marketing strategy for nonprofit organisation: a study of

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

MARKETING STRATEGY FOR NONPROFIT

ORGANISATION: A STUDY OF THAI CHARITY

FOUNDATION MARKETING COMMUNICATION

BY

MISS SIWAPORN WONGMA

AN INDEPENDENT STUDY SUBMITTED IN

PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF SCIENCE PROGRAM IN MARKETING

(INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM)

FACULTY OF COMMERCE AND ACCOUNTANCY

THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY

ACADEMIC YEAR 2017

COPYRIGHT OF THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

(1)

Independent Study Title MARKETING STRATEGY FOR NONPROFIT

ORGANISATION: A STUDY OF THAI

CHARITY FOUNDATION MARKETING

COMMUNICATION

Author Miss Siwaporn Wongma

Degree Master of Science Program in Marketing

(International Program)

Major Field/Faculty/University Faculty of Commerce and Accountancy

Thammasat University

Independent Study Advisor Prof. Kenneth E. Miller, Ph.D.

Academic Years 2017

ABSTRACT

While Thailand has made great progress in economic development over the

past few decades, economic growth has not been equally experienced by all citizens

and, as a result, certain regions and groups of people have been left behind. Issues

such as education, healthcare, and poverty continue to affect the Thai population,

especially in the poorer north-eastern and southern regions. Disadvantaged groups

such as migrants, people with disabilities and children suffer disproportionately still

and, according to the Thailand Development Research Institute, the poverty rate for

children aged 0–17 was 13.8 per cent in 2014 compared to an overall national rate of

10.5 per cent. Poverty deprives children of their basic rights and makes them more

vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. It deprives them of proper nutrition, good health,

safe water and quality education.

The concept of giving, is closely linked to Theravada Buddhism, Thailand’s

most commonly practised religion, and Thai people traditionally make merit through

donating to temples or other religious foundations. However, according to recent

reports from the Charities Aid Foundation, Thailand has slipped from number 19 out

of a total of 140 countries in 2015 to 37 in 2016 in the World Giving Index (WGI).

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

(2)

Consequently, nonprofit organisations are looking at new ways to attract

donors and, in today’s digital age, where Thailand sits in the top 10 worldwide for

social media statistics on network usage, online marketing and social media channels

are being explored by charitable organisations.

There are three main research objectives, Firstly, the research aims to better

understand donors to charitable foundations, then it will analyse donors’ decision

making in choosing a charitable foundation before then exploring the factors which

influence donors’ decision to donate and the impact on marketing communication.

The qualitative analysis, secondary research and in-depth interview were

conducted to gain insight information about donor’s decision making when donating

to a charitable foundation benefiting children. For the quantitative analysis, a

questionnaire was used to collect data from 200 respondents. Statistical Package for

the Social Sciences (SPSS) program was also used to interpret and analyze the data

from the survey.

Hopefully, this research will encourage NPOs to better understand consumer

behaviors and the impacts of effective marketing communication. This will lead to

more effective development and implementation of marketing communication

strategies in the future and an increase in the level of donation to foundations who aim

to improve the living conditions for underprivileged children living in Thailand.

Keywords: charitable foundations, children’s charities, marketing communication,

behavior, Influencing factors

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

(3)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I would like to express my sincere appreciation and gratitude

to Prof. Kenneth E. Miller, my supportive advisor, for his kind valuable

recommendations throughout the entire independent study course. Prof. Kenneth E.

Miller was extremely accessible via both E-mails and face-to-face meeting during his

visits to Thailand. Without his support, comments, advice and knowledge, this

research would never have been completed.

Secondly, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all the

respondents for their valuable time to complete the surveys and contribute to a

significant part of this research. I would also like to thank all the professors from

every course I have taken during my two years as a Master of Science Program in

Marketing student. I would like to thank the MIM director and MIM office for the

helpful information and guidance they have given me, helping me to become a

professional with integrity, knowledge and professionalism.

Lastly, I would like to thank all my friends and colleagues for their

countless encouragement and support.

Miss Siwaporn Wongma

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

(4)

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT (1) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (3) LIST OF TABLES (7) LIST OF FIGURES (8) CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION1

1.1 Importance of the study 1

1.2 Purpose and research objectives 2

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 Marketing in NPOs 4

2.2 NPOs in Thailand 6

2.3 The online community situation of NPOs in Thailand 6

2.4 Psychographic factors relating to donate decision 7

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Research design 9

3.2 Data collection procedures 10

3.3 Exploratory research 10

3.4 Descriptive research 11

3.5 Data analysis 11

3.6 Limitation of the study 12

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Key results from secondary research 13

4.2 Key results from in-depth interview 14

4.3 Key results from questionnaire survey 15

4.3.1 General profiles of respondents 15

4.3.2 Study of research objective 1 16

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

(5)

4.3.2.1 Demographic characteristics and donate decision 16

4.3.2.2 Motivation and donate decision 18

4.3.2.3 Psychographic characteristics across segments 20

4.3.2.4 Psychographic characteristics and donate decision 21


4.3.3.1 Information search 22

4.3.3.2 Evaluation of foundation to donate 24

4.3.3.3 Decision of channel to donate via 25

4.3.3.4Post decision behavior 26


CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Summary and conclusion 29

5.1.1 Summary of questionnaire survey 29

5.1.2 Summary of research objective 1 29

5.1.2.1 Summary of demographic characteristics 29

5.1.2.2 Summary of motivation and donating decision 30

5.1.2.3 Summary of psychographic profile

of each segment 30

5.1.2.4 Summary of psychographic characteristics and

donate decision 30

5.1.3 Summary of research objective2 31

5.1.3.1 Summary of information search stage 31

5.1.3.2 Summary of evaluation stage 31

5.1.3.3 Summary of donation stage 31

5.1.3.4 Summary of post donation stage 32

5.1.4 Summary of research objective3 32

5.2 Recommendation 32

REFERENCES 34

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

(6)

APPENDICES APPENDIX A List of potential target foundation 37 APPENDIX B Questionnaire 39 APPENDIX C Crosstabs Analysis 46 APPENDIX D Factor Analysis 49 APPENDIX E Cluster Analysis 50 APPENDIX F One-way ANOVA – evaluation criteria 52 APPENDIX G One-way ANOVA – evaluation of channel 54 APPENDIX H One-way ANOVA – Post behaviour 55 APPENDIX I Multiple Regression Analysis 57 BIOGRAPHY 58

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

(7)

LIST OF TABLES

Tables Page

4.1 General profile of respondents 15

4.2 Summary of differences between segments in terms of psychographic characteristics 17

4.3 Summary of differences between segments in terms of psychographic characteristics 20

4.4 Reports of Pearson product-moment correlation perceived generosity of self, perceived

financial security, perceived importance of religion and donating decision 22

4.5 The frequency summary of information search stage 23

4.6 The frequency summary of information search stage 23

4.7 The summary of importance of criteria in evaluation stage 25

4.8 The summary of preference in donation channel in donation stage 26

4.9 The summary of post donation behaviour stage 27

4.10 Regression Analysis Coefficients 28

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

(8)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figures Page

3.1 Research Framework 9

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Importance of the study

Nonprofit marketing has been a controversial issue within nonprofit

organisations (NPOs) in recent years. Even though many NPOs have started to

adopt business-like techniques (Goerke, 2003) many studies have revealed that

marketing practices are still an unpleasant topic for many in the nonprofit sector,

and there are still differences in opinions among NPOs that influence their view of

marketing (Nagyová, 2004). On the other hand, most nonprofit managers agree that

marketing has become essential for those who want to compete in a marketplace

culture. Forbes Nonprofit Council reported that many marketing trends for

traditional businesses have become important for nonprofits too, and they also need

to improve engagement with their audiences and donors. (Forbes Nonprofit

Council, 2016). One of the key points from this reported marketing trend is that of

communication and promotion. Within a marketing mix, promotion is one of the

four basic elements that contributes to the success of an NPO’s mission.

Communication strategy helps NPOs in many activities such as recruiting donors

from the target segment, publicising the NPO’s mission, function, and objectives,

creating a positive image of the organisation, raising awareness among target

donors, and fund-raising as well as communicating the NPO’s agendas of activities

through its special events.

According to MasterCard’s research, more than half of consumers

across the Asia Pacific economic area are donating to charity, with emerging

markets topping the region (Mastercard, 2015). Consumers in developed markets

are more likely to make significant individual donations. Across the Asia Pacific

economic area, the older generation is more likely to donate to charity, while

donors in the region have the highest affinity for causes focused on ‘Children’s

health and education’. Overall, more than half (53.2%) of Asia Pacific consumers

donate to charity, in Thailand (70.5%), Vietnam (70.4%), Hong Kong (64.6%)

and Indonesia (63.2%).

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

2

Thailand has a historical tradition of religious charitable services, and

the nonprofit sector has flourished since the 1970s (Pongsapich, 1998). The

National Statistics Office of Thailand has also reported that from 2007 to 2013, the

number of nonprofit organisations in Thailand has increased over 17% nationwide.

This includes an increased number of organisations in the Central region (21.8%),

North-eastern and Southern (20.6%, 20.1%) with 7.9% in the Bangkok area

(National Statistics Office of Thailand, 2013). Consequently, the marketing

communication to encourage Thai donors has become more competitive. Since the

mass media and public opinion are the important avenues for gauging the influence

of nonprofit organisations, it is important that these organisations understand

worthy communication practices (Andrews & Edwards, 2004).

