Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Securing Donor Support on Nonprofit Commercialization: The Effects of Thematic and Episodic Message Framing

  • RESEARCH PAPER
  • Published:
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The effect of nonprofit commercialization, the increased reliance on revenues from commercial activities such as program and service fees, is one of the most significant topics in nonprofit finance studies. Commercialization can jeopardize nonprofits’ efforts to secure financial sustainability as donors become reluctant to contribute to highly commercialized nonprofits. This study examines the effect of thematic and episodic framing in acquiring support on nonprofit commercialization with an online survey experiment. The findings reveal that both thematic and episodic framings increase willingness to donate and volunteer, and combining both framings is more effective than using a single framing, suggesting that nonprofits can benefit from message framing in persuading donors and stakeholders of nonprofit commercialization.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/04/arts/design/met-museum-admissions.html.

  2. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/04/arts/design/met-museum-admissions.html.

  3. The baseline group with contextual information (additional paragraph explaining the exhibitions of the museum) was compared to a group without the contextual information (a group that only received the paragraph explaining the new fee policy), and the two groups were not statistically different from each other in terms of the dependent variables.

References

  • Aarøe, L. (2011). Investigating frame strength: The case of episodic and thematic frames. Political Communication, 28(2), 207–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, M., & Preiss, R. W. (1997). Comparing the persuasiveness of narrative and statistical evidence using meta-analysis. Communication Research Reports, 14(2), 125–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aruguete, M. S., Huynh, H., Browne, B. L., Jurs, B., Flint, E., & McCutcheon, L. E. (2019). How serious is the ‘carelessness’ problem on Mechanical Turk? International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 22(5), 441–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balanoff, E. K. (2013). A special, set-apart place no longer? Deconstructing the discourse of meaning and mission in nonprofit newsletters. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 35(1), 11–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barraza, J. A., Alexander, V., Beavin, L. E., Terris, E. T., & Zak, P. J. (2015). The heart of the story: Peripheral physiology during narrative exposure predicts charitable giving. Biological Psychology, 105, 138–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartneck, C., Duenser, A., Moltchanova, E., & Zawieska, K. (2015). Comparing the similarity of responses received from studies in Amazon’s Mechanical Turk to studies conducted online and with direct recruitment. PLoS ONE, 10(4), e0121595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaton, E. E. (2021). No margin, no mission: How practitioners justify nonprofit managerialization. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 32(3), 695–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodem-Schroetgens, J., & Becker, A. (2020). Do you like what you see? How nonprofit campaigns with output, outcome, and impact effectiveness indicators influence charitable behavior. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(2), 316–335.

