MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967544855 · doi:10.1080/10495142.2012.652910

Toward an Understanding of Donor Loyalty: Demographics, Personality, Persuasion, and Revenue

2012· article· en· W1967544855 on OpenAlexaff
Norm O’Reilly, Steven M. Ayer, Ann Pegoraro, Bridget Leonard, Sharyn Rundle‐Thiele

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsLaurentian UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoyaltyMarketingRevenuePersuasionBusinessConsistency (knowledge bases)Revealed preferencePreferenceAdvertisingPublic relationsPsychologyEconomicsSocial psychologyPolitical scienceMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Donor loyalty is linked to revenue generation in nonprofit organizations. This study utilized a consumer-based marketing approach to donors and their contributions via examining loyalty to nonprofit organizations. Through a detailed literature review that identified five specific hypotheses, tested using a secondary analysis of a large survey, and the design and implementation of a second (online) survey, this article empirically assesses donor loyalty and provides findings that develop the literature, support practice, and identify areas of future research. The results demonstrate the linkages between donor loyalty and revenue, and provide a deeper understanding of the relationship of demographic factors, preference for consistency, materialism, and maximization to donor loyalty. Notably, the results clearly illustrate that habitual switchers donate substantially less than loyal donors. A series of areas for future research are identified and a number of recommendations are provided to practitioners vis-à-vis understanding their donors and enhancing their revenues through donations.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.838

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.114
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.165 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nonprofit & Public Sector MarketingSame topicCustomer Service Quality and LoyaltyFrench-language works237,207