restricted still for non-commercial use, and it took a few years for that to change and then obviously the FCC was front and center there. But commercializing the Internet, opening it up, I think was critical. Also, in those early days, I think the government didn’t quite know what the Internet was going to be, and so had somewhat of a light touch approach to it. Let it fly for a little while, and then overtime, figure out what to do so the early days, for example, there was not taxes on e-commerce, because the e-commerce was still relatively small part of things, and people wanted it to flourish. There were a lot of decisions like that were ‘let's see what happens before we decide to regulate it.’ And another one was the FCC in particular, but also Judge Green and the judicial system get credit for was a decision to break up AT&T, right? Break up Mob Bell and create regional Bell operating companies, and this was a few years before we got started, so it was the early 1980s. And that ended up being pivotal, because that created competition in communication that drove down the cost of access. But we got started, it often would cost five or $10 an hour to be online. And getting than down to just pennies was critical to make sure that the Internet was going to be a mainstream, you know, phenomenon and also the decision it often would cost five or $10 an hour to be online. I’m getting that down to just pennies was critical to make sure that the Internet was going to be a mainstream phenomenon. And also, the decisions that were made by FCC to open up, to require essentially open access of those phone networks of those dial-up modem also enabled competition to flourish. So those were some of the things that that I think we’re done in the early days of the Internet to really allow it, to find the initial development of it and allow it to launch and to allow to start scaling and get commercialized.

JR: There is so much history of Internet policy, and what you just described, but if we’re going to talk about history. AOL’s rise culminated eventually with its merger with Time Warner and you know there’s an FCC role in that story. But knowing what you know now, would you have done that merger differently or do you think that things could have changed that would have made it work or more effective?

SC: Well, it’s a mixed bag, but if the FCC hadn’t approved it, it would have never happened. So, I guess that could be one thing that could’ve changed.

JR: Fair point.

SC: It didn’t work out obviously the way I was expecting, anybody was expecting, but as I was thinking back on it, the idea of these two companies, AOL at the time was the leading Internet company. Time Warner at the time was the leading media company also leading broadband company on Time Warner Cable, and it was the leading, broadband provider and so putting those companies together. Giving AOL, which had been a leader in those early dial-up modem narrow broadband days a path to broadband was important, and giving time warner a path to digitize its business was important, so, strategically that was really quite important. And it’s sort of made sense from a strategy vision standpoint. But the execution was flawed. We didn’t have the right people focusing on the right priorities and working together in the right way. And there were culture clashes. There was also a market meltdown. Sort of the.com boom became of the.com crash so the timing  wasn’t great. So, what could have been this great merger that would lead the way in the broadband future ended up struggling and ultimately AOL got spun out, and some of the other Time Warner businesses got spun out. So, it was a big disappointment for me, but the main lesson goes back to something Thomas Edison said more than a century ago. ‘Vision without execution is hallucination.’ So, having the right vision is important, I think the vision for AOL and Time Warner becoming together did make sense, but the execution of that was really quite flawed. I would also point out since it’s the FCC and ties in with the earlier question, things the government got wrong. One of the things we fought for in the late 1990s was to have the same open access previsions that applied to the telephone networks also apply to the broadband networks to essentially force the cable companies to open up their networks the same way the telephone companies were forced to open up the networks, and the decision was made not to do that. And that was actually one of the things that led us to the merger with Time Warner. We really needed that path to broadband and if networks aren't going to be opened up, we need to figure out a way to have a more direct path, which led to the merger.

JR: Alight., there is a lot there, and let’s leave the past behind us. And talk about revolution, so why don’t you describe what you’re doing with revolution. In other words, give us the elevator pitch.

