We’re not fans of matching gift offers.  They used to be strategic: tied to a big gift or a time-sensitive campaign. Now they’re everywhere, overused and generic and often the match isn’t a message, it’s the message.

Make no mistake, you’re subsidizing the donation and sensitizing people to the discount, just like retailers coupons.  How so?

You might get more people to give, but the average gift size drops. You train donors to wait for a match, and over time, the match loses its meaning. The whole thing becomes background noise, another box to check on the way to matching gift year-end offer.

So when we came across a study testing a new variation on the match—a kind of lottery-based match—we were skeptical.  And still are but hey, it’s a slow news day.

In the study, donors were told their gift could trigger a large match but only if randomly selected so it’s not a guaranteed match. A 1% or 0.5% chance to unlock a 100x match. So your $50 gift might bring in $5,000 for the charity… or it might just be $50.   Importantly, the match scaled with the donor’s gift. The more you gave, the bigger the potential match. It wasn’t a raffle where the prize went to the donor—it was a randomized, donor-triggered windfall for the organization.

What happened? Conversion rates didn’t change but it did get those who were already inclined to donate to give more. Average gift size went up and significantly so when the potential match was both large and improbable.  They psychology is no different from why we all run to our local convenience store when the mega jackpot hits a gazillion dollars.

And so it’s the opposite of how traditional matches perform.  So how would you actually do this?

Imagine a campaign where your donation page or email says:

“Every gift today could unlock a $5,000 bonus for [charity]. One donor will be randomly selected to trigger the match.”

Behind the scenes, you set the odds—say, one in 100. You apply the match only to donors who give during the campaign. The “winner” is selected randomly, and if selected, their gift amount is multiplied (e.g., $100 triggers a $10,000 match). You let donors know if the match was triggered, either on-screen or through a follow-up email.

This isn’t an acquisition tactic. It won’t expand your donor base. But for campaigns aimed at your existing supporters—especially those where your goal is lifting gift size rather than maximizing response, it’s worth testing.  At least you’re not undermining your own messaging by saying “your gift only matters if it’s matched.” Instead you’re saying, “Your gift always matters and it might go even further.”

Matching gifts have lost their edge because we’ve overused and flattened them. This lottery-style variation offers something different: a way to restore some intrigue and behavioral punch to a tactic that’s grown stale.

Kevin