Fundraising design: key issues, unifying framework, and open puzzles

Abstract

We offer a unified conceptual, behavioral, and econometric framework for optimal fundraising that deals with both synergies and discrepancies between approaches from Economics, Marketing, Psychology, and Sociology. The purpose is to offer a framework that can bridge differences and open a dialogue between disciplines in order to facilitate optimal fundraising design. The literature is extensive, and our purpose is to offer a brief background and perspective on each of the approaches, provide an integrated framework leading to new insights, and discuss areas of future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    This should not be confused with the so-called sharing economy which is based on short-term rental and has nothing to do with sharing (Belk 2014).

  2. 2.

    A challenge in implementing this approach is that donors’ constructs (such as moral identity, empathy, and charitability) are often measured on scales involving multiple items, and direct inclusion of these constructs in the heterogeneity distribution leads to a coefficient matrix of intractably high dimension. To reduce the dimensionality of the coefficient matrix, these variables can be replaced with model-based summaries of much lower dimension.

References

  1. Akerlof, G. A., & Kranton, R. E. (2000). Economics and identity. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 715–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Andreoni, J. (1989). Giving with impure altruism: applications to charity and Ricardian equivalence. Journal of Political Economy, 97, 1447–1458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Belk, R. (2007). Why not share rather than own? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 611(May), 126–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Belk, R. (2010). Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 715–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Belk, R. (2014). Sharing versus pseudo-sharing in web 2.0. The Anthropologist, 18(1), 7–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Biswas, A., Olsen, J. E., & Carlet, V. (1992). A comparison of print advertisements from the United States and France. Journal of Advertising, 21(4), 73–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brown, P. H., & Minty, J. H. (2008). Media coverage and charitable giving after the 2004 tsunami. Southern Economic Journal, 75(1), 9–25.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Charness, G., & Rabin, M. (2002). Understanding social preferences with simple tests. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(3), 817–869.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dillard, JP., & Shen, L. (2005). On the Nature of Reactance and its Role in Persuasive Health Communication. Communication Monographs, 72(2), 144–168.

  10. Dotson, M. R., Büschken, J., & Allenby, G. M. (2020). Explaining preference heterogeneity using mixed membership modeling. Marketing Science, 39(2), 407–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (1996). Altruism in anonymous dictator games. Games and Economic Behavior, 16(2), 181–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (1998). Are women less selfish than men?: Evidence from dictator experiments. The economic journal, 108(448), 726–735.

  13. Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2003). Rebate versus matching: does how we subsidize charitable contributions matter? Journal of Public Economics, 87(3–4), 681–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Eckel, C. C., Herberich, D., & Meer, J. (2017). A field experiment on directed giving at a public university. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 66, 66–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Eckel, C. C., Guney, B., & Uler, N. (2020). Independent vs. coordinated fundraising: understanding the role of information. European Economic Review, 127, 103476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Edwards, J.T., & List, J.A., (2014). Toward an understanding of why suggestions work in charitable fundraising: Theory and evidence from a natural field experiment. Journal of Public Economics, 114, 1–13.

  17. Farrokhvar, L., Ansari, A., & Kamali, B. (2018). Predictive models for charitable giving using machine learning techniques. PLoS One, 13(10), e0203928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fennell, G., and Allenby, G.M. (2014). Conceptualizing and measuring prospect wants: understanding the source of brand preference. Customer Needs and Solutions, 1(1), 23–39.

  19. Fisher, R. J., & Ma, Y. (2014). The price of being beautiful: negative effects of attractiveness on empathy for children in need. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(2), 436–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Fisher, R. J., & Wakefield, K. (1998). Factors leading to group identification: a field study of winners and losers. Psychology and Marketing, 15(1), 23–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Fisher, R. J., Vandenbosch, M., & Antia, K. (2008). An empathy-helping perspective on consumers’ responses to fund-raising appeals. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 519–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Fisher, R.J., Lafreniere, K. C., Castelo, N. and Haruvy, E. (2020). “Reducing the negative effects of stigma on charitable support through moral claims,” working paper.

  23. Fiske, A. P. (1991). Structures of social life: the four elementary forms of human relations. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Haruvy, E.E. and Popkowksi Leszczyc, P.T.L. (2020a). “The influence of social media on charitable fundraising,” working paper.

  25. Haruvy, E.E. and Popkowksi Leszczyc, P.T.L. (2020b), “A study of incentives in charitable fundraising,” working paper.

