Non-Profits: Don't Ask for a Donation, Ask for a Payment
So, you run a nonprofit offering valuable resources for free. When it’s time to ask users for support, do you urge them to “Donate what you want” out of goodwill, or do you say “Pay what you want” for the service? Instinct might scream to avoid sounding transactional. After all, donations are about generosity, not payments, right? But new research out of NYU’s Stern School of Business suggests that a more transactional ask can actually raise more money. In a massive field experiment with the education nonprofit ReadWorks (over 1.5 million people tested!), framing contributions as “pay what you want” led to significantly more donors than the classic “please donate” approach. Even better, those extra donors gave about the same average amounts as traditional donors, so total revenue jumped rather than flatlining. It’s a counterintuitive finding that flips fundraising folklore on its head.
The Experiment: “Pay What You Want” vs. “Donate What You Want”
Researchers M. Leonor Neto, Minah Jung, and Tülin Erdem partnered with ReadWorks (a nonprofit that provides free reading materials to K–12 teachers and students) to test a simple copy change. Some users were asked to “Donate what you want” to support the platform. Others were asked to “Pay what you want” for the service. Everything else was identical. The result? The “pay” framing prompted a much higher share of users to contribute. In fact, nearly 50% more people decided to give when it was phrased as a payment rather than a donation. Importantly, this more forceful wording did not shrink the size of the average gift. People who chose to give weren’t stingier under the “pay what you want” message, they gave roughly the same amounts they would have given as a donation. This means the gain in donor participation was not canceled out by smaller gifts. More people gave, and they gave just as generously, leading to a significant boost in overall funds raised.
Generosity isn't always about kindness. Sometimes it's about obligation.
At first analysis, asking supporters to “pay” carries a transactional tone that many nonprofit folks fear might backfire or offend. It sounds less warm, less voluntary…almost like a bill. Yet in this real-world test, the direct language outperformed the softer, feel-good language. The “donate” ask, while polite and altruistic in spirit, simply resulted in fewer people taking action. The key takeaway here is that “Pay what you want” taps into the reciprocity effect. When users receive something of value (like free lesson plans or reading tools), labeling their contribution as a payment sets an expectation that giving back is part of the exchange. It triggers a subtle norm of reciprocity: “You’ve given me something useful, so I should give something in return.” In contrast, “Donate what you want” frames the support purely as charity, a gracious act with no strings attached. Without that gentle pressure of reciprocity, fewer people felt moved to contribute.
Reciprocity in Action: Why “Pay” Outshined “Donate”
Why didn’t the more transactional wording backfire? Because obligation can be a stronger motivator than altruism in certain contexts. When people feel they owe something for the benefit they’ve received, they’re actually more likely to open their wallets. Pay what you want messaging reminds users that the service has value and isn’t truly free; it creates a polite psychological IOU. This taps into a basic human truth: we tend to return favors and reciprocate when we’ve been given something. Here, the favor is the free resource; calling the support a payment makes the act of giving feel like fulfilling an obligation or paying a fair price, rather than a pure sacrifice. And as the experiments showed, people were okay with that feeling, it prompted action without reducing how much they gave.
Meanwhile, the softer donation language banks entirely on goodwill and charity. It feels warm and fuzzy, but also easier to ignore. There’s no built-in nudge that says “hey, you got something, maybe give something back.” Seriously, no joke, the seemingly “harsher” ask was more effective at sparking generosity (honestly, if I was going to lie about something, why would it be this?). In the study, even the nonprofit’s primary audience found this hard to believe at first. The researchers surveyed 830 K–12 teachers (the very people using ReadWorks) and asked which message they thought would work better. The vast majority of these teachers predicted the donation frame would drive more giving, not the payment frame. They perceived “pay what you want” as pressuring and transactional, and assumed it would turn people off. They were completely wrong. Despite recognizing the “pay” ask might feel less comfortable, they underestimated how effective that hint of obligation would be. This disconnect between intuition and reality underscores a big lesson: our gut instincts about messaging can be way off base.
Sometimes the warm-and-fuzzy message isn't what moves people to act.
Takeaways for Nonprofit Marketers and Copywriters
For anyone writing fundraising copy or building donation campaigns, the implications are clear. What sounds friendly to us isn’t always what motivates supporters. In this case, a single word swap (“donate” to “pay”) had a dramatic impact. It’s a reminder that words matter, a lot. Instead of relying on hunches or defaulting to feel-good language, test different framings. Try that bolder, more direct ask, especially if your audience is benefiting directly from your services. As this research shows, a tiny tweak in wording can leverage reciprocity and nudge significantly more people to give. And…again…it doesn’t even hurt your donation size; it just brings more folks into the giving fold.
Here are a few practical takeaways and context to consider:
Leverage reciprocity when it fits: If your users or community get something from you (content, tools, services), acknowledge it. Framing a contribution as a form of payment for value received can activate a sense of obligation that boosts response rates.
Don’t fear transactional language: We all love warm, mission-driven appeals. But as we’ve learned, “Please pay what you want” can outperform “Please donate”. Being a bit more direct won’t alienate donors if they truly value what they’re getting. It might actually prompt them to give when they otherwise wouldn’t.
Test your gut instincts (note: always A/B test): The educators in the study felt sure the gentle ask would win…and they were dead wrong. The only way to know what works with your audience is to experiment. A/B test different wording in emails, pop-ups, or pledge forms. Let actual data (not assumptions) guide your messaging strategy.
These findings couldn’t come at a better time. In recent years, overall charitable giving has been slumping (total giving in the U.S. dropped about 2% last year after inflation…and that’s prior to the real effects of recent tariffs, the government shutdown…also, Nazis are a thing again, apparently…). Nonprofits are scrambling for ways to engage an audience that’s pulling back. Smart framing is low-hanging fruit. It costs nothing to change a few words in an appeal, but as we’ve seen, it can measurably boost donations. When budgets are tight and donor fatigue is real, why not grab the easy wins? A bit of clever wording that taps into human psychology could be the difference between a flat fundraising campaign and one that beats expectations.
In the end, the lesson is simple: don’t let “warm and fuzzy” just feel effective…make sure it is effective! Sometimes, inviting people to give back for what they’ve received is more compelling than pleading for kindness. Nonprofit marketers and fundraisers should take note: when you deliver value upfront, it’s okay to confidently ask for value in return. As we look for ways to adapt in a challenging fundraising climate, rethinking our language is one of the easiest wins we can seize upon. After all, generosity might begin in the heart, but a well-placed hint of obligation can help it actually make it into the donation bucket.
Learn more at illogicalinfluence.com
Full cited paper here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5124494&utm_source=chatgpt.com
Research summary here: https://sjdm.org/presentations/2023-Poster-Neto-Maria_Leonor-pay-donate-generosity~.pdf#:~:text=%E2%80%A2%20Framing%20a%20voluntary%20monetary,free%20reading%20resources%20to%20over