Differences in the Donor Behavior Characteristics of Young Affluent Males and Females: Empirical Evidence from Britain

  • Rita Kottasz
Article

Abstract

The objectives of this study were to obtain a deeper understanding of the donor behavior characteristics of young affluent individuals; and to ascertain whether young affluent women differed significantly from young affluent males in their approaches to philanthropy. Two hundred and seventeen investment bankers, accountants, and corporate lawyers, aged under 40 years, earning more than £50,000 annually and working in the City of London were questioned about their attitudes and behavior in relation to charitable giving. Significant differences emerged between the donor behavior characteristics of males and females. A conjoint analysis revealed that whereas men were more interested in donating to the arts sector in return for “social” rewards (invitations to gala events and black-tie dinners, for example), women had strong predilections to give to “people” charities and sought personal recognition from the charity to which they donated.

donor products conjoint analysis gender planned giving Britain 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Association of Fundraising Council. (1994). Giving USA, American Association of Fundraising Council, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Bashford, S. (2002, May 9). RNLI to review brand in hunt for young donors. Marketing (London), p. 12.Google Scholar
  3. Batson, D. C. (1991). The Altruism Question, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  4. Bendapudi, N., Singh, S. N., and Bendapudi, V. (1996). Enhancing helping behaviour: An integrative framework for promotion planning. Journal of Marketing 60, 33–49.Google Scholar
  5. Bennett, R. (2003). Factors underlying the inclination to donate to particular types of charity. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 8(1), 12–29.Google Scholar
  6. Bennett, R., and Gabriel, H. (2000). Image building for charitable organisations. Social Marketing Quarterly 6(3), 77–81.Google Scholar
  7. Bennett, R., and Gabriel, H. (2003). Image and reputational characteristics of UK charitable organisations: An empirical study. Corporate Reputation Review 6(3), 276–289.Google Scholar
  8. Braus, P. (1994). Will baby boomers give generously? American Demographics 16(7), 48–52.Google Scholar
  9. Brunel, F. F., and Nelson, M. R. (2000). Explaining gendered responses to “help-self” and “help-others” charity advertising appeals: The mediating role of world-views. Journal of Advertising 29(3), 15–29.Google Scholar
  10. Charity Commission (2003). Visit: www.charity-commission.gov.uk/registeredcharities/factfigures.aspGoogle Scholar
  11. Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., and Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58(6), 1015–1026.Google Scholar
  12. Clark, P. W., Martin, C. A., and Bush, A. J. (2001). The effect of role model influence on adolescents' materialism and marketplace knowledge. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 9(4), 27–36.Google Scholar
  13. Clary, E. G., and Snyder, M. (1991). A Functional Analysis of Altruism and Pro-Social Behaviour: The Case of Volunteerism in Review of Personality and Social Psychology, Sage, London.Google Scholar
  14. Clotfelter, C. T. (2001). Who are the alumni donors? Giving by two generations of alumni from selective colleges. Nonprofit Management and Leadership 12(2), 119–138.Google Scholar
  15. Collard, D. (1978). Altruism and Economy, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Crooks, E. (2002, June 12). Number earning £100,000 rises 50%. Financial Times (London), p. 1.Google Scholar
  17. Datamonitor (2002, June 25). Rich suffer as shares plunge. Metro (London), p. 7.Google Scholar
  18. Davis, M. H. (1994). Helping and empathy: Taking the multi-dimensional view. In: C. Whan Park and D. C. Smith (eds.), Marketing Theory and Applications, American Marketing Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
  19. Demetriou, D. (2002, June 17). Suburb has wealthiest households in country. Evening Standard (London), p. 25.Google Scholar
  20. Falco, N., Fopma, W., Maxwell, S., Stoller, M., and Turrell, N. (1998). Is philanthropy a learned behaviour? Fundraising Management 29(7), 36–37.Google Scholar
