Do Thank-You Calls Increase Charitable Giving? Expert Forecasts and Field Experimental Evidence

Last registered on September 20, 2021

View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title

Do Thank-You Calls Increase Charitable Giving? Expert Forecasts and Field Experimental Evidence

RCT ID

AEARCTR-0008263

Initial registration date

September 20, 2021

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published

September 20, 2021, 9:35 PM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

Country

United States of America

Region

Primary Investigator

Name

Anya Samek

Affiliation

UCSD

Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name

Chuck Longfield

PI Affiliation

Blackbaud, Inc.

Additional Trial Information

Status

Completed

Start date

2011-07-01

End date

2016-10-01

Keywords

Behavior

Additional Keywords

Charitable giving, Reciprocity, Field experiment, Thank-you calls, Non-profit industry, Expert forecasts

JEL code(s)

D91, H41, C93

Secondary IDs

Prior work

This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.

Abstract

Calling to thank donors is considered a key fundraising strategy in the charitable giving industry. Yet the effectiveness of thank-you calls remains untested. We conduct field experiments with public television stations and a national non-profit in which 500,000 new donors were randomized to receive a thank-you call or not. Fundraising professionals predicted that the calls - which followed standard practices in the industry - would increase donor retention by 80\%. In stark contrast, we found a precisely estimated null effect of calls on donor retention.

External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation

Longfield, Chuck and Anya Samek. 2021. "Do Thank-You Calls Increase Charitable Giving? Expert Forecasts and Field Experimental Evidence." AEA RCT Registry. September 20. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.8263-1.0

Sponsors & Partners

Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)

Intervention Start Date

2011-07-01

Intervention End Date

2016-10-01

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)

Percent of new donors who donate again in the next year, the unconditional amount donated, the unconditional number of gifts made and the amount donated conditional on making any gift.

Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)

Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

We partnered with 67 public television stations and one national non-profit in the United States. Between 2011 and 2016, new members of the public television stations and new donors of the non-profit who had a phone number on file and had not asked to be placed on a do-not-call list were randomized to one of two groups. Those randomized to the treatment group received a personal thank-you call after their first gift. The remaining donors were randomized to the control group and did not receive a call.

Callers followed a simple script that involved three key features. First, the call was personalized: callers identified themselves, the donor, and the charity by name. Second, callers thanked the donor for his or her gift and explained the impact of the gift. Third, the thank-you call did not involve a request for another gift. In the case that the donor was not reachable, a call was attempted two times and a voice message was left on the second attempt when possible.

Experimental Design Details

Randomization Method

Randomization done in office by a computer

Randomization Unit

Individuals

Was the treatment clustered?

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters

Sample size: planned number of observations

We partnered with 67 public television stations and one national non-profit in the United States. Experiment 1: Observations: 500,000 Experiment 2: Observations: 50,000 Experiment 3: Observations: 25,000

Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms

Experiment 1: Treatment- 439,510 Control-54,606
Experiment 2: Treatment- 28,784 Control-28,848
Experiment 3: New Script Treatment-10,780 Old Script Treatment-10,893 Control-2,640

Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)

Supporting Documents and Materials

IRB