SC: Well, when I stepped down as CEO of AOL, as part of the merger with Time Warner, which was 20 years ago, over 20 years ago, I decided to start investing in entrepreneurs as a kind of initially an angel investor, and then step those activities up, and created a venture capital firm called Revolution, and we have multiple strategies. We have we have an early seed fund, also have a team focused on venture stage investment, as well as later stage growth investments. But with two kinds of distinguishing kind of differentiating, you know, kind of elements. One, is we believe the policy is going to become increasingly important in this next wave of innovation, you know that given the work that you do, but sectors like healthcare and food, financial services and many other areas, do have regulation. These are sectors of the economy that are regulated, and understanding how to navigate some of those regulatory issues and how to influence policy we think is going to become increasingly important. So, we tend to look for businesses where that’s a factor. Some of the businesses we back, for example like, Clear, which uses biometric technology to expeed people’s access through airports. But it requires partnerships with the airlines, but it also partnerships with the airports and then also TSA that controls the, you know, the transportation. We also invested in Draft King, which benefited from some changes in roles, including judicial decisions around, you know, gaming. So, we are, we are looking for businesses where policy is important, and even the fact that we are based in Washington DC gives us a little bit of a I guess a home court advantage in terms of some of those policy issues. And the other is around place. We believe, even though the last decade 75% venture capital has gone to three States, we believe that over the next 10 or 20 years we will see a dispersion of talent, a dispersion of capital, a dispersion of start-up creation, a dispersion of job creation. And so, we call this the Rise of the Rest, and we are focused on backing entrepreneurs outside of the major tech hubs like Silicon Valley. So, what started as more of a personal effort ended up a decade ago, ended up being more of an institutional effort. where we also now have outside investors in our various funds, and we are focused on rise of the Rise of the Red Seed fund as well as Revolution ventures and Revolution growth.

JR: So, I appreciate what you said about Rise of the Rest and looking around the country because my mantra as the head of the FCC is to make sure that digital age opportunities are available to everyone everywhere, and I think it speaks to what you’re talking about with Rise of the Rest. But I’d love it if you could share with us, maybe favorite startups or stories from that Rise of the Rest campaign.

SC: Well, first of all, I totally agree with your admission, and it’s very consistent with what we are trying to do from an innovation and entrepreneurship standpoint. We want everybody everywhere who has an idea for a new company to have a shot at starting that company, a shot at the American dream. And that doesn’t just involve a venture capital, but also other facets we focus on in creating thriving startup communities in dozens cities all across the county. But the capital piece is certainly important. I also should say some of my focus on this really started with a policy lens. I was I asked I think it was 12 or 13 years ago to cochair something called the National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship that led to a series of recommendations, one of which led to the White House. So then, President Obama launched an initiative called Start-up America that he asked me to chair. And I also worked on his jobs counsel, working on the job sec that passed in the Congress with bipartisan support just a little over a decade ago. So, that got me focused around a regional entrepreneurship, trying to understand what’s happening in different parts of the country, trying to figure out ways to kind of move the needle in terms of creating more opportunity for more people in more places. And then we launched the bus tours almost a decade ago and we’ve now visited nearly 50 cities all across the country to see what’s happening  in these different cities. And we then about five years ago launched Rise of the Red Seed Fund, and we’ve now invested in over to 200 companies in over 100 different cities. So, it is hard to pick any one company or anyone city. It’s a little bit like asking a parent who your favorite child is. As we are trying to celebrate all of these different children. But I would say the remarkable thing about what we seen and led me to writing a book that came out a few months ago to tell the story from the road is not just a few cities that are rising up alongside of San Francisco, New York, and Boston some of the traditional tech hubs. It really is dozens of cities and that’s what’s going to be surprise people in the next 10 to 20 years. How many of the big companies, iconic companies, the big job creators, the big kind of economic growth drivers, the big disruptors, the big the innovators are not just on the coast, they are in the middle of the country. And the work that you are doing at the FCC on making sure the broadband really is available to everybody is going to be hugely helpful. We want to make sure everyone has the kind of connectivity as well as the capital to take these ideas to scale.

JR: Oh, amen to that. The genius of this country is not concentrated along the coasts, or in any particular city or metro area. So, I think we’re going to have to figure out how digital opportunity is expanded to all the corners of this country. So, I appreciate that.   So a lot of what you mentioned was how you were in Washington, and I think it’s fair to say that your work in the technology sector in Washington . . . well its just getting a lot more attention from policymakers from Capitol Hill. And we are entering this new wave where the internet and its policy evolution is going to more and more important to every sector of the economy, and that entrepreneurs are going to have to engage more constructively with folks like myself who are regulators. And so, I am wondering if you agree and if you think it policy is going to become more important to the tech center going forward and maybe to every sector of the economy.