  21. Flack, J. (2001, June 28). Give generously. Marketing Week (London), June 28, pp. 61–63.Google Scholar
  22. Goodden, H. (1994). An enormous inter-generational transfer of wealth is imminent: How can charities benefit? Front and Centre, Canadian Centre for Philanthropy 1(3), 17–18.Google Scholar
  23. Gorov, L. (1999, November 28). Spreading the wealth: Rich, young entrepreneurs are turning to social activism instead of the typical charities with their time and money. Boston Globe (Boston), p. 1.Google Scholar
  24. Grace, K. S. (2000). High Impact Philanthropy, Wiley, London.Google Scholar
  25. Greer, J. (2000). Women supporting women supporting women: A full circle of empowerment. Fund Raising Management 31(1), 36–37.Google Scholar
  26. Guy, B. S., and Patton, W. E. (1989). The marketing of altruistic causes: Understanding why people help. Journal of Consumer Marketing 6(1), 19–31.Google Scholar
  27. Harvey, J. (1990). Benefit segmentation for fundraisers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 18(1), 77–86.Google Scholar
  28. Herbig, P., Koehler, W., and Day, K. (1993). Marketing to the baby bust generation. Journal of Consumer Marketing 10(1), 4–9.Google Scholar
  29. Hill, N. (2000, November 9). Charities fail to take advantage of new tax rules. Guardian (London).Google Scholar
  30. Jones, A., and Posnett, J. (1991). Charitable donations by UK households: Evidence from the family expenditure survey. Applied Economics 23(2), 343–351.Google Scholar
  31. Kennedy, S. (1998). The power of positioning: A case history from the children's society. Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 3(3), 224–230.Google Scholar
  32. Kleinman, M. (2000, July 20). Marie Curie to increase donor list via DRTV ads. Marketing (London), p. 14.Google Scholar
  33. Krebs, D. L. (1970). Altruism: An examination of the concept and a review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin 74(4), 258–302.Google Scholar
  34. Lindeman, E. C. (1988). Wealth and Culture: A Study of One Hundred Foundations and Community Trusts and Their Operations During the Decade 1921–1930, Society and Philanthropy, Transaction Publishers, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  35. Martin, M. W. (1994). Virtuous Giving: Philanthropy, Voluntary Services and Caring, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar
  36. McGee, R. W. (2002). Ending welfare as we know it: A modest proposal. Economic Affairs 22(1), 12–17.Google Scholar
  37. McGrath, S. (1997). Giving donors good reason to give again. Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 2(2), 125–135.Google Scholar
  38. NCVO [National Council for Voluntary Organisations] (1999). Research Quarterly, 6, July, NCVO, London.Google Scholar
  39. Newman, R. H. (1998). Transforming donors into strategic funders. Fund Raising Management 29(1), 31–42.Google Scholar
  40. Nichols, J. (1994). Changing Demographics: Fund Raising in the 1990s, Bonus Books, Chicago.Google Scholar
  41. Ostrower, F. (1997). Why the Wealthy Give: The Culture of Elite Philanthropy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  42. Penrod, S. (1983). Social Psychology, Prentice-Hall, New York.Google Scholar
  43. Pharoah, C. (1996). Individual Giving: Seesaw Evidence, Static Trends, Dimensions of the Volunteer Sector, Charities Aid Foundation, London.Google Scholar
  44. Pharoah, C., and Tanner, S. (1997). Trends in charitable giving. Fiscal Studies 18(4), 427–443.Google Scholar
  45. Pidgeon, S., and Saxton, J. (1992). How fundraising will change in the 90s. Direct Response 11(9), 37–43.Google Scholar
  46. Piliavin, J. F., Dovidio, B., Gaeitner, S. L., and Clark, R. D. (1981). Emergency Intervention, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  47. Price, C. (2000). The Internet Entrepreneurs, Pearson Education, London.Google Scholar
  48. Radley, A., and Kennedy, M. (1995). Charitable giving by individuals: A study of attitudes and practice. Human Relations 48(6), 685–709.Google Scholar
  49. Reed, D. (1998, February 9). Giving is receiving. Precision Marketing (London), pp. 17–18.Google Scholar
  50. Richin, M. L. (1987). Media, materialism and human happiness. In: M. Wallendorf and P. Anderson (eds.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 14, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 352–356.Google Scholar
