Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Increasing donor’s perceived value from charitable involvement: a multi-segment approach to the American donor market

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The importance of nonprofit organizations in offering, supporting and promoting solutions to the world’s greatest problems cannot be underscored. However, in order to accomplish its goals and objectives and maintain a sustainable competitive position, charitable organizations must focus on effective segmentation and marketing strategies that create value for donors. This research draws from charitable giving theory, social exchange theory and relationship marketing literature to examine the influence of a social factor (social recognition), an emotional factor (attitude towards helping others) and a functional factor (attitude towards the charitable organizations) on increasing value for donors from their involvement with a charitable organization. Based on an overall sample of 320 U.S. donors, all three factors have a significant influence on driving donor’s value. However, there are significant differences found when the sample is compared separately based on age, religiosity, donation type and the nature of a donor’s personal involvement with the organization. Social recognition is significantly more important among younger and religious donors and donors with a history of family ties with the organization. However, a donor’s attitude towards the charitable organizations is found to have a greater effect on perceived value among older donors and those who benefit personally from the organization’s charitable work. Finally, for donors who know someone who benefitted from the charitable organization and have a religious affiliation, their attitude towards helping others is the greater driver of perceived value. The study offers practical insight for nonprofit organizations to create value for donors by suggesting effective marketing communication strategies aimed at different segments of the American donor market.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aguinis, H., Villamor, I., & Ramani, R. S. (2021). Mturk research: Review and recommendations (Vol. 47, pp. 823–837). SAGE Publications Sage CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, S. J., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnett, D. B., German, S. D., & Hunt, S. D. (2003). The identity salience model of relationship marketing success: The case of nonprofit marketing. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 89–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basil, D. Z., Ridgway, N. M., & Basil, M. D. (2008). Guilt and giving: A process model of empathy and efficacy. Psychology & Marketing, 25(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable giving part one: Religion, education, age and socialisation. Voluntary Sector Review, 2(3), 337–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon. Com’s mechanical turk. Political Analysis, 20(3), 351–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blau, P. M. (1960). A theory of social integration. American Journal of Sociology, 65(6), 545–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s mechanical turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, D. J., Reid, J. S., Toncar, M., Fawcett, J., & Anderson, C. (2006). Motivations to volunteer: The role of altruism. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 3(2), 79–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, B. M. (2004). Testing for multigroup invariance using amos graphics: A road less traveled. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(2), 272–300. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1102_8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cnaan, R. A., Kasternakis, A., & Wineburg, R. J. (1993). Religious people, religious congregations, and volunteerism in human services: Is there a link? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 22(1), 33–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa e Silva, S., Bradley, F., & Sousa, C. M. P. (2012). Empirical test of the trust–performance link in an international alliances context. International Business Review, 21(2), 292–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa e Silva, S., Duarte, P., Machado, J. C., & Martins, C. (2020). Cause-related marketing in online environment: The role of brand-cause fit, perceived value, and trust. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 17(2), 135–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, S. (1988). Four motivations for charitable giving: Implications for ma. Marketing Health Services, 8(2), 31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Díaz-Perdomo, Y., Álvarez-González, L. I., & Sanzo-Pérez, M. J. (2021). A way to boost the impact of business on 2030 United Nations sustainable development goals: Co-creation with non-profits for social innovation. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 719907. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.719907

  • Doney, P. M., & Cannon, J. P. (1997). An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61(2), 35–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drollinger, T. (2010). A theoretical examination of giving and volunteering utilizing resource exchange theory. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 22(1), 55–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fourth Sector Group (2022). Building better: Social and economic recovery through fourth sector development, from https://www.fourthsector.org/. Accessed 16 Oct 2022.

  • Gentile, B., Twenge, J. M., Freeman, E. C., & Campbell, W. K. (2012). The effect of social networking websites on positive self-views: An experimental investigation. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1929–1933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorczyca, M., & Hartman, R. L. (2017). The new face of philanthropy: The role of intrinsic motivation in millennials’ attitudes and intent to donate to charitable organizations. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 29(4), 415–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graça, S. S., & Zwick, H. C. (2021). Perceived value of charitable involvement: The millennial donor perspective. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 26(4), e1705. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1705

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grace, D., & Griffin, D. (2009). Conspicuous donation behaviour: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Behaviour: An International Research Review, 8(1), 14–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, C., & Webb, D. (1997). Factors influencing monetary donations to charitable organizations. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 5(3), 19–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, S. K. (1984). Volunteer motivation and its relationship to satisfaction and future volunteering. Retrieved from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED251640.pdf.  Accessed 16 Nov 2022.

  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handy, F., & Katz, E. (2008). Donating behavior: If time is money, which to give? A preliminary analysis. Journal of Economic Studies, 35(4), 323–332. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443580810895617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hibbert, S., Piacentini, M., & Dajani, H. A. (2003). Understanding volunteer motivation for participation in a community-based food cooperative. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 8(1), 30–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, M. K., & Stoker, L. (2004). Social trust and civic engagement across time and generations. Acta Politica, 39(4), 342–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, A. K., & Haenlein, M. (2021). Factors affecting the study of important marketing issues: Implications and recommendations. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 38(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kottasz, R. (2004). Differences in the donor behavior characteristics of young affluent males and females: Empirical evidence from britain. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 15(2), 181–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambe, C. J., Wittmann, C. M., & Spekman, R. E. (2001). Social exchange theory and research on business-to-business relational exchange. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 8(3), 1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y. K., & Chang, C. T. (2007). Who gives what to charity? Characteristics affecting donation behavior. Social Behavior and Personality: an International Journal, 35(9), 1173–1180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mann, T. (2007). College fund raising using theoretical perspectives to understand donor motives. International Journal of Educational Advancement, 7(1), 35–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKeever, B. S., & Pettijohn, S. L. (2015). Urban institute. The nonprofit sector in brief 2015: Public charities, giving, and volunteering. Center for Nonprofits and Philanthropy.

  • Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ong, M. H. A., & Puteh, F. (2017). Quantitative data analysis: Choosing between spss, pls, and amos in social science research. International Interdisciplinary Journal of Scientific Research, 3(1), 14–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. (2014). Inside the turk: Understanding mechanical turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(3), 184–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulin, M., Ferguson, J., Jost, R., & Fallu, J. M. (2014). Motivating millennials to engage in charitable causes through social media. Journal of Service Management, 25(3), 334–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pond, A., Smith, G., & Clement, S. (2010). Religion among the millennials. Pew Research Center.

  • Ranganathan, S. K., & Henley, W. H. (2008). Determinants of charitable donation intentions: A structural equation model. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 13(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sargeant, A. (1999). Charitable giving: Towards a model of donor behaviour. Journal of Marketing Management, 15(4), 215–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sargeant, A. (2001). Relationship fundraising: How to keep donors loyal. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 12(2), 177–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sargeant, A., Ford, J. B., & West, D. C. (2006). Perceptual determinants of nonprofit giving behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59(2), 155–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sargeant, A., West, D. C., & Ford, J. (2001). The role of perceptions in predicting donor value. Journal of Marketing Management, 17(3–4), 407–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulman, K., & Sargeant, A. (2013). Measuring donor loyalty: Key reasons why net promoter score (nps) is not the way. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 18(1), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Šebestová, J. D., Palová, Z., Kantor, P., & Beck, V. (2021). Non-profit organization involvement into the sustainable development goals. Handbook of research on novel practices and current successes in achieving the sustainable development goals (pp. 158–179). IGI Global.

  • Stewart, K. D., & Bernhardt, P. C. (2010). Comparing millennials to pre-1987 students and with one another. North American Journal of Psychology, 12(3), 579–602.

    Google Scholar 

  • Twenge, J. M. (2013). The evidence for generation me and against generation we. Emerging Adulthood, 1(1), 11–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Twenge, J. M., Campbell, W. K., & Freeman, E. C. (2012). Generational differences in young adults’ life goals, concern for others, and civic orientation, 1966–2009. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(5), 1045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Umer, H. (2021). A behavioral model to examine religiosity & generosity. Current Psychology, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01491-3

  • UN DESA (2015) Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations (UN DESA).

  • Wallace, E., & Buil, I. (2021). A typology of conspicuous donation on Facebook. Journal of Services Marketing, 35(4), 535–552. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-06-2020-0216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, D., Green, C., & Brashear, T. (2000). Development and validation of scales to measure attitudes influencing monetary donations to charitable organizations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilhelm, M. O., Rooney, P. M., & Tempel, E. R. (2007). Changes in religious giving reflect changes in involvement: Age and cohort effects in religious giving, secular giving, and attendance. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 46(2), 217–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J., & Musick, M. (1997). Who cares? Toward an integrated theory of volunteer work. American Sociological Review, 62(5), 694–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by Eckerd College.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Collegium of Comparative Cultures, Eckerd College, 4200 54th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL, 33711, USA

    Sandra Simas Graça

Authors
  1. Sandra Simas Graça
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sandra Simas Graça.

Ethics declarations

The author has no relevant financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 6 Scales and original authors
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Graça, S.S. Increasing donor’s perceived value from charitable involvement: a multi-segment approach to the American donor market. Int Rev Public Nonprofit Mark 20, 829–852 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12208-022-00355-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12208-022-00355-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation