Applying relationship management theory to the fundraising process for individual donors

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to measure the relationships non‐profit organisations develop with their annual giving and major gift donors and to compare the differences between the giving levels.Design/methodology/approachA web‐based survey of individual donors (n=120) to a non‐profit healthcare organisation evaluated their relationships with the organisation using Hon and Grunig's four dimensions of organisation‐public relationships.FindingsTo explore the dynamics of the fundraising process, donors were categorised into two different schema. First, donors were classified as either major gift donors or annual giving donors. With this classification, major gift donors were more likely to have stronger feelings of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality with the organisation than annual gift donors did. The second classification divided the donors who have made multiple contributions to the organisation and those who had only made one donation at the time of the study. This study found that donors who gave multiple times to an organisation evaluated the relationship stronger than one‐time donors. Finally, these dimensions were also able to predict past giving behaviour 91 per cent of the time for the participants in this study.Research limitations/implicationsThe findings strengthen the bridge between public relations and fundraising. Additionally, they further validate the organisation‐public relationship measures created by Hon and Grunig, and they demonstrate the indices' ability to predict behaviour.Practical implicationsThe findings stress the importance of donor cultivation within the non‐profit organisation‐donor relationship particularly since the number of non‐profit organisations is rapidly growing and competing for donations. Additionally, the results demonstrate the growing importance of demonstrating financial and social accountability.Originality/valueThe study extends the growing organisation‐public relationship paradigm into a specialisation of public relations that is rarely studied from a social scientific perspective. This study strengthens the reliability and validity of Hon and Grunig's variables as well as strengthening the connection between public relations and fundraising.

The effects of donation button design on aid agency transactional trust

“…These findings are consistent with the idea that building transactional trust in an aid agency is likely to lead to more productive fundraising outcomes and are consistent with Richard's (2008) study, which found that major gift donors were more likely to have stronger feelings of trust than annual gift donors. Furthermore, research suggests that donation intentions are strongly predictive of actual donation behaviour (Cheung and Chan, 2000;Fox and Carr, 2000).…”

“…The increase in online fundraising may be due to aid agencies designing their websites based on the developing literature on aid agency web site design (e.g. Fox and Carr, 2000;Gueguen and Jacob, 2001;Sargeant, 2001;Wenham et al, 2003;Powell, 2005;Goatman and Lewis, 2007;Sargeant et al, 2007;Waters, 2007;Richard, 2008;Burt and Dunham, 2009;McWah and Carr, 2009). One issue, which is apparent in this literature and also in the e-commerce literature in general (e.g.…”

Building a better workplace for teen volunteers through inclusive behaviors

“…Research from relationship marketing suggests that individuals will continue a relationship with an organization if they feel satisfied with their previous involvement (Dwyer and Oh, 1987). Satisfaction was a key component in determining which donors were most likely to be involved in fundraising campaigns (Waters, 2008). Therefore, investment in relationship cultivation may likely produce beneficial results in other realms for nonprofits, such as continued volunteering support.…”

Web-Based Accountability Practices in Non-profit Organizations: The Case of National Museums

“…Consequently, to maintain and develop donor trust, those museums must then be more accountable. This is also required based on recent public reforms (Thompson 2001;Rentschler and Potter 1996;Waters 2008).…”