  51. Romney-Alexander, D. (2002). Payroll giving in the UK: Donor incentives and influences on giving behaviour. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 7(1), 84–92.Google Scholar
  52. Sargeant, A. (1999a). Donor retention: Just why do donors stop giving. Paper presented at the Institute of Charity Fundraising Managers (ICFM) Conference, July 12–14, Birmingham, UK.Google Scholar
  53. Sargeant, A. (1999b). Charitable giving: Towards a model of donor behaviour. Journal of Marketing Management 15(4), 215–238.Google Scholar
  54. Sargeant, A., Ford, J., and West, D. C. (2000). Widening the appeal of charity. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 5(4), 318–332.Google Scholar
  55. Schervish, P. G., and Havens, J. J. (2001). Wealth and the commonwealth: New findings on wherewithal and philanthropy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 30(1), 5–25.Google Scholar
  56. Schlegelmilch, B. B., Love, A., and Diamantopoulos, A. (1997). Responses to different charity appeals: The impact of donor characteristics on the amount of donations. European Journal of Marketing 31(8), 548–561.Google Scholar
  57. Schlegelmilch, B., and Tynan, A. (1987). Market segment orientated fundraising strategies: An empirical analysis. MIP 7(11/12), 16–24.Google Scholar
  58. Shelton, M. L., and Rogers, R. W. (1981). Fear arousing and empathy arousing appeals to help: The pathos of persuasion. Journal of Applied Psychology 11(4), 366–378.Google Scholar
  59. Silver, M. (1980). Affluence, Altruism and Atrophy, New York University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  60. Simpson, J. C. (1986, September 11). Baby boomers have 60s heritage—but charities say they are cheap. Wall Street Journal (New York), p. 33.Google Scholar
  61. Smy, L. (2000, February 17). Private sponsorship—tax breaks ensure that giving is easy. Financial Times, Business and the Arts [Section II] (London), p. 2.Google Scholar
  62. Speirn, S. (2002, December 23). In the many faces of philanthropy. Business Week 3813, p. 7.Google Scholar
  63. Steinberg, K. (2003). Philanthropic Giving Index, December, The Centre on Philanthropy at Indiana University, Indiana.Google Scholar
  64. Storey, J. (2001). Charities are facing a crisis of their own. Marketing Week, April 26, p. 22.Google Scholar
  65. Taylor, M., and Lansley, J. (1992). Ideology and welfare in the UK: The implications for the voluntary sector. Voluntas 3(2), 153–174.Google Scholar
  66. Too many cooks (2000, November 8). Guardian (London). http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/0,7843,393984,00.htmlGoogle Scholar
  67. Van Riel, C. B. M. (1995). Principles of Corporate Communications, Prentice Hall Europe, Hemel Hempstead, UK.Google Scholar
  68. Walker, C. (2002). Philanthropy, social capital or strategic alliance? The involvement of senior UK business executives with the voluntary sector and implications for corporate fundraising. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 7(3), 219–228.Google Scholar
  69. Warwick-Ching, L. (2002, October 17). Understanding charitable giving—an ethical way to spend and save. Financial Times Supplement, pp. 12–13.Google Scholar
  70. Weiser, J. (2002, December 23). In the many faces of philanthropy. Business Week 3813, p. 7.Google Scholar
  71. Williamson, G., and Clark, M. (1989). Providing help and desired relationship type as determinants of changes in self-evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56(3), 722–734.Google Scholar
  72. Wolpert, J. (2002). What Charity Can and Cannot Do: Policy in Perspective, Available from the Century Foundation Web site, www.tcf.orgGoogle Scholar
  73. Wray, R. (2002). Women struggle to join £100k club. Guardian, June 13, p. 28.Google Scholar
  74. Wymer, W. (1997). Segmenting volunteers using values, self-esteem, empathy and facilitation as determinant variables. Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing 5(2), 3–28.Google Scholar
  75. Yankelovich, D. (1985). The Charitable Behaviour of Americans: Management Survey, Independent Sector, Washington, DC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rita Kottasz
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Business and Service Sector ManagementLondon Metropolitan UniversityUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations