IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cwl/cwldpp/2183.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Greedy or Grateful" Asking for More when Thanking Donors

Author

Listed:

Abstract

Charities often send annual "thank you letters" to express gratitude to donors, but seek to defray these costs by inviting additional donations or engagement. However, the additional asks may backfire if potential donors see the thank you message as "insincere" or "manipulative." We test this trade-off by conducting a field experiment in cooperation with a leading charity in India. We find that an explicit ask for additional donations or even a request to follow the organization on Facebook reduces giving. However, these effects are not only heterogeneous, but asymmetric by past giving behavior. Recent, frequent, and higher monetary value donors react negatively to additional asks by reducing giving, but lapsed, infrequent, and lower monetary value donors react positively by giving more. Our results highlight that findings based on purely cross-sectional experiments may offer incomplete insight. We estimate that differentially targeted ask messages based on past donation behavior, data readily available to charities, can increase donations overall by 6-11%.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:cwl:cwldpp:2183
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cowles.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/pub/d21/d2183.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Oded Netzer & James M. Lattin & V. Srinivasan, 2008. "A Hidden Markov Model of Customer Relationship Dynamics," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 185-204, 03-04.
    2. 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.
    3. Newman, George E. & Jeremy Shen, Y., 2012. "The counterintuitive effects of thank-you gifts on charitable giving," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 973-983.
    4. Claudia Townsend & Darren DahlEditor & Page MoreauAssociate Editor, 2017. "The Price of Beauty: Differential Effects of Design Elements with and without Cost Implications in Nonprofit Donor Solicitations," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 44(4), pages 794-815.
    5. Catherine C. Eckel & David H. Herberich & Jonathan Meer, 2016. "It's Not the Thought that Counts: A Field Experiment on Gift Exchange and Giving at a Public University," NBER Working Papers 22867, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Susan Rose-Ackerman, 1982. "Charitable Giving and “Excessive†Fundraising," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 97(2), pages 193-212.
    7. Andrea C. Morales, 2005. "Giving Firms an "E" for Effort: Consumer Responses to High-Effort Firms," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 31(4), pages 806-812, March.
    8. Rajagopal, 2014. "The Human Factors," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Architecting Enterprise, chapter 9, pages 225-249, Palgrave Macmillan.
    9. 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.
    10. Tiffany White & Debra Zahay & Helge Thorbjørnsen & Sharon Shavitt, 2008. "Getting too personal: Reactance to highly personalized email solicitations," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 39-50, March.
    11. 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.
    12. Gavan J. Fitzsimons & Donald R. Lehmann, 2004. "Reactance to Recommendations: When Unsolicited Advice Yields Contrary Responses," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 82-94, September.
    13. 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.
    14. Tucker, Catherine E., 2012. "The economics of advertising and privacy," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 326-329.
    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. 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.
    2. Ernan Haruvy & Peter Popkowski Leszczyc & Greg Allenby & Russell Belk & Catherine Eckel & Robert Fisher & Sherry Xin Li & John A. List & Yu Ma & Yu Wang, 2020. "Fundraising design: key issues, unifying framework, and open puzzles," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 371-380, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Navdeep S. Sahni & S. Christian Wheeler & Pradeep Chintagunta, 2018. "Personalization in Email Marketing: The Role of Noninformative Advertising Content," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(2), pages 236-258, March.
    5. Meer, Jonathan, 2017. "Does fundraising create new giving?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 82-93.
    6. Gallier, Carlo & Goeschl, Timo & Kesternich, Martin & Lohse, Johannes & Reif, Christiane & Römer, Daniel, 2023. "Inter-charity competition under spatial differentiation: Sorting, crowding, and spillovers," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 216(C), pages 457-468.
    7. 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.
    8. Indranil Goswami & Indranil Goswami, 2020. "No Substitute for the Real Thing: The Importance of In-Context Field Experiments in Fundraising," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(6), pages 1052-1070, November.
    9. Chenxi Li & Xueming Luo & Cheng Zhang, 2017. "Sunny, Rainy, and Cloudy with a Chance of Mobile Promotion Effectiveness," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(5), pages 762-779, September.
    10. Aguirre, Elizabeth & Mahr, Dominik & Grewal, Dhruv & de Ruyter, Ko & Wetzels, Martin, 2015. "Unraveling the Personalization Paradox: The Effect of Information Collection and Trust-Building Strategies on Online Advertisement Effectiveness," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 34-49.
    11. Bleier, Alexander & Eisenbeiss, Maik, 2015. "The Importance of Trust for Personalized Online Advertising," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 390-409.
    12. Indranil Goswami & Oleg Urminsky, 2018. "No Substitute for the Real Thing: The Importance of In-Context Field Experiments In Fundraising," Natural Field Experiments 00660, The Field Experiments Website.
    13. 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.
    14. Yun Young Hur & Fujie Jin & Xitong Li & Yuan Cheng & Yu Jeffrey Hu, 2023. "Does Social Influence Change with Other Information Sources? A Large-Scale Randomized Experiment in Medical Crowdfunding," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(4), pages 1476-1492, December.
    15. 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.
    16. Darima Fotheringham & Michael A. Wiles, 2023. "The effect of implementing chatbot customer service on stock returns: an event study analysis," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 51(4), pages 802-822, July.
    17. Anindya Ghose & Beibei Li & Meghanath Macha & Chenshuo Sun & Natasha Ying Zhang Foutz, 2020. "Trading Privacy for the Greater Social Good: How Did America React During COVID-19?," Papers 2006.05859, arXiv.org.
    18. Park, Gain & Park, YounJung & Lee, Seyoung, 2024. "Compliance-gaining in metaverse: A moderated parallel mediation model testing the interaction between legitimization of paltry favors technique and victim identification," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    19. Chang, Chia-Chi & Chen, Po-Yu, 2019. "Which maximizes donations: Charitable giving as an incentive or incentives for charitable giving?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 65-75.
    20. Matthew Chao & Geoffrey Fisher, 2022. "Self-Interested Giving: The Relationship Between Conditional Gifts, Charitable Donations, and Donor Self-Interestedness," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(6), pages 4537-4567, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Gratitude; Field experiments; Reactance; Fundraising; Donor relationship management; Nonprofits; altruism;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L31 - Industrial Organization - - Nonprofit Organizations and Public Enterprise - - - Nonprofit Institutions; NGOs; Social Entrepreneurship
    • M31 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising - - - Marketing
    • M37 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising - - - Advertising
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:cwl:cwldpp:2183. 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: Brittany Ladd (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cowleus.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.