Maja Adena
Steffen Huck
Narrow framing in charitable giving:
Results from a two-period field experiment
Discussion Paper
SP II 2017–305
May 2017
Research Area
Markets and Choice
Research Unit
Economics of Change
Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung gGmbH
Reichpietschufer 50
10785 Berlin
Germany
www.wzb.eu
Copyright remains with the authors.
Discussion papers of the WZB serve to disseminate the research results of work
in progress prior to publication to encourage the exchange of ideas and academic debate. Inclusion of a paper in the discussion paper series does not constitute publication and should not limit publication in any other venue. The
discussion papers published by the WZB represent the views of the respective
author(s) and not of the institute as a whole.
Affiliation of the authors:
Maja Adena, WZB ([email protected])
Steffen Huck, WZB and University College London ([email protected])
Abstract
Narrow framing in charitable giving:
Results from a two-period field experiment *
Do donors examine a single ask to donate in isolation or do they consider that
other and future asks may come along? In the first year of our field experiment,
we vary whether or not potential donors are informed that the ask will be repeated in the following year. This information has dramatic effects on the amount
given: if present, donations fall by around 40%. This indicates strong support for
the prevalence of narrow framing which benefits the fundraiser. In the second
year of our experiment we show that previous non-donors behave as if expecting
future calls, regardless of whether they have been explicitly told or have simply
observed two subsequent asks, that is, they are de-biased through learning. Finally, we document that donors from year 1 tend to give the same amount again in
year 2 which generates a long-run effect of initial narrow framing on donation
amounts.
JEL classifications: C93, D64, D12
Keywords: Charitable giving, natural field experiment, decision framing
* We thank all those at the Dresden Opera House and actori for making this project possi-
ble. We thank Arnim Falk, Judd B. Kessler, David Reiley, and participants of the BBE Workshop for helpful suggestions and comments. We are grateful to Jana Wittig and Rita Reischl
for excellent research assistance, and many others for help in conducting the field experiment. This paper has been screened to ensure that no confidential information is revealed.
1. Introduction
We do not know much about how donors make decisions over time. Do donors consider an ask in
the context of other and possible future asks or do they engage in narrow framing and decide
about single asks in isolation? Meer (2017) finds that fundraising activities increase total giving,
that is, they do not appear to crowd out giving to similar causes, either contemporaneously or
over time – suggesting the presence of narrow framing. However, Meer’s study is restricted to
one internet platform (DonorsChoose), and it is not clear whether donors, as a result of more
giving within the platform, reduce their giving in other contexts. While it may seem that a
definitive answer to the question would require the observation of the whole universe of giving
choices made by an individual, we take a different approach by studying how potential donors
respond to different information about the intertemporal characteristics of a fundraising campaign
in two field experiments that take place in subsequent years.
In the first year we present clients of an opera house – for the first time ever – with a fundraising
call for the opera’s youth activities and vary whether or not potential donors are told that the call
will be repeated in the following year. In the second year, the call is repeated and those who were
informed about repetition in year 1 are either reminded of the ongoing nature of the fundraising
or not.
Our three main findings are: (i) the presence of information about another call in year 2 reduces
donations in year 1 by 40%, a result strongly indicative of narrow framing1 (with de-biasing
occurring through the explicit information about year 2); (ii) first-time donors in year 2 (that is,
non-donors in year 1) do not react to treatments, neither past nor present, indicating that in year 2
all potential donors have now identical beliefs about the intertemporal nature of the project (that
is, de-biasing occurs not only through information but also through learning); and (iii) two-time
donors tend to give the same amount in year 2 as in year 1 suggesting the presence of habit
formation (and doubling the beneficial effect of narrow framing for the fundraiser).
There are a number of other studies that relate to intertemporal aspects of giving. In a large-scale
field experiment Kamdar et al. (2015) sent some potential donors a letter that offered to cease
1
Also known as narrow versus broad bracketing as introduced by Read, Loewenstein, and Rabin (1999). Also see,
for example, Rabin and Weizsacker (2009).
2
future fundraising activities upon donating. The letter offered “Make one gift now and we’ll
never ask for another donation again.” A control group received a standard letter. The authors
found that the promise of never bothering the donor again doubled the response rate at a similar
average donation. Cairns and Slonim (2011) found that churchgoers that knew that a 2nd
collection would take place during the same Sunday Mass reduced their donations to 1st
collection by 4.3%. The 2nd collection increased the total donations by 17.8%.
Huck and Rasul (2010) studied the role of reminders for fundraising campaign and showed that a
considerable fraction of non-responses to a fundraising campaign were due to transaction costs. If
these vary over time, sending reminders is profitable for the fundraiser. Damgaard and Gravert
(2016) added a caveat to this by showing that reminders can lead to increased unsubscriptions
from mailing lists.
Intertemporal considerations have been confirmed in studies on the tax price elasticity of
donations based on long panels of administrative tax return data, mostly from the US. This
literature (Adena 2014; Bakija and Heim 2011) usually finds the coefficients on past and future
prices to be significantly different from zero indicating that (at least some) donors engage in
intertemporal considerations.
2. The year 1 experiment
2.1. Design
In order to have a clean slate, that is a true first period, we decided to conduct our experiment
with an institution that had previously not engaged in this type of fundraising activities. This led
to the choice of the Semper Opera in Dresden. At the end of November 2015 the opera house sent
35,705 letters to its customers asking them to support a social youth project that enhances cultural
education and social integration (see the Appendix B for details of the mail-out).
The recipients were randomly selected from the opera’s database of individuals who had attended
at least one opera performance in the opera season 2014/2015 and lived in Germany, Austria or
Switzerland. Recipients were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups, such that there
3
were almost 12,000 subjects per treatment.2 Given that a number of customer characteristics were
available from the database, we made sure that the treatment groups were sufficiently balanced.
In Appendix A, Table A1 we present evidence that treatment groups do not differ significantly in
terms of observables: the sum of money spent on opera tickets, the number of purchased tickets,
the average price per ticket, the distance from the opera house, and dummy variables for season
ticket holder, females, couples, college degree,3 PhD, professor title, living locally in Dresden,
living in Germany, living in a big city, belonging to a small circle of benefactors, and online
customer.
In the control treatment (A) the recipients received a standard solicitation letter that asked them to
donate money. The second (B) and third (C) treatment suggested that the fundraising will be
repeated and that the present letter will be the first in an annual series. Specifically, the letters in
treatments A and B differed only at seven places in the text where in treatment B the following
words were injected: first, permanently, over the long-term, year by year, in the year 2015 (x2),
this year (see the letter in the Appendix B). The third treatment contained an additional footnote
informing about the possibility of unsubscribing from future fundraising mailings.
All letters contained information that seed money of €15,000 had been provided by an
anonymous donor. Beyond that, one additional page described the project in more detail, and this
was equal in all treatments (see Appendix B for details). Notice that the project is not one-off but
will be continued in the future. The money is collected to ensure financing in the coming year.
Therefore, we hypothesized that if donors engaged in broad framing they would also anticipate in
treatment A that future calls will occur, that is, broad framing should imply no differences
between treatments A and B.
In contrast, under narrow framing differences may occur.
Specifically, one would conjecture that donors would reduce their donations in the presence of
information about a substitute to giving today (namely, giving next year).
Since our treatment C offers a possibility of unsubscription, it is somewhat similar to Kamdar et
al. (2015). Therefore, we hypothesized that it might increase giving relative to treatment B.
2
We allocated exactly 11,905 individuals to each of the treatments. However, between treatment assignment and
mailing ten subjects allocated to the treatments passed away or got otherwise erased from the database.
3
Academic degrees can only be taken into account if stated (truthfully or not). However, a standard (online) form in
Germany contains an open space for title. This is often used (especially by the older generations) to enter any title
including academic degrees.
4
2.2. Results
Overall, 455 individuals donated, resulting in a response rate of 1.27%. The average donation
was €53.60, yielding a return of 68 cents per mail-out, and a total income of €24,388. Table 1
summarizes the results by treatment.
Table 1: Results
Treatment
A
Number Numbe
of
r of
recipients donatio
ns
(1)
(2)
11,903
158
Response
rate
Average
positive
donation
Median
Mini Maximu
mum
m
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
.0133
(0.001)
0.013
(0.001)
0.012
(0.001)
0.647c
71.456
(10.467)
45.907
(3.779)
42.239
(4.936)
0.025a /
0.168b
0.014a /
0.002b
0.555a /
0.079b
37.5
5
1000
Return
(8)
No
Unsubscrip
unsubscript tions rate
ions
(in %)
(9)
(10)
0.949
10 [6]
0.084
(0.157)
(0.000)
B
11,902
150
25
5
300
0.579
7[3]
0.059
(0.067)
(0.000)
C
11,900
147
20
5
500
0.522
44[40]
0.370
(0.074)
(0.001)
A=B
0.243d
0.031a /
0.467a
b
0.640
A=C
0.528c
0.074d
0.014a /
0.000a
0.513b
B=C
0.862c
0.376d
0.570a /
0.000a
0.852b
Notes: Mean, standard error in parentheses; p-value of a T-test, b MWU-test, c Test of proportions, d Median test. Square
brackets indicate unsubscription from the fundraising only whereas the remaining subjects asked for erasing from the database
which might have other explanations like death or no interest in the opera anymore.
Treatment A generated much higher donations than the remaining treatments. The average
donation in treatment A was €71.46 compared to only €45.91 in treatment B and €42.24 in
treatment C (see also Figure 1, left graph). The differences between treatment A and the
remaining treatments are significant at 5% level (T-tests).4 The median donation also decreases
when moving from treatment A (€37.5) to treatment B (€25) and further to treatment C (€20). A
nonparametric equality-of-medians test rejects the equality between treatment A and treatment C
at 10%. Figure 2 presents histograms of donation amounts by categories in different treatments.
The response rate was almost identical in all three treatments, ranging from 1.23% in treatment C
to 1.32% in treatment A; these differences are not statistically significant. The combined effect
4
This is not, however, true for the MWU test that does not reject the equality between A and B (p=0.168) and rejects
equality between B and C at 10% level.
5
rendered treatment A much more effective, with a return of 95 cents per mail-out. Treatment B
generated 58 cents and treatment C yielded only 52 cents (see also Figure 1, right graph). The
differences between treatment A and the remaining treatments are significant at 5% level (Ttests). Table A2 in the Appendix shows additionally regression results for positive donations and
return after including control variables. The results are, as expected, very similar to those
presented in the main text due to balanced characteristics.
Figure 1: Average donation and return by treatment
Return
0
20
.5
40
60
1
80
1.5
100
Average donation
A
B
C
A
B
C
Notes: The spikes represent 95% confidence intervalls.
The overall unsubscription rate was low at 0.17% but it was much (four- to sixfold) higher in
treatment C, which highlighted this option explicitly in a footnote. This difference between
treatment C and the remaining treatments is significant at p<0.0001. Only one person in treatment
C donated (€20) and unsubscribed from the mailing list.
In order to understand whether the same types of donors behave differently in treatments A
versus B and C or whether different types self-select into donations depending on treatment, we
compare the individual characteristics of donors between treatments in Table 2. Out of 16
comparisons only three are significant at a 10% level (both in t-tests and MWU tests). Adjusting
for multiple hypotheses testing we conclude that donors do not differ on observables.
6
Figure 2: Shares of donations in different categories by treatment
B
C
125 24
50 49
75 74
10 - 9
0- 9
12 12
5 4
15 -14
0 9
17 -17
5 4
20 -19
0 9
22 -22
O 5-2 4
ve 4
r2 9
50
125 24
50 49
7 74
10 5-9
0- 9
12 12
5 4
15 -14
0 9
17 -17
5 4
20 -19
0 9
22 -22
O 5-2 4
ve 4
r2 9
50
125 24
50 49
7 74
10 5-9
0- 9
12 12
5 4
15 -14
0 9
17 -17
5 4
20 -19
0 9
22 -22
O 5-2 4
ve 4
r2 9
50
0
.2
.4
.6
A
Table 2: Donors characteristics by treatments
Treat
ment
N
(1)
A
158
B
150
C
147
Total spent
on tickets
(2)
No. of
tickets
(3)
Average
price
(4)
Internet
customer
(5)
female
(6)
titled
(7)
Dresden
(8)
Distance in
km
(9)
324.139
29.486
282.507
25.023
309.347
24.966
0.285
6.797
.611
6.18
.686
6.797
6.510
0.501
57.557
2.666
58.774
2.794
61.624
3.064
0.753
.304
.037
.213
.034
.272
.037
0.071
.468
.040
.54
.041
.476
.041
0.210
.133
.027
.067
.020
.075
.022
0.054
.430
.040
.367
.040
.401
.041
0.255
140.506
14.297
148.372
14.423
152.108
15.130
0.699
A=B
T-test p-value
0.629
0.426
0.707
0.071
0.210
0.054
0.255
0.402
A=C
MWU test pvalue
T-test p-value
0.704
0.735
0.316
0.543
0.891
0.099
0.609
0.577
MWU test pvalue
0.640
0.974
0.376
0.542
0.891
0.099
0.608
0.606
Notes: Mean, standard error in parentheses
7
Overall, we find strong evidence for narrow framing in treatment A and successful de-biasing (of
the same type of donors) in treatment B. Offering recipients the opt-out possibility, i.e. the option
to turn a two-period problem into one-period one, does neither increase the giving amount nor the
response rate relative to B.
3. The year 2 experiment
3.1. Design
The fundraising campaign was repeated a year later on a smaller scale. Specifically, using the
known characteristics of the opera goers we predicted a donation value for each individual. The
twenty-five percent with the highest imputed donation plus all previous donors were included in
the new campaign. The final prediction was based on an OLS regression of log of donations (plus
one) on several available characteristics.5 The independent variables were chosen using a lasso
selection procedure. We also tested other regression methods like tobit or probit, or more
advanced specifications, including higher order polynomials, but no alternative performed
obviously better than our chosen OLS in predicting actual donors to be in the top 25% of the
previous sample (around 50%). As a result, we took the top 3000 individuals from the past
treatment A plus any remaining actual donors and again allocated them to treatment A (now
denoted A-A). We pooled individuals from the previous treatments B and C,6 selected the top
25%, and added remaining previous donors. Then we ordered individuals by predicted donation
value, and within each pair, we randomly selected one individual to receive treatment A (now
denoted BC-A), and the other to receive treatment B (now denoted BC-B).7 In total, 6,149
individuals received a neutral donation ask (treatment A-A and BC-A) and 3,072 received a letter
with extra words (revival: second, permanently, over the long term, year by year, in the year
2016, this year, in the year 2016) that suggested the regular character of the project and
fundraising (treatment BC-B). Figure 3 presents the treatment assignment procedure described
above. All letters additionally informed recipients about seed money of €10,000.
5
The characteristics included: number of opera tickets, total spent, average per ticket, female , couple, subscription
holder, academic, doctor title, professor title, living in Dresden, Germany, big city, dummy internet buyer and
benefactor circle.
6
This was based on the observation that recipients in B and C did not differ in their donative choices (see Table 1).
7
We did not include AB treatment since we were restricted to only a small sample, and did not want to lose power.
8
Figure 3: Randomization procedure in the second period
First year non-donors
Predicted
donation
AA
AA
BA
BB CA
BA BB
CB
Second
year
treatment
CA CB
First year donors
First year
treatment
A
B
C
Additionally, we selected a smaller sample of customers with the highest spending on tickets that
were not included in the fundraising campaign last year. Treatments A and B were assigned to
around 2000 customers each (now denoted 0-A and 0-B).
Our key question is now whether the previous stark effect of narrow framing persists, that is,
whether A-A generates higher donations than BC-B and BC-A. Additionally, we can examine
whether a narrow framing can re-emerge even though donors were previously fully aware of the
intertemporal nature of the project, that is, whether BC-A outperforms BC-B. Finally, we can
study for previous donors whether they make fresh choices or anchor their decisions at last year’s
amounts.
3.2. Results
Out of 9,221 repeated mail receivers 367 donated on average €58.15 yielding a return per mailout of €2.31 and a response rate of 4%. The total amount raised was €21,341.2, that is, 87% of
the year 1 amount at a quarter of the costs and with a lower lead gift. While the high response rate
9
among donors (36.5%) is not surprising, the year 1 non-donors still responded at 2.3% —almost
double of the total rate in the previous year speaking for the validity of our selection model.
Table 3 presents raw results—the averages by treatment—subdivided into previous donors and
previous non-donors. In the year 1 non-donor group, we observe no significant differences in
giving behavior by treatment, neither in terms of donation amounts nor in terms of the response
rate. In the group of year 1 donors we observe a number of significant differences between
treatments. However, as we will show further below these differences are completely explained
by the persistence in donation choices, and other than that there are no differences between the
treatments in year 2. In the raw data, the average positive donation is significantly lower in the
BC-A group than in the A-A group. In both groups, the average donation is almost identical to
the average donation in the previous year, see Table 1. The average positive donation in the BCB group is higher than in the previous year and the difference to BC-A is at the margin of being
statistically significant. The response rate is lowest in the BC-A group (30%) compared to A-A
and BC-B group ( 39% in both) but these differences are not significant. As a result, the return
from BC-A group is approximately half of that from the A-A and BC-B groups (significant at 5%
with, both, t-tests and MWU tests). Figure 4 and 5 presents additionally histograms of donations
by treatment, donation category, and year 1 donor status.
