ERNOP 2025, Heidelberg — Session 3-B
Moderator: Elizabeth Searing (University of Texas at Dallas)
Three studies traced a common arc across very different contexts: trust and authenticity remain the currency of fundraising—on the street, in disasters, and online.
1) Face-to-face fundraising (KU Leuven).
Tayyeb Hadi, Tine Faseur, Siegfried Dewitte & Tine De Bock (KU Leuven) examined why direct dialogue (street/doorstep) fundraising provokes both loyalty and discomfort. Donors value personal interaction and understand the role of recurring gifts—yet worry about cancellations, aggressive scripts, and reputational spillovers from “chugger” narratives. Their peer-reviewed article in Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly parses donors’ ethical judgments and the donor-inspired fixes nonprofits can adopt—clear identification, better recruiter training, transparent follow-up, and respectful solicitation:
Hadi, Faseur, Dewitte & De Bock (2025), NVSQ. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640251314376
Conclusion. The in-person channel still works when it earns trust; donors are not merely critics—they’re co-designers of better practice.
2) Prosocial responses after the 2024 Poland flood.
Iwona Nowakowska (Maria Grzegorzewska University) followed individuals over several months after severe flooding and showed that different moral emotions drive different acts: empathy and pride support donations; a sense of responsibility activates local volunteering; guilt uniquely predicts on-site volunteering (while risk awareness can dampen it). Donations waned over time; volunteering stayed low but steady.
Conclusion. Disaster appeals should be behavior-specific: design messages for the kind of help you seek, not just for generic “support.”
3) AI-generated images in donation ads (TU Berlin).
Anna Buchholz, Nicole Königstein & Nancy Wünderlich (TU Berlin) explored how AI-created visuals shape donor perceptions. Their evidence points to a clear risk: AI images can undermine trust and reduce intention to donate. A social-listening component (including Reddit) captured open skepticism—raising my practical question of disclosure and audience fit to classical donors.
Conclusion. Efficiency gains from generative tools are meaningless if they erode authenticity. Where imagery is concerned, donors still prefer the real.
Across all three contributions, the signal is consistent: fundraising grows when methods honour donors’ intelligence and emotions. The face-to-face ask must be respectful and transparent; disaster appeals must match the specific motivations behind different helping behaviours; and digital tools must strengthen, not weaken, credibility. In short, technique follows trust—or there is no technique that will save you.
Diss-Tance 