To Match or Not To Match? The Phil Psych™ Way
Matched giving appeals seem to have become the norm in the USA. A recent survey conducted by M+R found that 81% of groups in their sample promoted a match in their year-end campaign. And many were found to be increasing the size of the match as the end of year approached. “Your gift doubled” and “your gift trebled” were found to be the most common approaches, leaving Jessica Bosanko, the SVP of M+R to conclude that “having no match at year-end will put your organization at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace.” (Peyrot 2015).
There is certainly academic research which supports the notion that matches do work. The mere presence of a match increases the revenue per solicitation, and it does so substantively--by 19%. In addition, the match offer significantly increases the probability that an individual donates--by 22%. (Karlan et al 2010). The impact on self-reported giving is much higher, but it is likely that there is more than a little self-rationalization taking place in surveys of that nature. “Of course I love a match. Who wouldn’t?” But the more interesting question is probably what kind of match offer works best? Researchers Uri Gneezy and John List (2013) of the University of Chicago looked at this issue. Is it a:
1:1 matching grant (‘An anonymous donor will match your contribution dollar for dollar.’)
2:1 matching grant (‘triples your donation’)
3:1 matching grant (‘quadruples your donation’)
Their data suggest that a 3:1 matching grant offer is no more effective than a 1:1 challenge. And a 2:1 challenge is about the same as the 3:1 and 1:1 challenges. So on this basis if substantive resources are available for matching, one would be better using them to offer a 1:1 match for an extended period of time, or in subsequent campaigns, rather than consolidating them into a shorter 2:1 or 3:1 burst.
Our advice, though, would be to test the impact of different offers, as recent professional experience suggests that larger matches do indeed perform better than smaller ones and that they do so consistently. Or at least they do where donor relationships already exist (i.e. in retention campaigns).
BUT – before we get too carried away with matches it is important to recognize that not everyone is as enamoured of them though. In an excellent 2017 blog, Roger Craver flags the possibility that an emphasis on monthly giving, rather than a one-time matched donation could deliver similar if not better ROIs. He also cites Cindy Courtier, who questions whether matches do actually raise more money, or whether donors simply wait to make their gifts until the match is eventually offered. There are also concerns that matches are not donor centric. They can be all about the organization and its need to hit its campaign target with little reflection on the impact on the donor. Belford (2017) is robust in his criticism. “There’s nothing more heartless than being prodded give to help some organization meet its year-end target … what do I care about their ginned-up target? Or to take advantage of their ‘Last day only’ 47 to 1 match. Gimme a break.”
Finally, and perhaps most significantly Craver has highlighted the ethical issues that matched gift programs can create. As an example, if a match is offered for the first $500K of donations, once gifts have been made to that level, do nonprofits then decline donations or notify subsequent donors that their giving has not been matched? And how many matching gift offers actually have new money being offered up by some major donor that the charity won’t get unless they raise extra dollars with a match campaign?
Academics are also divided as to their utility. Important work by Huck and Rasul (2011) determined that the presence of conditional matched gifts can “crowd out” gifts from individuals. In other words, if I can get my gift of $100 matched, I might decide to give only $50 but have the same impact overall. There is also an emerging body of work which suggests that matched gift schemes can hurt giving in the long run. Meier (2007) found that when matching donations have been stopped, the contribution rate declines for the treatment group. His field experiment therefore provides evidence suggesting that individuals can be “conditioned” to expect a match – and will reduce their giving if none are forthcoming.
The other key difficulty with matches is that they focus our attention on only one element of the wellbeing that donors can experience as a consequence of their philanthropy. Certainly, matched gifts can increase perceived competence i.e. the degree to which their gift can make a difference. Doubling the value of gifts will certainly boost perceived impact.
But of course, there may be other routes to boosting donor competence and there are certainly other elements of wellbeing that could be brought in play. In other words what we are able to offer our donors could be considerably richer.
And what if money is not the only thing we want from our donors? What if we also would like to have their love?
Below we offer three examples that highlight these complexities and through the lens of philanthropic psychology (aka Phil Psych™), which helps us to think about the concept of matching in a different way.
Consider our first example from the USA for UNHCR’s World Refugee’s Day campaign, 2021.
Matched appeals are usually all about the money and have the feel of shopping in a discount store, where we’re routinely plied with BOGOF offers (buy one, get one free) and thus opportunities to double our impact. But why should matching all be about money and impact?