Some previous studies (see, for example, Meier 2007 or
Adena, Huck, and Rasul 2014)
document strong persistence of donation amounts over time. We document such persistence also
in our case, see Figure 6. The correlation between first and second year donations is 0.78 (for
those who donated twice). To control for such persistence, we show in Table 4 results from
regressions of year 2 donations (positive donations only in columns I and II and including zeros
in column III and IV) on treatment dummies and past donations. The result of this exercise is
following. After controlling for past donations, the coefficients on the treatment dummies
decrease and turn insignificant, and R2 increases considerably. This means that other than the
persistence in the donative level over time, there is no difference in giving by past donors in the
second year regardless of second year broad versus narrow framing.8
8
This shows that our balancing procedure based on predicted donations performed poorly in terms of balancing on
actual characteristics.
10
Table 3: Second year results
Mean, standard error in parentheses
Treatment
Number of
recipients
(1)
Number
of
donations
(2)
Response rate
(3)
Average
positive
donation
(4)
Median
Minimu Maximum
m
Return
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
25
5
500
30
5
500
25
5
500
Panel A: past non-donors
A-A
2,920
68
A-A=BC-A
0.023
(0.003)
0.026
(0.003)
0.020
(0.003)
0.522c
48.559
(8.774)
53.753
(8.130)
55.948
(10.857)
0.664a / 0.222b
0.390d
1.131
(0.244)
1.391
(0.262)
1.115
(0.259)
0.452a / 0.511b
BC-A
2,937
76
BC-B
2,912
58
BC-A =BC-B
0.128c
0.869a / 0.518b
0.241d
0.367a / 0.126b
Panel B: past donors
A-A
157
57
A-A=BC-A
0.389
(0.039)
0.304
(0.040)
0.394
(0.039)
0.130c
76.721
(9.615)
44.805
(7.716)
64.356
(10.153)
0.019a / 0.005b
BC-A
135
39
BC-B
160
59
50
10
400
0.058d
29.809
(4.773)
13.608
(2.927)
26.2
(4.741)
0.006a / 0.032b
25
1
250
50
5
500
BC-A =BC-B
0.107c
0.125a / 0.092b
0.016d
0.031a / 0.050b
Notes: p-values of a T-test, b MWU-test, c Test of proportions, d Median test
Table 4: Results from linear regressions after controlling for past donations
Treatment BC-A
Treatment BC-B
Donation 2015
Observations
R2
Donation 2016
-31.916**
-6.263
(14.530)
(9.420)
-10.182
2.096
(12.924)
(8.285)
0.736***
(0.048)
165
165
0.029
0.607
**
-16.202
(6.278)
-3.609
(6.009)
452
0.016
Return 2016
-9.172
(5.925)
1.227
(5.641)
0.218***
(0.027)
452
0.144
Standard errors in parentheses; * p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01
11
A-A
BC-A
125 24
50 49
75 74
10 - 9
0
12 -129
5
15 -144
0
17 -179
5
20 -194
0
22 -229
O 5-2 4
ve 4
r2 9
50
125 24
50 49
75 74
10 - 9
0- 9
12 12
5
15 -144
0
17 -179
5
20 -194
0
22 -229
O 5-2 4
ve 4
r2 9
50
125 24
50 49
75 74
10 - 9
0- 9
12 12
5
15 -144
0
17 -179
5
20 -194
0
22 -229
O 5-2 4
ve 4
r2 9
50
0
.5
BC-A
125 24
50 49
75 74
10 - 9
0
12 -129
5
15 -144
0
17 -179
5
20 -194
0
22 -229
O 5-2 4
ve 4
r2 9
50
.5
Fraction
A-A
125 24
50 49
75 74
10 - 9
0- 9
12 12
5
15 -144
0
17 -179
5
20 -194
0
22 -229
O 5-2 4
ve 4
r2 9
50
125 24
50 49
75 74
10 - 9
0- 9
12 12
5
15 -144
0
17 -179
5
20 -194
0
22 -229
O 5-2 4
ve 4
r2 9
50
0
Fraction
Figure 4: Number of donations in different categories by past non-donors by treatment
BC-B
contribution amount
Figure 5: Number of donations in different categories by past donors by treatment
BC-B
contribution amount
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
Figure 6: Donation value choices over time
1
2
A-A
3
4
log donation2015
BC-A
BC-B
5
6
45° line
Notes: Only repeated donors. Separate graphs by treatment in the Appendix, Figure A2.
This result documents an important behavioral effect. It shows that all year 2 recipients correctly
updated their beliefs about the repeated nature of the fundraising campaign, including those in
treatment A-A who were never informed about the repetition. They simply learn from the
repetition in year 2 that future calls are likely, and, thus switch from narrow to broad framing.
Neither those in the BC-A group are affected by the year 2 treatment.
