Overview
Doing good for others can cost very little. But doing significant amounts of good for others often requires resources. Hence, nonprofits’ attention to fundraising. But asking others for money is a lot easier than actually getting it. It helps to have a clear goal in mind, know how much funding you need, and provide updates on progress toward that goal.
In this study, we examine how reporting the progress of attaining a goal might affect peoples’ willingness to donate. For example, are donors more likely to contribute at the start of an initiative, or toward the end? Perhaps having attained 80% of a goal can make people more likely to donate than when progress is only at 20%. We tested it to find out.
In this study, we examine how reporting the progress of attaining a goal might affect peoples’ willingness to donate. For example, are donors more likely to contribute at the start of an initiative, or toward the end? Perhaps having attained 80% of a goal can make people more likely to donate than when progress is only at 20%. We tested it to find out.
The Experiment
We conducted a within-subjects experiment with 200 people on the online research platform Prolific to test whether people are more likely to donate to a nonprofit when its fundraising goal is 20% vs. 80% achieved. Participants were instructed to read a few brief descriptions of nonprofits, including one that reported having attained 20% of its goal and one that reported having raised 80%, then answer a survey question asking how likely they’d be to donate to each nonprofit.
We used two hypothetical nonprofits for this experiment, randomizing which nonprofit reported 20% progress toward its goal while the other reported 80% progress. The two nonprofits were Local Health, “an organization raising funds for health screenings in your community,” and Double-Health Foods, “an organization trying to double the availability of healthy foods in your city.” Below each of these descriptions was text stating “They are at [20% / 80%] of their goal,” with 20% and 80% randomly assigned. We also randomized the order in which the two nonprofits were presented to each participant for counterbalancing.
The following pair of texts is an example of one combination that participants could have seen.
We used two hypothetical nonprofits for this experiment, randomizing which nonprofit reported 20% progress toward its goal while the other reported 80% progress. The two nonprofits were Local Health, “an organization raising funds for health screenings in your community,” and Double-Health Foods, “an organization trying to double the availability of healthy foods in your city.” Below each of these descriptions was text stating “They are at [20% / 80%] of their goal,” with 20% and 80% randomly assigned. We also randomized the order in which the two nonprofits were presented to each participant for counterbalancing.
The following pair of texts is an example of one combination that participants could have seen.
Please read the nonprofit description below.
Local Health
An organization raising funds for health screenings in your community.
They are at 20% of their goal.
Local Health
An organization raising funds for health screenings in your community.
They are at 20% of their goal.
Please read the nonprofit description below.
Double-Health Foods
An organization trying to double the availability of healthy foods in your city.
They are at 80% of their goal.
Double-Health Foods
An organization trying to double the availability of healthy foods in your city.
They are at 80% of their goal.
Following each nonprofit description, participants were asked “How likely would you be to donate to this nonprofit? (1 = Very Unlikely, 7 = Very Likely)” on a 1-7 scale. This served as our outcome measure of interest, in line with prior studies (Lee, et al., 2014).
Given that participants’ self-reported likeliness to donate may differ from their actual giving, we also measured whether each participant gives more than $100 per year to charity or churches, using a brief demographic survey at the end of the activity.
Given that participants’ self-reported likeliness to donate may differ from their actual giving, we also measured whether each participant gives more than $100 per year to charity or churches, using a brief demographic survey at the end of the activity.
Results
We found no significant difference in donation likeliness between the nonprofit that had attained 20% of its goal (avg. = 4.56) and the nonprofit that had attained 80% of its goal (avg. = 4.74), (p = 0.108). The figure below presents this analysis graphically, which we derived from a paired samples t-test.
Next, we tested whether the results differed based on whether participants donate to charity in real life, over $100 annually. Approximately 38% of participants reported doing so. We found a small, marginally significant interaction effect (p = 0.100), such that participants who give to charity in real life were more likely to donate to the nonprofit that attained 80% of its goal (difference = 0.39, p = 0.051), while participants who don’t give to charity in real life where indifferent (difference = -0.01, p = 0.951). However, we’d want to replicate this interaction before concluding it’s reliable.
Lastly, we tested whether the results were affected by order (20% first vs. 80% first) or specific nonprofit (Local Health vs. Double-Health Foods). There was no interaction effect for specific nonprofit (p = 0.732). However, there was a small but significant order effect (p = 0.028), such that when the 20% goal was displayed first, participants were 0.42 points more likely to donate to the 80% goal nonprofit (p = 0.011); however, when the 80% goal was displayed first, participants were only 0.06 points more likely to donate to the 20% goal nonprofit (p = 0.683). An independent samples t-test comparing only the 80% and 20% conditions that were displayed to participants first revealed an insignificant difference of only 0.29 points (p = 0.220).
More details regarding our methodology and statistical analysis can be found here.
Conclusion
If you’re strategically hoping to increase your fundraising by reporting the percentage of your goal achieved, you may not get a very sizeable boost from reporting it. You may be better served focusing your efforts on other fundraising tactics. Nevertheless, this study only tested 20% and 80% goal attainment. It’s possible that a number like 90% or even 50% could be viewed differently. Furthermore, this study did not test how different presentations of goal achievement may affect donations (e.g., a thermometer chart vs. simple numbers), or whether presenting goal progress relative to other information (e.g., more details about the initiative) could affect donations. Perhaps there are nonprofits who have already tested these interesting hypotheses.