    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 

  • Cacciatore, M. A., Scheufele, D. A., & Iyengar, S. (2016). The end of framing as we know it… and the future of media effects. Mass Communication and Society, 19(1), 7–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calabrese, T. D. (2011). Do donors penalize nonprofit organizations with accumulated wealth? Public Administration Review, 71(6), 859–869.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cao, X. (2016). Framing charitable appeals: The effect of message framing and perceived susceptibility to the negative consequences of inaction on donation intention. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 21(1), 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carré, B., Suykens, B., & Verschuere, B. (2021). Balancing legitimacy in a context of nonprofit-business hybridity: The case of the Flemish wellbeing and social economy sector. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 32, 944–963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, J., & Shapiro, D. (2016). Conducting clinical research using crowdsourced convenience samples. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 12, 53–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, C.-T., & Lee, Y.-K. (2010). Effects of message framing, vividness congruency and statistical framing on responses to charity advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 29(2), 195–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charles, C. (2018). Nonprofit arts organizations: debt ratio does not influence donations—Interest expense ratio does. American Review of Public Administration, 48(7), 659–667. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074017724227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007a). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review, 101(4), 637–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007b). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dart, R. (2004). Being “business-like” in a nonprofit organization: A grounded and inductive typology. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(2), 290–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Das, E., Kerkhof, P., & Kuiper, J. (2008). Improving the effectiveness of fundraising messages: The impact of charity goal attainment, message framing, and evidence on persuasion. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36(2), 161–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Das, N., & Kerr, A. H. (2009). Improving the impact of cause-related donation exchanges through message framing: A conceptual perspective. Journal of Applied Business Research. https://doi.org/10.19030/jabr.v25i2.1037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickert, S., Sagara, N., & Slovic, P. (2011). Affective motivations to help others: A two-stage model of donation decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 24(4), 361–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eikenberry, A. M. (2009). Refusing the market: A democratic discourse for voluntary and nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(4), 582–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eikenberry, A. M., & Kluver, J. D. (2004). The marketization of the nonprofit sector: Civil society at risk? Public Administration Review, 64(2), 132–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erlandsson, A., Nilsson, A., & Västfjäll, D. (2018). Attitudes and donation behavior when reading positive and negative charity appeals. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 30(4), 444–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95(1), 1–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganzach, Y., & Karsahi, N. (1995). Message framing and buying behavior: A field experiment. Journal of Business Research, 32(1), 11–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, M. C. (2006). Narratives and cancer communication. Journal of Communication, 56, S163–S183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, M. C., Brock, T. C., & Kaufman, G. F. (2004). Understanding media enjoyment: The role of transportation into narrative worlds. Communication Theory, 14(4), 311–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffioen, A. M., Handgraaf, M. J., & Antonides, G. (2019). Which construal level combinations generate the most effective interventions? A field experiment on energy conservation. PLoS ONE, 14(1), e0209469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gross, K. (2008). Framing persuasive appeals: Episodic and thematic framing, emotional response, and policy opinion. Political Psychology, 29(2), 169–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo, B. (2006). Charity for profit? Exploring factors associated with the commercialization of human service nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(1), 123–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallahan, K. (1999). Seven models of framing: Implications for public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 11(3), 205–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, P. S. (2011). One or many? The influence of episodic and thematic climate change frames on policy preferences and individual behavior change. Science Communication, 33(1), 28–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herzer, D., & Nunnenkamp, P. (2013). Private donations, government grants, commercial activities, and fundraising: Cointegration and causality for NGOs in international development cooperation. World Development, 46, 234–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hung, C. (2020). Commercialization and nonprofit donations: A meta-analytic assessment and extension. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 31(2), 287–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hung, C. (2021). Decomposing the effect of commercialization on nonprofit donations. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 32(2), 448–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hvenmark, J. (2013). Business as usual? On managerialization and the adoption of the balanced scorecard in a democratically governed civil society organization. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 35(2), 223–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, S. (1990). Framing responsibility for political issues: The case of poverty. Political Behavior, 12(1), 19–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kerlin, J. A., & Pollak, T. H. (2011). Nonprofit commercial revenue: A replacement for declining government grants and private contributions? The American Review of Public Administration, 41(6), 686–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingma, B. R. (1995). Do profits “crowd out” donations, or vice versa? The impact of revenues from sales on donations to local chapters of the American Red Cross. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 6(1), 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levay, K. E., Freese, J., & Druckman, J. N. (2016). The demographic and political composition of Mechanical Turk samples. SAGE Open, 6(1), 2158244016636433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmeier, J. (2008). Promoting volunteerism: Effects of self-efficacy, advertisement-induced emotional arousal, perceived costs of volunteering, and message framing. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 19(1), 43–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maier, F., Meyer, M., & Steinbereithner, M. (2016). Nonprofit organizations becoming business-like: A systematic review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(1), 64–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDowell, E. A., Li, W., & Smith, P. C. (2013). An experimental examination of US individual donors’ information needs and use. Financial Accountability & Management, 29(3), 327–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NCCS Team. (2020). The nonprofit sector in brief 2019. Retrieved from https://nccs.urban.org/publication/nonprofit-sector-brief-2019

  • O’Reilly, K. (2011). “We are not contractors”: Professionalizing the interactive service work of NGOs in Rajasthan, India. Economic Geography, 87(2), 207–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, L. M. (2007). The impact of financial information and voluntary disclosures on contributions to not-for-profit organizations. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 19(1), 179–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qu, H., & Daniel, J. L. (2020). Is “Overhead” A Tainted Word? A survey experiment exploring framing effects of nonprofit overhead on donor decision. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764020959475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabinovich, A., Morton, T. A., Postmes, T., & Verplanken, B. (2009). Think global, act local: The effect of goal and mindset specificity on willingness to donate to an environmental organization. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(4), 391–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, L. M. (1993). The marketization of welfare: Changing nonprofit and for-profit roles in the American welfare state. Social Service Review, 67(1), 16–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, L. M. (1999). The nonprofit sector at a crossroads: The case of America. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 10(1), 5–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1), 103–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toepler, S. (2006). Caveat venditor? Museum merchandising, nonprofit commercialization, and the case of the Metropolitan Museum in New York. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 17, 95–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tugrul, T. O., & Lee, E.-M. (2018). Promoting charitable donation campaigns on social media. The Service Industries Journal, 38(3–4), 149–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisbrod, B. A. (2004). The pitfalls of profits. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 2(3), 40–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, L., He, Y., Chen, Q., & Hu, M. (2017). It’s the thought that counts: The effects of construal level priming and donation proximity on consumer response to donation framing. Journal of Business Research, 76, 44–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Government, New Mexico State University, 1525 Stewart St., Breland Hall, Rm. 340, MSC 3BN, P.O. Box 30001, Las Cruces, NM, 8003-8001, USA

    Cheon Lee

Authors
  1. Cheon Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cheon Lee.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author has no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Ethical Approval

The human participants in the experiment for the research were presented with an informed consent form and signed the form to take part in the experiment.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

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

Lee, C. Securing Donor Support on Nonprofit Commercialization: The Effects of Thematic and Episodic Message Framing. Voluntas (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-023-00611-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-023-00611-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation