1

Supporter Loyalty: Conceptualization, Measurement, and Outcomes

Abstract:

Supporter (donors and volunteers) loyalty is conceptualized as the degree to which

supporters have feelings of attachment and devotion for their favorite organization. We validate

a five-item Likert scale to measure supporter loyalty. We then conduct a survey research study

(N = 306) to examine the influence of supporter loyalty on volunteering outcome variables,

donation outcome variables, organizational citizenship outcome variables, and bequest

intentions. We find that supporter loyalty is a good predictor of bequest intentions,

organizational citizenship behaviors, and volunteering behaviors. Supporter loyalty is least

predictive of donation behaviors.

Keywords:

Supporter loyalty, donor loyalty, retention, bequest, volunteering

Note about this paper:

This paper is a before-acceptance draft. Please use the following reference when citing

this article:Wymer, W. & Rundle-Thiele, S. (forthcoming). Supporter loyalty: Conceptualization, measurement,

and outcomes. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, before-print online version available at

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0899764014564579

2

Supporter Loyalty: Conceptualization, Measurement, and OutcomesIt is a virtual truism to state that nonprofit organizations would like to have loyal donors

and volunteers. It is generally taken for granted that more loyal donors are longer retained than

less loyal donors (Sargeant & Jay, 2004). Given that, in some cases, organizations may lose up

to 60 percent of their first time donors (Sargeant & Woodliffe, 2007), retaining donors is

important to nonprofit organizations.

Despite its importance, the nature of loyalty is poorly understood. The relationship

between loyalty and desirable outcomes (like donor retention) is also poorly understood. The

purpose of this research is to add to our knowledge of these topics. Specifically, we will

investigate the nature of supporter loyalty. (We use the term supporter loyalty instead of donor

loyalty because supporter refers to volunteers as well as donors.) What does it mean for a person

to feel loyal to a nonprofit organization? What is the organizational attribute that is the object of

loyalty? The organization’s mission, the people served by the organization, the organization’s

leadership, the organization’s staff, the organization’s volunteer or donor community, or the

board of directors? How is supporter loyalty measured?

In addition to understanding more about the nature of supporter loyalty, another

contribution of this research is to add to our understanding of the relationship between supporter

loyalty and possible outcome variables. To what degree does loyalty influence behaviors and

intentions? Does supporter loyalty influence donation behaviors? Does it influence volunteering

behaviors? Does it influence organizational citizenship behaviors? Does it influence future

behavioral intentions?

Conceptual Background

The Nature of Supporter Loyalty

In the nonprofit scholarly literature, loyalty has been primarily used in two different ways

(AbouAssi, 2012). First, loyalty is often used as a surrogate for retention, usually donor

retention. Researchers using loyalty as a substitute for retention often do not define the loyalty

construct. Poor construct conceptualization often results in series consequences for the validity

of research (MacKenzie, 2003). An examination of the context in which the term loyalty is used

3

and examining the way in which loyalty is measured often makes it clear that retention is being

investigated (Gutierrez-Nieto & Serrano-Cinca, 2010; Naskrent & Siebelt, 2011; Sargeant,

Hudson, & Wilson, 2012; Waters, 2011).

Conflating antecedent (loyalty) and consequent (retention) constructs weakens the

validity of some prior research. If we are really examining retention and not loyalty, it would be

better to state this explicitly. The conflated use of retention and loyalty may be the result of

researchers uncritically extending prior work from the marketing discipline to the nonprofit

context. Despite the meaning of loyalty in the English language, loyalty’s meaning as used in

marketing research was derived from business jargon. Loyalty was used in the marketing

practitioner lexicon to refer to repeated, regular shopper patronage at a specific retain store chain

(customer loyalty). Brand loyalty was soon thereafter used to refer to consumer enduring repeat

purchasing of a branded product (Wymer, 2013a).

One theoretical weakness in defining loyalty “operationally” by equating it with its

anticipated outcome, retention, is that of differential choice and commitment. From the

perspective of a business, if a customer buys a ticket or purchases a product, the customers has

made a choice. The substitution of loyalty with retention, as applied research, may have

appeared logical, but as social science research, it was flawed. Customers usually have

transactional exchanges with sellers. Their choices are often limited. If a seller has little or no

competition, customers are retained. Are customers loyal to their electric company? The

instances in which a customer would feel a sense of loyalty towards a seller or its brand are quite

limited. Extending applied business research into the nonprofit context should only be done with

careful consideration (Sargeant, Foreman, & Liao, 2002).

Conflating retention with loyalty for charities is even more problematic. For example,

the purchase of an airline ticket from Company A is also a choice of not buying an airline ticket

from Company B (assuming a choice exists). However, making a donation to Charity A is not

also a choice of not making a donation to Charity B. People may give modest amounts to the

annual campaigns of multiple nonprofit organizations. Can each organization claim these donors

are loyal, even if they are retained? Loyalty implies a level of devotion and attachment that

motivates a differentially greater level of commitment from a supporter. Simple retention does

not capture this aspect of the loyalty conceptual domain. Some people buy cookies each year

from their neighbors’ or coworkers’ daughters who participate in scouting. Some people drop

4

coins into Salvation Army kettles most Christmas seasons. Are these regular supporters loyal to

their recipient nonprofit organizations?