  26. Haruvy, E. E., & Popkowski Leszczyc, P. T. L. (2018). A study of bidding behavior in voluntary-pay philanthropic auctions. Journal of Marketing, 82(3), 124–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Iriberri, N., & Rey-Biel, P. (2011). The role of role uncertainty in modified dictator games. Experimental Economics, 14(2), 160–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Karlan, D. & List, J.A. (2007). “Does price matter in charitable giving? Evidence from a largescale natural field experiment,” American Economic Review, 97(5), 1774–1793.

  29. Karlan, D., List, J.A., & Shafir, E. (2011). “Small matches and charitable giving: Evidence from a natural field experiment,” Journal of Public Economics, 95(5–6), 344–350.

  30. Kim, H. and Allenby, G.M. (2020). "Archetypal analysis for marketing," working paper.

  31. Krishna, A. (2011). Can supporting a cause decrease donations and happiness? The cause marketing paradox. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(3), 338–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Krishna, A., Rajan, U., Kopalle, P. and Wang, Y. (2019), “How does state vigilance over cause marketing affect firm behavior and donations to charity” working paper.

  33. Lee, S., Winterich, K. P., & Ross Jr., W. T. (2014). I’m moral, but I won't help you: the distinct roles of empathy and justice in donations. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(3), 678–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Li, S. X., Eckel, C., Grossman, P., & Brown, T. (2015). Directed giving enhances voluntary giving to government: implications for tax policy. Economics Letters, 133, 51–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Li, S. X., de Oliveira, A. C. M., & Eckel, C. (2017). Common identity and the voluntary provision of public goods: an experimental investigation. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 142, 32–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Lind, C. (2010). Rumours of a moral economy. Toronto: Brunswick Books.

    Google Scholar 

  37. List, J. A. (2011). The market for charitable giving. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(2), 157–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. List, J. A., & Lucking-Reiley, D. (2002). The effects of seed money and refunds on charitable giving: experimental evidence from a university capital campaign. Journal of Political Economy, 110(1), 215–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Ma, Y. (2019). “The network effect of volunteering, “work in progress.

  40. McCullough, M. E., Emmons, R. A., & Tsang, J. (2002). The grateful disposition: a conceptual and empirical topography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(1), 112–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Mukherjee, A., H.H. Chang and A. Chattopadhyay (2019). Crowdfunding: sharing the entrepreneurial journey. In Handbook of the Sharing Economy. Edward Elgar Publishing.

  42. Newman, G. E., & Shen, Y. J. (2012). The counterintuitive effects of thank-you gifts on charitable giving. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(5), 973–983.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Popkowski Leszczyc, P. T. L., & Rothkopf, M. H. (2010). Charitable motives and bidding in charity auctions. Management Science, 56(3), 399–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Satomura, T., Kim, J., & Allenby, G. M. (2011). Multiple constraint choice models with corner and interior solutions. Marketing Science, 30(3), 481–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Scott, A. (2017), How anthropology can give us new insights into donor-centered fundraising, Critical Fundraising, July26, 2017, http://blogs.plymouth.ac.uk/criticalfundraising/2017/07/26/opinion-how-anthropology-can-give-us-new-insights-into-donor-centred-fundraising/. Accessed 26 June 2019.

  46. Small, D.A., Loewenstein, G., Slovic, P. (2007). “Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(2), 143–153.

  47. Sudhir, K., Roy, S., & Cherian, M. (2016). Do sympathy biases induce charitable giving? The effects of advertising content. Marketing Science, 35(6), 849–869.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Thomson, M., MacInnis, D. J., & Park, C. W. (2005). The ties that bind: measuring the strength of consumers’ emotional attachments to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(1), 77–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: a self-categorization theory. New York: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Weinberger, M. G., & Spotts, H. E. (1989). Humor in US versus UK TV commercials: a comparison. Journal of Advertising, 18(2), 39–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. White, K., & Peloza, J. (2009). Self-benefit versus other-benefit marketing appeals: their effectiveness in generating charitable support. Journal of Marketing, 73(4), 109–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Widlok, T. (2018). Anthropology and the economy of sharing. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We wish to acknowledge support from Grant No. 435-2016-0250 from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Popkowski Leszczyc.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 35 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Haruvy, E., Popkowski Leszczyc, P., Allenby, G. et al. Fundraising design: key issues, unifying framework, and open puzzles. Mark Lett 31, 371–380 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-020-09534-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Charity
  • Fundraising
  • Incentives
  • Appeals
  • Integrative framework