Notice that what is being matched in our example below is the donor’s love and kindness – not just their impact. Imagine how good it feels to have your love doubled, not just your cash. The approach is altogether more intimate.
For our second example, let’s explore the notion of stretching a donor’s sense of the impact of their love. Let us imagine Jon, who we learn is an imprisoned journalist and a father of two young children. He has also been badly beaten and jailed for standing up and reporting the truth.
We are all grateful for his courage and bravery.
So, might we consider saying a little prayer of gratitude (in a faith-based context) or offering a warm and loving message of support to him (in a secular context)? Would we do that if we were asked on an appeal envelope or in an email subject line?
Many of us probably would.
But what if the subject line or outer envelope were to tell you:
1 loving thought from you = 1,000 pounds of weight lifted from Jon’s shoulders?
That is how it feels to him to know that one heart, any heart, out there, cares.
We could of course have made this all about the money and said $1 = 1,000 pounds of weight lifted from Jon’s shoulders, but which one do we as charities cherish more? One loving thought or a $1 donation, knowing that 1 loving thought is even cheaper for people to offer than a $1 donation. So economically it’s certainly a better deal. It is also a deal that we can potentially make with everyone who reads the appeal and not just the small percentage of folks that might respond with a donation.
Of course, competence isn’t the only factor that we might look to influence here. We might also build connection, another key element of human wellbeing. When we can draw people’s hearts closer to Jon, we will enhance their wellbeing and when we do that it also becomes massively more likely that increased donations will result.
In our third example, consider Vida Joven, a Mexican orphanage. Donations in this context are all about the articulation of love, so we can certainly offer a match of sorts in our email header or on the outer envelope of our appeal. Offer a hug and it will be matched by a hug or many hugs, straight back. It’s a great offer.
But we can also be more subtle and show donors how their love truly feels. They offer their love in one quantity, but it is felt and experienced as massively more.
So, as the email or mailing is opened donors see …
“If you’ve time to read nothing else, please know this:”
As powerful as this is, there is a further alternative that presents itself here. When hugs and cuddles are sent from donors to our Orphanage, the children get hugs, and cuddles from those who love them. So a hug begets a hug and a cuddle begets a cuddle. But it doesn’t stop there. A brother might then learn to hug his sister and a sister may respond in kind. This is how love can grow and it all starts from the simple donation the donor sent with their hugs for the children.
It is often the case in our sector that good ideas get copied. One nonprofit finds that the idea of matching works and before we know where we are, almost all appeals are featuring one. But while this may currently work it is probably only a matter of time before the novelty fades and matches become part of the wider wallpaper of nonprofit communication. The science of habituation tells us that. So, time perhaps to think of more subtle (and cause related) ways to explore the concept of match, this time with the specific goal of enhancing donor wellbeing rather than hitting financial targets per se. Inevitably as we do more of the former, the latter will follow, though that shouldn’t be our primary motivation.
Jen Shang and Adrian Sargeant
August 2021
References
Belford T (2017) Make Me Smile, Not Smirk, Available at http://agitator.thedonorvoice.com/make-me-smile-not-smirk/ Accessed 20th June 2021.
Craver R (2017) The Facts About Matching Gifts, Available at http://agitator.thedonorvoice.com/the-facts-about-matching-gifts/ Accessed 20th June 2021
Gneezy U and List J (2013) The Why Axis: Hidden Motives and the Undiscovered Economics of Everyday Life, Public Affairs Press.
Huck S and Rasul I (2011)“Matched Fundraising: Evidence From a Natural Field Experiment.” Journal of Public Economics 95 (5–6): 351–62.
Karlan D., List, J and Shafir E (2010) Small Matches and Charitable Giving: Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment Journal of Public Economics.
Meier S (2007) Do Subsidies Increase Charitable Giving in the Long Run? Matching Donations in a Field Experiment, Journal of the European Economic Association, 5(6): pp. 1203-1222
Morris J (2020) The Unwinding and Other Dreamings, Unbound, London. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Unwinding-other-dreamings-Jackie-Morris/dp/1783529350/ref=sr_1_5?dchild=1&keywords=jackie+morris&qid=1624374270&sr=8-5
Peyrot (2015) Matchmaker, matchmaker, make me a match. Available at: https://www.mrss.com/lab/matchmaker-matchmaker-make-me-a-match/. Accessed 22nd June 2021
Learn about the benefits of Phil Psych™ for your organisation with our Certificate in Philanthropic Psychology class, or our Introduction to Philanthropic Psychology webinar.