Nonprofit organizations (NPOs) play a central role in many economies in the form of private entities serving a public purpose. Strengthening the fundraising capabilities of NPOs can have a large impact on their survival and effective functioning. NPOs typically elicit financial contributions through multiple forms of giving, such as donation and membership. These options enable individuals to express their altruism by giving in one or multiple forms. The authors develop a utility-based multiple discrete-continuous model that provides insights into potentially large differences in individuals’ giving behaviors. Through Bayesian Gaussian processes, the model also incorporates changes in givers’ preferences for forms of giving. The authors apply their model to five years of individual giving data. They find that the effects of lifetime, recency, seasonality, and appeals on donation and membership options change nonmonotonically over time and in distinctive ways. The authors demonstrate that the model estimates help predict who will give in more than one form in the future as well as build appeal targeting strategies. The model also shows that fundraising attempts should emphasize participation rather than amount, and that long-lapsed members are still worth pursuing for renewal, whereas long-lapsed donors are less productive for repeat giving.
AllenbyGreg M.RossiPeter E. (1998), “Marketing Models of Consumer Heterogeneity,” Journal of Econometrics, 89 (1/2), 57–78.
2.
AndreoniJames (1989), “Giving with Impure Altruism: Applications to Charity and Ricardian Equivalence,” Journal of Political Economy, 97 (6), 1447–58.
3.
AndreoniJames (1990), “Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving,” Economic Journal, 100 (401), 464–77.
4.
AndreoniJamesPayneA. Abigail (2011), “Is Crowding Out Due Entirely to Fundraising? Evidence from a Panel of Charities,” Journal of Public Economics, 95 (5/6), 334–43.
5.
AndreoniJamesPayneA. Abigail (2013), “Charitable Giving,” Handbook of Public Economics, 5, 1–50.
6.
ArielyDanBrachaAnatMeierStephan (2009), “Doing Good or Doing Well? Image Motivation and Monetary Incentives in Behaving Prosocially,” American Economic Review, 99 (1), 544–55.
7.
AroraNeerajAllenbyGreg M.GinterJames L. (1998), “A Hierarchical Bayes Model of Primary and Secondary Demand,” Marketing Science, 17 (1), 29–44.
AutenGerald E.SiegHolgerClotfelterCharles T. (2002), “Charitable Giving, Income, and Taxes: An Analysis of Panel Data,” American Economic Review, 92 (1), 371–82.
10.
BartlettMonica Y.DeStenoDavid (2006), “Gratitude and Prosocial Behavior: Helping When It Costs You,” Psychological Science, 17 (4), 319–25.
11.
BelleflammePaulOmraniNessrinePeitzMartin (2015), “The Economics of Crowdfunding Platforms,” Information Economics and Policy, 33, 11–28.
12.
BénabouRolandTiroleJean (2006), “Incentives and Prosocial Behavior,” American Economic Review, 96 (5), 1652–78.
13.
BhatChandra R. (2005), “A Multiple Discrete-Continuous Extreme Value Model: Formulation and Application to Discretionary Time-Use Decisions,” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 39 (8), 679–707.
14.
BhatChandra R. (2008), “The Multiple Discrete-Continuous Extreme Value (MDCEV) Model: Role of Utility Function Parameters, Identification Considerations, and Model Extensions,” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 42 (3), 274–303.
15.
BhattacharyaC.B. (1998), “When Customers Are Members: Customer Retention in Paid Membership Contexts,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26 (1), 31–44.
16.
BhattacharyaC.B.RaoHayagreevaGlynnMary Ann (1995), “Understanding the Bond of Identification: An Investigation of Its Correlates Among Art Museum Members,” Journal of Marketing, 59 (4), 46–57.
17.
BlankenIrenevan de VenNielsZeelenbergMarcus (2015), “A Meta-Analytic Review of Moral Licensing,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41 (4), 540–58.
18.
ChiangJeongwen (1991), “A Simultaneous Approach to the Whether, What and How Much to Buy Questions,” Marketing Science, 10 (4), 297–315.
