The following is a conversation between Jordan Kassalow, the founder of VisionSpring, and Denver Frederick, Host of The Business of Giving on AM 970 The Answer in New York City.

Denver: We have had the good fortune to hear from many extraordinary social entrepreneurs on The Business of Giving, remarkable individuals one and all. But I don’t know if we’ve ever had a person more dissatisfied with the status quo in a good way, and as a result brings an urgency to the work that they do, relentlessly seeking new ways to be more effective and have greater impact. That person is Jordan Kassalow, the founder of VisionSpring. Good evening, Jordan, and welcome to The Business of Giving.

Jordan: Good evening. It’s a pleasure to be with you, Denver.

Denver: Tell us about VisionSpring and what the organization does.

Jordan: VisionSpring is a nonprofit social enterprise, and we work to ensure affordable access to eyewear everywhere. There are billions of people in the world who don’t have access to a simple product that’s been around for 700 years, and we make sure that they get them.

..when those lenses lined up with his eyes, this blank stare of a blind child just transformed into the most beautiful smile of joy that you can ever imagine, and it was a moment that literally changed both of our lives.

Denver: You know, you had a seminal moment, Jordan, which truly informed and shaped your life’s work… which happened to take place after a period of introspection. Share that story with us.

Jordan Kassalow, Founder of VIsionSpring

Jordan: Yes, this is the founding story of my work at VisionSpring. As a 20-year-old, I used to spend a tremendous amount of my time in beautiful wilderness areas. I was in the northern part of Alaska in the Brooks Range, and I was climbing a mountain,  and like nature can sometimes do to you, it made me feel insignificant. The scale, the scope of the landscape was just so broad that I felt like, if you will, dust in the wind. I remember being on top of this mountain looking out in the world, and it was conspiring to tell me that I didn’t matter. And as a 20-year-old kid, I just hated that message, and I remember literally screaming back at the wind saying that I did matter!

But if truth be told, in my marrow, I didn’t really know how. Then we fast-forward about six months later, I was a young student studying to be an eye doctor and joined an organization that brought eye care to underserved populations in Latin America. There I was face to face with a seven-year-old boy who was from the School for the Blind. He thought he was blind. His parents thought he was blind, and when we looked at him, we were shocked that he wasn’t blind. He just needed a super-strong pair of eyeglasses. For your listeners who know their prescriptions, his prescription was a minus 20. So, he literally couldn’t see more than an inch beyond his nose.

I was the person who got to put the first pair of glasses on this boy’s face. As you can imagine, when those lenses lined up with his eyes, this blank stare of a blind child just transformed into the most beautiful smile of joy that you can ever imagine. And it was a moment that literally changed both of our lives. Mark Twain says, the two most important days of your life are the day that you’re born and the day you find out why, and that was the day I found out why.

Denver: He always had a perfect way of putting everything.

Jordan: Yeah, he’s got good quotes.

If I could transform people’s lives like I did that seven-year-old boy, I would live a life that was significant.

Denver: You just wanted to capture that moment again and again and again as many times as you possibly could.

Jordan: Exactly. I knew that if I could replicate that moment, I would be successful. No matter how many cars I had, or how many houses I had, if I could transform people’s lives like I did that seven-year-old boy, I would live a life that was significant.

Denver: Great story, Jordan.  Give us a sense of the scope and magnitude of the problem… the number of people across the globe who have trouble seeing, but just don’t have ready access to a pair of eyeglasses.

Jordan: It’s quite shocking. There are 2 & ½  billion people in the world, literally a third of the world’s population, whose vision can be improved by a pair of eyeglasses. Half of them, over a billion of them, need glasses so strong that without them, they are characterized as visually impaired or blind. So, over a billion people on our planet are visually impaired or blind, not because they have some terrible eye disease, but just because they need a pair of eyeglasses, a technology that’s been around for over 700 years.

Denver: Let’s take a look at a model that I think many listeners are familiar with, and maybe some think work quite well, and that is people donating their eyeglasses that they no longer need. Maybe they need a stronger prescription, and making those glasses available for someone with very limited means for free. What are the shortcomings of that model?