While a number of NPOs in Thailand have begun to develop

communication structures to establish funds and add the personnel to manage

them, there are still a lot of Thai NPOs which have yet to adopt a comprehensive

marketing communication approach to their operations. The majority of personnel

engaged in marketing came into their jobs without basic marketing communication

knowledge. Low salary structures are also a problem in attracting top talent, as

well as a problem within various organisation’s communication strategies. This

research was focused on NPOs benefiting children in Thailand and their

communications. The study employed in-depth interviews and conducted surveys

in order to provide information regarding the target groups’ characteristics, attitudes

and behaviours, their decision-making process, the range of factors that the target

group considered to be important in forming decisions to donate. Hopefully,

interested foundations benefiting children will be able to apply this knowledge to

develop strategies that ideally respond to the correct demands of their potential

donors.

1.2 Purpose and research objectives

There are a large number of foundations benefiting children in Thailand,

each of them in need of raising funds. The goal of this study is to understand donors’

attitudes towards charitable foundations, their decisions in choosing a charitable

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

3

foundation, and the key factors influencing the donors to donate. The objectives of the

research are:

1. To better understand donors to charitable foundations.

This study gives insights to help foundations to better understand their target

audience in terms of both demographical and psychological characteristics of

the donors;

2. To analyse donors’ decision making in choosing a charitable foundation.

The result of this study shows the key criteria donors consider when choosing

a charitable foundation. By understanding the results, the NPO’s manager can

optimise their communication budget allocation and focus mainly on the most

important preferences and ultimately improve their return on communication

investment for the foundation;

3. To explore the factors influencing donors’ decision to donate towards the

marketing communication.

This study explores and summarises the key factors which the donors

considered during their decision-making process. By focusing on these factors,

the charitable foundation can craft a marketing communication message more

clearly and directly to their target donor segment and improve communication

effectiveness.

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

4

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE The researcher studied three main areas of information, namely:

1. Marketing in NPOs

2. NPOs in Thailand

3. The online communication situation of NPOs in Thailand

4. Psychological factors related to donate decision

Several sources of literature were studied as given below:

2.1 Marketing in NPOs

The first study focused on NPO meditation centres in the United States of

America (USA) and the United Kingdom (UK). The objective was to understand the

relationship between characteristics of the target group and their decision-making in

choosing the meditation centre. The defined variables are independent variables,

which included demographical and psychological characteristics of the target group,

covariates which included the marketing strategy of NPO for meditation centres and

the dependent variables which included the decision-making. The result revealed that

the target group of the meditation centres were males aged 20 – 30 years old who

liked reading and writing and also had positive attitudes towards meditation. Their

aims were relaxation and inner peace of mind. There were slight differences in

decision making when choosing meditation centres between the two target groups in

the United Kingdom and the United States. The important things that the target groups

considered were not only the meditation centre but also included: a peaceful

atmosphere, ease of access, teaching processes, the quality of their staff, and service

offerings. This study recommended that the best marketing communication for NPO

for meditation centres was through word of mouth. (Srichanya & Sawmong, 2015)

A separate study conducted in Michigan tried to resolve the issues of

marketing strategies that were distinct for most NPOs, as well as to develop a new

model strategy of nonprofit marketing. The study was conducted using a set of open-

ended questions about NPOs’ current marketing practices, use of volunteers, and

areas where marketing efforts needed improvement. By mailing to a random sample

of 3,301 small and local NPOs throughout Michigan, 124 NPOs (3.8%) responses

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

5

were analysed. This study also conducted in-depth interviews with the executive

directors of 43 NPOs in the state. The result revealed that 100% of interview subjects

and 62.1% of survey respondents said that marketing was important to their

organisation, but they were less clear about what marketing meant as for them as

marketing was usually connected to fundraising and not used in communications with

volunteers or clients. 82.4% of those interviewed stated that they did not have a

specific target market. The study concluded that NPOs struggled with a general lack

of understanding of the true functions of marketing, difficulties in branding, and an

inability to reach their target markets and recommended a further research into these

topics. (Pope, Isely, & Asamoa-tutu, 2009)

When focusing more specifically on communication strategy in

marketing, the researcher reviewed another study that aimed to identify the factors

that influence how NPOs in the United States used the internet for communications in

two nonprofit organisations: one national nonprofit based in Washington, D.C., and

one state organisation based in Raleigh, N.C. The study used four methods to measure

communication strategies: the website, the use of social media, the website’s

interactivity, and the organisation’s overall web strategy with the scope of the

nonprofit, the size/staffing of the organisation and its web content audience(s) as its

independent variables. The result did not reveal large differences in the internet

communication strategies between state and national NPOs. There were no

differences in the primary audience of each organisation’s website, nor were different

comprehensive strategies employed. The study showed that small NPOs are inhibited

by staff, expertise and resources when it comes to their internet communication

strategies. NPOs with a small number of staff did not lend themselves well to website

interactivity; however, this did not necessarily inhibit their overall web strategy.

Therefore, small NPOs were still capable of implementing strategic internet

communication practices. The study recommended that NPOs should focus more

energy into web communication to serve more beneficiaries, gather more volunteers,

and achieve a higher number of donations. (Kurtz, 2011)

The recent trend of the nonprofit community is reported by Forbes

Nonprofit Council that while the NPOs should be sensitive in terms of the stories

shared, storytelling will become one of the most important marketing tools for NPOs in

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

6

2017-2018 as it provides a way to connect with the emotions that help drive donor

engagement and ongoing support. The report suggested that, apart from organisation-

generated content, NPOs should also focus on user-generated content as well as using

influencer marketing. (Forbes Nonprofit Council, 2016)

2.2 NPOs in Thailand

An early study on NPOs in Thailand in 1998 found that there are more than

15,000 NPOs with 2,200 of them in Bangkok alone. Cremation associations are the

most frequent type of such organisations as they have deep roots in Thai society and

religion. Many of the others are social welfare associations. The study concluded that

NPOs in emerging and developing markets play a pivotal role in contributing to

economic growth, broadening civic infrastructure, creating shared values, and

mitigating negative spillover effects from development. (Anheier & Salamon, 1998)

Another more recent study classified 70,792 nonprofit organisations in

Thailand into 4 sectors: Education, Human health activities, Social work activities

without accommodation, and Activities of membership organisations. Most of their

sources of revenue are obtained from the government subsidies and private sector

transfers. It should be noted that the sources of revenue came mostly from private

donations, which comprised 52.6 percent share of total revenue. Government support

accounted for only 7.0 percent of total revenue, and the remaining balance came from

the sale of goods and services, property income and foreign grants and transfers. For

expenditures, the majority is operating expenses. A significant part of the expenses were

final consumption expenditures which accounted for an average of 38.2 percent to total

expenses per year. (Office of The National Economic and Social Development Board,

2010)

2.3 The online communication situation of NPOs in Thailand

Another research provides evidence that help better understand how NPOs

in Thailand are using web technologies to improve their operations in order to

understand Thai nonprofits’ website use and compares Thai or international nonprofits

with other nonprofits. The theory adopted in the study stated that although NPOs are not

traditional businesses, they can still benefit from expanding their operations online. If

NPOs can appropriately exploit various types of web technologies to effectively run

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

7

their online operations, they may be able to gain valuable resources beyond traditional

methods. The results of this study confirmed that dissemination of content has been the

main focus of these nonprofit websites and that less than half of the websites offer any

form of e-transactions. It is also stated that while more Thai NPOs are starting to utilise

more social media, direct interactivity on their own websites is limited with expansion

mostly found on third-party social media sites. This suggested that while NPOs in

Thailand are progressing, there is a significant lag between local Thai websites and

those that have international connections. (Kirk, Ractham, & Abrahams, 2016)

The last source stated that two major challenges of Thai NPOs was the lack

of trained personnel in communication marketing as well as a lack of budget for

communication. The traditional communication content used by most Thai NPOs is

perceived to be less attractive, formal and serious. Consequently, attracting donors via

online content communication has been under-utilised, and online communication was

only used for PR and giving organisation information. However, the report suggested

that there are some NPOs in Thailand that utilise online communication effectively. The

examples were greenworld.or.th and the School of Changemakers, which communicate

through their knowledge-based web blog, user generated content via web journals, and

integrated social media. (Smith, 2016)

2.4 Psychographic factors relating to donate decision

In terms of the psychological attributes which could be attributed to

donors or non-donors in reference to their intention to donate, there have been varying

articles which could be deemed relevant to this study. Three of particular relevance

are, perceived importance of religion, perceived generosity of self, and perceived

financial stability.

It is widely agreed that the more religious a person perceives themselves,

the more likely they are to donate to charity. Interestingly however, Schlegelmilch et

al. (1997a) notes that religious donations to Mosques, churches and other religious

organisations is one of the fundamental aspects or criteria in the teachings of religion

(as is the case in Thai Buddhist culture). On the other hand, it is difficult to see how a

person’s religiousness may affect their donations to nonprofit organisations such as

foundations benefiting children. (Lwin, Phau, & Lim, 2012)

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

8

One thing that is often assumed is that perceived financial security would

have a strong impact on a person’s decision to donate however Schlegelmilch et al.

(1997a) not find any evidence to show that individuals who regard themselves as

“financially secured” or “not too worried” about their finances where any more likely

to donate than those who answer otherwise.

One factor that a number of authors did agree on was the impact which

perceived generosity of self had in distinguishing between donors and non-donors.

Schlegelmilch et al. (1997a) found that the more generous donors perceive themselves

to be, the more likely they are to donate to charity. (Schlegelmilch, Diamantopoluos,

& Love, 1997a)

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

9

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research design

The study focuses on both exploratory and descriptive research utilising

qualitative and quantitative analysis to archive the study objectives. The data from

secondary research and in-depth interviews were gathered as initial information to

design a questionnaire.

The exploratory research comprised of secondary data from the

aforementioned literature. The data collection started with 15 in-depth interviews to

understand the overall concept of donors before designing the questionnaire.

Descriptive research was conducted per the study objectives. 500 sets of

questionnaires were distributed with a convenience sampling technique. A screening

question was asked to filter out the non-potential informers. Respondents who have

donated before were classified as donors.

Key variables of this study are 1) the donors’ demographic and

psychographic variables; 2) the marketing mix of NPOs; and 3) donors’ decision-

making process variables. The research framework is shown as in Figure 1.

Figure 3.1: Research framework

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

10

3.2 Data Collection Procedures

Donors of NPOs benefiting children in the Bangkok area were targeted

and surveyed. Firstly, the data was conducted through qualitative methods from the

exploratory research by employing secondary research followed by 15 in-depth

interviews. The data from qualitative research was then collected and used to

conducted quantitative research for further information. After the questionnaire was

designed and pilot tested, it was then randomly distributed to 500 respondents, both

online and offline. The total sample size was limited to approximately 200

respondents due to time and budgetary restrictions for the study. The details can be

found as follows:

3.3 Exploratory Research

o Literature review

Eight studies were reviewed prior to proceeding further with data collection.

Literature, news, articles, and journals were obtained through websites, and the

Thammasat university library database. Keywords using in the search were

donation, donors’ decision-making process, NPOs in Thailand and donation

statistics. Insights from literature reviews were used to design the research

methodology and develop the research questionnaire. Three key areas of study were

1) Marketing in nonprofit organisations 2) Nonprofit organisations in Thailand and

3) The online communication situation of NPOs in Thailand. Results from this

secondary research were used to form questions for the in-depth interviews as well

as to identify key variables for quantitative research.

o In-depth interviews

To get an insight into currently active donors to charitable foundations benefiting

children and their decision-making factors, sessions were arranged to interview the

existing donors to two relevant charitable foundations in Thailand. This was

conducted via telephone, and the interviewees were recruited through researcher’s

connections. In-depth interview results were expected to help the researcher to

understand and form hypotheses prior to proceeding with the research process. The

questions presented to interviewees all involved their decisions in choosing a charity

to donate to and the reasons behind it; from finding information about the charitable

foundations benefiting children to the channel through which they make the donation.

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

11

The results were used to capture the general purpose of the donors, channels, and

criteria in choosing a charitable foundation. This data was the main information used

to develop the questionnaire during the next descriptive research phase.

3.4 Descriptive Research

o Survey

A convenience sampling technique was applied randomly to ensure the

results would be equally distributed, while receiving a large enough sample size for

the data processing process.

The major channel for collecting the data of donors was an online channel

(300 respondents). However, offline survey data collection was also used to add up to

the sample size for the data processing process (200 respondents). Offline survey data

collection enabled the researcher to openly engage the interested target donors at the

point of donation. The locations of data collection were at two charitable foundations

benefiting children in Bangkok.

As previously mentioned, surveys were distributed to 500 respondents

with an aim to collect 200 valid responses. After receiving the responses, the

researcher selectively filtered the results using the screening questions, then by

demographic information, namely by the personal income and age and narrow the

respondents down to a total of 308 respondents. The reason was to ensure normal

distribution of the data to avoid misinterpretation and recommendations.

Two screening questions were used to determine if the respondents

qualified to participate in the study. The first screening question was “Have you heard

of any non-profit organisation benefiting children?” If the respondents answered yes,

they would proceed to the donor general characteristics questions. The second

screening question was asked later in the questionnaire to screen whether the

respondent had donated in the past year. Further questions that were included in the

questionnaire were developed on the basis of NPOs’ communication and channel

strategy in order to ensure that the key hypotheses could be tested.

3.5 Data Analysis

Results from in-depth interviews were analysed using a qualitative

method to understand the overall situation of donors to NPOs benefiting children. The

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

12

data was then used to identify key variables for the questionnaire. Results from online

and offline surveys were analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Science

(SPSS). The descriptive statistics which analyse data were based on the demographic

and psychological factors of target donors. Examples of the descriptive statistics are

frequency, percentage, mean and standard deviation as well as factor analysis, cluster

analysis and test for differences between groups and other statistical analysis as

appropriate.

3.6 Limitations of the study

The research was conducted only in Bangkok area although the NPOs

benefiting children are in many provinces in Thailand. In addition, the findings from

this study cannot be generalised to the entire population since the convenience

sampling method used is a non-probability sampling method as there are time and

budget constraints.

The quantitative phase did not include the rejected users (non-potential donors) who

were screened out by the question: Have you ever heard of non-profit organisation?

This group of people may include future potential donors hence the findings from this

study cannot be used to predict the characteristics and donation behaviour preferences

of non-donors.

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

13

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Key results from secondary research

Overall, at least eight sources of literature were studied and reviewed and

the information from this study can be summarised as follows:

1. Marketing within NPOs

Although it has been controversial for NPOs to utilise marketing

communication techniques in the past as it was perceived to be business-like,

many have now adopted and created their organisation’s communication

strategy and are progressing as a result;

2. NPOs in Thailand

NPOs in Thailand are at a disadvantage in terms of their strategic

organisation. Additionally, there is only a little research specific to the

communication strategy of foundations benefiting children in Thailand;

3. The online communication situation of NPOs in Thailand

Not many Thai NPOs have adopted extensive online and digital

communication; however, there are a few examples which utilised this

channel effectively. Story-telling continues to be a good communication

technique for NPOs.

4. Psychological factor related to decision to donate

There are three factors related to decision to donate that are perceived

generosity of self, perceived financial security of self and perceived

importance of religion.

From the information and knowledge gathered from this literature review,

this study can focus towards understanding Thailand donors’ behaviour and their

donating decision factors. The results from this study could potentially be compared

with previous studies as well as with the current perception among organisations to

understand the differences between each target. More importantly, the results can

provide greater overviews and understanding for NPO managers, to ensure the

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

14

effectiveness and efficiency development and implementation of marketing

communication strategies in the future.

4.2 Key result from in-depth interview

From the in-depth interview with 15 currently active donors of charitable

foundations benefiting children, key findings reflected several similarities among

donors. The active donors shared positive attitudes towards donation in general and

think that it is altruistic. Most of the frequent donors agreed that it is a typically Thai

thing to donate to children as Thais have more sympathy with children and it is a

common conscience to be giving to them, especially on special occasions such as

offering lunch to children at the foundation on their birthdays. Fourteen active donors

stated that donating to children is the main activity they do annually for their tax

benefit. Hence, it is mandatory that they chose a registered foundation in order to get

a proper tax exemption document instead of giving to child beggars for example.

Interestingly, all of the active donors that were interviewed admitted that they would

definitely tell other people whenever they made donations to the charity either via

conversation or on social media. This reflected the common motivation regarding the

social prestige that they expect to receive such as appraisals, recognition within their

social circle, and other local prestige.

However, when asked about their decision-making process in choosing

the foundation benefiting children to donate to, surprisingly, the communicating

message from the foundation, as well as the cause and efficiency of the foundation

were not among the first key factors that these active donors mentioned. Instead, the

convenience of transactions, the level of interaction with the children, and the location

of the foundation were considered the key points that most of the respondents stated.

In addition, all respondents preferred finding the foundation by themselves via

websites, social media sources such as the charitable foundations’ Facebook pages as

opposed to being persuaded from the foundation’s direct material i.e. direct personal

contacts, direct mails and email. The majority also tend to be convinced by friends

and family members more than the direct contact from the foundation.

The average amount of money donated ranged approximately from 1,000

Baht to 100,000 Baht. For these respondents, it is insignificant for them whether they

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

15

should donate a higher amount of money, or more frequently, but it is important that

their donation is within, but does not exceed, their annual donation budget.

4.3 Key results from questionnaire survey

4.3.1 General profile of respondents

The questionnaire was distributed to 500 respondents online by employing

SurveyMokey.com as a tool to collect data as well as offline on site at three

foundations in Bangkok namely Home for Disabled Babies (Bann Fuengfah),

Foundation for Children with Disabilities and The Foundation for Child

Development. There were 308 respondents who were in the criteria of this study, 152

from online and 156 from offline questionnaires. Table 4.1 shows the general profile

of these respondents. (See Appendix B for questionnaire)

Table 4.1: General profile of respondents Demographics Count Column N %

Gender Male 95 30.8%

Female 213 69.2%

Age 21 or below 6 1.9%

22-35 108 35.1%

36-49 157 51.0%

50 and above 37 12.0%

Personal Income 7,500 Baht and below 6 1.9%

7,501 - 18,000 Baht/month 48 15.6%

18,000 - 24,000 Baht/month 39 12.7%

24,001 - 35,000 Baht/month 37 12.0%

35,001 - 50,000 Baht/month 31 10.1%

50,001 - 85,000 Baht/month 65 21.1%

85,001 - 160,000 Baht/month 39 12.7%

160,001 Baht/month or more 43 14.0%

Education Secondary school 9 2.9%

College 26 8.4%

Bachelor Degree 132 42.9%

Master or higher 141 45.8%

Marital Status Single 203 65.9%

Married 92 29.9%

Widow 1 .3%

Divorced 8 2.6%

Separated 4 1.3%

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

16

Demographics Count Column N %

Children Yes 149 48.4%

No 159 51.6%

Occupation Office employee 182 59.1%

Government officer 8 2.6%

Public enterprise officer 63 20.5%

Own business/self employed 27 8.8%

Freelance 20 6.5%

Student 5 1.6%

Retired 3 1.0%

Other 0 0.0%

Religion Christian 10 3.2%

Buddhist 266 86.4%

Hindu 3 1.0%

Muslim 2 .6%

Sikh 0 0.0%

Atheist/Agnostic 27 8.8%

Other 0 0.0%

Most respondents were female, the respondents’ age was mostly from 22-49 years old

which represented 86.1% of the total number of respondents. The respondents’

education levels were mostly bachelor degree and higher at 88.7%. Most were single

(65.9%), Buddhist (86.4%) and worked as office employees (59.1%).

4.3.2 Study of research objective 1:

To better understand donors to the charitable foundations in terms of both

demographical and psychological characteristics of the donors:

4.3.2.1 Demographic characteristics and donate decision

The Pearson’s chi-square test of independence was used to examine the relationship

between each demographics’ characteristics and donate decision. The percentage of

participants that donate more frequently did not differ by gender, X 2 (4, N = 308) =

3.940, p >.05 whilst a significant interaction was found between donate decision and

each of the other demographic variables as following;

• As can be seen by the frequencies cross tabulated in Table 4.2, there is a

significant relationship between age and decision to donate, X 2 (8, N = 308) =

23.030, p <.01

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

17

• The percentage of participants that donate more frequently (4 times per year or

more) differed by their personal income X 2 (24, N = 308) = 127.200, p <.01

• The percentage of participants that donate more frequently (4 times per year or

more) differed by their education level. Participants with higher education

(Master degree or above) were likely to donate frequently (37.6%) when

compare to participants with lower education; Bachelor degree (13.6%), and

College or below (0%). X 2 (8, N = 308) = 66.509, p <.01

• Participants who have children were less likely to donate (10.1%) than those

who do not have children (35.2%) X 2 (4, N = 308) = 41.548, p <.01.

Table 4.2: Summary of different between segments for psychographic

characteristics

In the past 12 months have you donated to a

non-profit organisation benefiting children?

Total

Pearson

Chi-

Square

p-value

never

more

than a

year

ago

1-3

times

4-6

times

7

times

up

Gender Male 18 31 27 10 9 95 3.940a

.414

Female 41 51 69 35 17 213

Age 35 and below 32 36 34 8 4 114 23.030a

.003**

36-49 21 36 53 29 18 157

50 and above 6 10 9 8 4 37

Personal

Income

18,000 Baht/month or below 24 16 12 2 0 54 127.200a

.000**

18,000 - 24,000 Baht/month 12 17 10 0 0 39

24,001 - 35,000 Baht/month 13 8 14 2 0 37

35,001 - 50,000 Baht/month 1 14 12 3 1 31

50,001 - 85,000 Baht/month 8 14 22 10 11 65

85,001 - 160,000 Baht/month 1 4 12 17 5 39

160,001 Baht/month or more 0 9 14 11 9 43

Education College and below 15 14 6 0 0 35 66.509a

.000**

Bachelor degree 34 44 36 14 4 132

Master or higher 10 24 54 31 22 141

Children Yes 22 47 65 11 4 149 41.548a

.000**

No 37 35 31 34 22 159

**. Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

18

4.3.2.2 Motivation and donate decision

Factor and cluster analysis were conducted with group segments of the participants

from their motivation to donate. Firstly, factor analysis was used to reduce 19

variables to four dimensional factors (See Appendix D, E). The four factors are social

benefit factor, traditional benefit factor, altruistic factor, and other factors. Secondly,

cluster analysis was applied to identify donor segment and develop into segmentations

that differentiate one type of donor to another. Thirdly, after using cluster analysis

method, the results were reviewed and classified into four groups of donors; Social

oriented donor, the “Thainess” donor, the “ do good, feel good” donor and the purist

donor.

Segment 1: The social oriented donor (23.70% of respondents)

Donors who fall in this segment love socializing with other people. Prestige is one of

the rational reasons they donate. Receiving appreciation from society and approval in

their social circle and career through publicizing their donations is important for this

group and has a reasonable impact, enhancing their donation behaviour. The

important factors are social benefit, altruistic factors and others. Apart from enjoying

the recognition and local prestige from their friends and society as well as thinking

that it sets a good example to society, the social oriented donors believe that charity

activities with children are the right thing to do, they also like kids and feel good

about themselves when helping or donating to children. Interestingly, tradition and

religious activities are not their main reason for donating.

Segment 2: The “Thainess” donor (45.78% of respondents)

The “Thainess” group are traditional Thais. Areas of significance in Thai culture are

the main motivators for their donating behaviour. The main claim for this group is

that they are following religious traditions, although this may be more general

spiritual beliefs than strictly Buddhist ones. They may believe in Karma and feel that

by donating they will feel good or otherwise gain personal benefits.

They participate in cultural activities such as festivals and ceremonies where they like

to be seen to be generous through donating. Their friends and family are often of a

similar nature and donating is part of their customary activities which in itself brings

them enjoyment.

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

19

This group has a strong sense of family values and community spirit, they may even

donate in memory of loved ones who previously donated as part of their tradition.

They like children and wish to instil these traditional values on their younger family

members. As part of a greater community they also perceive children to be in the

greatest need of help and feel that donating to them helps the community and the

country as a whole.

Segment 3: The “do good, feel good” donor (22.40% of respondents)

The “do good, feel good” donor shares many of the characteristics of the “Thainess”

group. In fact, they would most likely identify as being a traditional Thai, or at least a

person who upholds traditional values. These values, in turn, are key motivators for

them to donate. However, they have other motivations.

This group is more modern than the “Thainess” group, and although they can see

benefits in tradition, they have other influences in their behaviours. They see donating

as a personal tax benefit and choose a number of charities to donate to, the ones who

pick children’s charities do so simply because they like kids. On the other hand, they

choose kids because spending time with them is pleasurable. They do not, however,

see donating as a means of improving their social standing. They are kind at heart, not

selfish.

Segment 4: The purist donor (8.12% of respondents)

The purist identifies charitable donations as being purely altruistic. Like the “do good,

feel good” donor, they have a personal benefit in donating, in that it makes them feel

good. This is because helping others is a reward in itself and there is no guilt in

enjoying that reward. They do not cite any outside influences as having a major

influence on their decision to donate. They may or may not be traditional, and they

may have an interest in developing their social circle or the outside society as a whole,

but this is separate to their desire to help people.

This group are modest about their charitable activities and keep them to themselves

because they are not trying to put their ideas onto others. The benefit is intimate and

personal for them and the children they help. The main motivating factor for them in

choosing a charitable organisation which benefits children is that they want to help

people, and that children, ultimately need more help than adults.

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

20

4.3.2.3 Psychographic characteristics across segments

Nine questions regarding respondents’ personal values based on the four

psychographic factors relating decisions to donate were asked in this part.

Looking at the results, the personal values respondents agreed to be important in order

to consider donating were: perceived generosity of self (Mean = 3.22) and perceived

financial security of self (Mean = 2.88) while the perceived importance of religion

mean score was only somewhat important (Mean = 2.23). Mean scores in each

segment (four-point scale) are distributed in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3: Summary of differences between segments for psychographic

characteristics.

Personal value

Cluster Number of Case

The social

oriented

(n = 73)

The

"Thainess"

donor

(n = 141)

The "do

good, feel

good" donor

(n = 69)

The purist

(n = 25)

Overall

(n = 308)

Mean SD. Mean SD. Mean SD. Mean SD. Mean SD.

avg.

Mean

Perceived

generosity of self

It makes me very happy to

give to other people in ways

that meet their needs.

3.56 0.50 3.31 0.60 3.65 0.48 3.52 0.65 3.46 0.57

3.22

It is just as important to me

that other people around me

are happy and thriving as it

is that I am happy and

thriving.

3.75 0.43 2.94 0.69 3.28 0.59 3.08 0.91 3.22 0.71

My decisions are often

based on concern for the

welfare of others.

3.63 0.70 2.77 0.75 2.83 0.84 2.84 0.75 2.99 0.84

Perceived

financial security

of self

I have enough savings to be

actively engaged with

society.

3.51 0.67 2.74 0.70 2.46 0.76 2.96 0.89 2.88 0.81

2.88

I am just getting by

financially. (score reversed) 3.60 0.88 2.52 0.88 2.36 1.03 2.72 0.89 2.76 1.03

I can enjoy life because of

the way I am managing my

money.

3.64 0.51 2.82 0.69 2.75 0.81 3.08 0.76 3.02 0.77

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

21

Perceived

importance of

religion

I consider myself a religious

person. 1.74 0.87 2.10 0.78 2.38 0.89 1.76 0.78 2.05 0.85

2.23 I often take part in religious

services. 1.74 0.94 2.28 0.79 2.74 0.89 2.12 0.97 2.24 0.93

I am interested in

connecting my religious

beliefs to my daily

situation.

1.75 0.97 2.51 0.81 2.93 0.85 2.32 0.95 2.41 0.96

4.3.2.4 Psychographic characteristics and donate decision

A Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was computed to assess the

relationship between psychographic characteristics and donate decision.

• Two out of three questions asked to measure perceived generosity of self and

decision to donate were positively correlated, (r = .328, p < .01, and r = .325,

p < .01)

• All questions that measure perceived financial security of self and decision to

donate were positively correlated, (r = .321, p < .01, r = .395, p < .01, and r =

.323, p < .01)

• All questions measured perceived importance of religion and decision to

donate were negatively correlated, (r = -.263, p < .01, r = -.326, p < .01, and r

= -.370, p < .01)

Overall, there was a moderate, positive correlation between perceived generosity of

self and donate decision, a moderate, positive correlation between perceived financial

security of self and donate decision, and a moderate negative correlation between

perceived importance of religion and donate decision. Increases in perceived

generosity of self and perceived financial security of self were correlated with

increases in donate decision. On the other hand, increases in perceived important of

religion correlated with decreases in donate decision.

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

22

Table 4.4: Reports of Pearson product-moment correlation perceived generosity of

self, perceived financial security, perceived importance of religion and donate

decision (n = 308) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

In the past 12 months have you donated to a non-profit

organisation benefiting children?

-

It is just as important to me that other people around me

are happy and thriving as it is that I am.

.328** -

My decisions are often based on concern for the welfare

of others.

.325** .483** -

I have enough savings to be actively engaged with

society.

.321** .338** .400** -

I am just getting by financially. (reversed score)

.395** .166** .141* .431** -

I can enjoy life because of the way I am managing my

money.

.323** .299** .307** .537** .485** -

I consider myself a religious person.

-

.263** .111 -.063 -.104

-

.320** -.095 -

I often take part in religious services.

-

.326** .019 -.056

-

.155**

-

.379** -.075 .704** -

I am interested in connecting my religious beliefs to my

daily situation.

-

.370** .012 -.125*

-

.190**

-

.366**

-

.209** .610** .675** -

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).


To analyse donors’ decision making in choosing a charitable foundation,

the respondents were asked to choose which source of information had the most

impact on each stage of the donation decision making process, their evaluation criteria

in choosing which NPOs benefiting children to donate to as well as their preference in

the donation items and channel. Lastly, they were also asked about their post donation

behaviour. All questions were on a four-point scale.

4.3.3.1 Information search

In the information search, respondents were asked which source of

information they were likely to believe the most about the NPOs benefiting children.

It was found that the highest number of donors were likely to believe their friends and

family members (58.3%) while the least trustworthy source of information was via

Email (1.5%) and direct mail (27.1%). Interestingly, newspapers were found to be one

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

23

of the top sources of information (54.4%) which was equal to the number of

respondents that chose the official website of the NPOs. Social media also become

one of the information source that was popular among donors (48.9%).

Table 4.5: The frequency summary of information search stage (n = 266) Source of information

Frequency

Percentage

Website 145 54.5%

Personal connections to the foundation 84 31.6%

Social media sources 130 48.9%

Direct contact 104 39.1%

Newspaper 145 54.5%

Friends and family members 155 58.3%

Direct mail 72 27.1%

Email 4 1.5%

The frequency of information source in each segment is shown in Table 4.6.

Table 4.6: The frequency summary of information search stage (n = 266)


The social

oriented donor

(n = 68)

The "Thainess"

donor

(n = 117)

The "do good,

feel good" donor

(n = 58)

The purist

(n = 23)

Count % Count % Count % Count %

Website 63 92.65% 56 47.86% 18 31.03% 8 34.78%

Personal connections to the foundation 58 85.29% 16 13.68% 7 12.07% 3 13.04%

Media sources 59 86.76% 42 35.90% 26 44.83% 3 13.04%

Direct contact 61 89.71% 25 21.37% 13 22.41% 5 21.74%

Newspaper 61 89.71% 51 43.59% 25 43.10% 8 34.78%

Friends and family members 59 86.76% 60 51.28% 30 51.72% 6 26.09%

Direct mail 56 82.35% 8 6.84% 5 8.62% 3 13.04%

Email 1 1.47% 3 2.56% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

TOTAL 68 100.00% 117 100.00% 58 100.00% 23 100.00%

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

24

4.3.3.2 Evaluation of foundation to donate

One-way ANOVA was conducted to compare means of difference criteria

among segments in term of evaluation of which NPOs to donate. Using a confidence

level of 95% (alpha 0.05), if p-value is less than 0.05, the result shows a significant

difference among segments.

Result of the means of the criteria “Relevancy of the story that the NPOs

communicate” of the social oriented donor is significantly different from the other

three segments (F = 34.429, p-value = 0.000). This means that when compared to the

rest, the social oriented donor think the relevancy story told by NPOs is highly

important. (See Appendix F)

The means of the “The convenience of the channel to donate” are

significantly different among the segments (F = 37.343, p-value = 0.000). It means

that compared to the other segments, the social oriented donors is the group that find

the convenience of channel to donate extremely important for them when the criteria

is less important for the purist, and the Thainess and the “do good, feel good”

respectively.

The means of the “The level that donor can interact with children” and

“The location of the NPOs” are significantly different among the four segments (F =

80.182, p-value = 0.000 and F = 43.683, p-value = 0.000 respectively). It means that

compared to the other segments, the social oriented donors find it extremely important

for them to interact with the children as well as the convenience in both location of

NPOs and channel to donate while this two criteria have less impact on the other three

segments.

The means of the “The transparency of how the donation money is used”,

“Operational effectiveness of the NPOs” and “The meaningful causes of NPOs” are

significantly different among four segments (F = 126.192, p-value = 0.000, F =

102.631, p-value = 0.000 and F = 63.620, p-value = 0.000 respectively). The results

show that across three segments of the “do good, feel good”, the “Thainess”, and the

purist, the NPOs they likely to donate should operate effectively and transparently

with meaningful causes which, on the other hand, are the least important evaluation

criteria for the social oriented donor.

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

25

Table 4.7: The summary of importance of criteria in evaluation stage (n = 266)

Evaluation of which NPOs to donate


The social

oriented donor

(n = 68)

The "Thainess"

donor

(n = 117)

The "do good,

feel good"

donor

(n = 58)

The purist

(n = 23)

Mean SD. Mean SD. Mean SD. Mean SD.

The relevancy of the story that the NPOs communicate. 3.88 0.37 2.84 0.77 2.98 0.81 3.09 0.73

The convenience of the channel to donation. 3.91 0.29 3.06 0.62 3.07 0.70 3.43 0.51

The level that donor can interact with children. 3.91 0.33 2.12 0.89 2.12 0.96 2.09 1.08

The transparency of how the donation money is used. 1.40 0.95 3.30 0.76 3.67 0.47 3.61 0.72

Operational effectiveness of the NPOs. 1.40 0.95 3.21 0.75 3.48 0.54 3.35 0.88

Meaningful causes. 2.22 0.81 3.44 0.59 3.52 0.57 3.57 0.59

The location of the charitable foundation. 3.75 0.44 2.43 0.94 2.33 1.02 2.04 1.15

4.3.3.3 Decision of channel to donate via

Five questions regarding possible channels to donate via were asked in this part based

on four-point scale. One-way ANOVA was conducted to compare means of

difference in donation channel preference among all the four segments. Using a

confidence level of 95% (alpha 0.05), if p-value is less than 0.05, the result shows a

significant difference among segments.

Result showed the means of donating at the foundation of the social oriented donor is

significantly different from the rest (F = 24.656, p-value = 0.000). This means that

when compared to the other segments, the social oriented donor prefers to donate

right at the foundation. (See Appendix G)

The means of the donating via electronic banking transfer and donating at

the closest donation box are not significantly different among segments. This means

that for all the segments there were no differences in preferences among them. All

donors prefer to donate via both bank transfer and at a donation box.

The mean preferences of the SMS donation and the payment gateway

(credit card, ATM, direct debit, etc.) of the social oriented donor are significantly

different from the other three segments (F = 12.296, p-value = 0.000 and F = 27.072,

p-value = 0.000 respectively). The results show that when compared to the other three

segments, the donation via SMS and payment gateway such as credit card, and ATM

transfer are less preferable to the social oriented donor.

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

26

Table 4.8: The summary of preference in donation channel in donation stage (n =

266)


The social

oriented donor

(n = 68)

The "Thainess"

donor

(n = 117)

The "do good,

feel good"

donor

(n = 58)

The purist

(n = 23)


At the foundation. 3.94 0.24 2.96 0.85 3.17 0.92 3.00 0.95

Via Electronic bank transfer. 3.00 0.30 2.74 0.78 2.95 0.91 3.30 0.56

Via SMS/text donation. 1.29 0.73 2.12 0.88 1.98 1.03 1.96 1.19

Via payment gateway (credit card, ATM, etc.). 1.29 0.75 2.40 0.90 2.33 1.10 2.83 1.03

At the closest donation box. 3.00 0.39 2.62 0.86 2.81 0.95 2.30 1.11

4.3.3.4 Post donation behaviour

One-way ANOVA results of post donation behaviour mean difference

across segments reveal that the means of feeling good about themselves and the

likelihood of changing to another foundation the next time are not significantly

different among segments.

The mean of posting donation activities on personal social media after

donating is significantly different from the social oriented donor to the other three

segments (F = 96.836, p-value = 0.000). This shows that when compared to the other

three segments, the social oriented are most likely the group to post their activities on

social media after they donate.

