For-Profit Fundraisers Make Nonprofits Market-Focused in Donors’ Eyes

Abstract

The tension between social mission and organizational efficiency in nonprofit organizations is evident in various operational practices, particularly fundraising. In pursuit of greater efficiency, some nonprofits outsource this critical function to professional fundraising consultants, who are often for-profit entities. Prior research on sector stereotypes, however, suggests that the public tends to view business-like or profit-seeking practices in social services negatively. Consequently, hiring for-profit fundraisers may backfire for nonprofits. We test this hypothesis through a preregistered online experiment. The results show that donor contributions did not significantly decrease when a for-profit professional fundraiser represented a nonprofit nursing home, even under an aggressive pricing strategy. However, the use of a for-profit fundraiser led participants to perceive the nonprofit as more market-oriented than the typical nonprofit. We discuss the implications of this shift in public perceptions.

Keywords

fundraising sector difference business-like practice value misalignment

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Amirkhanyan

Roberts

Meier

K. J.

Song

(2024). Examining attitudes toward public participation across sectors: An experimental study of food assistance. Public Administration, 102(4), 1604–1623.

Association of Fundraising Professionals. (n.d.). Code of ethical standards. https://afpglobal.org/ethics/code-ethical-standards

Bekkers

Wiepking

(2011). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5), 924–973.

Bethlehem

(2010). Selection bias in web surveys. Revue Internationale de Statistique [International Statistical Review], 78(2), 161–188.

Bitektine

Haack

(2015). The ‘macro’ and the ‘micro’ of legitimacy: Toward a multilevel theory of the legitimacy process. Academy of Management Review, 40(1), 49–75.

Bonta

(2023). Summary of charitable solicitation campaigns conducted by professional fundraisers in calendar year 2022. California Department of Justice. https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/ag-pf-summary-2022.pdf

Brown

(2018). The moralization of commercialization: Uncovering the history of fee-charging in the U. S. Nonprofit Human Services Sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47, 960–983.

Cartwright

Thompson

(2023). Using dictator game experiments to learn about charitable giving. VOLUNTAS International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 34(1), 185–191.

Clark

M. S.

Mills

(1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(1), 12–24.

10.

Clolery

(2024). Fundraisers taking smaller bite of New York donations. The Nonprofit Times. https://thenonprofittimes.com/npt_articles/fundraisers-taking-smaller-bite-of-n-y-donations/

11.

Charitable Solicitations Act, Wash. Rev. Code § 19.09 (2025). https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=19.09

12.

Davis

J. A.

(2021). Fairness, performance and the public sector: The role of fairness in anti-public sector bias. https://search.proquest.com/openview/a3e976ab3dbb11925865bf04e9c507a2/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y

13.

Deuchert

I.-L.

Böhm

Meyer

Orth

U. R.

(2024). When firms continue doing business in aggressor nations: A refined moral decoupling perspective on consumer response. Journal of Macromarketing, February, 45, 146–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/02761467241235558

14.

Dong

Lee

(2022). Advocating with a commercial mindset: The impact of commercial income on nonprofit advocacy engagement. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 33(1), 203–216.

15.

Eikenberry

A. M.

Kluver

J. D.

(2004). The marketization of the nonprofit sector: Civil society at risk? Public Administration Review, 64(2), 132–140.

16.

Fiske

A. P.

(1991). Structures of social life: The four elementary forms of human relations: Communal sharing, authority ranking, equality matching, market pricing. Free Press.

17.

Fiske

A. P.

Tetlock

P. E.

(1997). Taboo trade-offs: Reactions to transactions that transgress the spheres of justice. Political Psychology, 18(2), 255–297.

18.

Fundraising Regulator. (2025). Code of fundraising practice. https://www.fundraisingregulator.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-04/Fundraising%20Regulator%20-%20Code%20of%20Fundraising%20Practice.pdf

19.

Gailmard

(2014). Accountability and principal–agent theory. In Bovens

Goodin

Schillemans

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public accountability (pp. 90–105). Oxford University Press.

20.

Greenfield

J. M.

(2010). Budgeting for fundraising and evaluating performance. In Tempel

E. R.

Seiler

T. L.

Aldrich

E. E.

(Eds.), Achieving excellence in fundraising: Principles, strategies and methods (pp. 362–372). Jossey-Bass.

21.

Hahn

(2025). “5 Fundraising Must-Do’s for Your Non-Profit Facility in Today’s Economy” Provider: Long Term & Post-Acute Care. https://www.providermagazine.com/Articles/Pages/5-Fundraising-Must-Do%E2%80%99s-for-Your-Non-Profit-Facility-in-Today%E2%80%99s-Economy.aspx

22.

Hansmann

H. B.

(1980). The role of nonprofit enterprise. The Yale Law Journal, 89(5), 835–901.

23.

Hanson

(2022). The ethics of commission in fundraising: A defence. The International Journal of Community and Social Development, 4(2), 216–225.

24.

Harrington

Mollot

Braun

R. T.

Williams

Jr. (2023). United States’ nursing home finances: Spending, profitability, and capital structure. International Journal of Social Determinants Health and Health Services, 54(2), 131–142.

25.

Hung

(2020). Commercialization and nonprofit donations: A meta-analytic assessment and extension. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 31(2), 287–309.

26.

