Podcast - How hard can it be_T

We’re delighted to be joined by Tim Dolan ,CEO, University of Hawai’i Foundation and Vice President of Advancement at the University of Hawaii, for a conversation about what fundraising looks like when relationships are at the heart of every major gift.

Tim makes a thoughtful case for listening as one of the core disciplines of major gift fundraising: understanding what donors care about, where their values lie, and how organisations can respond with authenticity rather than assumption. He also questions whether long-held models, like the traditional donor pyramid, still serve us today. 

Tim is one of the most thoughtful voices in fundraising and is certainly, one of the most loved. 

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:02

Welcome to How Hard Can It Be. I'm Frankie Airy. I'm Marisa Mandil, and together we are Philanthropy Squid Academy.

SPEAKER_02 0:11

We're joined today by Tim Dolan, Vice President of Advancement at the University of Hawaii, for a conversation about what fundraising looks like when relationships are at the heart of every major gift. Tim makes a thoughtful case for listening as one of the core disciplines of fundraising, understanding what donors care about, where their values lie, and how organizations can respond with authenticity rather than assumption. He also questions whether long-held models, like the traditional donor pyramid, still serve us in a world where fewer people are giving more. At the heart of it all is curiosity, trust, and a shared purpose. It's a refreshing take on fundraising that invites us to rethink how we engage, how we listen, and ultimately the conversation offers us a reminder that when relationships come first, generosity follows.

SPEAKER_01 1:06

So we're going to be focusing this conversation very much on major gifts, Tim. And uh when we've spoken previously, you've mentioned that organizations seeking major gifts, often are seeking something like lightning in a bottle. Could you maybe unpack this for us and um let us know what you mean when you say that?

SPEAKER_00 1:28

Sure. So for me, I was thinking about this, and there are three basic camps related to major gifts. And the first camp, these are folks who prefer other modalities of fundraising, whether it be special events or the annual fund or increasingly giving days. They're just used to that kind of fundraising. So the whole idea of major gifts seemed to be a little bit off-center, at least in the university world that I've been in my whole career. There's no shortage of people who just are not naturally convinced that the major gift strategy is where we should go. The second group, these are folks where everything sort of orbits around them and their preferences. It's a group that really believe that what I pitch and what I need is sort of the rule of the day. It's unfortunately not terribly uncommon to see most academic leaders with these highly transactional pitches, and their framing is very self-referential. And oftentimes, so is the GIF's impact that uh that they're trying to get across. It's essentially all about me. And the obvious downside to being a solar system leader is that it's not going to, you know, we're talking about catching lightning in a bottle, it's not going to provide that from people on the other side of the table. So I imagine that the great majority of academic leaders struggle with that, that inclination of wanting to be very prioritized in telling the other person what they need. But the third group, which is numerically the smallest group, and the group that I wanted to focus on today, are prospects or seeing prospects as co-owners, where the first goal clearly is to listen and then to co-imagine. And this is the space where that co-imagining and that co-ideation is the key point, taking the roadblocks and tackling them together. It's trying to find out, as a co-business owner, as it were, how we can tackle this problem or that problem, or it's trying to accomplish something together as opposed to just presenting that as a needs list. The third camp is it's not so much the odds, but the numerical number is far smewer, far fewer than the first two camps. And there's not a lot of migration between the camps, I found.

SPEAKER_01 4:22

Do you think camps one and two, there is a place for those, just to play devil's advocate at the start of this conversation?

SPEAKER_00 4:30

I absolutely do think, yeah. I I think the first one is in the American tradition of athletic fundraising, that's where we live. It's very transactional. It's, yeah, you pay your season ticket holders, and here's an extra three grand or five grand. They're not looking to solve problems. They're looking to win volleyball championships. So that kind of transactional giving is very appropriate. But for the second camp, the me, me, me solar system, I I'm less um optimistic that there is an appropriate place for that person.