The mean of telling friends are significantly different from The

“Thainess” and the “do good, feel good” to the social oriented donor and the purist (F

= 28.601, p-value = 0.000) which means it is likely for the first two groups to tell

friends to donate at the same NPOs, than the other two segments. Additionally, for the

social oriented donor, it is significantly different that this group have the least interest

in following up with the donation to monitor the return benefit for the children. (F =

23.073, p-value = 0.000). For the “Thainess” donor, the “do good, feel good” donor

and the purist, they would likely to follow up with the money spent (mean = 2.50,

2.60 and 2.30 respectively) (See Appendix H).

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

27

Table 4.9: The summary of post donation behaviour stage (n = 266)


The social

oriented donor

(n = 68)

The "Thainess"

donor

(n = 117)

The "do good,

feel good"

donor

(n = 58)

The purist

(n = 23)


I personally feel good about myself. 3.93 0.26 3.20 0.66 3.67 0.47 3.48 0.73

I'd post on my social media to make me feel good. 3.68 0.56 1.81 0.87 1.60 0.79 1.86 1.08

I'd tell my friends to donate at the same place too. 1.60 0.96 2.72 0.78 2.62 0.85 1.78 1.09

I will change to another foundation next time. 1.51 0.89 2.50 0.75 2.43 0.75 1.91 1.08

I will follow up with my donation to monitor the return

benefit for the children. 1.40 0.90 2.50 0.80 2.60 0.90 2.30 1.20


Multiple regression was performed to test which of the characteristics of

the NPOs and the donors’ profile significantly predicted participants’ rating of

donation frequency. Using a confidence level of 95% (alpha 0.05). The F-ratio in

the ANOVA table tests shows the overall regression model is a good fit for the data.

The table shows that the independent variables statistically significantly predict the

dependent variable, F (10, 255) = 16.166, p < .001 (i.e., the regression model is a

good fit of the data). (See Appendix I)

The results of the regression indicated these four predictors explained

38.8% of the variance (R2 = .388, F (10,255) = 16.166, p< .001). It was found that age,

personal income and education significantly predicted the donation frequency (β =

0.111, p<.05, β = 0.134, p<.000 and β = 0.167, p<.000), as did the relevancy of the

story that the NPOs communicate (β = 0.162, p<.000).

The general form of the equation to predict participants’ rating of

donation frequency from the factors is:

Donation frequency = 0.669 + 0.175Age + 0.071Income + 0.246Education + 0.212

Relevancy of story told

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

28

Table 4.10: Regression Analysis Coefficients

Model Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig.

95.0% Confidence

Interval for B Collinearity Statistics

B Std. Error Beta

Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound Tolerance VIF

(Constant) .669 .665 1.005 .316 -.642 1.979

Age .175 .083 .111 2.121 .035 .013 .338 .878 1.139

Personal Income .071 .037 .134 1.910 .057 -.002 .145 .487 2.053

Education .246 .093 .167 2.658 .008 .064 .429 .609 1.642

The relevancy of the story communicated. .212 .082 .162 2.569 .011 .049 .374 .600 1.666

The convenience of the channel to donation. .118 .097 .075 1.222 .223 -.072 .309 .640 1.562

The level the donor can interact with children. .104 .077 .111 1.347 .179 -.048 .255 .353 2.831

The transparency of how the money is used. -.038 .126 -.042 -.298 .766 -.287 .211 .121 8.260

Operational effectiveness of the NPOs. -.194 .129 -.209 -1.508 .133 -.448 .059 .124 8.037

Meaningful causes. -.011 .098 -.009 -.116 .908 -.204 .181 .391 2.559

The location of the charitable foundation. -.030 .075 -.030 -.395 .693 -.177 .118 .419 2.387

a. Dependent Variable: In the past 12 months have you donated to a non-profit organisation benefiting children?

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

29

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 Summary and conclusion

This study is a topic in applied marketing with a relevant focus in today’s

society. The potential applications are that it will can be used to improve the

marketing communications of Nonprofit Organisations in Thailand. Specifically,

charitable foundations that benefit local children.

Nonprofit marketing is an often controversial topic which has not been

given a large amount of coverage within Thailand and, as a result of this, local

foundations may not employ the most appropriate communication strategies to attract

and connect with potential donors.

The objectives of this study were:

1) to better understand the characteristics of donors to charitable foundations;

2) to analyse the decision-making process in choosing a charitable foundation to

donate to, and;

3) to explore the key factors that influence donors’ decision-making and their

application in the foundation’s marketing communication strategy.

5.1.1. Summary of questionnaire survey:

The questionnaire was distributed to 500 respondents, 250 online and 250

offline. Only 308 respondents passed the screening question “Have you ever heard of

any nonprofit organisations benefiting children in Thailand?” The respondents can be

classified into 3 groups based on the frequency of donation namely;

● Non-donor (has never donated, or donate more than a year ago) 141

respondents (45.78%)

● Average donor (donates 1-3 times per year) 96 respondents (31.16%)

● Heavy donor (donates 4 times or more per year) 71 respondents (23.06%)

5.1.2. Summary of research objective 1:

5.1.2.1. Summary of demographic characteristics

The results from interviews and questionnaires have showed that the

majority of donors who frequently donate to foundations benefiting children are in an

older age bracket (36 years old and above), with a high level of income (50,001

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

30

Baht/month and above) and a high level of education (Bachelor degree and above).

Interestingly, participants who have children were less likely to donate than those who

do not have children. The frequency of donations showed no significant difference

between gender, religion, occupation or marital status.

5.1.2.2. Summary of motivation and donating decisions

This study suggests using the motivation to donate as the basis of

segmenting and targeting donors. The results from factor analysis groups the 19

motivations into 4 groups which are motivation from social benefit factor, motivation

from traditional benefit, altruistic motivation and other motivation factors. It is worth

noting that the tax benefit which was the most common motivation to donate (14 out

of 15 donors) during the in-depth interview fell into the other motivation factors. The

result from cluster analysis groups 308 respondents into four groups. The four

segments are concluded as below;

1) The social oriented donor; the important factor characterised this group are

social benefit factors, altruistic motivation factors and other motivational

factors.

2) The “Thainess” donor; the important factors characterised by this group are

traditional benefit factors.

3) The “do good, feel good” donor; the important factors characterised by this

group are traditional benefit factors, altruistic motivations and other

motivational factors.

4) The purist donor; the important factors characterised this group are altruistic

motivations.

5.1.2.3.Summary of psychographic profiles of each segment

From the descriptive and correlative results we can summarise that the

psychological factors relating to decision to donate the respondents agreed to be

important are perceived generosity of self and perceived financial security of self

while perceived importance of religion is only somewhat important.

5.1.2.4.Summary of psychographic characteristics and donate decision

Two out of three perceived generosity of self variables were the important

variables in distinguishing between donors and non-donors on their decision to

donate. It can be assumed that the more generous donors perceive themselves to be,

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

31

the more likely they are to donate to charity. In the same way, all three variables that

were measured perceived financial security of self were the important variables in

distinguishing between donors and non-donors on their decision to donate. It can be

concluded that donors are more likely to have a higher perceived financial security of

self than non-donors. On the opposite, all three variables of perceived important of

religion suggested that donors to NPOs benefiting children are less likely to be

religious.


5.1.3.1. Summary information search stage

Most respondents search for information from friends and family

members, websites, newspapers and social media. Direct mail and Email are not

popular among all donors.

5.1.3.2. Summary evaluation stage

For the social oriented donor, evaluation criteria that is more important

for them than other donor groups is; the relevance of the story which the NPOs

communicate, the convenience of the channel to donate, the level the donor can

interact with children and the location of the charitable foundation.

On the other hand, evaluation criteria that is least important for the social

oriented donor which distinguishes this group from the other groups is; the

transparency of how the money is used, the operational effectiveness of the NPOs as

well as the NPOs’ causes.

It can be concluded that in terms of the evaluation of the NPOs to donate, the three

segments namely; the “Thainess”, the “do good, feel good” donor and the purist have

similar preference across these criteria while the social oriented donors’ preference

are different.

5.1.3.3. Summary donation stage

The most favourite channel to donate for all donors is at the foundation.

However, the social oriented donor prefers to donate at the foundation much more

than the other three segments, whereas SMS and payment gateways are the least

favourite channels for this group to donate while it is somewhat preferable for the

other three groups. All donors prefer to donate via electronic bank transfer and at the

closest donation box without any difference among the four groups.

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

32

5.1.3.4. Summary post donation stage

The result reports that all donors feel good about themselves after

donating but only the social oriented donor would post on social media to make them

feel good. The “Thainess” donor, the “do good, feel good” donor and the purist donor

are likely to follow up on their donation more than the social oriented. Additionally,

the “Thainess” and the “do good, feel good” will likely to tell friends to donate at the

same place too.


It can be summarised that the important predictors for donation frequency

are age, income, education and relevancy of the story told by the NPOs. All of which

are positively related to the donation frequency that is, the older, the higher income

and education and the more related of the story, the more frequent the donor are likely

to donate.

5.2. Recommendation

This research aims to encourage NPOs to better understand consumer

behaviours and the impacts of effective marketing communication. In order to

develop more effective marketing communication strategies to increase the level of

donation to foundations, it is recommended that the NPOs target segment that is likely

to donate more (4 times or more per year) and provide activity that best suit with their

preferences.

