logo
How Setting Aside Revenue For Good Helps Your Business Mission Grow

How Setting Aside Revenue For Good Helps Your Business Mission Grow

Forbes4 days ago

Ryan McFarland, Founder & CEO of Strider Bikes.
Most businesses want to support causes they believe in and make a positive impact beyond their bottom line. As altruistic as we'd all like to be, we often put up roadblocks that stop us. I find the biggest roadblock to be that we see giving as an afterthought. It's something we consider only when profits allow, or when a pressing need arises. That's a reactive exercise and it will never allow you to truly help people or work on the projects you're passionate about—because there's always an excuse for why next month might be a better time to give.
If you really want to commit yourself to giving, you need to turn your company's giving mission proactive. Carve off a percentage of your revenue for good—no questions asked, no hesitation, no second-guessing. That may be frightening, but I can tell you from experience that it will strengthen your operation and bring your business closer to its mission statement. The first (and most challenging) step is committing to your new revenue reality.
A few years ago, I was reading a book called Blue Like Jazz, by Donald Miller. In one chapter, Miller describes a friend who took a percentage of his paycheck, committed it to God, put it in a jar and set it aside strictly for doing good. When his friend wanted to buy a new motorcycle, Miller suggested he dip into the jar on his dresser. But he couldn't. Why? He didn't consider that money his own. Yes, it was in his home, but it was designated for making the world a better place.
That concept stuck with me. First, I obviously sympathized with wanting that new motorcycle! I got into the business of making balance bikes for kids because I just loved the idea of sharing my love of two wheels with my kids. Then I got so passionate about it, I wanted to share that love with kids around the world. But the more I focused on making a better bike and selling it, the farther I got from that original mission. If I wanted to teach every child how to ride, I had to go farther than convincing parents to just buy my bikes. I had to commit to more impactful projects.
Not long after reading that book, we made a powerful decision to commit 1% of our monthly gross revenue—before cost of goods sold, before expenses, before knowing if there would even be any profits—to charitable initiatives that were core to our mission. That money, we thought, is no longer ours. It belongs to our giving mission. In the years that followed, we've gotten closer to what I always wanted our business to be. We've donated bikes to hospitals, custom-modified bikes for kids with height and limb differences, funded programs that teach kindergartners how to ride in PE class and more.
The key that unlocked all those possibilities was the simple act of committing 1% of our revenue to a proverbial jar and accepting that it wasn't our money. It made giving a consistent, sustainable part of our business. More importantly, it made our giving more proactive. We no longer had to decide every month or every year whether we 'could afford' to give. It just became part of how we operated.
You've already taken the step to bake giving into your budget, so treat your giving mission the same way you treat other parts of your business. Develop grand plans for your giving mission and map out the steps you need to get there. What revenue goal do you need to hit so that your 1% can help you reach your most lofty charitable goals?
This has two advantages. First, if you start by thinking small, you have to continuously plan your next big giving project as your capacity for giving grows. Second, your big dreams give your team a compelling reason to help the business grow. Now, you're not just trying to grow your bottom line. You're pushing everyone toward an exciting mission-driven goal. Somewhere along the line, we've all seen some version of the sales goal thermometer. What if you could replace that number at the top with your team's most coveted charitable mission? The human element of your goal is much more compelling than any monetary incentive. In the end, you'll push your team to do good and your business will benefit as a natural consequence.
Since launching our program—the Strider Rider Fund—we've been able to support more projects because our team has been invested in those giving missions. They help us brainstorm our big ideas and they feel connected to making those ideas a reality, which means they're also more connected to our brand's mission—to teach every child how to ride a bike. Because that money is always there, giving back is never stressful. Even if we don't hit our #1 goal, we can always find an impactful project within our roadmap. Then we get to look at this growing fund and dream about how we can use it to make an even bigger difference.
This single decision to set aside a percentage of our revenue changed the way we give. It has allowed us to give literally millions to the causes we love, and I believe it can change the way businesses everywhere approach doing good. If you really have a passion, especially one that's in line with your business mission, choose a percentage and stick to it. Set it aside, and let it become part of the DNA of your company. Don't leave it up to emotion, timing or financial ups and downs. Carve it off the top, and then run your business knowing that what's left is what you have to work with. You'll be amazed at how much that tiny percentage allows you to accomplish, and how it transforms the way you and your team approach your business.
Forbes Business Council is the foremost growth and networking organization for business owners and leaders. Do I qualify?