The second way in which loyalty has been primarily used in nonprofit scholarship

conceptualizes loyalty as a psychological construct of an individual with respect to a target

nonprofit organization. Goldfarb (2011) defines loyalty was a person’s devotion to a cause. In

the Sage Nonprofit Insights (2013) study on donor loyalty, donor loyalty is defined as an

emotional connection and relationship between donors and the nonprofit organization. Hustinx

and Lammertyn (2004) do not define loyalty, but the context in which loyalty is used views

supporter loyalty as a volunteer’s feelings of attachment and devotion towards the organization.

We believe that conceptualizing supporter loyalty as a latent psychological construct and

distinguishing supporter loyalty from outcome variables it may influence has greater validity.

We, therefore, define supporter loyalty as a supporter’s (donor or volunteer) feelings of

attachment and devotion for a favorite organization.

In understanding the nature of supporter loyalty, it is valuable to better understand the

nature of the loyalty object. We did not find a discussion of this issue in prior research. In the

nonprofit research literature, it is tacitly assumed that the loyalty object is the organization one

supports. This may be true and it is a reasonable assumption. However, does a supporter have

feelings of attachment and devotion to the organization as an institution? Are supporters’

feelings of loyalty instead directed at a nonprofit’s mission, its leadership, its staff, its

community of volunteers or donors, or its board of directors? Are feelings of loyalty directed at

the people served by the organization?

Without prior literature to guide us, we will approach this component of our investigation

in an exploratory manner. Rather than develop a hypothesis, we will empirically examine

probable organizational attributes that may serve as loyalty objects. This will serve as a

component of this study that will be further described operationally in the methods and

procedure section.

Consequents of Supporter Loyalty

The reason for the increasing interest in loyalty is predominately motivated by desired

outcome variables believed to be consequents of loyalty (their antecedent). It is reasonable to

believe that supporter loyalty is an antecedent construct that influences some outcome variables.

5

Donor retention, as discussed previously, has been the principle focus of prior research on donor

loyalty. However, to add to our knowledge of the relationship between supporter loyalty and

outcome variables it influences, we will discuss four categories of possible outcome variables:

donation behavior outcomes, volunteer behavior outcomes, organizational citizenship behaviors,

and future bequest intentions.

Donating Behavioral Outcomes

It is reasonable to believe that supporters of a nonprofit organization who have strong

feelings of loyalty towards the organization would have stronger motivations to give than

supporters having weaker feelings of loyalty towards the organization. Indeed, this has been a

fundamental assumption in much of the fundraising literature (Burnett, 2002; Sargeant &

Woodliffe, 2007). We argue that supporter loyalty is a psychological construct that influences

individuals’ motivations for supporting the nonprofit organization to which they have feelings of

attachment and devotion. All things being equal, feelings of loyalty motivate donative

intentions, and are manifested in donation behaviors. Hence, we present the following

hypothesis:

H1

:

Supporter loyalty influences donor outcomes in a positive direction.

We will examine the influence of supporter loyalty on multiple donative outcome

variables to provide a richer understanding of this important relationship. One donative outcome

variable we will examine is donation recency, referring to how recently supporters made their

prior donations to their favorite organizations. Another donative outcome variable we will

examine is donation frequency, which refers to how often supporters donate to their favorite

organizations in an average year. We will also examine the influence of supporter loyalty on the

donation amount, which refers to supporters’ estimated total amount donated to their favorite

organization over the past year. Another donative outcome variable of interest is the amount of

supporters’ most recent, or last, donation. To add greater specificity to our first hypothesis, we

present the following sub-hypotheses of H1:

6

H1a

:

Supporter loyalty influences donation recency in a positive direction.

H1b

:

Supporter loyalty influences donation frequency in a positive

direction.

H1c

:

Supporter loyalty influences annual donation amount in a positive

direction.

H1d

:

Supporter loyalty influences last donation amount in a positive

direction.

Volunteering Behavioral Outcomes

It is also reasonable to expect supporter loyalty to influence volunteering behaviors.

Supporters with greater feelings of attachment and devotion for their favorite nonprofit

organization are likely to have greater motivation for volunteer service than supporters reporting

weaker supporter loyalty. Therefore, we offer the following hypothesis:

H2

:

Supporter loyalty influences volunteering outcomes in a positive

direction.

The volunteering outcome variables we examine in this research are average monthly

volunteering, volunteering recency, and monthly volunteering frequency. Average monthly

volunteering refers to the number of hours that supporters’ volunteer for their favorite nonprofit

organization during an average month. Volunteering recency refers to how recently it has been

since supporters last volunteered for their favorite organization. Monthly volunteering frequency

refers to the number of different times during a typical month in which supporters volunteer for

their favorite organization. We present the following sub-hypotheses of H2:

H2a

:

Supporter loyalty influences average monthly volunteering in a

positive direction.

7

H2b

:

Supporter loyalty influences volunteering recency in a positive

direction.

H2c

:

Supporter loyalty influences monthly volunteering frequency in a

positive direction.

Organizational Citizenship Outcomes

Research on organizational citizenship behaviors began as a way to understand employee

behaviors that reflected a positive engagement with the organization, but were not part of formal

employee duties and responsibilities (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983). Why do some employees

regularly engage in helpful, supportive behaviors not required by their organizations? In the

nonprofit supporter context, some supporters regularly engage in extra-role helpful, supportive

behaviors, while other supporters do not (Farmer & Fedor, 2001). We will use the term

organization citizenship behaviors or outcomes to refer to prosocial behaviors, beneficial to the

organization, not normally associated with specific supporter roles.

Supporting a nonprofit organization’s work is often motivated by value expression and

self-identification, which is particularly important for activating behaviors not prescribed by

specific roles (Katz & Kahn, 1978). We argue that stronger feelings of supporter loyalty

motivate supporters toward greater levels of organization citizenship participation. We offer the

following hypothesis:

H3: Supporter loyalty influences organizational citizenship behaviors in

a positive direction.

The organizational citizenship behaviors we examine are volunteer recruitment, donor

recruitment, event attendance, and fundraising engagement. Volunteer recruitment refers to the

number of new volunteers supporters have recruited for their favorite organization over the past

year. Donor recruitment refers to the number of new donors supporters have acquired for their

favorite organization over the past year. Event attendance refers to the number of organizational

events supporters have attended during the past year. Fundraising engagement refers to how

8

actively supporters have helped their focal organization with its fundraising activities. We offer

the following sub-hypotheses:

H3a

:

Supporter loyalty influences volunteer recruitment in a positive

direction.

H3b

:

Supporter loyalty influences donor recruitment in a positive direction.

H3c

:

Supporter loyalty influences event attendance in a positive direction.

H3d

:

Supporter loyalty influences fundraising engagement in a positive

direction.

Future Bequest Intentions

Bequests or legacy gifts are important outcomes of donor cultivation and donor

relationship programs (Sargeant, Wymer, & Hilton, 2006; Wiepking, Madden, & McDonald,

2010). We argue that, all things being equal, supporters with strong feelings of loyalty to their

favorite organization are more likely to leave a bequest than supporters with weaker feelings of

loyalty. We offer the following hypothesis:

H4

:

Supporter loyalty influences supporter bequest intentions in a positive

direction.

Methods and ProceduresWe describe a study developed to test the preceding hypotheses as well as to examine the

loyalty object issue discussed previously. We will begin by discussing our data collection

procedures and sample. Then we will describe our measures. Finally, will discuss our analysis

and present our findings.

Sample

9

A list of 5,000 email addresses was rented from First Direct Solutions, which is a division

of the Australia Post. This sample frame was chosen because it is updated annually through a

national lifestyle survey, it contains a good proportion of the Australian population (4.6 million

out of 22.4 million total), and is representative of the general Australian population (Anonymous,

2010a, 2010b).

Email recipients were invited to complete our online survey. A reminder was sent one

week later, followed by a final reminder one additional week later. Approximately 536 email

messages were returned as undeliverable or given an “out of office” reply; 306 surveys were

completed for an approximate response rate of seven percent.

The sample was comprised of 195 females (63.7%) and 111 males (36.3%). Participants

ages ranged from 18 to 86 years (mean = 48 years). With respect to the relationship status of

respondents, 14.4 percent were single, 4.6 percent were widowed, 61.1 percent were married or

living with a partner, and 18.6 percent were divorced or separated.

Measures

The measures used for the supporter loyalty construct and its consequent outcome

variables are presented in the Table 1.

Insert Table 1 here.

Supporter Loyalty

A refined five-item Likert scale was derived from Wymer and Rundle-Thiele’s (2009)

supporter loyalty scale. The five items are presented in Table 1. We selected the five items from

the original set of 30 items for several reasons. Loyalty is conceptualized as a one-dimensional

construct. The relationship of the construct to its indicators is reflective, rather than formative.

This implies that the indicators are expected to correlate and that the items are relatively

interchangeable. That is, items should be able to be removed without degrading the construct

validity of the scale if the conceptual domain of the construct is still manifested in the surviving

indicators (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2006).

The algorithm in structural equation modeling (SEM) is such that successfully fitting the

scale (measurement model) to the data limits the number of scale items per latent variable to a

10

maximum of six indicators (Ping, 2008). With respect to reflective measures, Kline (2011)

recommends four items per latent variable, but finds three items per latent variable acceptable.

Following the recommendations of Hair et al. (2013) we selected a set of five scale items that

avoid semantic redundancy while collectively reflecting the construct’s conceptual domain.

According to Ping (2004), a scale’s consistency and unidimensionality are suggested by a

measurement model that fits the data. To assess the acceptability of our supporter loyalty scale,

we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using covariance-based structural equation

modeling (CB-SEM). We used the cutoff recommendations recommended by Hair et al. (2010)

to assess the fit of the measurement model (supporter loyalty scale) with the data. Our results,

presented in Table 2, indicate that the measurement model meets for exceeds all fit index cutoff

levels. We conclude that the measurement model is a good fit.

Insert Table 2 here.

With respect to internal consistency reliability, the composite reliability and Cronbach’s

alpha coefficients exceed the 0.70 minimum recommended by Nunally and Bernstein (1994).

According to Nunally and Bernstein (1994), Cronbach’s alpha coefficients between 0.70 and

0.90 are most satisfactory. As the coefficient increases above 0.90, this indicates that the scale

items are measuring the same content of the construct’s conceptual domain. The reliabilities are

presented in Table 3.

Insert Table 3 here.

Convergent validity is the extent to which a measure correlates positively with alternative

measures of the same construct. Hair, Ringle, and Sarstedt (2011) recommend deleting scale

items having outer loadings below 0.40. Outer loadings exceeding 0.70 are desired. Scale items

with outer loadings between 0.40 and 0.70 should be evaluated further. They suggest that scale

items greater than 0.40, but less than 0.70, should be retained if the item its removal affects

content validity. Since item 5 (See Table 1) does not appear to be redundant (that is,

semantically similar to another scale item) and since item 5’s outer loading of 0.68 (see Table 3)

is quite close to the 0.70 threshold, we chose to retain the scale item. Furthermore, it not unusual

11

to observe comparatively weaker outer loadings when newly developed scales are used (Hulland,

1999).

Convergent validity signifies that a set of indicators represents one and the same

underlying construct, which can be demonstrated through their unidimensionality. Fornell and

Larcker (1981) suggest using the average variance extracted (AVE) as a criterion of convergent

validity. An AVE value of at least 0.5 indicates sufficient convergent validity, meaning that a

latent variable is able to explain more than half of the variance of its indicators on average

(2009). The AVE for supporter loyalty is 0.63 (see Table 3) and exceeds the 0.50 cutoff.

Discriminant validity is assessed by comparing the scale item loadings on supporter

loyalty with their cross-loadings on other variables. A discriminant validity problem is indicated

by cross-loadings that exceed a scale item’s outer loadings (Chin, 1998; Gotz et al., 2009). Our

five-item supporter loyalty scale yielded a single-factor solution in a factor analysis. A

comparison on supporter loyalty scale item loadings from Table 3 with the supporter loyalty

scale’s cross-loadings on other variables from Table 4 shows that the loadings on the target

construct are much greater than their cross-loadings.

Insert Table 4 here.

Outcome Variables

The outcome variable measures are presented in Table 1. Single-item scales were

considered acceptable for these variables because respondents were estimating simple concepts

like the number times they volunteer in an average month. It is common in prior research, also,

to measure behavioral intention outcome variables (in our study, bequest intentions) with a single

item (Wymer, 2012).

Analysis

The measurement model has been evaluated and validated. It is now appropriate to

assess the influence of supporter loyalty on our various outcome variables. Since our outcome

variables use single-item measures, since we are interested in the ability of supporter loyalty to

predict our outcome variables, and since our model is simple, we will test our hypotheses using a

series of OLS regressions in which our independent variable is supporter loyalty and our

12

dependent variable will consist of a series of our outcome variables. The results of our

significant findings are presented in Table 5.

Insert Table 5 here.

Beta is the standardized version of B.  It indicates the effect that a one standard deviation

unit change in the independent variable has on the dependent variable (also measured in standard

deviation units).  The use of Beta coefficients provides a means of comparing the relative

influence of supporter loyalty on the variance of outcome variables. The greater the magnitude

of Beta corresponds to a greater influence of supporter loyalty on an outcome variable. Our Beta

comparisons indicate that the ability of the supporter loyalty construct to predict desirable

outcomes in strongest for a supporter’s participation on organization fund raising activities and

weakest for a supporter’s donation frequency.

The coefficients of determination (R2) represents the percentage of variance explained by

supporter loyalty in each regression. The R2 values provide a useful measure of effect size,

espcially considering each regression used a single independent variable and a single dependent

variable (Ellis, 2010). Adjusted R2 statistics remove an upward bias that may result from large

sample sizes and the number of independent variables in a regression. Since our regressions only

use a single independent variable, supporter loyalty, the adjusted R2 statistics are equivilent to

Cohen’s f 2 effect size statistics. Guidelines for assessing the degree of substantive impact of an

independent variable are indicated by f 2 values of approximately 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35,

respectively representing small, medium, and large effects (Cohen, 1988). Table 6 presents the

adjusted R2 statistics and their respective effect size assessment. It is noteworthy that, although

supporter loyalty was found to have significant effects on most outcome variables, the relative

strength of these effects was somewhat small. That is, although supporter loyalty is helpful in

predicting many desirable outcomes, supporter loyalty’s influence on the outcome variables is

relatively modest.

Insert Table 6 here.

13

We wanted to add to our understanding of the nature of supporter loyalty. The construct

reflects an individual’s feelings about a loyalty object. However, to what does a volunteer feel

loyal? Consulting with research colleagues and practitioners, we developed a list of seven likely

loyalty objects (presented in Table 7). Respondents were asked to rank order the seven listed

items based on each’s perceived personal importance (1st = most important; 7th = least important).

The mission and purpose of the organization was the most important, followed by the people

served by the organization. The organization’s donors and board of directors were least

important. The organization’s leadership, staff, and volunteers were ranked third, fourth, and

fifth, respectively.