SC: Yeah, first of all,  as you know, in some ways when we think about the tech sector or even tech start-ups, , because of the pace of innovation and the acceleration  of technology, really every company now is a technology company. And so, it’s really having a broader impact  on the economy, and just thinking about it as a tech sector or thinking about it as Silicon Valley, I think,  is too narrow. And I totally agree with the premise  of your question. As we enter this next era, what I’ve called the internet’s third wave building on the that book I read  in 1980 from Alvin Toffler, and his three waves. For me, the first wave was getting everybody online. We talked about that in the early days but only 3% of people were connected, and it was still illegal for businesses or consumers to be on the internet. That first wave was building on ramps, building a reason for people to be online and getting the world online. That was really the 80s in the 90s. Then it was followed by the second wave which is really  building apps, software on top of the Internet. Facebook Google, etc. the infrastructure is already there. So, you didn’t have to focus on that. You could just build on top of the Internet and obviously that lead to a lot of innovation, a lot of very important companies, but the third wave, is sort of a whether the Internet meets the real world, and it is sectors like we talked about earlier  like healthcare. And if you want to innovate in healthcare, it is going to require, you know, systemic change. It’s not just about dropping an app in the App Store. You have to figure out how to, you know, partner with hospitals so they’ll integrate it and get the doctors and nurses to use it. The health plans is to pay for it, and government regulators  to allow it. That’s where the, you know, where the battle is going to shift. And that’s going to cross every major sector  of the economy. And you add to that, some of the technologies that are getting a lot of traction right now, and, you know, people are excited by their potential but also little anxious about what might happen. Things like AI and robotics,  you know, kind of come to mind there. All these lead to the conclusion exactly as you stated it that in this next wave, this next 10- or 20-years innovators really need to engage with the policymakers. And as you know, if you talk to entrepreneurs, they are busy building their companies, and they just don’t want to waste time. The way they define it spending a lot of time educate people in Washington, Brussels, or in  other places about these new technologies. But they really have to because if they don’t do that,  it’s not fair to the policymakers not to have a full understanding of it. And some decisions might get made that end up being things that are unhelpful to the growth of that technology, the growth of that industry and even the growth of that particular company. So, as I travel around, and really urge the entrepreneurs to spend more time in Washington, or spend more time in other places, educating policymakers about what their building, and how to think about what might happen in the next 10- or 20-years. So, we get the right balance From allowing innovation to flourish, but also doing it in a way that is sensible and kind of protects the societal interests.

JR: So, we are going to thank you for your service for that, because I do think that Washington policymakers can open doors for competition and clear the way for innovation, and I think those dialogues with early-stage entrepreneurs are really an important part of that.  So, talking a little bit more about government and what it can do, I know we have big initiatives, underway broadband for all and things like the CHIPS Act. Are there other things you are looking for from the government or things that you think could help the government contribute positively to the growth of innovation economy?

SC: Yeah, there’s a number of things. Actually, I mentioned earlier that I was my journey that got me into this Rise of the Rest work I started  at a policy level when I was cochairing what was the first National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, and well I’m back, cochairing it again, working with the Secretary of Commerce Gino Rimando on a national entrepreneurship strategy which will have  many facets to it. I’m excited about trying to get that work done in  the coming months and kind of her present  the final recommendations. I think it is important that we do what we can to make sure America continues to lead the way as the most innovative, entrepreneurial nation in the world. Obviously, we are seeing, you know, competition globally, particularly with China, but many other countries as well. How do we make sure we lead in this next wave? And, things have changed since the days I got started. When I was getting started over 90% global venture capital was invested in the United States. Now it’s half that. So, we have seen a globalization of entrepreneurship in part because we’ve seen a globalization of capital markets, venture capitalists in this instance backing entrepreneurs everywhere. So, we need to win this next battle, which is going to be a challenging, global battle. But, we also and, you talked about this earlier, we need to do it in a more inclusive way. There are many people in this country that do feel left out and that do feel left behind, and the disruptions that we celebrate in places like Silicon Valley, a lot of people in different parts of the country, you know,  are have issues with and concerns about, including how the disruption might lead to job loss and in their community or even in their own family. So, as we think about this next chapter its not just winning globally, it’s also being much more inclusive in terms of more people, in more places, being included. Some of the legislation that passed last summer, as you well know, including the CHIPS and Science Act, having authorized $10 billion for regional hubs is important, but so far only $500 million of that has actually been appropriated. So, getting the rest of it appropriated is critically important, and also working on some of the things really inflation reduction act, with the infrastructure, you know, legislation to really make sure that we are capitalizing on this moment, and doing it in a smart way for a national priorities level, but also doing it in a way that strikes the right balance between innovation flourishing at more of a local level.