For the NPOs that target the social oriented segment, the recommendations

are to attract these donors via relevant of the story and the convenience in both

channel and location of the foundation. This means that NPOs should communicate

through storytelling as opposed to presenting its transparency of operation or the

NPOs’ causes. A variety of other channels to donate through should be considered, as

convenience is the key criteria for this group in choosing which NPOs to donate to.

For this group, it is important they can impart to their social circle when they make a

donation. Marketing activities such as an interaction with children while using a

photographer to take photographs or a post on the NPO’s website to express gratitude

to their donors could encourage this group to donate.

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

33

The “Thainess” group can be attracted via meaningful causes and the

transparency of operation. Their motivation to donate usually comes from traditional

benefits such as merit making during special occasions such as birthdays and

anniversaries. Providing services to accommodate these occasions can encourage this

group to donate to the NPOs. It is recommended that the marketing communication

that could target these two groups should be something that focuses on the meaningful

causes of the NPOs, their operational effectiveness as well as the transparency of the

money donated. For the purist, they are likely to donate even though they are not at

the foundation, so it is recommended that a direct debit service could encourage the

donors and lead to more regular donations from them.

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

34

REFERENCES Andrews, K. T., & Edwards, B. (2004). Advocacy organizations in the U.S. political

process. Annual Review of Sociology, 479-506.

Anheier, K. H., & Salamon, M. L. (1998). Introduction: The nonprofit sector in the

developing world: A Comparative Analysis. Manchester University Press, 1-

52.

Forbes Nonprofit Council. (2016, Dec 13). Forbes. Retrieved December 12, 2017,

from Forbes:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesnonprofitcouncil/2016/12/13/three-major-

nonprofit-trends-for-2017/#39c79341c246

Goerke, J. (2003). Taking the quantum leap: Nonprofits are now in business. An

Australian perspective. Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing,

8(4), 317-327.

Kirk, K., Ractham, P., & Abrahams, A. (2016). Website development by nonprofit

organizations in an emerging market: a case study of Thai websites.

International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 195-211.

Kurtz, L. (2011). Online: A Case Study of Advocacy Nonprofit Communicions in the

United States. The Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in

Communications, 41-50.

Lwin, M., Phau, I., & Lim, A. (2012). Charitable donations: empirical evidence from

Brunei. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 5(3), pp.215-233.

Mastercard. (2015, July 15). MasterCard's Newsroom. Retrieved from

https://newsrom.mastercard.com/asia-pacific/press-releases/emerging-

markets-more-likely-to-donate-to-charity-while-developed-countries-give-

bigger-amounts/

Nagyová, J. (2004). Marketing in Nonprofit Organizations. (P. E. Zimmer A., Ed.)

Future of Civil Society. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, 425-

455. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-80980-3_23

National Statistics Office of Thailand. (2013). National Statistics Office of Thailand.

Retrieved from

http://service.nso.go.th/nso/nsopublish/service/survey/nonProfit56.pdf

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

35

Office of The National Economic and Social Development Board. (2010). Office of

The National Economic and Social Development Board. Retrieved December

12, 2017, from Office of The National Economic and Social Development

Board:

http://www.nesdb.go.th/ewt_dl_link.php?nid=5524&filename=npi_page

Pongsapich, A. (1998). The nonprofit sector in Thailand. The nonprofit Sector in the

Developing World: A Comparative Analysis, 294-347.

Pope, J. A., Isely, S. E., & Asamoa-tutu, F. (2009). Developing a Marketing Srategy

or Nonprofit Organizations: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Nonprofit &

Public Sector Marketing, 21, 184-201.

Schlegelmilch, B., Diamantopoluos, A., & Love, A. (1997a). Characteristics affecting

charitable donations: empirical evidence from Britain. Journal of Marketing

Practice: Applied Marketing Science 3(1), 14-28.

Smith, O. (2016, October 20). Contentshifu Case Study. Retrieved from Contenshifu:

https://www.contentshifu.com/content-marketing/techniques-attractive-

nonprofits/

Srichanya, S., & Sawmong, S. (2015). The Marketing Strategy of Non-Profit

Organization for Meditation Center in the United States of America and the

United Kingdom. EAU Heritage Journal, 63-71.

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

36

APPENDICES

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

37

APPENDIX A TARGET FOUNDATIONS

List of three potential target foundations to distribute questionnaire.

1) Home for Disabled Babies(Bann Fuengfah)

Department of Social Development and Welfare

Ministry of Social Development and Human Security

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

38

2) Foundation for Children with Disabilities

3) Foundation for Child Development

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

39

APPENDIX B

QUESTIONNAIRE

Marketing strategies for nonprofit organisations: A study of Thai charitable foundation marketing communication.

Dear participant,

This questionnaire has been created to deepen the study into the marketing strategy of non-profit organisations in

Thailand, especially to improve the marketing communications of charitable foundations that benefit local children.

Through this questionnaire, the researcher hopes to better understand the characteristics of donors to charitable

foundations and the decision-making process in choosing a charitable foundation to donate to, as well as the factors that

influence donors’ decision-making.

There are 23 questions in this questionnaire which will take about 10 minutes to complete and the information you provide

will be treated with respect and confidentiality. The information will only be displayed in statistical summaries and will

not be published in an individually identifiable form without written consent. The researcher would like to personally

thank you for your time and attention, your effort in completing this questionnaire will hopefully lead to the development

of the marketing strategy for non-profit organisations both academically and socially.

Please contact Siwaporn Wongma at [email protected] or +66817207739 in case you have any further questions.

Thank you.

Definition Donation: the act of giving (money or goods) for a good cause, for example to a charity. Non-profit organisation: An organisation that does not make a profit or is not conducted

primarily to make a profit. Non-profit organisation benefiting children: An NPO that mainly focuses its operations on

actions intended to help children.

Example of Non-profit organisation benefiting children

Foundation for children with disabilities, Thailand.

http://fcdthailand.org/ Baan Nokkamin Foundation https://baannokkamineng.weebly.com/

CCF Community Children Foundation http://www.ccfthai.or.th/index.php?lang=En

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

40

Part I: Screening question Q1. Have you heard of any non-profit organisation benefiting children?

� Yes � No

Part II: Psychographic Characteristics Instruction: For each one, please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement by ticking the appropriate box.

Q2. Attitude towards donation Strongly Disagree

Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

1 I think that donating is altruistic. � � � � 2 There seems to be corruption in charity collection and distribution. � � � � 3 I believe charitable giving is better than taxation as you can target or control where the money is going to

be used. � � � �

4 Thais simply solve their conscience by small gifts and donations to charity. � � � � 5 Most Thais give to children charity out of sympathy with children. � � � � 6 I think Thais donate to children’s charities because of ulterior motives. � � � � 7 Charities have to exist to help children because it is not covered by the help of government. � � � � 8 I think donating to children’s charities is a way to give children an opportunity. � � � � 9 For many Thais, donations to charity are simply a tax dodge. � � � �

10 The trouble with children’s charities is that they lead to dependency. � � � � 11 I believe donating makes you feel good to help out and be part of the children’s future. � � � � 12 There should be no charity as government should pay for the needs through taxes. � � � �

Q3. Lifestyle Strongly

Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

1 I work out regularly. � � � � 2 I like to do outdoor activities when I have my free time. � � � � 3 I love cooking. � � � � 4 I like to try new things. � � � � 5 I am interested in technology. � � � � 6 I like to read quietly in my free time. � � � � 7 I love to spend my day off at home. � � � � 8 I am interested in fashions. � � � � 9 I always travel whenever I can. � � � �

10 I am an active social media user. � � � �

Q4. Personality (based on the 4 factors relating decision to donate) Strongly Disagree


1 It makes me very happy to give to other people in ways that meet their needs. � � � � 2 It is just as important to me that other people around me are happy and thriving as it is that I am happy and

thriving. � � � �

3 My decisions are often based on concern for the welfare of others. � � � � 4 I have enough savings to be actively engaged with society. � � � � 5 I am just getting by financially. � � � � 6 I can enjoy life because of the way I am managing my money. � � � � 7 I consider myself a religious person. � � � � 8 I often take part in religious services. � � � � 9 I am interested in connecting my religious beliefs to my daily situation. � � � �

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

41

Part III: Motivations Q5. Please rank the following from 1 to 6 according to their importance as your main motivation of giving to charitable foundation, 1 being the most important.

Altruism Reciprocity Warm Glow Incentives

Prestige Tradition

Q6. Below is a list of reasons for donating to child-aided NPOs in Thailand. If you have donated, please indicate which of these reasons apply to you. If you have NOT donated in the past 12 months, please indicate which of the following reasons WOULD BE important in your decision of whether to donate to child-aided NPOs.

Motivation ongly disagree

disagree agree ongly agree

1 believe charity activities with children are the right thing to do (Altruism) � � � �

2 feel good about myself when I donate to children (Altruism) � � � �

3 t gives me the chance to help others (Altruism) � � � �

4 t sets a good example for others (Altruism) � � � �

5 do charity because my memories of my loved one (Warm glow) � � � �

6 like kids (Warm glow) � � � �

7 Somebody I know are involved with the organisation (Warm glow) � � � �

8 know someone who has benefited from the organisation (Warm glow) � � � �

9 can gain recognition by friends and society (Prestige) � � � �

10 will receive local prestige (Prestige) � � � �

11 There is no one else to do the work (Reciprocity) � � � �

12 can give something back to society (Reciprocity) � � � �

13 t will help my career prospects (Personal incentives) � � � �

14 t makes me feel less lonely helping these children (Personal incentives) � � � �

15 can socialize with friends or people who are like me (Personal incentives) � � � �

16 The tax benefit is the main motive for me (Personal incentives) � � � �

17 t makes me feel good to donate to children on my special occasion (Tradition) � � � �

18 can put my religious faith into action (Tradition) � � � �

19 want to maintain my family tradition (Tradition) � � � �

20 Other (please specify) ……………………………………..………………..……………. � � � �

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

42

Part IV: Past Donation Behaviour Instructions: Please choose only 1 answer (Q6 – Q7) Q7. In the past 12 months have you donated to a non-profit organisation benefiting children?