Jordan: It’s a good question and important question. When I started, and actually when I met that seven-year-old boy, that first pair of glasses I put on his face was a pair of glasses that was donated. So, there are some merits to it. However, it’s not a strategy that can really scale to the size of the problem. So, it’s very much a Band-Aid approach. We’ve also looked at the analytics of it in terms of the cost effectiveness of it. The research shows that the fully-loaded cost of delivering a pair of glasses through the donated channel– in terms of the collection, the cleaning up, the shipping; all the costs associated with doing that comes out to $20 per person served. Whereas, at VisionSpring, we have a philanthropic investment per pair of glasses under $4, and some of the models even at the $2 mark, so it’s much more efficient. I can tell you some other stories, maybe a little later on in the interview, about some of the shortcomings of that model.

Denver: I think you refer to it as PIPP.

Jordan: Yes. PIPP is the philanthropic investment per pair. It’s one of the ways that we measure ourselves at VisionSpring to ensure that we are using philanthropic capital in the most cost-effective and impactful way possible.

Denver: You actually charge for the glasses that you provide, and you believe that is beneficial on a number of different levels. What are some of those advantages?

Jordan: There are a lot of advantages to charging for glasses, and let me roll back a little bit and blend the two questions of why the donated model doesn’t work and also address this question through a story which is a very powerful story, that really was for me, the wakeup call to shift from the donated model to the more commercial model, if you will.

We were in western Columbia in the poorest state of Columbia called Choco. It’s named Choco because the Indians who are native to that part of the world are called Choco Indians.  And we had set up a temporary clinic, and the word got out widely around that area that a team of American doctors were setting up a clinic to provide eye care and provide free eyeglasses. There I was on Day 2  in front of a 40-something-year-old Choco Indian woman. She was known as the blind lady in her village. She had never gotten a pair of glasses, and she had canoed a full day downriver– the Atrato River, which is a dangerous river– to come to our clinic.

We examined her eyes. She was minus 8 myopia, someone who couldn’t see the big E on the eye chart. Suddenly, she  put on that pair of glasses, and she could see 20/20 for the first time in her life. We were all very proud of ourselves, giving ourselves high fives. We’ve saved another person kind of attitude, and she went back upriver, and we went on to our next patients. Three days later, there was that lady again, and she through a Choco, native Indian tongue Spanish-English translated that when she got back to her community, she was ostracized because her glasses looked so ridiculous. Truth be told, she was right because she was wearing traditional Indian garb. The only glasses that matched her very unusual prescription were a 1950s cat-eye pair of glasses with rhinestones on them, and they would be really cool in the East Village of Manhattan on a hipster. But they just didn’t work in her culture.

So, we explained to her that this was the only pair that really matched what she needed, and then she did something that blew all of our minds. She took the glasses off her face; she put them down on the wooden table; she got back into her canoe, and she canoed upriver, basically choosing blindness over what we were providing.  That just stopped me and my colleagues in our tracks. That was an incredible decision, and we must be doing something wrong if she’s made that kind of decision.

One of the things that we did wrong was we weren’t getting any customer feedback. Because we were giving the glasses away, it was a one-way street.  Whereas, when you charge for products, there’s a very powerful feedback loop from the market telling you that I am paying you because what you are providing has value for me. Whereas, if you don’t have that feedback loop, you often lose that ability. So, since we’ve started to have that feedback loop, our glasses are representative of the kind of glasses people aspire to wear, price points that are more appropriate for what they can afford.  So that market mechanism, that market feedback, is really critical.

Denver: Great story. I think you said the word. She’s a customer. Not a charity handout. This is a customer who is purchasing this.

Is there a social stigma attached to wearing glasses in different parts of the world? I think we even have it here in the United States in certain grades.  But is there a social stigma with it?

Jordan: There is a social stigma in certain societies more than others. A very powerful example of that is in Cambodia. In the old days of the Khmer Rouge, the intellectuals, the people who wore glasses, were killed. Glasses were not seen as something that people wanted to wear; they, didn’t want to identify themselves as the intellectual class. So, that was a big hurdle, and that continues to be a big hurdle in getting people in a country like Cambodia to wear glasses.

In other societies, India in particular, we’ve seen studies that show that girls of marriageable age feel that they’re less marry-able if they wear glasses, because it’s some kind of deficit, genetic deficit that they have. Also, we’ve seen in some of our programs when younger children wear glasses, the older folks in those societies will say, “Who do you think you are?”  Almost like saying, you’re smarter than us. You’re uppity. Those glasses are for rich people. They’re not for village people. Yes, there are some social stigmas that we have to overcome.

Denver: I think in places like China, they think it’s going to weaken your eyes.

Jordan: That’s also a good point. That is absolutely correct. In China; the belief is just that. They often discourage children from wearing glasses because they feel by wearing glasses, it will make the eyes worse. Research clearly shows now that, in fact, when you have nearsightedness, and you wear the proper prescription, it slows down the progression of myopia or nearsightedness.

Denver: Well, you’re charging for these glasses, so you have a high-volume, low-margin approach to your business which necessitates keeping the price pretty darn low and therefore affordable. How do you go about doing that?

Jordan: The first thing to note is that in the markets that we work, historically, the prevailing business model was for just the opposite – low-volume, high-margin. As a result, only the upper middle class, professional class of people would be able to afford glasses because the local purview of glasses were selling the same kind of glasses that we can get here in the states– the Ray Bans, the Giorgio Armanis, the Calvin Kleins, and their model was just that. As a result, only 10% of the population could afford glasses, which left a huge market failure for the remaining people… most of the people were just earning a few dollars a day.

So, we felt it was essential in order to reach those markets, that we had to flip that on its side, and we had to strip out all the unnecessary costs of the glasses, bring the cost down to a level that was more affordable and acceptable to the average person, which turns out to be around two to three days of earnings. So our price points for reading glasses, to give you a sense, are $1 to $2, and for prescription glasses, between $4 and $10. At that price point, most people, even if they’re poor, even if they’re earning $1, $2 or $3 a day, will pay for the glasses if they really need them.

Denver: Talking about that customer, they are sometimes referred to as the base of the pyramid. They’re all individual customers,  but speak to that cohort. We’ve talked about it a little bit on the show, but nobody’s really ever explained the base of the pyramid and what people perhaps just don’t recognize or understand about that customer base.

Jordan: I think the first thing to note is that the base of the pyramid is a general term, and it means different things to different people in different contexts. But, in general, what it means is that if you look at a pyramid of the socio-economic  status of people, particularly in the developing world, more people are at the base than at the top. So, the vast majority of customers and the population will be at the base of the pyramid, and these are people who are often referred to as people who earn between $1 and $4 a day.

In Latin America, it can go up to $8 a day. What’s key to understand about these customers and these people as a general cohort is that although they’re relatively poor,  they have the potential to buy products. They buy cell phones. They buy televisions. They buy clothes. They buy sneakers. They buy other products. So what’s happened over time is that the development community that’s interested in selling pro-development and pro-development positive products like solar lights, water filters, eyeglasses, are looking at them as a profitable market, but requiring that low price and low margin kind of strategy that we talked about.

Denver: Many people talk about innovation but they’re often not very innovative about it. What they’re usually talking about are new products to meet these gaps in the market place, but it’s refreshing to hear you talk about innovation in the context of business models, which you do.  And you’re been through several, perhaps more than several. Share with our listeners that evolution.

Jordan: I think what’s important there also is that there seems to be a bit of an obsession with innovation. What’s the newest thing? What’s the coolest new gadget? How can you solve these problems with technology? Whereas, the real issue is… most of what people need in the world is already available. It’s already been invented. Eyeglasses are a perfect example. They’ve been around for 700 years, but they just haven’t been distributed. That technology hasn’t diffused to people. So, what’s really needed, more than innovative products, are innovative distribution strategies.

How do we reach those end-of-the-road consumers in a manner that is affordable to them?  And it doesn’t have so many costs associated with reaching out to them that their products become unaffordable. We started experimenting 15 years ago with distribution strategies that could reach out to consumers directly, and we started with one strategy, and now we have a number of strategies.  And there’s been a very long journey, an iterative journey to come up with the models that we deploy now… which I can go through, if you want to.

The first idea, which was the founding idea that was in my head for many years before we tried it was the following: In my work as an eye doctor around the world, I saw that there were huge numbers of people who were falling out of the workforce because they couldn’t see. People in the middle 40s, 50s who were at the economic center of their communities, supporting elderly parents and young children, who were working with their eyes and hands– weavers, tailors, artisans, mechanics, barbers.

Denver:  Right at the peak of their earning potential.

Jordan: Right at the mastery of what they were doing, and the cruel joke was that their eyes would start to fail, and so would their income. All they needed was a pair of glasses that I knew could source in Asia for less than a dollar. So, I said, that’s a crazy set of affairs. Let’s change that. The other observation that I made was that there were a lot of people in those same communities, particularly women, who were underemployed or unemployed.