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Police cast wide net in probe of defunct North Texas car dealership's business practices
Police cast wide net in probe of defunct North Texas car dealership's business practices

CBS News

time25 minutes ago

  • CBS News

Police cast wide net in probe of defunct North Texas car dealership's business practices

Desire Godfrey said it was time for a vehicle upgrade. The Lancaster mother had her eye on a Lexus. "I had a baby, so I'm looking for something reliable for me and a baby," Godfrey said. She searched online and found what she thought was the right vehicle at The Reserve Auto Group in The Colony. She described the sales process in May 2024 as a positive experience. Warranty and GAP insurance issues But an unexpected oil change six months later changed everything. Godfrey, 33, said a Lexus dealership informed her the vehicle was not under warranty. She also discovered her GAP insurance policy didn't exist. "They (Reserve Auto Group) never paid the warranty company the money they were supposed to pay to activate this warranty and this GAP insurance," she said. Car loan charges continue Godfrey said the costs were included in her car note. She filed a report with The Colony Police Department — and she's not alone. Police said they received their first complaint on Jan. 31. According to a news release, police have been investigating multiple fraud claims connected to the dealership since 2023. The business shut down in December 2024, but complaints continue to come in. Alleged auto fraud pattern Investigators said customers were allegedly instructed to write separate checks for aftermarket warranties or GAP insurance policies. Those payments were supposed to go to third-party providers, but police said the dealership allegedly cashed the checks and never forwarded the money — leaving customers without coverage. Another victim comes forward A second alleged victim, who spoke to CBS News Texas anonymously, said she and her husband also bought a Lexus from the dealership. She provided a non-activation letter from DOWC Administrative Services LLC, a company that offers GAP insurance and warranties. The letter stated: "Please be advised that Reserve Auto has failed to remit payment to Us as the Administrator and Provider for your Contract. Consequently, the Contract was not activated in our system." Investigation still ongoing Police have not made any arrests or publicly identified anyone associated with the allegations. Officers said they are continuing to vet additional alleged victims. CBS News Texas is not naming the person listed as the dealership's owner, as police have indicated he did nothing wrong. He spoke briefly by phone, saying he wanted to schedule an appointment to discuss the claims further because he believed "we did not have all the facts." When asked for clarification, he said he didn't have time to explain. Legal team responds Two emails followed the call, and attorneys from Herrin Law introduced themselves. "We have no comment at this time. Thank you for your interest in our client's side of the story," attorney Benjamin Palatiere said. He requested that all future inquiries be directed to him. Buyer left without coverage Meanwhile, Godfrey said the vehicle itself has not had any issues. But she continues to pay for a warranty and insurance that don't exist. "So nobody wants to refinance the loan. Nobody wants to give me GAP insurance," she said. "It's just more so like I'm going to take it or leave it. If I wreck the car, then I would have to figure out a way to pay that car off." Godfrey said she hopes to recover the money one day.

Supreme Court halts lower court orders requiring DOGE to hand over information about work and personnel
Supreme Court halts lower court orders requiring DOGE to hand over information about work and personnel

CBS News

time35 minutes ago

  • CBS News

Supreme Court halts lower court orders requiring DOGE to hand over information about work and personnel

Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Washington — The Supreme Court on Friday halted lower court orders that required the White House's Department of Government Efficiency to turn over information to a government watchdog group as part of a lawsuit that tests whether President Trump's cost-cutting task force has to comply with federal public records law. The order from the high court clears DOGE for now from having to turn over records related to its work and personnel, and keeps Amy Gleason, identified as its acting administrator, from having to answer questions at a deposition. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. "The portions of the district court's April 15 discovery order that require the government to disclose the content of intra–executive branch USDS recommendations and whether those recommendations were followed are not appropriately tailored," the court said in its order. "Any inquiry into whether an entity is an agency for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act cannot turn on the entity's ability to persuade. Furthermore, separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal executive branch communications." The Supreme Court sent the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for more proceedings. Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily paused the district court's order last month, which allowed the Supreme Court more time to consider the Trump administration's bid for emergency relief. A district judge had ordered DOGE to turn over documents to the group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, by June 3, and for Gleason's deposition to be completed by June 13. The underlying issue in the case involves whether DOGE is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. CREW argues that the cost-cutting task force wields "substantial independent authority," which makes it a de facto agency that must comply with federal public records law. The Justice Department, however, disagrees and instead claims that DOGE is a presidential advisory body housed within the Executive Office of the President that makes recommendations to the president and federal agencies on matters that are important to Mr. Trump's second-term agenda. DOGE's agency status was not before the Supreme Court, though the high court may be asked to settle that matter in the future. Instead, the Trump administration had asked the justices to temporarily halt a district court's order that allowed CREW to gather certain information from DOGE as part of its effort to determine whether the task force is an advisory panel that is outside FOIA's scope or is an agency that is subject to the records law. The judge overseeing the dispute, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, had ordered DOGE to turn over certain documents to the watchdog group by June 3 and to complete all depositions, including of Gleason, by June 13. Mr. Trump ordered the creation of DOGE on his first day back in the White House as part of his initiative to slash the size of the federal government. Since then, DOGE team members have fanned out to agencies across the executive branch and have been part of efforts to shrink the federal workforce and shutter entities like the U.S. Agency for International Development and the U.S. Institute of Peace. DOGE has also attempted to gain access to sensitive databases kept by the Internal Revenue Service, Social Security Administration and Office of Personnel Management, prompting legal battles. In an effort to learn more about DOGE's structure and operations, CREW submitted an expedited FOIA request to the task force. After it did not respond in a timely manner, CREW filed a lawsuit and sought a preliminary injunction to expedite processing of its records request. The organization argued that DOGE was exercising significant independent authority, which made it an agency subject to FOIA. Cooper granted CREW's request for a preliminary injunction in March and agreed that FOIA likely applies to DOGE because it is "likely exercising substantial independent authority much greater than other [Executive Office of the President] components held to be covered by FOIA." He then allowed CREW to conduct limited information-gathering, which the watchdog group said aimed to determine whether DOGE is exercising substantial authority that would bring it within FOIA's reach. A federal appeals court ultimately declined to pause that order, requiring DOGE to turn over the documents sought by CREW. In seeking the Supreme Court's intervention, Solicitor General D. John Sauer said CREW is conducting a "fishing expedition" into DOGE's activities. He warned that if Cooper's order remains in place, several components of the White House, such as the offices of the chief of staff and national security adviser, would be subject to FOIA. "That untenable result would compromise the provision of candid, confidential advice to the president and disrupt the inner workings of the Executive Branch," Sauer wrote. "Yet, in the decisions below, the court of appeals and district court treated a presidential advisory body as a potential 'agency' based on the persuasive force of its recommendations — threatening opening season for FOIA requests on the president's advisors." But lawyers for CREW told the Supreme Court in a filing that the Justice Department's position "would require courts to blindly yield to the Executive's characterization" of the authority and operations of a component of the Executive Office of the President. They said adopting the Trump administration's approach to DOGE would give the president "free reign" to create new entities within the Executive Office of the President that exercise substantial independent authority but are shielded from transparency laws. "Courts would be forced to blindly accept the government's representations about an EOP unit's realworld operations, unable to test those representations through even limited discovery," CREW's lawyers wrote. "It is that extreme position, not the discovery order, that would 'turn[] FOIA on its head.'"

More Colleges Freeze Hiring And Suspend Salary Increases
More Colleges Freeze Hiring And Suspend Salary Increases

Forbes

timean hour ago

  • Forbes

More Colleges Freeze Hiring And Suspend Salary Increases

Colleges and universities continue to look for ways to cut spending because of the Trump Administration's policies towards higher education. One June 2nd, Johns Hopkins University announced a set of policies to prepare for a possible decline in revenue. They join a list of schools including Brown University, Duke University, Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Washington, and the University of California system, that have temporarily paused hiring and vow to hold off on capital spending. Hopkins has already seen $850 million in grant cuts resulting from the culling of USAID and other program terminations, plus the school has a large number of international students (many who pay full tuition) who may be dissuaded from studying in the U.S. due to the Administration's more restrictive visa policies. Like a number of elite universities, Johns Hopkins relies heavily on tuition from international students attending its undergraduate and graduate programs. In the 2024-2025 academic year, over ten thousand foreign students were enrolled at Johns Hopkins according to the Institute of International Education. In addition to the hiring freeze, University President Ron Daniels also announced a pause in annual pay increases for employees earning $80,000 or more, a slowing of capital projects by 10% to 20%, and spending cuts for travel, events, food, and supplies. The salary freezes will likely squeeze faculty, who have seen real wages decline. From 2013 to 2023, average pay for faculty (when adjusted for inflation) has decreased by 1.5%, while administrative pay has risen by 4% for the same time frame. In addition, administrative staff positions at most universities and colleges has grown faster than faculty. There is no doubt the universities and colleges need to take steps to address the impact of the Trump Administration's policies. Although painful, the policies issued by Johns Hopkins and other schools are necessary in the near-term. But a different approach is needed long-term. One that doesn't rely on higher student tuition or faculty salaries that fall further behind inflation. These policies should include: The Trump Administration's policies towards colleges and their students may eventually be rolled back or reversed at some point, but in the meantime, higher education needs to rethink their budgets and what should be prioritized.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store