IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v43y2024i2p392-406.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Put Your Mouth Where Your Money Is: A Field Experiment Encouraging Donors to Share About Charity

Author

Listed:
  • Ike Silver

    (Kellogg Graduate School of Management, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208)

  • Deborah A. Small

    (Yale School of Management, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06511)

Abstract

Sharing about charity online or in personal conversations can help raise awareness and bolster fundraising efforts for good causes. However, when deciding whether to tell others about their charitable giving, donors may focus more on possible risks to their reputation (e.g., of seeming braggy, inauthentic) than on potential word-of-mouth benefits for the charity. In a large, preregistered field experiment, we tested a post-donation intervention designed to encourage word-of-mouth by reorienting donors to the idea that sharing about charity means doing more good; 77,485 donors received either a control or treatment message asking them to share a link to the cause via social media, text, or email. Compared with the organization’s standard solicitation (“Please share your donation…”), our intervention emphasized consequences of sharing for the cause (“Your donation can start a chain reaction…”). This brief message increased click-through by 5.1% and likelihood of recruiting at least one later donation via word-of-mouth by 12.4%. Exploratory follow-up analyses suggest that these effects are most pronounced among larger-gift donors; the more donors gave, the more responsive they were to the intervention. Whereas many field experiments aim to increase giving directly, we test an intervention designed to boost word-of-mouth for worthy causes. We discuss approaches for encouraging sharing in the domain of charity and beyond.