SPEAKER_02 5:08

Well, I've watched them. They're you know, some of them will peer over the fence when they see sort of you know, major give uh co-ideation, as you call it, uh uh co-curation, we might call it. Um they peer over the fence and they see that working. So some, you know, some will inevitably get curious and actually start working. So you can expand the pool that way. But basically it is limited because by and large, if you're you know from the academic community or the artistic community or the social work community or the medical research, whoever they are, they're brilliant at what they do. But the way they would play ball with philanthropy is completely different. It it it it's very transactional. It's this is what I need rather than what would you like to achieve. So, you know, it has its place, and certainly it has its place. That one-eyed focus on what your job is has its place. But as far as fundraisers go, they're really hard to work with because they're not listening to um to what the donor might want to achieve. The first camp actually creates the base from which good major giving can what creates the pond from which good major giving can fish. That's right. It creates some degree of affinity, but there is quite a difference in my book between f the fundraising and philanthropy. And fundraising is parting with cash that you don't really think about. Philanthropy is thinking through what do I want to achieve, whether you're a child with two dollars or a grown-up going, you know, I want to solve world hunger.

SPEAKER_01 6:29

It's intentional.

SPEAKER_00 6:31

I love that. I love I love the way you worded that. And the migration between these camps, it should be much greater, and it and it's not. And I was trying to reflect on why that is, and I I don't have a I don't have a good reason to understand why they sort of stay in these separate cohorts. I think the reticence to switch, I call it uh wisdom resistant. It's just really curious, and it's it's very tenaciously unmovable for a lot of folks.

SPEAKER_01 7:05

What do you think it's gonna take to possibly create this migration into camp three or maximize them the potential optimize?

SPEAKER_00 7:14

I thought it was results-based. So you could raise a lot of money, and that would be the convincer that you know I've got to do this thing differently. And I have to say that's maybe been the case with some, but most will die in a ditch with their pre-selected predispositions. And I can't figure out why that is, but I think the answer or the solution is not to try to convince people who are non-philanthropic to start giving. And I guess the corollary for academics would be to not try to talk people out of camp too, because it's just not gonna probably happen.

SPEAKER_02 7:56

I think it's about knowing your market, Tim. You need to know your market and you put the effort where you know you're gonna get the return.

SPEAKER_01 8:01

Yeah. And it's also being um attuned to the human condition, what motivates us to give. I mean, it it's underpinned by how the choices we make and how we're gonna respond to a particular fundraising ask, you know?

SPEAKER_02 8:15

Yeah, exactly. Actually, yeah, because we I think one of the things is that we giving reflects your life experience to date. Um, and so it's a life experience thing. And you know, that's why a lot of money goes into, you know, uh medical research and cancer charities, because life experience tells you that most people's lives have been touched by cancer one way or another. And you can see how there was a piece on the news this morning how somebody's doing 34-hour golf day and whatever, because their life has been affected by it. And that so that personal experience is what drives a lot of giving.

SPEAKER_00 8:45

That's right. And as you and I both heard Joe Golding say so eloquently, it comes from a place of great pain or sometimes a great great joy. Um, but it's usually one of those two things.

SPEAKER_01 8:57

Yeah. Yeah. So we need to shift perhaps the fundraiser's perspective from need to opportunity.

SPEAKER_00 9:04

That's right. 100%. The need thing is you'll raise money, but it's not going to be, it's it'll be a fraction of what the opportunity one is.

SPEAKER_01 9:12

And I wonder too, if we need to shift again from short-term thinking to long-term planning. Surely that plays a role in creating that migration to Camp Three.

SPEAKER_00 9:22

Yeah, the long-term thinking is obviously where the action is. Um, there's another thing that I get a lot from younger, not chronologically younger, but less experienced fundraisers. And it's um if a donor says, How can I be helpful? We really try to do everything we can to resist the temptation to then answer that question with a bunch of, well, you can do this, this, and this, because it's so easy to go down that route. And I just met with somebody today who's been at this less than a year, and that actually happened to her. She was asked last week um by somebody who wanted to give a major gift. It was over 50,000, but it was not, it was under 100. And it was um, give me your strategic priorities. I'd love to understand what you need help funding, and I'd I'd love to write that check. And and it was nice, but it it also, you know, you want to see somebody making a beeline to that co-ownership space. You don't want them plugging a budget gap. So if an academic got that, they would their eyes would get big and and they'd be thinking short term, this is what I need. What we're trying to say is do not take that B. Do not. And it's hard.

