Q: We started offering a donor cover option last april 1. The data to date suggests this may be dampening giving.eg. those who say yes to donor cover have a lower average gift (based on analysis of 6000+ gifts). I’m wondering if those who give lower gifts feel more guilt and therefore say yes to donor cover or if the presence of donor cover is making people adjust (lower) their gift size to accommodate the extra 3%. Would love any insights you have.

February 10, 2025      Kiki Koutmeridou, Chief Behavioral Scientist, DonorVoice

Great question! Here’s how behavioral science can help unpack what might be happening:

    1. Pain of Paying: Even a small extra charge can make giving feel more transactional than emotional, potentially reducing generosity.
    2. Fairness Concerns: Some donors might perceive donor cover as a surcharge rather than a contribution to the cause. If they feel the charity should absorb the cost, they may lower their gift in response.
    3. Mental Accounting: Donors tend to allocate a fixed “budget” for charitable giving. When they see an additional 3% charge, they might mentally adjust their base gift downward to stay within their intended donation amount.
    4. Moral Licensing: Opting into donor cover might feel like “doing a little extra,” reducing the perceived need to increase their actual gift.
    5. Guilt aversion If donors already feel bad for giving a smaller amount, they may feel a moral obligation to compensate by covering fees. In this case, the donor cover option serves as a psychological compromise—allowing them to give slightly more without committing to a higher outright gift.

DonorVoice Case Study: How Framing Donor Cover Differently Impacted Giving

We tested a similar concept in this CAFB Inflation Test, where donors were asked to cover a 13% fee (instead of the usual 3%) to offset rising food costs due to inflation. This was tested across four conditions:

    1. Inflation Mentioned in Email + Standard Donation Page (3% cover option)
    2. Inflation Mentioned in Email + High Fee Donation Page (13% cover option)
    3. No Inflation Mentioned + Standard Donation Page (3%)
    4. No Inflation Mentioned + High Fee Donation Page (13%)

The higher 13% cover option increased conversion by 9% and led to higher total revenue. This suggests that the way the additional charge is framed can make a difference— Framing the fee as an inflation offset (rather than a processing fee) helped donors see it as a meaningful contribution rather than an administrative cost.

This result also connects to the Two-Stage Decision Model describing the two different decisions donors need to make before they give.

    1. To Give or Not? This is where psychological factors like connection to the cause, quality of motivation, emotion, timing, and friction play a major role.
    2. How Much? Here, contextual cues (like ask array, default amount options, donor cover) shape the actual amount.

By not talking about inflation in the email, we don’t introduce the pain of paying during the first decision stage. But, mentioning it on the donation page, this information influences average gift.

What You Can Do: Testing and Adjustments

    • Reframe the Ask. Highlight impact instead of fees. Instead of explaining donor cover as “covering fees,” frame it as “ensuring 100% of gift going directly to the cause.”
    • Adjust Placement: If donor cover appears before the donor selects their gift, test moving it to the end of the process.
    • Run a control test. Test donor behavior in a version where donor cover is not offered at all—does the average gift increase in its absence? What happens to response rate?

Testing different approaches will help uncover what drives giving behavior in your specific audience.