In the second year, we also tried to replicate the year 1 treatment differences but with a
considerably smaller sample of customers that had not received an ask in year 1. The average
donation is €152.5 in 0-A treatment and €64 in 0-B treatment at equal response rates of 2.4% (see
Table 5 and Figure A1 in the Appendix for the histogram of donations by treatment). While the
direction of the observed difference goes in the direction predicted by narrow versus broad
13
framing, the difference is not statistically significant at conventional levels with a t-test pvalue<0.20.9
Table 5: Second year results – new donation ask recipients
Mean, standard error in parentheses
Treatment
Number of
recipients
Response rate
(1)
Number
of
donations
(2)
0-A
2011
50
0-B
2014
49
0-A=0-B
Median
(3)
Average
positive
donation
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
.025
(.003)
.024
(.003)
0.913c
152.5
(62.566)
64.020
(12.537)
0.172a / 0.794b
42.5
10
2500
30
2
500
3.792
(1.629)
1.558
(.374)
0.181a /0.910b
0.794d
Minimu Maximum
m
Return
Notes: p-values of a T-test, b MWU-test, c Test of proportions, d Median test.
4. Conclusion
We document the role of narrow framing in charitable giving. Recipients of a fundraising call are
asked to give for a cause that by its very nature will also require funding in future years (a
permanent educational program rather than emergency aid after a natural disaster). We find that
donors who are explicitly informed about the ongoing nature of the fundraising campaign give
much smaller amounts than donors who are not.
Notice that giving larger amounts to a one-off campaign is predicted by standard household
theory as long as the charitable good in year 1 is a substitute to the charitable good in year 2 and
absent transaction costs. While the first condition is likely to be satisfied in our setting (see
Adena and Huck 2017), the transaction costs are likely to be positive (see Huck and Rasul 2010).
With large transaction costs of giving donors should prefer to make one large donation instead of
two. Such reasoning would, however, predict equal average positive donation in year 1 in all
treatments and lower or equal response rate in year 1 by those who were in treatment B compared
to A. This is not the case.
9
With the given sample size and under an assumption that the year 1 effect on return among top quarter clients is the
true one, the power is only 0.29.
14
We find no evidence for economically meaningful annoyance costs (Damgaard and Gravert
2016). In treatment C we make recipients aware of an easy option to unsubscribe from future
calls but only very few recipients make use of this option and there is no “getting over with it
once and for all” as in Kamdar et al. (2015). It appears that opera goers do not mind very much to
receive mail from the opera even if it is for a fundraising campaign for which they do not give.
Incidentally, this is in line with Huck and Rasul’s (2010) observation that printing a slogan on the
envelope that indicates that the envelope contains an ask has no effect on giving in the opera
context.
Our results speak to the literature on whether new donations can be generated through
fundraising or whether any fundraising campaign just moves money from one cause to another.
Our results suggest (as the results of Meer 2017) that fundraising can generate additional income
– through the behavioral channel of narrow framing. Moreover, thanks to persistence in giving,
framing an initial fundraising campaign as “one off” also increases donations in future
campaigns.
References:
Adena, Maja. 2014. ‘Tax-Price Elasticity of Charitable Donations - Evidence from the German
Taxpayer Panel’. WZB Discussion Paper.
Adena, Maja, and Steffen Huck. 2017. ‘Matching Donations without Crowding out? Some
Theoretical Considerations, a Field, and a Lab Experiment’. Journal of Public Economics,
April. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2017.02.002.
Adena, Maja, Steffen Huck, and Imran Rasul. 2014. ‘Charitable Giving and Nonbinding
Contribution-Level Suggestions Evidence from a Field Experiment’. Review of Behavioral
Economics 1 (3): 275–93. doi:10.1561/105.00000010.
Bakija, Jon, and Bradley T. Heim. 2011. ‘How Does Charitable Giving Respond to Incentives
and Income? New Estimates from Panel Data’. National Tax Journal 64 (2): 615–50.
doi:10.3386/w14237.
Cairns, Jason, and Robert Slonim. 2011. ‘Substitution Effects across Charitable Donations’.
Economics Letters. Vol. 111. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2011.01.028.
15
Damgaard, Mette Trier, and Christina Gravert. 2016. ‘The Hidden Costs of Nudging:
Experimental Evidence from Reminders in Fundraising’.
Huck, Steffen, and Imran Rasul. 2010. ‘Transactions Costs in Charitable Giving : Evidence from
Two Field Experiments’. The B . E . Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy Advances 10
(1).
Kamdar, Amee, Steven D Levitt, John A List, Brian Mullaney, and Chad Syverson. 2015. ‘Once
and Done: Leveraging Behavioral Economics to Increase Charitable Contributions’. 25. SPI
Working Paper.
Meer, Jonathan. 2017. ‘Does Fundraising Create New Giving?’ Journal of Public Economics
145: 82–93. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2016.11.009.
Meier, Stephan. 2007. ‘Do Subsidies Increase Charitable Giving in the Long Run? Matching
Donations in a Field Experiment’. Journal of the European Economic Association 5 (6).
MIT Press: 1203–22.
Rabin, Matthew, and Georg Weizsacker. 2009. ‘Narrow Bracketing and Dominated Choices’.
American Economic Review 99 (4): 1508–43. doi:10.1257/AER.99.4.1508.
Read, Daniel, George Loewenstein, and Matthew Rabin. 1999. ‘Choice Bracketing’. Journal of
Risk and Uncertainty 19 (1/3). Kluwer Academic Publishers: 171–97.
doi:10.1023/A:1007879411489.
16
Appendix A: Additional Figures and Tables
Table A1: Results of randomization
A
Total
Number
Average
value of
of
price
abo
female
couple
academic
PhD
Profe-
tickets
tickets
mean
215,019
3,893
65,017
0,107
0,496
0,002
0,045
0,040
0,006
Std.
2,006
0,043
0,302
0,003
0,005
0,000
0,002
0,002
0,001
mean
213,359
3,849
65,179
0,107
0,496
0,001
0,045
0,040
Std.
2,037
0,040
0,298
0,003
0,005
0,000
0,002
mean
213,451
3,878
65,209
0,108
0,496
0,001
Std.