SPEAKER_02 10:50

This the the the question and your response picks up on something that you said before, Tim, which is about ditch the pitch. Fundraisers absolutely have to stop pitching for money. And not actually not just professional fundraisers, but you know, in our world, we work with not for not-for-profits large and small. So it's all the people around, whether it's your you know, organizational leadership, whether it's the board, whether it's the the fundraiser. The default position is is to go out and ask for money as opposed to ask for information and listen and whatever be curious. So um I you know, we we both picked up on your phrase ditch the pitch because we love it. It really speaks to um good fundraising is not pitching, it's not selling. It's um it's listening and and working out what the donor wants to achieve and make them realize that they could achieve this by doing something over here, as opposed to the channeling them to again, need versus opportunity.

SPEAKER_00 11:42

And we we've seen those uh age-old sociological experiments with the young people who are given a lolly on the table. You could have two if you wait five minutes, and you could have one if you if you take it now. Yeah. And the delay, the delay gratification as a predictor of you know, the that self-restraint, I I sometimes want to do that test with some of our fundraisers and see what they would what they would do.

SPEAKER_02 12:09

We once were invited to go and pitch, but the initial conversation with the chair before we were as part of briefing, I suppose, he said to me, So, you know, you're gonna you've you've got this wealthy guy who, you know, he's a multimillionaire, he's on our list, you've got a meeting with him tomorrow. What are you gonna ask him for? And uh I said, I'm not gonna ask him for anything except information. I'm gonna find out what he wants to achieve, you know, why this organization, what else does he do? What are his Philippines priorities? And um, we didn't win that gig. It's incredible. Yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_00 12:45

And why would you not win that gig? That that's that's really the uh that's the biggest question that all of us we don't know the answer to because it doesn't make sense why that um answer should be obvious. Like what you gave as an answer should absolutely be pitch perfect for a meeting, and it's it's considered you you're letting an opportunity slip through your fingers for for most academics.

SPEAKER_02 13:15

You might get 10 or 20,000 from a guy if you if you ask him, but you get a hundred thousand or up into the you know half a million or more if you actually listen to what he wants to achieve. But it was it was the short term, want it now. And your job is to get it, not um, not to help us set ourselves up so that we get more delayed gratification.

SPEAKER_00 13:35

That's it. That's it.

SPEAKER_01 13:36

Tim, could you maybe talk us through an example of how a major gift was seeded in your current role, how it grew and evolved with this idea of co-creation?

SPEAKER_00 13:46

I can. I I think the examples I would give involve donors who have great confidence in an academic and this relationship where they can ask tough questions about what are you trying to solve that's really interesting for our community? And then the academics will go back and forth. But ultimately, it comes back to having the confidence for the academic to ask and then listen and goes both ways. We have one donor who is very out there in terms of willing to invest in things that others would not be typically drawn to. So, for instance, he came to our business dean and said, it looks like you could raise a lot more money if you had a lot more development officers. What if I were to give five million dollars over five years to hire a bunch of your best development officers in town? Wow. Would that solve the problem? And obviously the dean said yes, that would be terrific. And they did and they raised a lot more money. The same donor said to the head of the cancer center, a lot of people don't know about UH's Cancer Center. What if I gave a million dollars to really uptick the comms program and to make most community members know that instead of going to the mainland for clinical trials, they could stay within the islands and get something here? Would that be helpful? I mean, who says no to that? But I would argue that the the training that went into this dialogue with this donor was years of mutual respect with the dean and the donor, and ended up being a very uh mutually beneficial relationship.

SPEAKER_02 15:45

Which kind of brings us to uh we're examining this sort of uh whole process through the co-creation idea, which is actually um, how do you sit down and have the best conversation and build dialogue over time? How do we inculcate a healthy sense of curiosity amongst those who are doing the relationship building, whether it's the fundraiser again or the chief executive, the dean, the vice chancellor, the chancellor, whoever, how do we actually inculcate that curiosity?

SPEAKER_00 16:12

That's a great question. And it's trying to get at a cohort of development professionals who are highly inquisitive, very respectful, but just dispositionally want to know what lies ahead beyond the curve in the river. To me, what's curious is why it's not sought after in a more directed way. So who would not want a development officer who's a great listener and is very curious? I was thinking about that not too long ago because it seems so obvious that if you were the dean of a law school or a medical school, you'd want a very inquisitive development professional unless, and this is what I came down on. And I don't know if this is your experience. The person's inquisitiveness you you feared would go to white elephant projects or non-strategic kind of dead ends that would end up costing the department or the university way more than being able to just shop stuff that they need. So I I think the existential concern among some academics is we want curiosity, but within guardrails. I'd say the fear they have about the curiosity out of control is unfounded because that is um there are controls, and the controls on that is having a good relationship with your development officer uh boss or your VP or whatever who can sort of sniff out something that doesn't make sense. And secondly, by just good training. Uh if you're well trained, you're not going to go down the rabbit hole to suggest something that is um ill-conceived.