And on some of these new technologies,  we briefly mentioned Al and making sure that as that takes hold, we do get the policy right, how do we allow  the benefits it can have in terms of  our lives, education, healthcare, many other sectors? How do we make sure we get those benefits and how do we lead  as a nation globally? But also recognize there’s some risks associated with. You know, we need the right guard rails and also make sure that because this is such an important technology, it isn’t a technology that just results in big tech getting bigger. The big players like Google, and Microsoft and others becoming even more dominant. How do we make sure we use these platforms or open up in a way that that entrepreneurs can tap into  those platforms in a way that, you know, many, many companies get started and  there’s a lot of innovation. So,  there is some big challenges. The good news is I think America is up for it. There has been fairly good, you know, bipartisan support for a lot of these policies that are pro America innovation and also trying to defuse innovation and job creation across the, you know, the country  and there’s a lot, as you know, on a lot of peoples plates to execute against  this legislative, you know, strategy. But I am encouraged. I think we made some moves as a country that do maximize likely that we can continue to lead and maximize the likely that we can do it in  a more inclusive way.

JR: Well put. Though, we’ve got a lot of work to do.

SC: Yes, we do. Yes, we do.

JR: So, recently you published a piece in the Washington Post about Silicon Valley Bank, and its collapse. And I want to be clear of that bank regulation is not under the authority of the FCC. Those are colleagues in another area, but I’m curious what you think about that, what it means for the startup ecosystem, and tell me about the argument you were making.

SC: Well, the core argument was to make sure we don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Obviously, what happen with Silicon Valley Bank ended up being a very difficult situation for  a lot of people.  I was concerned that when I wrote the op-ed that  people were basically suggesting they were in trouble because they were lending to startups, and they were too risky. And the reality was their loan portfolio to startups and to venture capital firms was actually  pretty strong. The problem they had was more on the balance sheet side where they locked in I think it was $80 billion at the very low interest rates as interest rates are rising, and so the balance sheet was upside down. And that created  a concern about liquidity, which created a run on the bank, which basically resulted in SVB failing and having to be, you know, back stopped. My fear, and there’s still some continuing fear, is if SVB just fell  by the wayside. They have been helpful to the innovation economy not just in Silicon Valley but all across the country. So, we wanted to make sure that there was a soft landing, in terms of  where that, you know, business landed, and it was required by a regional bank and also make sure that because of this some of the banks not just Silicon Valley Bank and their new owner and other banks, don’t pull back and become, you know, too cautious and risk averse in ways that it will hurt the startup ecosystem, hurt the innovation economy, and ultimately hurt America’s ability to lead in this  next chapter. So, hopefully as people kind of think about this over the next 6 to 12 months and policymakers try to take a new fresh look at what’s happened there, that we learn the lessons that we need to learn about how Silicon Valley Bank got in trouble, but we don’t lurch and overcorrect in a way that ultimately hurts the innovation economy, hurts startups, and hurts entrepreneurs.

JR: So, we’ve covered banking, AOL and its early days, Pizza Hut, and start-ups across the country. But we haven’t mentioned this because I think it’s intriguing. You just completed a term as the Director of the Board of Regions for the Smithsonian, the iconic museum here in Washington and really for the whole country. So, I would love to hear about that work and how it fits into the work that you are generally and how relates to Revolution and how important it is for us to support institutions like the Smithsonian.