1,846
0,040
0,302
0,003
0,005
0,000
Dresden
Ger-
Big
Distance
Online
many
city
in km
customer
0,227
0,964
0,416
207,486
0,526
0,004
0,002
0,005
1,718
0,005
0,006
0,227
0,964
0,416
208,374
0,526
0,002
0,001
0,004
0,002
0,005
1,722
0,005
0,045
0,040
0,005
0,227
0,963
0,416
209,036
0,526
0,002
0,002
0,001
0,004
0,002
0,005
1,718
0,005
ssor
error
B
error
C
error
t-test
A=B
0,561
0,457
0,704
0,968
0,933
0,369
0,976
0,975
1,000
0,960
0,944
0,975
0,715
0,963
p-
A=C
0,565
0,799
0,653
0,918
0,985
0,736
0,956
0,998
0,872
0,989
0,890
0,992
0,524
0,988
value
B=C
0,973
0,617
0,943
0,950
0,918
0,573
0,932
0,976
0,872
0,971
0,835
0,983
0,785
0,951
17
Table A2: Regression results
Treatment B
Treatment C
-25.549**
(10.117)
-29.217***
(10.170)
Number of tickets
in the past season
(logarithm)
Average price of
tickets in the past
season
Internet customer
Positive donation
-24.167**
(9.930)
-31.290***
(9.938)
13.544***
(5.068)
-20.843**
(9.895)
-29.499***
(9.868)
14.339***
(5.382)
0.615***
(0.125)
9.475
(9.718)
Female dummy
Couple dummy
Titled dummy
Dresden dummy
Distance in km
71.456***
(7.060)
Observations
455
Adjusted R2
0.017
Standard errors in parentheses
*
p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01
Constant
13.440
(14.454)
455
0.065
Return
-0.369**
(0.152)
-0.428***
(0.152)
0.666***
(0.103)
-0.368**
(0.152)
-0.429***
(0.152)
0.585***
(0.108)
0.551***
(0.129)
0.009***
(0.002)
0.008***
(0.002)
7.495
(9.982)
-5.113
(8.581)
44.697
(61.128)
36.532**
(14.474)
14.936
(11.308)
0.085***
(0.032)
-4.569
(18.348)
455
0.086
-0.452***
(0.133)
-0.443***
(0.139)
-0.219*
(0.127)
3.506**
(1.696)
1.311***
(0.309)
0.430**
(0.192)
0.001**
(0.000)
-0.240
(0.277)
35705
0.003
-0.370**
(0.152)
-0.427***
(0.152)
0.949***
(0.108)
35705
0.000
-0.101
(0.234)
35705
0.002
The treatment assignment ensures that the top 3000 groups are similar between treatments.
However, given the sophisticated treatment assignment procedure, in Table A3 we present
averages after controlling for individual characteristics. Specifically, we run linear regressions
that mimic columns (3), (4), and (8) in Table 3 (for example, column (1) in Table A3 is an
analogue to column (3) in Table 3). It shows the coefficients from a regression of a dummy
response respectively continuous variables donation and return on all treatments and by donor
status, excluding a constant. Every second column repeats the previous one but adds controls
(demeaned such that the resulting coefficients on treatments still represent averages). The key
message of this table is that the means almost do not change at all when controlling for individual
characteristics. That suggests again that the treatment groups are well balanced.
18
Table A3: Results from linear regressions with controls
A-A non-donors
BC-A non-donors
BC-B non-donors
A-A donors
BC-A donors
BC-B donors
Controls
Observations
R2
response
response
donation
donation
return
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
0.023
(0.003)
0.026
(0.003)
0.020
(0.003)
0.389
(0.014)
0.304
(0.016)
0.394
(0.014)
0.023
(0.003)
0.026
(0.003)
0.019
(0.003)
0.397
(0.015)
0.312
(0.016)
0.403
(0.014)
yes
9221
0.186
48.559
(8.926)
53.753
(8.443)
55.948
(9.665)
76.721
(9.424)
44.805
(11.495)
66.540
(9.273)
53.026
(8.512)
49.639
(8.233)
54.033
(9.371)
71.808
(9.195)
47.438
(11.574)
61.271
(8.919)
yes
367
0.485
1.131
(0.331)
1.391
(0.330)
1.114
(0.332)
29.809
(1.428)
13.607
(1.540)
26.200
(1.415)
1.105
(0.330)
1.365
(0.329)
1.097
(0.331)
30.144
(1.438)
14.059
(1.547)
26.759
(1.421)
yes
9221
0.097
9221
0.179
367
0.396
9221
0.089
return
Standard errors in parentheses, individual characteristics include number of opera tickets, total spent, average per
ticket, female , couple, subscription holder, academic, doctor title, professor title, living in Dresden, Germany, big
city, dummy internet buyer and benefactor circle dummy.
19
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
1
A-A
2
3
4
5
log donation2015
6
45° line
4
1
BC-A
3
4
log donation 2016
3
log donation 2016
3
log donation 2016
5
5
5
6
6
6
12
25 4
-4
50 9
-7
75 4
10 -99
012 124
515 149
017 174
520 199
022 224
5
O -24
ve 9
r2
50
12
25 4
-4
50 9
-7
75 4
10 -99
012 124
515 149
017 174
520 199
022 224
5
O -24
ve 9
r2
50
0
.1
.2
Fraction
.3
.4
.5
Figure A1: Giving in year 2 by nonparticipants in year 1
0-A
0-B
contribution amount
Figure A2: Donation value choices over time
2
3
4
5
log donation2015
6
45° line
1
2
3
4
5
log donation2015
BC-B
6
45° line
20
Appendix B: Mailing details
Mail-out: original 2015
The additional words in B and C are in square brackets, the additional footnote in C is in curled brackets. The letter
contained an additional page with information about the project that was equal across treatments and therefore is not
presented here.
