Content area
Full text
1. Introduction
Charities and non-profit organisations recognise the value of online social media platforms for influencing consumer responses, particularly among younger consumers. The 2014 ALS Ice Bucket Challenge viral campaign on Facebook achieved four times the previous years’ donations (Zillman, 2014). Yet insights suggest baby boomers account for 43 per cent of all charitable giving, cf. millennials’ 11 per cent (Blackbaud, 2011). Although younger consumers may find different donation routes, extant literature notes the proportion of 16-25 year olds volunteering has stagnated (Ho and Donohoe, 2014), despite this group being key targets of charitable organisations’ social media campaigns (O’Leary, 2016). To ensure organisations optimise their fundraising potential, Facebook launched a “social good” team, supporting social causes (Fiegerman, 2015). Yet for consumers, “self-sacrifice”, such as charitable donations, or even charitable mentions on social media, might actually be “self-presentation” (Griskevicius et al., 2007). However, little is known about the relationship between such “self-presentation” by young people and their offline donation behaviours.
Extant literature contends recognition for charitable acts can motivate donation behaviour, and this is especially true among those wishing to display their moral character through their actions (Grace and Griffin, 2006; Skarmeas and Shabbir, 2011; Winterich et al., 2013). To achieve this recognition, the donor might, for example, wear a ribbon (Grace and Griffin, 2006) or display a “twibbon” (Chell and Mortimer, 2014), showing they have already donated. Controversially, West (2004) explains that in a world of conspicuous consumption, people might engage in acts such as wearing ribbons, but argues that the “ostentatious caring” culture is about ego, where the ultimate goal is to inform others they are good people. With the growth in opportunities to display charitable acts, Grace and Griffin (2006, p. 152) caution “it may be that a new kind of donor will emerge, one who is more likely to donate from the perspective of ostentatious caring, rather than the notion of actively wanting to help those in need”.
It is acknowledged that some charitable donors may prefer anonymous giving. For example, anonymous donations of blood, organs or bone marrow to help save lives (Reid and Wood, 2008). In some scenarios, donors of large financial sums may request anonymity, concerned with personal safety (Beatty, 2008). More recently, Raihani (2014) investigated cooperative...