� No, I have never donated. (Please go to Q15) � Not in the past 12 months but I have previously donated. � Yes, 1-3 times. � Yes, 4-6 times. � Yes, more than 7 times.

Q8. What is the total donation value (both in cash and value of goods) you have donated to non-profit organisations benefiting children over the year?

� 1 – 1,000 baht � 1,001 – 3,000 Baht � 3,001 – 5,000 Baht � 5,001 – 10,000 Baht � 10,001 – 30,000 Baht � More than 30,000 Baht

Part V: Information search and evaluation Instruction: Please choose the most appropriate response (Q8 – Q9) Q9. Do you choose specific child-aided NPOs?

� Yes � No

Q10. Do you do any research about organisations before making your donation? � Yes � No

Q11. Which source of information would you likely believe the most? (Can choose more than 1 answer)

� Websites � Personal connection to the foundation � Media sources � Direct contact � Social medias � Friends, family members � Direct mail � Email � Other (please specify) � …………………………………………………………………..…………….

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

43

Q12. Evaluation of which charitable foundation to donate to. When I decide which foundation to donate, I evaluate by… Of No

Importance

Not So Import

ant

Quite importan

t

Extremely

important

the relevancy of the story that the NPOs communicate. � � � �

the convenience of the channel to donation. � � � �

the level the donor can interact with children. � � � �

the transparency of how the donation money is used. � � � �

operational effectiveness of the NPOs. � � � �

meaningful causes. � � � �

the location of the charitable foundation. � � � �

Others (Please specify)…………………………………………………….. � � � �

Part VI: Donation decision and post donation behaviour Q13. Donation item.

When I donate to foundation benefiting children, I prefer to donate… Least Preferable

Not so preferabl

e

Quite preferable

Most Preferenc

e

money (cash, electronic, cheque, etc.). � � � �

specific items (such as nappies, tissue paper, medicine, canned food etc.). � � � �

Meals (such as breakfast, lunch, dinner) � � � �


Q14. Donation channel.

I prefer to donate to charitable foundation for children, Least Preferabl

e

Not so preferab

le

Quite preferable

Most Preferen

ce

at the foundation. � � � �

via Electronic bank transfer. � � � �

via SMS/text donation. � � � �

via payment gateway (credit card, ATM, etc.). � � � �

at the closest donation box. � � � �


Q15. Post donation behaviour.

Now that I have donated to charitable foundation for children, Strongly Disagree


I personally feel good about myself. � � � �

I would definitely post on my social media to make me feel good. � � � �

I would definitely tell my friends to donate at the same place too. � � � �

I will change to another foundation next time. � � � �

I will follow up with my donation to monitor the return benefit for the children. � � � �


Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

44

Part VII: Demographic Characteristics

Instructions: Please choose only 1 answer (Q16 – Q23)

Q16. Please specific your gender.

� Male

� Female

� Other (please specify) ………………………………

Q17. Please specific your age.

� 21 and under

� 22 – 35 years old

� 36 – 49 years old

� 50 and over

Q18. Personal Income

� 7,500 baht and below

� 7,501 – 18,000 Baht/month

� 18,001 – 24,000 Baht/month

� 24,001 – 35,000 Baht/month

� 35,001 – 50,000 Baht/month

� 50,001 – 85,000 Baht/month

� 85,001 – 160,000 Baht/month

� 160,001 Baht/month or more

Q19. Education

� Secondary school

� College

� Bachelor Degree

� Master Degree and higher

Q20. Marital Status

� Single, never married

� Married or domestic partnership

� Widowed

� Divorced

� Separated

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

45

Q21. Do you have children?

� Yes, (Please specify how many)…………………………………

� No

Q22. Employment Status

� Office employee

� Government officer

� Public enterprise officer

� Own business/self-employed

� Freelance

� Student

� Retired

� Other (please specify)

� …………………………………………………………………..…………….

Q23. Religion

� Christian

� Buddhist

� Hindu

� Muslim

� Sikh

� Atheist/agnostic

� Other (please specify)

� …………………………………………………………………..…………….

Thank you very much for you valuable information and time.

Siwaporn W.

081 7207739

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

46

APPENDIX C

CROSSTABS ANALYSIS

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

47

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

48

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

49

APPENDIX D

FACTOR ANALYSIS

Component Matrixa

Component

1 2 3 4 It will help my career prospects (Personal incentives) .880 I can gain recognition by friends and society (Prestige) .859 It makes me feel less lonely helping these children (Personal incentives) .845

I can socialize with friends or people who are like me (Personal incentives) .832

I like kids (Warm glow) .694 I know someone who has benefited from the organisation (Warm glow) .686

It sets a good example for others (Altruism) .672 I believe charity activities with children are the right thing to do (Altruism) .612

I can give something back to society (Reciprocity) .601 I feel good about myself when I donate to children (Altruism) .596 -.475

I will receive local prestige (Prestige) .548 .417 .504 I can put my religious faith into action (Tradition) .797 I want to maintain my family tradition (Tradition) .748 It makes me feel good to donate to children on my special occasion (Tradition) .741

I do charity because my memories of my loved one (Warm glow) .665

There is no one else to do the work (Reciprocity) .526 Somebody I know are involved with the organisation (Warm glow) .452 .556

The tax benefit is the main motive for me (Personal incentives) .548 .545

It gives me the chance to help others (Altruism) .440 -.411 .646 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a. 4 components extracted.

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

50

APPENDIX E

CLUSTER ANALYSIS

Final Cluster Centers

Cluster

1 2 3 4

Social 1.15881 -.11223 -.93291 -.17589

Tradition -.63846 .18061 .58269 -.76256

Altruism .60761 -.89228 .90277 .76657

Other factors .60106 -.04308 .26946 -2.25586

Iteration Historya

Iteration

Change in Cluster Centers

1 2 3 4

1 2.883 2.727 2.393 2.139

2 .108 .340 .092 .327

3 .013 .209 .081 .282

4 .034 .188 .091 .109

5 .167 .267 .084 .212

6 .111 .159 .072 .085

7 .205 .205 .103 .000

8 .102 .126 .150 .000

9 .130 .080 .106 .159

10 .117 .061 .000 .000

a. Iterations stopped because the maximum number of iterations was performed. Iterations failed to

converge. The maximum absolute coordinate change for any center is .089. The current iteration is 10.

The minimum distance between initial centers is 5.172.

ANOVA

Cluster Error

F Sig. Mean Square df Mean Square df

Social 53.543 3 .481 304 111.203 .000

Tradition 24.107 3 .772 304 31.228 .000

Altruism 70.045 3 .319 304 219.828 .000

Other factors 52.956 3 .487 304 108.676 .000

The F tests should be used only for descriptive purposes because the clusters have been chosen to maximize the differences among cases in

different clusters. The observed significance levels are not corrected for this and thus cannot be interpreted as tests of the hypothesis that the

cluster means are equal.

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

51

Number of Cases in each Cluster

Cluster 1 73.000

2 141.000

3 69.000

4 25.000

Valid 308.000

Missing .000

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

52

APPENDIX F

ONE WAY ANOVA ANALYSIS

One-way ANOVA test for evaluation criteria

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

53

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

54

APPENDIX G


One-way ANOVA test for donation channel

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

55

APPENDIX H


One-way ANOVA test for post donate behaviour

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

56

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

57

APPENDIX I

MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS

Model Summaryb

Model R R Square Adjusted R

Square Std. Error

he Estimate 1 .623a .388 .364 .84520 a. Predictors: (Constant), the location of the charitable foundation., Personal Income, Age, the convenience of the channel to donation., the relevancy of the story

NPOs communicate., meaningful causes., Education, the level the donor can interact with children., operational effectiveness of the NPOs., the transparency of how ation money is used.

b. Dependent Variable: In the past 12 months have you donated to a non-profit ation benefiting children?

ANOVAa

Model Sum of Squares df

Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 115.481 10 11.548 16.166 .000b Residual 182.162 255 .714 Total 297.643 265

a. Dependent Variable: In the past 12 months have you donated to a non-profit organisation benefiting children?

b. Predictors: (Constant), Donate decision: the location of the charitable foundation., Personal Income, Age, Donate decision: the convenience of the channel to donation., Donate decision: the relevancy of the story that the NPOs communicate., Donate decision: meaningful causes., Education, Donate decision: the level the donor can interact with children., Donate decision: operational effectiveness of the NPOs., Donate decision: the transparency of how the donation money is used.

Ref. code: 25605902040871AYM

58

BIOGRAPHY

Name Miss Siwaporn Wongma

Date of Birth April 25, 1981

Educational Attainment

2002: Bachelor Degree of Architecture, Faculty

of Architecture, Chulalongkorn University

2010: Master Degree of Art (Psychology),

Faculty of Psychology, Chulalongkorn University

marketing strategy for nonprofit organisation: a study of

Documents