So, I said, Why couldn’t we just train those local women to start small businesses– being almost like Avon ladies for eyeglasses and teach them how to sell reading glasses?  They’re a consumer product in America. People buy them off the shelf. It’s not rocket science. How could we simply train those women to start these kinds of businesses? So, we started in India with about 18 women. After a year of testing that model, six of them made some money, six of them lost some money, and six of them broke even. It was exactly a third, a third, a third.

So, what did the six do that made money compared to the six that lost money? And we started to iterate. Long story, short is:  although we tested that model for three or four years, and we expanded to several hundred of those kinds of women, at the end of the day, they couldn’t make enough money on that one product to have a fully sustaining business. They started to use it as a supplemental business. It’s not at all unusual in those parts of the world for people to have a bit of a portfolio of activities that they do to cobble together a living.

Denver: Like here.

Jordan: Like here, very much so. So, we started to get away from being just a one-product company, and we said to ourselves: How can we take this innovation–We identified it and we proved that women could be trained to do this responsibly, that people would buy them from those women, that they would buy the correct glasses, that they would pay a certain amount of money– how can we take that, all those innovations, and embed them into existing distribution networks and infrastructures that were already out there selling other similar products and add eyeglasses to those broader baskets of goods, so they had a medley of products?  So, that’s when we came to our partnership with BRAC. We can talk a little bit about that.

Denver: The largest and one of the most highly regarded nonprofit organizations in the world. Tell us what you did with them.

Jordan: We were lucky. I always talk about BRAC as  when you look at those nature shows, and you see the giant fish, and on the back of them was the little sucker fish. VisionSpring was the sucker fish, and BRAC was the whale. We were thrilled that they were interested in this idea when we posed it to them. They were interested, in their health portfolio, testing a social entrepreneurial approach. Up to that point, they have never charged for health products before. So, they had some real interest there.

They have over their 40 years of existence trained 100,000 community health workers that they called Shasthya Shebikas. They provide maternal and child health services, nutritional services; other primary healthcare services, and we said, let’s put eyeglasses into that basket of goods. Like BRAC usually does, they said that sounds like a good idea but let’s start small. We started with 50. It worked really nicely with 50. Then they said let’s go to 500. We said okay, let’s do it. Then we went to 500. Then we went to 5,000. Now, we’ve trained over 25,000 community health workers, and we’ve been doing this for over a decade now, and we have reached over a million people in Bangladesh. We are the largest provider of eyeglasses in the entire country of Bangladesh– BRAC and VisionSpring.

Denver: Makes so much sense to plug into these established lines of communications like that. Boy, are they ever trusted in the community, those BRAC health workers!

Jordan: That makes a big difference as well. Absolutely. So that was the next iteration. Then we tried other iterations. Mobile vans; we’ve tried retail stores. We still have a dozen retail stores in India that are working well, but we’re not expanding that service. We also work with a lot of corporations to do mass vision screenings, to set up eye camps for them in their whole supply chain and value chain. We also have a wholesale business where we provide really high quality glasses and lenses to large eye hospitals like the Aravind Eye Hospital, LV Prasad Eye Hospital. We have all different kinds of components to our model at this point.

If you don’t hire someone who eventually becomes your largest donor, you’ve under-hired. So, we feel very fortunate that Neil was on our team.

Denver: All of them are a little bit different in terms of how they are financed. One great partnership you have is with Warby Parker. In fact, you were the mentor of their co-founder who actually started at VisionSpring. How has that relationship developed?  And how do you support one another in this work?

Jordan: It’s been a wonderful, really dream-come-true kind of partnership. It started very organically. Neil Blumenthal, who is the co-founder and co-CEO of Warby Parker, was our third employee at VisionSpring. He worked with us for five years and learned the market. Actually, he was one of the people who helped me start the relationship with BRAC. He learned very quickly the dissociation between the actual manufacturing cost of glasses and the retail cost of glasses in the United States, which at that point before he started Warby Parker was typically $300, $400, $500 or more.

After five years at VisionSpring, like many people who start at VisionSpring, they think they’re going to move on to international affairs work or social work or public health work; but almost everyone ends up going to business school after spending time with VisionSpring because they see that business is an incredible tool, an incredible way and skill set to make a difference in the world and to affect social change. Neil was no different. He went to Wharton Business School and met his other co-founders of Warby and launched Warby Parker out of Wharton. I think, as they say, the rest is history. They’ve just been flying high. They continue to grow their business in a very dramatic way.