Dresden, 18.11.2015
Sehr geehrter Herr ,
[Premiere:
es ist der Semperoper Jungen Szene ein großes Anliegen, jungen Menschen mit
altersgerechten Angeboten die faszinierende Welt des Musiktheaters und die damit
verbundenen Chancen [dauerhaft] zu eröffnen. Insbesondere mit den
theaterpädagogischen Veranstaltungen fühlen wir uns den Themen
Nachwuchsförderung, Nachhaltigkeit und gesellschaftliche Verantwortung
verpflichtet und möchten [langfristig] wichtige Workshops und Projekte mit dem
Schwerpunkt Inklusion und Integration anbieten.
Erster] Spendenaufruf
Semperoper Junge Szene
Ihre Kundennummer
10123456
Intendant Staatsoper (kommissarisch) &
Kaufmännischer Geschäftsführer
XXX
T 0351 XXX
F 0351 XXX
[email protected]
Da für derartige Projekte kaum eigene Mittel aus dem Haushaltsetat zur Verfügung
stehen, ist die Semperoper Junge Szene hierbei [jedes Jahr aufs Neue]
überwiegend auf Ihre Spende angewiesen.
Helfen auch Sie mit Ihrer Spende [im Jahr 2015]! Dadurch tragen Sie
entscheidend zur Entwicklung von musikalischer Bildung und Begeisterung
für Oper und Musik junger Menschen bei, unabhängig von deren sozialem
Hintergrund. Darüber hinaus unterstützen Sie die Stärkung sozialer
Kompetenzen vieler Kinder aus verschiedenen gesellschaftlichen Milieus und
Nationen.
Wir freuen uns, Ihnen mitteilen zu können, dass ein Geber, der anonym bleiben
möchte, bereits gewonnen werden konnte. Er unterstützt die Junge Szene [in
diesem Jahr] mit 15.000 Euro.
Als Dankeschön verlosen wir unter allen Spendern einen Besuch der Vorstellung
»Lohengrin« mit Anna Netrebko im Mai 2016 für zwei Personen in der
Intendantenloge.
Herzlichen Dank für Ihre Unterstützung [im Jahr 2015]!
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
XXX
Intendant Staatsoper (kommissarisch)
und Kaufmännischer Geschäftsführer
{P.S. Falls Sie in der Zukunft keine weiteren Spendenanfragen der Semperoper
erhalten möchten, teilen Sie uns dies bitte unter Angabe Ihrer Kundennummer mit:
[email protected] oder 0351 XXX}
21
Mail-out: Translation 2015
The additional words in B and C are in square brackets, the additional footnote in C is in curled brackets. The letter
contained an additional page with information about the project that was equal across treatments and therefore is not
presented here.
Dear Sir /Madam,
Dresden, 18.11.2015
[Premiere:
First] call for donations
Semperoper Junge Szene
Your customer number
10123456
Director Staatsoper (temporarily)
and Commercial manager
XXX
T 0351 XXX
F 0351 XXX
[email protected]
The Semperoper Junge Szene attaches great importance to [permanently]
opening up the fascinating world of music theatre and the associated opportunities
to young people with age-group-specific projects. Especially with our educational
theatre events, we feel committed to the topics of youth development,
sustainability and societal responsibility and aim at offering important workshops
and projects with a focus on inclusion and integration [over the long term].
Due to the lack of resources from our own budget for projects of this kind, the
Semperoper Junge Szene relies [year by year] heavily on your donations.
Help us by donating [in the year 2015]! In doing so, you will contribute
decisively to the future development of musical education and enthusiasm for
the opera and music among young people, irrespective of their social
background. In addition, you will help many children from different social
milieus and nations to strengthen their social skills of.
We are pleased to inform you that we have managed to attract a donor who wishes
to remain anonymous for the project. He is supporting the Junge Szene to the tune
of 15,000 Euro [this year].
As a thank you for taking part, all donors will be entered into a draw and the
winner will get 2 tickets for the show “Lohengrin” with Anna Netrebko in May
2016 for 2 persons in the director’s loge.
Many thanks for your support [in the year 2015]!
Sincerely
XXX
Director Staatsoper (temporarily)
and Commercial manager
{P.S. In case you do not wish to receive any further donation inquiries for the
Semperoper in the future, please inform us, stating your customer number:
[email protected] oder 0351 XXX}
22
Mail-out: original 2016
The additional words in B are in square brackets. The letter contained an additional page with information about the
project that was equal across treatments and therefore is not presented here.
Dresden, 29.11.2016
Sehr geehrter
[Wiederaufnahme:
Zweiter] Spendenaufruf
die Semperoper engagiert sich seit vielen Jahren durch Projekte der Jungen Szene
auch für die Förderung von Kindern und Jugendlichen aus einem gesellschaftlich
benachteiligten Umfeld, um ihnen [dauerhaft] die spannende Welt der Oper
erlebbar und zugänglich zu machen.
Ihre Kundennummer
10123456
Intendant Staatsoper (kommissarisch)
&
Kaufmännischer Geschäftsführer
XXXX
T 0351 XXX
F 0351 XXX
[email protected]
Da wir gesellschaftliche Verantwortung sehr ernst nehmen, wollen wir künftig
noch einen Schritt weiter gehen, indem wir Kindern aus diesen benachteiligten
Milieus gemeinsam mit ihren Familien [langfristig] den Zugang zu Vorstellungen
in der Semperoper ermöglichen wollen.
Da uns für derartige Vorhaben keine eigenen Mittel zur Verfügung stehen, ist die
Semperoper hierbei [jedes Jahr aufs Neue] auf Ihre Spende angewiesen.
