Charities often include low-value monetary (e.g., coins) and nonmonetary (e.g., greeting cards) pregiving incentives (PGIs) in their donation request letters. Yet little is known about how donors respond to this marketing strategy. In seven studies, including two large-scale field experiments, the authors demonstrate that the effectiveness of PGIs depends on the organization’s goals. People are more likely to open and read a letter containing a monetary PGI (vs. a nonmonetary PGI or no PGI). In addition, monetary PGIs increase response rates in donor acquisition campaigns. However, the return on investment for direct mail campaigns drops significantly when PGIs are included. Furthermore, average donations for appeals with a nonmonetary PGI or no PGI are similar, while those with a monetary PGI are actually lower than when a nonmonetary PGI or no PGI is included. This is because monetary PGIs increase exchange norms while decreasing communal norms. This effect remains significant when accounting for alternative explanations such as manipulative intent and the anchoring and adjustment heuristic.
AakerJenniferVohsKathleen D.MoglinerCassie (2010), “Non-Profits Are Seen as Warm and For-Profits as Competent: Firm Stereotypes Matter,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (2), 277–91.
2.
AggarwalPankaj (2004), “The Effects of Brand Relationship Norms on Consumer Attitudes and Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (1), 87–101.
3.
AggarwalPankajLawSharmistha (2005), “Role of Relationship Norms in Processing Brand Information,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (3), 453–64.
4.
AlpizarFranciscoCarlssonFredrikJohansson-StenmanOlof (2008), “Anonymity, Reciprocity, and Conformity: Evidence from Voluntary Contributions to a National Park in Costa Rica,” Journal of Public Economics, 92 (5/6), 1047–60.
5.
BaraschAlixandraBermanJonathan Z.SmallDeborah A. (2016), “When Payment Undermines the Pitch: On the Persuasiveness of Pure Motives in Fund-Raising,” Psychological Science, 27 (10), 1388–97.
6.
Ben-NerAvnerKramerAmitLevyOri (2008), “Economic and Hypothetical Dictator Game Experiments: Incentive Effects at the Individual Level,” The Journal of Socio-Economics, 37 (5), 1775–84.
7.
BoxG.E.P.CoxD.R. (1964), “An Analysis of Transformations,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 26 (2), 211–52.
8.
CampbellMargaret C. (1995), “When Attention-Getting Advertising Tactics Elicit Consumer Inference of Manipulative Intent: The Importance of Balancing Benefits and Investments,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4 (3), 225–54.
9.
CialdiniRobert B.GoldsteinNoah J. (2004), “Social Influence: Compliance and Conformity,” Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621.
10.
ClarkMargret S.MillsJudson (1993), “The Difference Between Communal and Exchange Relationships: What It Is and Is Not,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19 (6), 684–91.
11.
ClarkMargret S.AragónOriana R. (2013), “Communal (and Other) Relationships: History, Theory Development, Recent Findings, and Future Directions,” in The Oxford Handbook of Close Relationships, SimpsonJeffry A.CampbellLorne, eds. New York: Oxford University Press, 255–80.
12.
DaiZhixinGaleottiFabioVillevalMarie C. (2018), “Cheating in the Lab Predicts Fraud in the Field: An Experiment in Public Transportation,” Management Science, 64 (3), 1081–1100.
13.
Data & Marketing Association (2015), Response Rate Report. New York: Direct Marketing Association.
14.
FajardoTatiana M.TownsendClaudiaBolanderWilly (2018), “Toward an Optimal Donation Solicitation: Evidence from the Field of the Differential Influence of Donor-Related and Organization-Related Information on Donation Choice and Amount,” Journal of Marketing, 82 (2), 142–52.
15.
FalkArmin (2007), “Gift Exchange in the Field,” Econometrica, 75 (5), 1501–11.
16.
FalkArminHeckmanJames J. (2009), “Lab Experiments Are a Major Source of Knowledge in the Social Sciences,” Science, 326 (5952), 535–38.
17.
FeldSebastianFrenzenHeikoKrafftManfredPetersKayVerhoefPeter C. (2013), “The Effect of Mailing Design Characteristics on Direct Mail Campaign Performance,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 30 (2), 143–59.
18.
FestingerLeon (1957), A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
GneezyUriMeierStephanRey-BielPedro (2011), “When and Why Incentives (Don’t) Work to Modify Behavior,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25 (4), 191–209.
22.
GouldnerAlvin W. (1960), “The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement,” American Sociological Review, 25 (2), 161–78.
23.
HayesAndrew. F (2017). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press.
24.
HeymanJamesArielyDan (2004), “Efforts for Payment: A Tale of Two Markets,” Psychological Science, 15 (11), 787–93.