Given his background and the background of his co-founders, the social mission and the trying to solve this issue area of billions of people not being able to see was really deeply embedded in the DNA of Warby Parker and becomes a very core part of the brand identity. As you know, they have a one- for- one model: For every pair of glasses that they sell, they help VisionSpring distribute a pair of glasses. Over time, they have become our largest donor. I often joke with my social enterprise buddies that if you don’t hire someone who eventually becomes your largest donor, you’ve under-hired. So, we feel very fortunate that Neil was on our team. He and his partners continue to believe in solving this problem with VisionSpring and other nonprofit partners that they work with.

Denver: That just might be the # 1  takeaway from this interview.

I think you said the right word too– authentic. Sometimes, companies try to do this, and you can see it’s marketing. But with them, it’s really in the DNA. It’s in the core, and it probably all really started with having started at VisionSpring.

Is the marketplace changing at all for eyeglasses?  Is there an increased demand across the globe these days?

Jordan: We are starting to see that. The world is getting older, and it’s also getting more nearsighted. So, there have been some studies that show that by 2050, half of the world’s population will be nearsighted, and that has to do with increased literacy rates, more work up close from computers iPhones and so forth and tablets, even in the poorest regions of the world. Those technologies are diffusing. So, there is going to be a greater demand and need for the glasses. With the work of VisionSpring and many of the other great organizations in our space, like Brien Holden Vision Institute, Our Children’s Vision, Essilor’s programs… which they’re the largest for-profit company in this space, Helen Keller International, more and more focus is being put on this issue area by the companies, by the NGOs. As a result, more resources are starting to come to the space. It’s still under the radar generally, but we’re starting to see some change.

…if the human eye cannot connect to the phone that’s a foot away, then what good is all of that information? And we talk about it as the “ last-foot” problem.

Denver: I can imagine. Also, cell phones as you just mentioned. That’s a big, big thing. People just can’t read them.

Jordan: That’s one of the things that we haven’t done yet that we want to do a study on just that… is cell phone time use, and that’s how the cell phone companies make their money– on the higher margin kind of activities like texting, searching. As you know, if you can’t see your phone, you’re going to be less engaged with your phone. So, we want to make the case that if you want all the people in the world connected to the world wide web, they need to see the phones. So, cellphones and reading glasses go hand in hand.

Denver: Certainly nobody talks on those phones anymore. I think you call it the last-foot challenge.

Jordan: In public health historically, it’s been known as the last-mile issue in terms of that’s where the heart is, where the rubber hits the road– to provide vaccine services or maternal and child health services. What we talk about is that if the human eye cannot connect to the phone that’s a foot away, then what good is all of that information?  And we talk about it as the “last-foot” problem.

Denver: Speaking of studies, you have worked with the William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan to measure the impact that a pair of glasses can have on the economic fortunes of an individual. What has been that impact?

Jordan: It’s pretty clear. It’s somewhat intuitive that if you can’t see, it’s hard to be productive. Like many things, it’s important to prove. We’ve done some interesting studies with University of Michigan and others that look at the increased productivity that people yield or receive when their vision is improved. The William Davidson study showed that when people got glasses; and this was done in India, their productivity increased by about 34%. There’s also been a new study that we’re still waiting for the final results, but it was done in an agricultural setting, in a tea plantation. The preliminary results look very promising once again as one of the largest impacts on productivity of any other health intervention ever studied, more than malaria bed nets and other things that have been looked at. It’s a very powerful development tool.

Denver: Very impressive. We’ve talked a little bit about the innovation of your business models from the “ vision in the bag” with the women, to retail and wholesale, and beyond. But one of the latest developments is around systems change. And that’s something called EYElliance. Who is involved in that?  And what do you hope to do to accomplish?

Jordan: About three years ago, one of my coworkers at VisionSpring, Liz Smith, and I were having one of our normal weekly meetings to talk about how we could continue to propel our mission forward, and she was sort of prodding me to say, Are we going to continue to increase this hundred thousand, two hundred thousand, three hundred thousand people at a time?  Or, can we start to get to the tens, hundreds of millions of dollars; what kind of ideas do you have about that? She sort of gave me license to think beyond just…

Denver: …arithmetically, and start to think geometrically.