SPEAKER_01 18:06

I'm wondering, too, if there are concerns around the restriction of funding. So it's directed versus unrestrained, unrestricted funds.

SPEAKER_02 18:15

Well, every academic loves untied funds. Every right organization does.

SPEAKER_01 18:18

But why are we so hooked on tied funding?

SPEAKER_00 18:21

That's a great question. And I think the answer is because that's what our donors want. 99% of what, maybe not 99, but over 95% of what universities raise would be tied in one way or the other. And they're tied because not that people are not trusting that you're gonna, you're gonna just put it to keep the lights on, but it gives them joy to know if I'm, you know, I suffer from liver problems and I'm interested in creating a hepatology program in the medical school, I'll be happy knowing that um the next person will not have to go through the suffering that my dad had when he had liver disease. And so to try to steer them away from that is probably counterproductive. But what we also don't want is to create academic areas where there is donor interest, but there's not institutional resolve.

SPEAKER_01 19:15

Right. So it's a balancing act.

SPEAKER_00 19:17

I think so.

SPEAKER_01 19:18

Is that the anatomy of a major gift tide funding?

SPEAKER_00 19:22

Yes. Yeah. I mean, are there exceptions? Of course. When you see somebody who has such a great uh relationship with a dean and wants them and the next dean to be successful and says, I'm going to create basically a slush fund for creativity. The only reason they're doing that is because they believe so fervently in the vision of that dean. But the peril that they face down the road is a new dean comes and doesn't have that same sort of synchronous vision, and then it gets tricky. I think tied funding is here to stay, but we have to be smart about how it's tied. And obviously, the development officers uh give scholarships as a prime example. Um, we want to have them as broadly uh articulated as possible, and donors want as narrow as possible. And our goal is to is to great, you know, put it towards great esteem, the student who is disadvantaged, and you don't want to start putting requirements on this and that. So it is a give and take, and I think that's that will always be part of our profession.

SPEAKER_01 20:38

Because we're often asked, Tim, what is the new what are the new trends in fundraising? What it what's next in philanthropy? But it feels like this sense of curiosity, shared vision, co-creation, it feels like they're enduring principles of of fundraising. Would you agree with that?

SPEAKER_00 20:55

I would. And I um, you know, you see new trends. Uh it's not so new. I remember this, this was certainly the the 1% crowd, some of the wealthy really are absolutely uh hell-bent on this belief that if the 1% give just 1% and they've done the math, that look at this windfall that that we will get as a sector. They're not mistaken. The math does add up to be quite a bit more than what we currently have. But I think the fundamental calculation is misguided by not understanding human nature that it's not flat. There's a huge portion of the of the of the population who will always only give to their family members. And that will never change. So immediately 50, 60, 70 percent is out the window. It's just not gonna happen. So, wouldn't we be far better off as a trend to Really come up with better strategies to have the generously minded folks more inspired to give even more generously. And I think that would be my hope and my greatest promise for the future of philanthropy, both here in America and in Australia.

SPEAKER_02 22:17

Again, we always say people give according to how much they care. And not everybody cares the same. So the idea of, well, if only we had a thousand people giving $1,000 each. But equally, it doesn't need to be a major gift.

SPEAKER_01 22:28

No. Philanthropy is not restricted to a particular cohort in the population. And maybe you're giving according to your means. There's still an act of generosity versus donating all your money to one particular cause.

SPEAKER_00 22:41

That's a very sensible answer. I mean, if I'm worth, I've known well-to-do couples whose children are not without a good profession, who would never and and they care deeply about all kinds of things, right? So it's tricky because in some ways it diminishes to them. I think it would, they would feel it diminishes, it pigeonholes them to be thought of as being uncaring by giving all their money to their children. And I would say that for some of them, they care very deeply, but they care about it in ways that I think defy simple logic. Simple logic or explanation. Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 23:27

If we circle back to trends and what sticks and what's uh comes and goes, do you think the traditional donor pyramid still has a place in this work?

