Referral Incentives in Crowdfunding
Word-of-mouth, referral, or viral marketing is a highly sought-after way of advertising. We undertake a field experiment that compares incentive mechanisms for encouraging social media shares to support a given cause. Our experiment takes place on a website set up to promote a fundraising drive by a large cancer research charity. Site visitors who choose to sign up to support the cause are then asked to spread the word about the cause on Facebook, Twitter or other channels. Visitors are randomly assigned to one of four treatments that differ in the way social sharing activities are incentivised. Under the control treatment, no extra incentive is provided. Under two of the other mechanisms, the sharers are offered a fixed number of points that help take the campaign further. We compare low and high levels of such incentives for direct referrals. In the final treatment, we adopt a multi-level incentive mechanism that rewards direct as well as indirect referrals (where referred contacts refer others). We find that providing high level of incentives results in a statistically significant increase in sharing behaviour and resulting signups. Our data does not indicate a statistically significant increase for the low and recursive incentive mechanisms.
|Date of creation:||Feb 2014|
|Publication status:||published in: Proceedings of the Second AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing, 2014, 171-183|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: IZA, P.O. Box 7240, D-53072 Bonn, Germany|
Phone: +49 228 3894 223
Fax: +49 228 3894 180
Web page: http://www.iza.org
|Order Information:|| Postal: IZA, Margard Ody, P.O. Box 7240, D-53072 Bonn, Germany|
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Bruno S. Frey & Stephan Meier, 2004. "Social Comparisons and Pro-social Behavior: Testing "Conditional Cooperation" in a Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(5), pages 1717-1722, December.
- Sarah Smith & Frank Windmeijer & Edmund Wright, 2015.
"Peer Effects in Charitable Giving: Evidence from the (Running) Field,"
Royal Economic Society, vol. 125(585), pages 1053-1071, 06.
- Sarah Smith & Frank Windmeijer & Edmund Wright, 2012. "Peer effects in charitable giving: Evidence from the (running) field," The Centre for Market and Public Organisation 12/290, Department of Economics, University of Bristol, UK.
- Sarah Smith & Frank Windmeijer & Edmund Wright, 2013. "Peer effects in charitable giving: Evidence from the (running) field," The Centre for Market and Public Organisation 13/302, Department of Economics, University of Bristol, UK.
- Paulo Albuquerque & Polykarpos Pavlidis & Udi Chatow & Kay-Yut Chen & Zainab Jamal, 2012. "Evaluating Promotional Activities in an Online Two-Sided Market of User-Generated Content," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(3), pages 406-432, May.
- Castillo, Marco & Petrie, Ragan & Wardell, Clarence, 2014. "Fundraising through online social networks: A field experiment on peer-to-peer solicitation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 29-35.
- Meer, Jonathan, 2011. "Brother, can you spare a dime? Peer pressure in charitable solicitation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(7), pages 926-941.
- Meer, Jonathan, 2011. "Brother, can you spare a dime? Peer pressure in charitable solicitation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(7-8), pages 926-941, August.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:iza:izadps:dp7995. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mark Fallak)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.