Insert Table 7 here.

DiscussionSummary of Findings

We defined supporter loyalty as supporters’ feelings of attachment and devotion for their

favorite nonprofit organization. With respect to our empirical findings, supporter loyalty was

least effective in predicting donation behaviors. Of the four donation behavior hypotheses,

supporter loyalty was a significant predictor of donation frequency (H1b). Supporter loyalty

influences how often supporters donate to their favorite nonprofit organization.

Supporter loyalty was considerably better at predicting volunteering behaviors. All three

of our volunteering behavior hypotheses were significant (H2a-c). Supporter loyalty influences

average monthly volunteering, volunteering recency, and volunteering frequency.

Supporter loyalty was a good predictor of organizational citizenship behaviors.

Supporter loyalty was a significant predictor of volunteer recruitment performance (H3a),

attendance at organization events (H3c), engagement in fundraising activities (H3d), but not

donor recruitment performance (H3b).

Finally, supporter loyalty was a significant predictor of supporters’ intentions to make a

bequest to their favorite organization (H4).

We can compare the relative influence of supporter loyalty across the significantly

predicted outcome variables by examining the magnitude of the Beta coefficients presented in

Table 5. In descending order of influence, supporter loyalty had the greatest influence on (1)

14

participation in fundraising activities, followed by (2) volunteering recency, then (3) attendance

at organization events, then (4) supporters’ intentions to make a bequest, then (5) monthly

volunteering frequency, then (5) volunteer recruitment performance, then (6) average monthly

hours of volunteering, and then (7) donation frequency.

The strength of the influence of supporter loyalty on the outcome variables was modest.

Examining our assessment of the effect sizes presented in Table 6, the influence strength of

supporter loyalty on attendance in fundraising events was medium or moderate. The influence

strength of supporter loyalty on the remainder of the outcome variables was relatively small.

With respect to better understanding the nature of the organizational loyalty object

components to which supporters feel loyal, we found that the organization’s mission/purpose and

the people served by the organization were the most important organization components (see

Table 7). The next three organization components in terms of perceived importance were the

organization’s leadership, its staff, and its volunteers. The organization’s donors and board of

directors were the least important organizational loyalty object components.

Contributions of Research

One of the contributions of this research is a better understanding of the nature of the

supporter loyalty construct. In our conceptualization of supporter loyalty, we clearly distinguish

the construct from its potential consequents or outcomes, a common oversight in prior research.

We conceive supporter loyalty as a psychological construct that influences behaviors and

intentions. Supporter loyalty refers to feelings of attachment and devotion to a nonprofit

organization.

The object to which supporters are loyal is probably a gestalt; a comprehension of the

organization derived from its components. Supporters’ comprehension of the organization is

influenced by information they receive about the organization as well as their experiences with

the organization. Perceptions of the organization are also likely influenced by a comparison of

the organization with similar, or peer, organizations.

Another contribution of this research is the validation of a refined supporter loyalty scale.

A five-item Likert scale for measuring the supporter loyalty construct was evaluated. In

exploratory factor analysis, the scale produced a single-factor solution. In confirmatory factor

15

analysis, the measurement model proved to be a good fit for the data; with strong, significant

loadings. The scale’s reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity were supported.

Another contribution of this research is the knowledge added to our understanding of the

relationship between supporter loyalty and important outcome variables. Supporter loyalty was

found to be a predictor of a variety of important supporter outcome behaviors (see Table 5).

Supporter loyalty was also capable of predicting supporters’ intentions making a bequest.

Future Research

Although the influence of supporter loyalty on many of the outcome variables was

significant, the strength of the influence (effect size) was modest. Clearly, there are a number of

influences on a complex human behavior like supporting nonprofit organizations through

donations and volunteering. Knowledge advancement is incremental and, although this research

has contributed to our understanding of this complex behavior, future research is needed to

further enrich our knowledge. The relationship between supporter loyalty and other constructs in

its nomological network needs to be better understood. Figure 1 will present a general model

which will help to organize our discussion of needed future research.

Insert Figure 1 about here.

The position of the supporter loyalty construct in the relationship between and

organization’s marketing/communication activities (antecedents) designed to foster support from

targeted audiences is probably one of mediation. In Figure 1 supporter loyalty is presented as a

mediator construct. One effect is represented by the relationship between an organization’s

marketing activities (tactics) and obtaining desired outcomes from target audiences. Marketing

tactics also influence supporter loyalty. That is, all things being equal, communications and

engagement between an organization and its supporters helps to increase supporter loyalty.

Supporter loyalty influences an audience’s responsiveness to an organization’s marketing tactics.

Future research is needed to better understand the potential mediation role of supporter loyalty.

Brand strength may also serve an important mediation role in this nomological net.

Brand strength refers to the degree to which target audiences are knowledgeable about a

16

nonprofit organization, the degree to which they perceive a nonprofit organization favorably, and

the degree to which they perceive a nonprofit organization to be remarkable (Wymer, 2013b).

An organization’s marketing tactics influences its brand strength. Brand strength influences an

audience’s responsiveness to an organization’s marketing tactics. Brand strength may also

influence supporter loyalty. All things being equal, the more knowledgeable about the

organization, the more favorably the organization is perceived, and the more remarkable the

organization is perceived, the more likely one is have feelings of loyalty towards the

organization. The relationship between brand strength and supporter loyalty needs to be

explored in future research.

Individual factors are presented in Figure 1 as a moderator. Individual factors refer to

those individual characteristics that influence an individual’s responsiveness to the marketing

activities of an organization. Individual factors include demographic variables, values, life stage,

and personality, among others. Future research is needed to better understand which individual

factors interact with marketing tactics and supporter loyalty.

The supporter loyalty construct is interesting in that it is probably developmental. It is

likely that loyalty follows a relational progression similar to that of sports fans developing an

emotional attachment to a team (Funk & James, 2006). The process may begin with an

awareness stage. Individuals become more familiar with an organization through information

about the organization received from the organization and other sources. The next progressive

stage may be attraction. An individual’s feelings and attitudes toward the organization become

more positive. If the attract phase is sufficiently positive, individuals may progress to the

engagement stage. The engagement phase is characterized by personal experiences with the

organization. If the engagement phase is sufficiently positively reinforced, individuals may

progress to the loyalty phase. Psychological and sociological reinforcements lead to feelings of

attachment and devotion. This hierarchical progression is depicted in Figure 2.

Insert Figure 2 about here.

Future research is needed to better understand how supporter loyalty develops. It is

important to understand more about the antecedents of supporter loyalty. However,

17

understanding more about how antecedents’ differentially influence the development of loyalty

over time would be especially enlightening.

Our findings indicate that supporter loyalty is much more predictive of volunteering

outcomes than of donation outcomes. If, referring to the model in Figure 2, engagement is part

of the developmental progression to supporter loyalty, then we have a means of understanding

our findings more clearly. Although donating and volunteering are both types of supportive

behaviors, the two are qualitatively different forms of engagement with the organization.

Donating to an organization may be less interpersonally engaging than volunteering to the extent

that volunteering typically involves more interpersonal interaction with others connected with

the organization. It may be that the greater level of personal engagement with the organization

from volunteering leads to greater levels of loyalty, which, in turn, leads to greater levels of

support (the desired marketing outcomes discussed previously). More research on this issue

would be an important contribution to the literature.

It may be, then, that a virtuous cycle can develop. As supporters’ attachments to the

organization increase, their motivation for engagement increases, reinforcing feelings of loyalty,

motivating further support, and so on. A positive feedback loop may be established at some

point. Volunteering, compared to donating, may be a more intensive type of engagement that

has a stronger relationship with loyalty. This is conjecture, but suggests important areas for

future research.

One contribution of this study was the enhancement our understanding of the

organization as a loyalty object. The organization as a loyalty object is likely a gestalt of

different components. Respondents indicated that organizational mission/purpose, the people

served by the organization, and its leadership are the more important components of the

organization. Having a better understanding of the entity to which supporters develop feelings of

attachment and devotion is valuable. Nonprofit managers are better informed about which

features or attributes of the organization to emphasize in marketing communications.

Emphasizing what matters most to audiences increases the effectiveness (achieving outcomes) of

communication/marketing programs. More research is needed on this topic.

More research is also needed to understand the influence of loyalty on additional

supporter outcomes. Nonprofit organizations plan and implement communication/marketing

programs to achieve desired outcomes. Although we examined several outcome variables, there

18

are other outcome variables yet to be examined. Had we limited our outcome variables to donor

retention, the interesting differences between donation and volunteering behaviors would not

have been discovered (a contribution of this study). We included organizational citizenship

behaviors as a supporter outcome category. We also included a bequest intentions outcome

variable which is important and provided an interesting comparison to our donation behavior

outcome variables. Since the outcome variables are indications of marketing effectiveness, their

attention needs greater emphasize in future research. Practitioners would likely have a keen

interest in learning how to more effectively achieve marketing outcome objectives.

Practical Implications

Although some practical implications are embedded in the prior discussion, we will

conclude by discussing additional practical implications from this research. In a sense, it is

obvious that organizations benefit from building relationships with supporters, usually through

marketing/communications activities. Nevertheless, managerial effectiveness requires placing

greater emphasis on variables having greater influence on desired outcomes.

Our findings show that the more salient components of the organization as a loyalty

object were the organization mission/purpose, the people served by the organization, and the

organization’s leadership. It is likely that these are also the more salient components of the

organization as a brand object. Marketing messages might be more effective if they place greater

emphasis on these salient components that supporters perceive to be most important.

The desired outcome of support, donating or volunteering, is both an end and a means.

The organization wants the support, of course. However, individuals’ support needs to be

reinforced by the organization in order to motivate individuals to continue their support or to

intensify (or diversify) their support. Reinforcement implies that supporters perceive their

support as positive (not necessarily pleasurable) experiences. Supporters’ motivations for

support need to be validated. Expressing appreciation is good, but communicating how

individuals’ support helps the people served by the organization is even better.

Engagement with the organization appears to be important. Managers might find it

useful to provide donors with more volunteering experiences to increase personal engagement

with the organization. Greater engagement, if it results in positive reinforcement for support,

may increase feelings of loyalty for the organization, enhancing motivations for more additional

19

support. Finally, managers are interested in increasing bequest giving among supporters and this

research found a relationship between supporter loyalty and bequest intentions. The implication

is that increasing supporter loyalty influences a variety of desired outcomes.

20

ReferencesAbouAssi, K. (2012). Hands in the pockets of mercurial donors: NGO response to shifting

funding priorities. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(3), 584-602.

Anonymous. (2010a). Australia's population. from Australia Bureau of Statistics:

http://www.abs.gov.au/

Anonymous. (2010b). Target by lifestyle. from First Direct Solutions:

http://auspost.com.au/firstdirectsolutions/target-by-lifestyle.html

Burnett, K. (2002). Relationship fundraising: A donor-based approach to the business of raising

money (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Diamantopoulos, A. & Siguaw, J. (2006). Formative versus reflective indicators in

organizational measure development: A comparison and empirical illustration. British

Journal of Management, 17, 263-282.

Farmer, S. & Fedor, D. (2001). Changing the focus on volunteering: An investigation of

volunteers’ multiple contributions to a charitable organization. Journal of Management, 27,

191-211.

Funk, D. & James, J. (2006). Consumer loyalty: The meaning of attachment in the development

of sport team allegiance. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 189-217.

Goldfarb, N. (2011). Josiah Royce’s philosophy of loyalty as philanthropy. Nonprofit and

Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(4), 720-739.

Gutierrez-Nieto, B. & Serrano-Cinca, C. (2010). Factors influencing funder loyalty to

microfinance institutions.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(2), 302-320.

Hair J. Hult, G., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). A primer on partial least squares structural

equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., and Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.):

Prentice-Hall, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA.

Hustinx, L. & Lammertyn, F. (2004). The cultural bases of volunteering: Understanding and

predicting attitudinal differences between Flemish Red Cross volunteers. Nonprofit and

Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(4), 548-584.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R.L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York:

Wiley.

21

MacKenzie, S. (2003). The dangers of poor construct conceptualization. Journal of the Academy

of Marketing Science, 31(3), 323-326.

Naskrent, J. & Siebelt, P. (2011). The influence of commitment, trust, satisfaction, and

involvement on donor retention. Voluntas, 22, 757-778.

Ping, R. (2008). The puzzle of “about six” indicators in latent variables. Proceedings of the 2008

American Marketing Association Winter Educators Conference (pp. 421-431). Chicago:

American Marketing Association.

Ping, R. (2004). On assuring valid measures for theoretical models using survey data. Journal of

Business Research, 57, 125-141.

Sage Nonprofit Insights (2013). Sage insights survey: Donor loyalty study, 2013. Available

online at http://na.sage.com/~/media/site/sage-nonprofit-solutions/docs/PDFs/

sage_nonprofit_insights_donor_loyalty_2013.pdf?ClickID=clvqswwqslfpzxxlnzvxpenvpinfp7xp7ksxsi

Sargeant, A., Foreman, S. & Liao, M. (2002). Operationalizing the marketing concept in the

nonprofit sector. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 10(2), 41-65

Sargeant, A., Hudson, J., & Wilson, S. (2012). Donor complaints about fundraising: What are

they and why should we care? Voluntas, 23, 791-807.

Sargeant, A. & Jay, E. (2004). Building donor loyalty: The fundraiser’s guide to increasing

lifetime value. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.

Sargeant, A. & Woodliffe, L. (2007). Building donor loyalty: The antecedents and role of

commitment in the context of charity giving. The Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector

Marketing, 18(2), 47-68.

Sargeant, A., Wymer, W., & Hilton, T. (2006). Marketing bequest club membership: An

exploratory study of legacy giving. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(3), 384-404.

Smith, C. Organ, D. & Near, J. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and

antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 655-663.

Waters, R. (2011). Increasing fundraising efficiency through evaluation: Applying

communication theory to the nonprofit organization—donor relationship. Nonprofit and

Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(3), 458-475.

Wiepking, P., Madden, K., & McDonald, K. (2010). Leaving a legacy: Bequest giving in

Australia. Australasian Marketing Journal, 18, 15-22.

22

Wymer, W. (2013a). The influence of marketing scholarship’s legacy on nonprofit marketing.

International Journal of Financial Studies 1(3): 102-118. Available online at

http://www.mdpi.com/2227-7072/1/3/102

Wymer, W. (2013b). Deconstructing the brand nomological network. International Review on

Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 10(1), 1-12.

Wymer W. (2012). Gender differences in social support in the decision to volunteer.

International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing 9(1): 19-26.

Wymer, W. & Rundle-Thiele, S. (2009). Defining and measuring supporter loyalty. Academy of

Marketing Science 14th Biennial World Marketing Congress, July 22-25, Oslo, Norway.

23

Table 1. Measures of Supporter Loyalty and Outcome VariablesSupporter Loyalty

1. I feel a sense of belonging with my organization.2. I am devoted to my organization.3. My organization values me.4. My organization trusts me.5. I trust my organization.

Note: These items were evaluated as a series of 7-point Likert formatted statements. 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree.

Donating Outcomes:Donation recency

How many months has it been since your last monetary donation to your favorite organization?Note: Respondents were given a choice set which began with “less than one month,” followed by “1 month,” “2 months, and so on until reaching “more than 20 months.”

Donation frequency

Please estimate how often you contribute monetary donations in an average year to your favorite organization.Note: Respondents were given a choice set ranging from 1 (once a year) to 52 (weekly).

Annual donation amount

Please estimate the amount of dollars you donated to your favorite organization over the past year.Note: Respondents typed in their answers in a text box.

Last donation amount

Please estimate the dollar amount of your last donation to your favorite organization.Note: Respondents typed in their answers in a text box.

Volunteering Outcomes:Average monthly

volunteering

How many hours do you volunteer for your favorite organization in an average month?Note: Answer choices ranged from 0 to 70 hours per month.

Volunteering recency

How many weeks has it been since you last volunteered for your favorite organization?Note: Answer choices range from 1 (less than 1 week) to 33 (more than 30 weeks since I last volunteered).

Monthly volunteering

frequency

How many times during an average month do you volunteer for your organization?Note: Answer choices ranged from 0 (no times per month) to 30 (daily volunteering).

Organizational citizenship outcomes:Volunteer

recruitmentOver the past year, how many new volunteers have you brought in to your favorite organization?Note: Answer choices ranged from 0 to 20.

Donor recruitment

Over the past year, how many new financial contributors have you brought in to your favorite organization? Note: Answer choices ranged from 0 to 20.

Event attendance

Over the past year, how many of your favorite organization's events have you attended?Note: Answer choices ranged from 0 to 20.

Fundraising engagement

On a scale of 1 to 7, how actively do your help your favorite organization with its fund-raising activities?Note: Answer choices ranged from 1, not active, to 7, extremely active.

24

Bequest intentions

On a scale of 1 to 7, how likely are you to leave a bequest to your favorite nonprofit in your will?Note: Answer choices ranged from 1, “I definitely will not,” to 7, “I definitely will.”

Table 2. Measurement Model Fit Indices and Cutoff ValuesFit Index Cutoff Value Supporter Loyalty Scale

Chi-square/df < 3 1.782p-value of model >.05 .113

CFI >.95 .994GFI >.95 .988

AGFI >.80 .965RMSEA <.05 .051PCLOSE >.05 .423

Note: Cutoff values based on recommendations of Hair et al. (2010)

25

Table 3. Measurement Model ValuesOuter

LoadingComposite Reliability

Cronbach’s Alpha AVE

Sup. Loyalty 0.894281 0.859690 0.630948Item 1 0.767730Item 2 0.738665Item 3 0.860787Item 4 0.903099Item 5 0.680559

Note: Scale item statements are presented in Table 1.

26

Table 4. Scale Item Cross-loadings with Other VariablesSupporter Loyalty Scale Items

Variable Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5Donation frequency

0.071010 0.063923 0.090372 0.110793 0.017886

Ave monthly volunteering

0.001566 -0.039365 0.132326 0.109863 -0.031517

Volunteering recency

-0.253978 -0.105662 -0.095624 -0.195411 -0.056444

Monthly volunteering frequency

-0.066782 0.028733 0.063912 -0.014835 0.013474

Volunteer recruitment

-0.072839 0.009939 0.061913 0.021683 -0.060315

Event attendance

-0.109550 -0.035519 -0.017289 -0.021280 -0.091767

Bequest intentions

-0.005594 0.034857 -0.007435 0.076404 0.003998

Fundraising engagement

0.016319 -0.001549 -0.051485 -0.012431 -0.063038

27

Table 5. Significant Supporter Loyalty Prediction Results

HypothesisOutcomevariable

Adj R2 B SE Beta

t value

p value

H1b Donation frequency .012 1.340 .648 .123 2.069 .039H2a Ave monthly volunteering .025 2.255 .776 .168 2.907 .004H2b Volunteering recency .069 -3.264 .737 -.271 -4.427 .000H2c Monthly vol frequency .035 1.198 .366 .195 3.275 .001H3a Vol recruitment .034 .435 .130 .194 3.342 .001H3c Event attendance .058 1.467 .338 .248 4.339 .000H3d Fund raiser .134 .750 .109 .371 6.886 .000H4 Bequest intentions .057 .440 .101 .246 4.380 .000

28

Table 6. R2 Values and Effect Size AssessmentOutcome variable R2

adj AssessmentDonation frequency .012 ~ SmallAve monthly volunteering .025 SmallVolunteering recency .069 SmallMonthly vol frequency .035 SmallVol recruitment .034 SmallEvent attendance .058 SmallBequest intentions .057 SmallFund raiser .134 ~ Medium

29

Table 7. Evaluation of Loyalty ObjectsLoyalty Object Rank MeanThe mission and purpose of the organization. 1 2.35The people served by the organization. 2 3.19The organization’s leadership. 3 3.93The organization’s staff. 4 4.11The organization’s volunteers. 5 4.12The organization’s donors. 6 4.95The organization’s board of directors 7 5.21

30

31