The Negative Effects of Small Gift References in Charitable Bequest Marketing

IF 1.5 Q3 BUSINESS
Russell N. James III, Claire Routley
{"title":"The Negative Effects of Small Gift References in Charitable Bequest Marketing","authors":"Russell N. James III,&nbsp;Claire Routley","doi":"10.1002/nvsm.70021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper presents the first randomized controlled experiment to examine the effects of small gift and small estate percentage references in legacy gift marketing. The results offer practical and theoretical insights for fundraisers. Previous research in current donations finds that using examples of smaller gifts (“legitimizing paltry contributions”) tends to increase giving participation rates but reduce gift sizes. A popular approach to marketing charitable bequests takes a similar approach by using examples of leaving 1% of the estate. As expected, the use of a small estate percentage example, such as 1% or 2% of the estate, did significantly decrease the intended gift size. However, these examples also had weakly negative effects on the likelihood of making a bequest gift. The expected giving participation/amount tradeoff arose only in the strength of the negative impact caused by percentage examples. As the example percentages increased (1%, 2%, 5%, 10%, 20%, or “whether it is 1% or 50%,”), the statistical significance of the negative effects on gift likelihood tended to grow, while the statistical significance of the negative effects on intended gift size tended to fall. Alternatives such as referencing small dollar amount examples ($100 or $500) or “a very small gift in a will” had no significant effect on the likelihood of making a gift. However, the negative effect on intended gift size was significant for the $500 example. In addition to these results, the financial dominance of large estate gifts and the one-time nature of such gifts contraindicate marketing strategies (and performance metrics) focused on increasing gift participation at the expense of intended gift size.</p>","PeriodicalId":100823,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Philanthropy and Marketing","volume":"30 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/nvsm.70021","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Philanthropy and Marketing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/nvsm.70021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper presents the first randomized controlled experiment to examine the effects of small gift and small estate percentage references in legacy gift marketing. The results offer practical and theoretical insights for fundraisers. Previous research in current donations finds that using examples of smaller gifts (“legitimizing paltry contributions”) tends to increase giving participation rates but reduce gift sizes. A popular approach to marketing charitable bequests takes a similar approach by using examples of leaving 1% of the estate. As expected, the use of a small estate percentage example, such as 1% or 2% of the estate, did significantly decrease the intended gift size. However, these examples also had weakly negative effects on the likelihood of making a bequest gift. The expected giving participation/amount tradeoff arose only in the strength of the negative impact caused by percentage examples. As the example percentages increased (1%, 2%, 5%, 10%, 20%, or “whether it is 1% or 50%,”), the statistical significance of the negative effects on gift likelihood tended to grow, while the statistical significance of the negative effects on intended gift size tended to fall. Alternatives such as referencing small dollar amount examples ($100 or $500) or “a very small gift in a will” had no significant effect on the likelihood of making a gift. However, the negative effect on intended gift size was significant for the $500 example. In addition to these results, the financial dominance of large estate gifts and the one-time nature of such gifts contraindicate marketing strategies (and performance metrics) focused on increasing gift participation at the expense of intended gift size.

Abstract Image

慈善遗赠营销中小礼物参考的负面影响
本文提出了第一个随机对照实验来检验小礼物和小遗产百分比参考在遗产礼品营销中的作用。研究结果为筹款者提供了实践和理论见解。先前对当前捐赠的研究发现,使用小额捐赠的例子(“使小额捐赠合法化”)往往会增加捐赠的参与率,但会减少捐赠规模。一种流行的营销慈善遗赠的方法采用了类似的方法,通过使用留下1%遗产的例子。正如预期的那样,使用一个小的遗产百分比的例子,比如1%或2%的遗产,确实显著降低了预期的礼物规模。然而,这些例子对留下遗赠礼物的可能性也有微弱的负面影响。预期的捐赠参与/金额权衡仅在百分比示例造成的负面影响的强度中出现。随着示例百分比的增加(1%、2%、5%、10%、20%,或者“是1%还是50%”),对礼物可能性的负面影响的统计显著性趋于增长,而对预期礼物规模的负面影响的统计显著性趋于下降。其他选择,如引用小额金额的例子(100美元或500美元)或“遗嘱中非常小的礼物”,对赠与的可能性没有显著影响。然而,在500美元的例子中,对预期礼物大小的负面影响是显著的。除了这些结果之外,大型遗产礼物的财务主导地位和此类礼物的一次性性质也不利于以牺牲预期礼物规模为代价增加礼物参与度的营销策略(和绩效指标)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信