Hung

Berrett

J. L.

(2024). How high is too high? An experimental analysis of donors’ aversion to nonprofit overhead. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 54, 302–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640241254079

27.

Hung

Suykens

(2023). Donors’ giving decisions toward nonprofit commercialization: Do commercial form and intensity matter? Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 34, 293–315. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21577

28.

Hung

C. K.

(2021). Decomposing the effect of commercialization on nonprofit donations. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 32, 448–459. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11266-020-00246-1

29.

Hurst

Coyne

Kellett

Needham

(2019). Volunteers motivations and involvement in dementia care in hospitals, aged care and resident homes: An integrative review. Geriatric Nursing, 40(5), 478–486.

30.

Imai

Keele

Tingley

(2010). A general approach to causal mediation analysis. Psychological Methods, 15(4), 309–334.

31.

Independent Sector. (2024). 2024 health of the U.S. Nonprofit Sector: Annual review. https://independentsector.org/resource/health-of-the-u-s-nonprofit-sector/

32.

Kennedy

Clifford

Burleigh

Jewell

Waggoner

(2020). The shape of and solutions to the MTurk quality crisis. Political Science Research and Methods, 8, 614–629.

33.

Kristof

(2008, December 25). The sin in doing good deeds. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/25/opinion/25kristof.html

34.

Lee

Kim

(2024). Public perceptions of cross-sector collaboration and sector bias: Evidence from a survey experiment. Public Management Review, 26(8), 2429–2451.

35.

MacQuillin

(2023). Normative fundraising ethics: A review of the field. Journal of Philanthropy and Marketing, 28(4), Article 1740. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1740

36.

Mazzucato

Collington

(2024). The big con. Penguin Books.

37.

McGraw

P. A.

Schwartz

J. A.

Tetlock

P. E.

(2012). From the commercial to the communal: Reframing taboo trade-offs in religious and pharmaceutical marketing. The Journal of Consumer Research, 39(1), 157–173.

38.

Meier

Dhillon

(2022a). What sector do consumers prefer for the delivery of ‘public’ services? A comparative analysis of the US and China. Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs, 8(1), 7–28.

39.

Meier

K. J.

Song

Davis

J. A.

Amirkhanyan

A. A.

(2022b). Sector bias and the credibility of performance information: An experimental study of elder care provision. Public Administration Review, 82(1), 69–82.

40.

Newman

G. E.

Shniderman

Cain

D. M.

Sevel

(2019). Do the ends justify the means? The relative focus on overhead versus outcomes in charitable fundraising. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48(1), 71–90.

41.

Plummer

Socal

M. P.

Bai

(2024). Estimation of tax benefit of US nonprofit hospitals. Journal of the American Medical Association, 332(20), 1732–1740.

42.

Daniel

J. L.

(2021). Is ‘overhead’ a tainted word? A survey experiment exploring framing effects of nonprofit overhead on donor decision. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 50(2), 397–419.

43.

Rosser

Ilgenstein

S. A.

Sager

(2022). The iterative process of legitimacy-building in hybrid organizations. Administration & Society, 54(6), 1117–1147.

44.

Rosso

H. A.

(2010). A philosophy of fundraising. In Tempel

E. R.

Seiler

T. L.

Aldrich

E. E.

(Eds.), Achieving excellence in fundraising: Principles, strategies and methods (pp. 44–50). Jossey-Bass.

45.

Shaker

G. G.

Tempel

E. R.

Nathan

S. K.

Stanczykiewicz

(Eds.). (2022). Achieving excellence in fundraising (5th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

46.

Skelcher

Smith

S. R.

(2015). Theorizing hybridity: Institutional logics, complex organizations., & actor identities: The case of nonprofits: Theorizing hybridity. Public Administration, 93(2), 433–448.

47.

Smith

S. R.

(2014). Hybridity and nonprofit organizations: The research agenda. The American Behavioral Scientist, 58(11), 1494–1508.

48.

Suddaby

Bitektine

Haack

(2017). Legitimacy. The Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 451–478.

49.

Suykens

De Rynck

Verschuere

(2020). Examining the extent and coherence of nonprofit hybridization toward the market in a post-corporatist welfare state. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(5), 909–930.

50.

Suykens

Maier

Meyer

Verschuere

(2022). Business-like and still serving society? Investigating the relationship between NPOs being business-like and their societal roles. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 52, 682–703. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640221106979

51.

Valentino

N. A.

Zhirkov

Sunshine Hillygus

Guay

(2021). The consequences of personality biases in online panels for measuring public opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 84(2), 446–468.

52.

Weisbrod

(2004). The pitfalls of profits. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 2(3), 40–47.

53.

Witesman

Child

(2024, February). Reimagining nonprofits: Sector theory in the twenty-first century. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Y9PvEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR8&dq=info:dhzGFy6juHUJ:scholar.google.com&ots=lC34nDkJnj&sig=Mxe5D8yy00pEAd-At-oQjaPDF00

54.

Witesman

E. M.

Silvia

Child

(2022). The enduring role of sector: Citizen preferences in mixed markets. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 32, 765–780.

55.

(2020). The perceived differences: The sector stereotype of social service providers. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(6), 1293–1310.

56.

(2024). Communal focused or market focused: Moral judgment on business practices in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 34(3), 629–655.

57.

(2022). Resource publicness matters in organizational perceptions. Public Administration Review, 82(2), 338–353.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.68 MB

0.02 MB

0.06 MB