Jordan: Exactly. She was a little shocked that I actually had an answer. I said, “I’ve been thinking about this.” One thing that I think really needs to happen is we need to get governments and the private sector engaged because in observing the nonprofit space, what we as a community are really good at is innovation and risk taking, but we’re not really good at massively scaling things. If you want something to be massively scaled, generally, it’s the private sector and governments that take that on.

So, we started to think about how can we engage governments and the private sector to take all the innovations that are coming up from organizations like VisionSpring and others, and embed those into those larger systems. And that was the idea behind the EYElliance:  to try to get a coalition of private and public sector actors to address this issue area, to give it more attention, to drive more resources to it, and to accelerate the uptake of models that have been proven to be successful and embed them into these larger systems.

As well as looking at vision more broadly:  For instance, if you can’t see, it’s hard to learn. Some studies also show that. Some studies in China showed that a pair of glasses had more impact on academic performance that any other health intervention studied. What can we do to get the large NGOs and donor community involved who are looking at education?  And if 10% of the boys and girls we are trying to educate can’t see, what do we do to ensure that those boys and girls get a pair of glasses?

We want to engage the road traffic safety community. They’re talking about it being one of the leading causes of death in the developing world now. Again, if you can’t see, it’s hard to be safe on the road. 59% of road traffic fatalities have a visual component associated with them. How can we get that whole ecosystem engaged? Livelihoods and productivity; lots of groups out there are trying to figure out how to make factory workers more efficient and safer and all of those kinds of things. So, a whole other community. We’re trying to broaden this from just being a vision effort to more of a broad, socioeconomic development effort. So, that’s what the EYElliance is. We’re a multi-stakeholder group of members. We’ve got 36 members now in the EYElliance who are trying to make a bigger dent faster in that 2-1/2 billion person problem.

…the whole premise of VisionSpring comes from a very passionate place, a very authentic place, and a very heart-driven place. I often talk about the heart being the motor for sustained action.

Denver: Fantastic. It’s clear listening to you speak about the organization and your work, that you’re very mindful of the corporate culture at VisionSpring. What are some of the things that you’ve done to help shape and influence that workplace culture?  And what do you think makes VisionSpring a really special place in which to work?

Jordan: I would defer to the people who work there to really answer that, but I think one of the core components of our culture has to do with the founding story and me as the founder, in that this is an issue area that profoundly affected me, that I saw a very clear injustice in the world.  The world the way that it was… that just didn’t make sense to me, and I have been driven ever since I met that boy to close the gap on that injustice.

So, the whole premise of VisionSpring comes from a very passionate place, a very authentic place, and a very heart-driven place. I often talk about the heart being the motor for sustained action. That these kinds of organizations like VisionSpring are not sprints. These are marathon-kind of issue areas. And unless something touches your heart, you’re not going to be able to sustain the action because there are a lot of downs, as well as some great ups.  But there’s a lot of pushing rocks uphill with this kind of work.

I think one of the core parts of our culture is just coming to it from a very heartfelt place, from a place of injustice and just knowing we’re on the right side of history as an organization; that there is nothing but good that comes out of people seeing better, and that is a fundamental reality that I think underlines a lot of our corporate culture.

Denver: Well said. Jordan Kassalow, the founder of VisionSpring and Co-Founder of EYElliance, I want to thank you so much for being here this evening. Tell us about your website, what people will find on it, and how they can help support this work if they should be so inclined.

Jordan: Our website is, as well as What you’ll find on both websites are further explanations of the organization’s work, how people can help. There are donate buttons on both of those websites, and this, again, is one of those incredibly impactful donations. Just a few dollars… even if you can only afford $5, you will put a pair of glasses on a boy or girl’s face to help them learn, or on a weaver’s or tailor’s face and help them sustain their livelihood for the next 20 years. You can basically double someone’s working life for $5. It is a great and easy way to make a change in the world. Many of your listeners will be able to relate to this because without their glasses, they know they wouldn’t be living as full and prosperous a life as they are.

Denver: That’s for sure. Thanks very much, Jordan. It was a real pleasure to have you on the program.

Jordan: My pleasure. Thank you Denver. Thank you for the opportunity. It’s been great.

Denver: I’ll be back with more of The Business of Giving, right after this.

The Business of Giving can be heard every Sunday evening between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. Eastern on AM 970 The Answer in New York and on iHeartRadio. You can follow us @bizofgive on Twitter, @bizofgive on Instagram and at

Share This: