“Mo” Together or Alone? Investigating the Role of Fundraisers’ Networks in Online Peer-to-Peer Fundraising

Abstract

In online peer-to-peer fundraising, individual fundraisers, acting on behalf of nonprofit organizations, mobilize their social networks using social media to request donations. Whereas existing studies focus on networks of donors to explain success, we examine the role of the networks of fundraisers and their effect on fundraising outcomes. By drawing on social capital and network theories, we investigate how social capital derived from social media networks and fundraising groups explains individual fundraising success. Using the Movember health campaign on Twitter as an empirical context, we find that fundraising success is associated with a moderate level of centrality in social media networks and moderate group network size. In addition, we find that fundraisers interact only marginally on social media but prefer to connect with each other outside these platforms and engage in group fundraising. Our article contributes to research on fundraising and social networks and provides recommendations for practice.

Avid, Averse, Apprehensive, or Apathetic? A typology of collaboration attitudes

“…Future research should indeed take into account organizational capacity life stages (e.g., AbouAssi, Makhlouf, & Tran, 2019; Andersson et al, 2016) when probing into collaboration attitudes. In addition, generalizability to government collaboration (e.g., Kwon & Feiock, 2010; Liu et al, 2021; Lubell et al, 2010), for‐profit business collaboration (e.g., Ashnai et al, 2016; Pulles et al, 2014; Schierjott et al, 2018), cross‐sector collaboration (e.g., AbouAssi, Faulk, et al, 2019; Boyer & Van Slyke, 2019; Cheng & Li, 2022; Min, 2022; Spitz et al, 2021), and network interactions (e.g., Azevedo et al, 2022; Beagles, 2022; Priante et al, 2022; Sun et al, 2022; Zhou et al, 2021) is also worth assessing. Of course, we should remember that generalization in qualitative research matters and functions differently than in quantitative research (Carminati, 2018; Levitt, 2021).…”

Testing the Strategic Response Model to Show Joint Effect of Resource Dependency and Centrality in Donor Network on NGO Response to Donor Demand

“…Some scholars advocate for closeness centrality as the best measure of centrality (Baer, 2010;Levin & Cross, 2004;Marsden & Campbell, 1984). It captures the ability of an actor to independently access all other actors in the network (Borgatti, 2005;Freeman, 1979;Wasserman & Faust, 1994) and it is associated with fast access to network flows (Priante et al, 2021) and relates to others' perceptions of the power an actor has in the network (Rotolo & Petruzzelli, 2013). In using a closeness centrality network measure to test the SRM, we move beyond examining dyadic ties between an NGO and a donor and capture the position of an NGO in a donor network.…”

Crowded but not crowded out: Comparing the solicitation strategies and outcomes of nonprofits' and individual's GoFundMe campaigns

“…In a study on social networks participating in the Movember movement, fundraising success was explained by how many people were actively participating in the social network and how much that collective network could raise. Fundraisers were frequently pushed to the margins and forced to interact with those raising funds for the movement outside the social platforms (Priante et al, 2021). Being relegated to the sidelines of the fundraising movement runs the risk of the organization taking a backseat to the individuals leading the network, who may not make the charitable movement the center of attention (Meer, 2011).…”