SC: No, it is a great institution. It was started over 175 years ago  and  now it is 21 different museums some that people know—Natural History, American History, Air and Space, African-American, History, and Culture. But there are many others, and they are also significant research operations. Not just in this country but around, you know, the world so, it is a critical institution. I think respected in a bipartisan way within this country, and also respected around the world. And  I was asked to serve as a member of that Board of Regions 12 years ago as Chair of the Regions for the last 3 years. And, a big focus has been how do you drive more collaboration within the Smithsonian and around the Smithsonian more partnerships that allow us to reach more people in more places and have more impact. And also, how do you make sure that you’re taking the Smithsonian to people?  our goal is to have the Smithsonian in every home and every classroom. So, not just physical museums you visit if you have the opportunity to come to Washington DC but the Smithsonian  is going to everybody. And there is potential for great partnerships with the work you’re doing at the FCC on a number of these different initiatives. So, it’s a great institution. It’s a public-private, you know, partnership. Congress provides a good bit of the funding about 60% so the museums can be free and available to all Americans and others around the world who want to come visit as well as funding some of those research operations and its complement it with some philanthropic support, including just a couple years ago we announced the $200 million gift, the largest gift in our 175-year history from Jeff Bezos related to the air and space museum. And there are also some business interests, including the Smithsonian channel and magazine, and a bunch of other things that the Smithsonian does. So, I think it’s critical institution that’s important to this country, important to the world, and I was honored to serve on the board and then service as chair.

JR: Alight. So, we’ve got some wrap-up questions. Since this is what we call, First Conversations, we close with some questions about first and we are going to with the mundane. You got to tell us what you do every morning.

SC: A cup of coffee and check email.

JR: Yeah, coffee and email, that sounds familiar. Alright, what was your first concert?

SC: I think my first concert which would’ve been the early 1970s, I grew up in Hawaii. I believe it was Linda Ronstadt at the Waikiki Shell. But, the more interesting thing is the opening act, for Linda Ronstadt was The Eagles witch at the time was her backup band.

JR: Wow, that’s extraordinary. Alright, what one bit of advice that you would give to someone on the first day of their first job?

SC: Ultimately,  any success comes down to teams, people, and so building relationships across whatever organization you are in  is critically important, and recognizing that you can only do so much on your own  that the people you surround yourself with, and you work with are really where the leverage is so focusing on the people aspect, focusing on the team aspect, would be my principal advice.

JR: Absolutely, that’s terrific advice. Alright, this podcast celebrates those who have paved the way for others. So, I want to close by asking can you tell us about a mentor, or sponsor or someone who really helped you and influenced your work?

SC: I’ve had many mentors over the years. Including the early days of AOL. Some of the venture capitalists were quite supportive, the cofounders both of them were older than I was 10 or 20 years older  were great mentors and got me going. I also had great mentors when I started pivoting  to make investments. And I keep learning from people. Just last week we had 70 entrepreneurs from all around the country at Rise the Rest CEO retreat and I had the opportunity to learn from them, understanding how they are thinking about their business. How they dealt with COVID, how they’ve dealt with the economic decline, how they’ve dealt with some of the challenges, including related to SVB, how they dealt with what’s now much more complicated dynamics in terms of the work where instead of just everybody being in the office, some people are fully remote, a lot of people have hybrid structures. So,  I keep learning. So, one of the great things about being in the world of venture capital and working with entrepreneurs you kind of get to live in the future, you get to lean into the future, and you also get to learn  from people who are really taking some of the same, you know, chances I took when I was in my 20s and had the idea of AOL, the idea of playing a role in building the Internet. So,  I keep learning; I keep listening, and that’s what makes life so fun.

JR: Oh, words to live by. Alright, so, where can folks keep up with you and what you’re doing. This is where you can throw out your social media handles.

SC: Well, I have a lot of them. You can look at the  Revolution.com website. Steve Case is what I use  for the Twitter. We also Rise of Rest and Revolution as Twitter handles. Also, of course, on LinkedIn, Facebook, and a lot of the platforms. But those are some other ways you can connect with us.

JR: Terrific! Thank you! This wraps up this rendition of First Conversations. Thank you for being here, Steve. Thank you for the work you do and thank you to everyone for listening. Take care.