25.
HurJungYun (Christine)JangSooCheong (Shawn) (2016), “Toward Service Recovery Strategies: The Role of Consumer-Organization Relationship Norms,” Journal of Services Marketing, 30 (7), 724–35.
JohnsonJennifer W.GrimmPamela E. (2010), “Communal and Exchange Relationship Perceptions as Separate Constructs and Their Role in Motivations to Donate,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20 (3), 282–94.
KogutTehilaSlovicPaulVästfjällDaniel (2015), “Scope Insensitivity in Helping Decisions: Is It a Matter of Culture and Values?” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144 (6), 1042–52.
30.
KouchakiMaryamSmith-CroweKristinBriefArthur P.SousaCarlos (2013), “Seeing Green: Mere Exposure to Money Triggers a Business Decision Frame and Unethical Outcomes,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121 (1), 53–61.
31.
KulowKatinaKramerThomas (2016), “In Pursuit of Good Karma: When Charitable Appeals to Do Right Go Wrong,” Journal of Consumer Research, 43 (2), 334–53.
32.
LavidgeRobert J.SteinerGary A. (1961), “A Model for Predictive Measurements of Advertising Effectiveness,” Journal of Marketing, 25 (6), 59–62.
33.
MacInnisDeborahFolkesValerie S. (2017), “When Brands Seem to Be Like Me, Part of Me, and in a Relationship with Me,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27 (3), 355–74.
34.
MacKinnonDavid P.LockwoodChondra M.JasonWilliams (2004), “Confidence Limits for the Indirect Effect: Distribution of the Product and Resampling Methods,” Multivariate Behavior Research, 39 (1), 99–128.
35.
MarwellGeraldSchmittDavid R. (1967), “Dimensions of Compliance-Gaining Behavior: An Empirical Analysis,” Sociometry, 30 (4), 350–64.
36.
McGrawPeter A.SchwartzJanet A.TetlockPhilip E. (2012), “From the Commercial to the Communal: Reframing Taboo Trade-Offs in Religious and Pharmaceutical Marketing,” Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (1), 157–73.
37.
MillerJoan G.BlandChloeKällberg-ShroffMalinTsengChiung-YiMontes-GeorgeJazminRyanKatelin, et al. (2014), “Culture and the Role of Exchange vs. Communal Norms in Friendship,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 53, 79–93.
38.
MobileCause (2019), “Direct Mail Fundraising,”https://www.mobilecause.com/direct-mail-fundraising/
39.
NewmanGeorge E.ShenY.J. (2012), “The Counterintuitive Effects of Thank-You Gifts on Charitable Giving,” Journal of Economic Psychology, 33 (5), 973–83.
Paradysz + PM Digital Research (2016), “Market Trends 2015 Non-Profit Sector: Direct Mail Promotion and Universe Trending,” research report (nonpublic, detailed reports are available from the authors upon request), Paradysz.
42.
RaghubirPriya (2006), “An Information Processing Review of the Subjective Value of Money and Prices,” Journal of Business Research, 59 (10/11), 1053–62.
43.
ReganDennis T. (1971), “Effects of Favor and Liking on Compliance,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7 (6), 627–39.
SingerEleanorYeCong (2013), “The Use and Effects of Incentives in Surveys,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 645 (1), 112–41.
TownsendClaudia (2017), “The Price of Beauty: Differential Effects of Design Elements With and Without Cost Implications in Nonprofit Donor Solicitations,” Journal of Consumer Research, 44 (4), 794–815.
51.
TverskyAmosKahnemanDaniel (1974), “Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,” Science, 185 (4157), 1124–31.
52.
VowsKathleen D.MeadNicole L.GoodeMiranda R. (2006), “The Psychological Consequences of Money,” Science, 314, 1154–56.
53.
VowsKathleen D.MeadNicole L.GoodeMiranda R. (2008), “Merely Activating the Concept of Money Changes Personal and Interpersonal Behavior,” Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17 (3), 208–12.
54.
WanLisa C.HuiMichael K.WyerRobert S. (2011), “The Role of Relationship Norms in Response to Service Failures,” Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (2), 260–77.
55.
WhiteKatherineHabibRishadDahlDarren W. (2020), “A Review and Framework for Thinking About the Drivers of Prosocial Consumer Behavior,” Journal of the Association of Consumer Research, 5 (1), 2–18.
56.
WinterichKaren PageBaroneMichael J. (2011), “Warm Glow or Cold, Hard Cash? Social Identify Effects on Consumer Choice for Donation Versus Discount Promotions,” Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (5), 855–68.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