SPEAKER_00 23:39

I don't think the pyramid is gonna last. It's just incredible how fewer and fewer people are giving more and more. But they're not giving more and more based on what they're worth. They're still giving a smidgen of what they're worth. But if you're worth a gazillion dollars and you give us 10 million to the community, it seems like it's an extraordinary sum. To somebody who's worth 200 billion, it's interest on interest on interest. But you have these mega billionaires who are paying people a lot a lot more than the even the highest price fundraiser VPs to keep us out of their hair.

SPEAKER_02 24:23

I have often wondered what's cause and what's effect. And we live in the era of the mega gift, but it's the mega gift that's getting all the publicity. But in our experience, it's the left field donors, the ones who don't look like the rest of them, that come in out of nowhere and make a big statement through their giving that actually sets the new benchmark. And unless something comes and shakes that paradigm, it's hard to get out of it.

SPEAKER_00 24:43

No, that's true.

SPEAKER_02 24:44

Is it cause and effect with the mega giving we allow it to happen? Because we're not actually driving and telling anybody else that a gift that you know might only gee, have six knots on it could be equally as impactful.

SPEAKER_00 24:58

No, that's that's a great point. I I love the way you worded that because I I think most programs, if you look at the GO8, the ones that are bringing in the most amount of money, the Sydney's and the Melbourne's, they um the backbone of of those gift totals would still be the millionaire next door crowd of the one to three, one to five million dollar donors. But the the key differentiator is every year, those bigger programs will always want to have uh one whopper or two whoppers. And if you're looking at Stanford, you might have four whoppers, and those whoppers aren't 50, they're 200. And so you'll you'll want the backbone of the major gift crowd who's given the I'll give you three million dollars over three years. But the trend of really baking into your total poll, as you say, the notion that every year you you want a big one and you need a big one to sustain keep these large campaign numbers.

SPEAKER_01 26:03

Perhaps so we should be promoting and celebrating the donor that is giving less so it sets a more inspiring benchmark for the data market.

SPEAKER_00 26:12

I think that's right.

SPEAKER_01 26:14

Tim, sadly, our time is running short, but I'd I'd be remiss in not asking you, um, given that you've spent considerable amount of time in Australia and you've worked extensively here, both Melbourne and Sydney. Could you maybe tell us what your your impressions were working here and how perhaps our culture differs from that in the US?

SPEAKER_00 26:36

I I would just say this. Australia has so many entrepreneurs. I don't think it's it may have something to do with the geographic isolation and just having to think more creatively how to create scale and speed. But we know that entrepreneurs are disproportionately more inclined to give away a lot more money. You've got a country that has been blessed in so many different ways. I never bought into the idea that correcting for religious giving, which I understand is always going to be higher in the US. But correcting for that, I I never bought the notion that the per capita giving in Australia couldn't exceed anywhere else in the world, including the US. I I still believe that. Australian generosity, and it's every bit as impressive as as in the US. If you look at the GDP numbers and in Australian dollars, the US per annum, it's something like 45 trillion to maybe 3 trillion in Australia. So the numerator denominator effect is such that it skews everything. But the reality is what's happening at universities like La Trobe and ANU and Sydney and Melbourne and UWA with this renaissance or this giving that is is really gripping. It's really captivating, I think, an international audience. I am hugely optimistic about the future of philanthropy in Australia. What a beautiful place to finish.

SPEAKER_02 28:18

Yes, thank you. Tim, this has been phenomenal. I, you know, we've always loved shooting the breeze together, and I've always gained so much out um out of your insights and your experience. And we miss you. You must come back.

SPEAKER_00 28:29

Um thank you so much for allowing me to chat with you about a subject I really enjoy. And my kudos to you for carrying the torch in this important way with the Academy. And I know it'll be immensely successful because you guys are great at what you do. And thank you for the thoughtful questions. Really enjoyed our time together.

SPEAKER_01 28:51

We hope you enjoyed this conversation as much as we did. We'd love to hear your feedback, and we'd also welcome any ideas you may have for future topics of discussion. Our email is hello at philanthropy2.com. And if you'd like to speak with us about our new fundraising learning programs, including our hugely popular on-board program developed specifically to get boards more engaged and more involved in fundraising, we'd love to hear from you. Again, our email is hello at philanthropy2.com.