19.
ChintaguntaPradeep K. (1993), “Investigating Purchase Incidence, Brand Choice and Purchase Quantity Decisions of Households,” Marketing Science, 12 (2), 184–208.
20.
ChuanAmandaKesslerJudd B.MilkmanKatherine L. (2018), “Field Study of Charitable Giving Reveals That Reciprocity Decays over Time,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115 (8), 1766–71.
21.
DellaVignaStefanoListJohn A.MalmendierUlrike (2012), “Testing for Altruism and Social Pressure in Charitable Giving,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127 (1), 1–56.
22.
DewRyanAnsariAsim (2018), “Bayesian Nonparametric Customer Base Analysis with Model-Based Visualizations,” Marketing Science, 37 (2), 216–35.
23.
DewRyanAnsariAsimLiYang (2020), “Modeling Dynamic Heterogeneity Using Gaussian Processes,” Journal of Marketing Research, 57 (1), 55–77.
24.
DickertStephanSagaraNamikaSlovicPaul (2011), “Affective Motivations to Help Others: A Two-Stage Model of Donation Decisions,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 24 (4), 361–76.
25.
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.
26.
FalkArmin (2007), “Gift Exchange in the Field,” Econometrica, 75 (5), 1501–11.
27.
GelmanAndrewRubinDonald B. (1992), “Inference from Iterative Simulation Using Multiple Sequences,” Statistical Science, 7 (4), 457–72.
28.
GerberElizabeth M.HuiJulie. (2013), “Crowdfunding: Motivations and Deterrents for Participation,” ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 20 (6), 1–32.
29.
GęsiarzFilipCrockettMolly J. (2015), “Goal-Directed, Habitual and Pavlovian Prosocial Behavior,” Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 9, 135.
30.
Giving USA (2020), “Giving USA 2020: The Annual Report on Philanthropy for the Year 2019,” technical report.
31.
GneezyUriRustichiniAldo (2000), “Pay Enough or Don’t Pay at All,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115 (3), 791–810.
32.
HanemannW. Michael (1984), “Discrete/Continuous Models of Consumer Demand,” Econometrica, 52 (3), 541–61.
33.
HeckmanJames J. (1981), “Heterogeneity and State Dependence,” in Studies in Labor Markets, RosenSherwin, ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 91–140.
KallmanMegan E.ClarkTerry N. (2016), The Third Sector: Community Organizations, NGOs, and Nonprofits. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.
36.
KhanUzmaDharRavi (2006), “Licensing Effect in Consumer Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (2), 259–66.
37.
KhodakaramiFarnooshPetersenJ. AndrewVenkatesanRajkumar (2015), “Developing Donor Relationships: The Role of the Breadth of Giving,” Journal of Marketing, 79 (4), 77–93.
38.
KimJaewhanAllenbyGreg M.RossiPeter E. (2002), “Modeling Consumer Demand for Variety,” Marketing Science, 21 (3), 229–50.
39.
KumarV.SharmaAmaleshDonthuNaveenRountreeCarey (2015), “Practice Prize Paper—Implementing Integrated Marketing Science Modeling at a Non-Profit Organization: Balancing Multiple Business Objectives at Georgia Aquarium,” Marketing Science, 34 (6), 804–14.
40.
KuppuswamyVenkatBayusBarry L. (2018), “A Review of Crowdfunding Research and Findings,” in Handbook of Research on New Product Development, GolderPeter N.MitraDebanjan, eds. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Section, 361–73.
41.
LeliveldMarijke C.RisseladaHans (2017), “Dynamics in Charity Donation Decisions: Insights from a Large Longitudinal Data Set,” Science Advances, 3 (9), e1700077.
42.
ListJohn A. (2011), “The Market for Charitable Giving,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25 (2), 157–80.
43.
MalaniAnupPhilipsonTomasDavidGuy (2003), “Theories of Firm Behavior in the Nonprofit Sector. A Synthesis and Empirical Evaluation,” in NBER Chapters. Cambridge, UK: National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, 181–216.