Suggested Citation

  • Ike Silver & Deborah A. Small, 2024. "Put Your Mouth Where Your Money Is: A Field Experiment Encouraging Donors to Share About Charity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(2), pages 392-406, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:43:y:2024:i:2:p:392-406
    DOI: 10.1287/mksc.2023.1450
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2023.1450
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mksc.2023.1450?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stefano DellaVigna & John A. List & Ulrike Malmendier, 2012. "Testing for Altruism and Social Pressure in Charitable Giving," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 127(1), pages 1-56.
    2. Raghuram Iyengar & Christophe Van den Bulte & Thomas W. Valente, 2011. "Opinion Leadership and Social Contagion in New Product Diffusion," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 195-212, 03-04.
    3. Dan Ariely & Anat Bracha & Stephan Meier, 2009. "Doing Good or Doing Well? Image Motivation and Monetary Incentives in Behaving Prosocially," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(1), pages 544-555, March.
    4. James Andreoni & Justin M. Rao & Hannah Trachtman, 2017. "Avoiding the Ask: A Field Experiment on Altruism, Empathy, and Charitable Giving," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 125(3), pages 625-653.
    5. Shan Huang & Sinan Aral & Yu Jeffrey Hu & Erik Brynjolfsson, 2020. "Social Advertising Effectiveness Across Products: A Large-Scale Field Experiment," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(6), pages 1142-1165, November.
    6. Dean Karlan & John A. List, 2007. "Does Price Matter in Charitable Giving? Evidence from a Large-Scale Natural Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1774-1793, December.
    7. Cragg, John G, 1971. "Some Statistical Models for Limited Dependent Variables with Application to the Demand for Durable Goods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 39(5), pages 829-844, September.
    8. K. Sudhir & Subroto Roy & Mathew Cherian, 2016. "Do Sympathy Biases Induce Charitable Giving? The Effects of Advertising Content," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(6), pages 849-869, November.
    9. David Godes & Dina Mayzlin & Yubo Chen & Sanjiv Das & Chrysanthos Dellarocas & Bruce Pfeiffer & Barak Libai & Subrata Sen & Mengze Shi & Peeter Verlegh, 2005. "The Firm's Management of Social Interactions," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 415-428, December.
    10. Agerström, Jens & Carlsson, Rickard & Nicklasson, Linda & Guntell, Linda, 2016. "Using descriptive social norms to increase charitable giving: The power of local norms," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 147-153.
    11. Noah J. Goldstein & Robert B. Cialdini & Vladas Griskevicius, 2008. "A Room with a Viewpoint: Using Social Norms to Motivate Environmental Conservation in Hotels," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 35(3), pages 472-482, March.
    12. K. Sudhir & Subroto Roy & Mathew Cherian, 2014. "Do Sympathy Biases Induce Charitable Giving" The Effects of Advertising Content," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1940, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, revised Jan 2016.
    13. Olivier Toubia & Andrew T. Stephen, 2013. "Intrinsic vs. Image-Related Utility in Social Media: Why Do People Contribute Content to Twitter?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 368-392, May.
    14. Heike M. Wolters & Christian Schulze & Karen Gedenk, 2020. "Referral Reward Size and New Customer Profitability," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(6), pages 1166-1180, November.
    15. David Godes & Dina Mayzlin, 2004. "Using Online Conversations to Study Word-of-Mouth Communication," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 545-560, June.
    16. Rosenbaum, Paul R., 2007. "Interference Between Units in Randomized Experiments," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 102, pages 191-200, March.
    17. Kurt P. Munz & Minah H. Jung & Adam L. Alter, 2020. "Name Similarity Encourages Generosity: A Field Experiment in Email Personalization," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(6), pages 1071-1091, November.
    18. Elster, Jon, 1989. "Social Norms and Economic Theory," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 3(4), pages 99-117, Fall.
    19. Jean-Pierre Dubé & Xueming Luo & Zheng Fang, 2017. "Self-Signaling and Prosocial Behavior: A Cause Marketing Experiment," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(2), pages 140-156, March.
    20. Bagwell, Laurie Simon & Bernheim, B Douglas, 1996. "Veblen Effects in a Theory of Conspicuous Consumption," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(3), pages 349-373, June.
    21. Randall A. Lewis & Justin M. Rao, 2015. "The Unfavorable Economics of Measuring the Returns to Advertising," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 130(4), pages 1941-1973.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shijie Lu & Dai Yao & Xingyu Chen & Rajdeep Grewal, 2021. "Do Larger Audiences Generate Greater Revenues Under Pay What You Want? Evidence from a Live Streaming Platform," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(5), pages 964-984, September.
    2. Tianshu Sun & Guodong (Gordon) Gao & Ginger Zhe Jin, 2019. "Mobile Messaging for Offline Group Formation in Prosocial Activities: A Large Field Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(6), pages 2717-2736, June.
    3. Drouvelis, Michalis & Marx, Benjamin M., 2022. "Can charitable appeals identify and exploit belief heterogeneity?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 631-649.
    4. Robert Neumann, 2019. "The framing of charitable giving: A field experiment at bottle refund machines in Germany," Rationality and Society, , vol. 31(1), pages 98-126, February.
    5. Judd B. Kessler & Katherine L. Milkman, 2018. "Identity in Charitable Giving," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(2), pages 845-859, February.
    6. Andrea La Nauze, 2023. "Motivation Crowding in Peer Effects: The Effect of Solar Subsidies on Green Power Purchases," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 105(6), pages 1465-1480, November.
    7. Michalis Drouvelis & Benjamin M. Marx, 2021. "Dimensions of donation preferences: the structure of peer and income effects," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(1), pages 274-302, March.
    8. Feine, Gregor & Groh, Elke D. & von Loessl, Victor & Wetzel, Heike, 2023. "The double dividend of social information in charitable giving: Evidence from a framed field experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    9. John A. List & James J. Murphy & Michael K. Price & Alexander G. James, 2019. "Do Appeals to Donor Benefits Raise More Money than Appeals to Recipient Benefits? Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment with Pick.Click.Give," NBER Working Papers 26559, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Leif Nelson & Duncan Simester & K. Sudhir, 2020. "Introduction to the Special Issue on Marketing Science and Field Experiments," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(6), pages 1033-1038, November.
    11. David Klinowski, 2021. "Reluctant donors and their reactions to social information," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 515-535, June.
    12. Daniel Schwartz & Elizabeth A. Keenan & Alex Imas & Ayelet Gneezy, 2017. "Opting-in to Prosocial Incentives," CESifo Working Paper Series 6840, CESifo.
    13. Nicolas J. Duquette & Enda Hargaden, 2018. "Inequality, Social Distance, and Giving," Working Papers 2018-03, University of Tennessee, Department of Economics.
    14. Schwartz, Daniel & Keenan, Elizabeth A. & Imas, Alex & Gneezy, Ayelet, 2021. "Opting-in to prosocial incentives," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 132-141.
    15. Duquette, Nicolas J. & Hargaden, Enda P., 2021. "Inequality and giving," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 186(C), pages 189-200.
    16. Butera, Luigi & Horn, Jeffrey, 2020. "“Give less but give smart”: Experimental evidence on the effects of public information about quality on giving," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 59-76.
    17. Breitmoser, Yves & Vorjohann, Pauline, 2018. "Welfare-Based Altruism," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 89, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    18. Kopalle, Praveen K. & Krishna, Aradhna & Rajan, Uday & Wang, Yu, 2022. "How does regulatory monitoring of cause marketing affect firm behavior and donations to charity?," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 947-966.
    19. K. Sudhir & Hortense Fong & Subroto Roy, 2014. "Greedy or Grateful" Asking for More when Thanking Donors," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2183, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    20. K. Sudhir & Hortense Fong & Subroto Roy, 2019. "Greedy or Grateful? Asking for More when Thanking Donors," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2183R, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, revised Mar 2021.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:43:y:2024:i:2:p:392-406. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.