My prior here is that donation matching must be relatively effective because mainstream charities use it somewhat extensively. One thing that I would emphasise is that it's a very very easy way for large donors to have (or at least fell like they have - which is very valuable for charities dealing with large donors) a "bonus" effect with their donations, it takes little resources or time and is neutral (if the matched funds are precommitted not like from a commercial sponsor). Other schemes big charities use (auctions, reinvestmentet in marketing) are a lot more complex and potentially require greater donor interaction and day to day commitment
I do think the research makes a very good point about more than 1:1matching - that seems to be a real diminishing return that should be avoided.
Thanks for working on this.
I don't know if this is addressed in the literature, but what is your best guess for the large discrepancy between how many people say they are influenced by the match and the numbers you were finding?
A secondary thought is that I think I would expect the effect of the match to be stronger on social media due to the eye-catching effect. Though I would certainly have expected stronger effects (maybe 75%) from the studies. Almost all of the money raised on my match so far has been via the 'passive' social media exposure, rather than actively contacting people.
On a personal level, I don't like fundraising on a gut level in the first place (I put it 'necessary evil' territory). The match makes me feel less bad about it, which is probably worth something if possibly not much.
Couple hypotheses:
Yeah, unfortunately I couldn't find any field experiments on social media campaigns. It seems pretty hard to study. Actually, Charity Science might be in an ideal place to look at this with their birthday/Christmas fundraisers...
We haven't directly tested matching scientifically yet, though we'd definitely like to. Our closest is in the write-up you mention "The Power of Donation Matching" where we anecdotally observed a time-ordered effect of introducing "live" donation matching (though this could be due to other factors, and isn't evidence of matching overall).
Yeah. If it turns out that the true effect is smaller than you observed in that post (which it may well not be--lots of heterogeneity), my guess would be that the spike was partly caused by some interaction with people promoting it at the same time. But again, it's super hard to tell without randomization, because the effects vary so much.
I quite like the idea of randomizing who gets matching funding on birthdays and seeing if we can pick up any differences between the two groups.
Yeah, although you'd have to be careful to account for whether people who get matching promote their campaign more, and you'd probably need a fairly large sample of fundraisers because there's a lot of variance in amount raised. It seems like a fairly tricky study to do.
(Out of curiosity, do you have a list of fundraiser totals anywhere? That would help calculate the study power.)