44.
ManchandaPuneetRossiPeter E.ChintaguntaPradeep K. (2004), “Response Modeling with Nonrandom Marketing-Mix Variables,” Journal of Marketing Research, 41 (4), 467–78.
45.
MeerJonathanRosenHarvey S. (2011), “The ABCs of Charitable Solicitation,” Journal of Public Economics, 95 (5), 363–71.
46.
MehtaNitinChenXinlei J.NarasimhanOm (2010), “Examining Demand Elasticities in Hanemann’s Framework: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis,” Marketing Science, 29 (3), 422–37.
47.
MidlarskyE.HannahM. E. (1989), “The Generous Elderly: Naturalistic Studies of Donations Across the Life Span,” Psychology and Aging, 4 (3), 346–51.
48.
MorganJohn (2000), “Financing Public Goods by Means of Lotteries,” Review of Economic Studies, 67 (4), 761–84.
49.
NairHarikeshDubéJean-PierreChintaguntaPradeep (2005), “Accounting for Primary and Secondary Demand Effects with Aggregate Data,” Marketing Science, 24 (3), 444–60.
NeslinScott A.TaylorGail A.GranthamKimberly D.McNeilKimberly R. (2013), “Overcoming the ‘Recency Trap’ in Customer Relationship Management,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41 (3), 320–37.
52.
NetzerOdedLattinJames M.SrinivasanV. (2008), “A Hidden Markov Model of Customer Relationship Dynamics,” Marketing Science, 27 (2), 185–204.
53.
NewmanGeorge E.ShenY. Jeremy (2012), “The Counterintuitive Effects of Thank-You Gifts on Charitable Giving,” Journal of Economic Psychology, 33 (5), 973–83.
54.
RasmussenCarl E.WilliamsChristopher K.I. (2005), Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
55.
RobertsS.OsborneM.EbdenM.ReeceS.GibsonN.AigrainS. (2013), “Gaussian Processes for Time-Series Modelling,” Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 371 (1984), 1–25.
56.
SargeantAdrianWoodliffeLucy (2007), “Gift Giving: an Interdisciplinary Review,” International Journal of Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12 (4), 275–307.
57.
SatomuraTakuyaKimJaewhanAllenbyGreg M. (2011), “Multiple-Constraint Choice Models with Corner and Interior Solutions,” Marketing Science, 30 (3), 481–90.
58.
SethuramanRajTellisGerard J.BrieschRichard A. (2011), “How Well Does Advertising Work? Generalizations from Meta-Analysis of Brand Advertising Elasticities,” Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (3), 457–71.
59.
SimpsonBrentWillerRobb (2008), “Altruism and Indirect Reciprocity: The Interaction of Person and Situation in Prosocial Behavior,” Social Psychology Quarterly, 71 (1), 37–52.
Touré-TilleryMaferimaFishbachAyelet (2017), “Too Far to Help: The Effect of Perceived Distance on the Expected Impact and Likelihood of Charitable Action,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112 (6), 860–76.
62.
TuchmanAnna E.NairHarikesh S.GardetePedro M. (2018), “Television Ad-Skipping, Consumption Complementarities and the Consumer Demand for Advertising,” Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 16 (2), 111–74.
63.
Van DiepenMerelDonkersBasFransesPhilip H. (2009), “Dynamic and Competitive Effects of Direct Mailings: A Charitable Giving Application,” Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (1), 120–33.
64.
WeisbrodBurton A. (1998), To Profit or Not to Profit: The Commercial Transformation of the Nonprofit Sector. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
65.
WhiteKatherineHabibRishadDahlDarren W. (2020), “A Review and Framework for Thinking about the Drivers of Prosocial Consumer Behavior,” Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 5 (1), 2–18.
66.
WinterichKarenMittalVikasRossWilliam T.Jr (2009), “Donation Behavior Toward In-Groups and Out-Groups: The Role of Gender and Moral Identity,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (2), 199–214.
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.