Helfen auch Sie mit Ihrer Spende [im Jahr 2016]! Ihre Spende leistet einen
Beitrag zur Verminderung von sozialer Ungleichheit. Sie ermöglicht den
Kindern aus benachteiligten Milieus und ihren Familien den Zugang zu
kultureller Bildung. Sie trägt dazu bei, musikalische Neugier und die
Begeisterung für Oper, Musik und Tanz zu wecken.
Wir freuen uns, Ihnen mitteilen zu können, dass ein Geber, der anonym bleiben
möchte, bereits gewonnen werden konnte. Sein Beitrag in Höhe von EUR 10.000
deckt bereits [in diesem Jahr] die Verwaltungskosten, so dass jede Spende den
Kindern direkt zugute kommen wird.
Als Dankeschön verlosen wir unter allen Spendern einen Vorstellungsbesuch für
zwei Personen in meiner Loge sowie 5 DVDs (Carl Maria von Weber »Der
Freischütz«, Christian Thielemann, 2015).
Herzlichen Dank für Ihre Unterstützung!
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
XXX
Intendant Staatsoper (kommissarisch)
und Kaufmännischer Geschäftsführer
23
Mail-out: Translation 2016
The additional words in B are in square brackets. The letter contained an additional page with information about the
project that was equal across treatments and therefore is not presented here.
Dresden, 29.11.2016
Dear Sir / Madam,
[renewal:
second] call for donations
The Semperoper has for many years been committed, through projects of the
Jungen Szene, to support children and young people from a socially disadvantaged
context, to [permanently] enable them to experience and access the exciting world
of opera.
Your customer number
10123456
Director Staatsoper(temporarily) and
Commercial manager
XXXX
T 0351 XXX
F 0351 XXX
[email protected]
As we are taking social responsibility very seriously, we want to go even further by
giving children from these disadvantaged milieus together with their families [longterm] access to performances at the Semperoper.
Since we have no funds of our own available for such projects, the Semperoper is
dependent on your donation [every year].
Please help with your donation [in 2016]! Your donation contributes to the
reduction of social inequality. It allows children from disadvantaged
backgrounds and their families access to cultural education. It helps to evoke
musical curiosity and the enthusiasm for opera, music and dance.
We are pleased to inform you, that a donor, who wants to remain anonymous, could
already be won. His contribution of EUR 10,000 already covers the administrative
costs [in this year], so that every donation will directly benefit the children.
As a thank you, we raffle an opera visit for two people in my box as well as 5
DVDs among all donors (Carl Maria von Weber "Der Freischütz", Christian
Thielemann, 2015).
Thank you for your support!
Sincerely
XXX
Director Staatsoper (temporarily)
and Commercial manager
24
Flyer 2015 original:
Die Junge Szene der Semperoper Dresden
Das Angebot der Semperoper Jungen Szene thematisiert in der aktuellen und der kommenden Spielzeit
das Spannungsfeld zwischen Fremdbestimmung und Selbstbehauptung, zwischen Egoismus und sozialer
Verantwortung.
Das »Cochlear-Ferienprojekt« für schwerhörige und hörende Kinder und der Integrationsworkshop
»Telling Stories - Fremd sein! - Wie gehe ich mit Fremden um?« sind ein wichtiger Bestandteil der
Integrations- und Inklusionsarbeit der Semperoper Jungen Szene. Mit den theater-, tanz- und
gesangspädagogischen Projekten, wie dem »Spielclub für Kinder« und der Neugründung eines »szenischen
Jugendchores« sollen die Formate zum Thema kulturelle Bildung und soziale Integration weiter entwickelt
werden.
Kinder und Jugendliche sind
eingeladen, sich in die aufregende Welt des Musiktheaters zu stürzen. Denn die Erfahrung zeigt: Sie tun
dies mit Begeisterung. Viele Kinder und Jugendliche nehmen jede Spielzeit am vielseitigen Angebot des
Programms der Semperoper Jungen Szene teil, das gezielt auf die Bedürfnisse junger Menschen eingeht.
Das Team der Jungen Szene arbeitet dabei eng mit Schulkalssen alle Schulformen zusammen. Die große
Resonanz zeigt, wie wichtig es ist, die Phantasie und Kreativität junger Menschen zu fördern und ihre
Neugier auf die Welt der Oper zu unterstützen. Wir sind auf Ihre Mithilfe angewiesen, um dieses Angebot
fortsetzen und erweitern zu können.
Helfen auch Sie und
ermöglichen Sie weiteren Kindern
die Teilnahme an den Projekten der Jungen Szene!
Gewinnen Sie
einen Besuch der Vorstellung »Lohengrin« mit Anna Netrebko im Mai 2016 für 2 Personen in der
Intendantenloge.
Ihre Spende
Falls Sie nicht den beigefügten Überweisungsträger verwenden, überweisen Sie Ihre Spende bitte auf
folgendes Konto:
Empfänger:
IBAN:
BIC:
Stichwort:
Sächsische Staatsoper Dresden
XXX Sparkasse XXX
XXX
XXX
Spende Semperoper Junge Szene: Ihre Kundennummer
Spendenquittung
Sie erhalten eine Spendenquittung ab einer Spende von € 50,-. Falls diese an eine andere Adresse als im
Briefkopf angegeben gesendet werden soll, wenden Sie sich bitte an das Development-Büro unter Tel. XXX.
Flyer 2015 translation:
The Junge Szene of the Semperoper Dresden
The offer of the Semperoper Junge Szene (Semeroper young scene) focuses, in the current and coming
season, on the central theme of tension between heteronomy and self-determination, between selfishness
and social responsibility.
The »Cochlear-Ferienprojekt« (Cochlear holiday project) for children with and without hearing
impairments and the integrationional workshop »Telling Stories - Be Different! - How do I deal with
strangers? "Are an important part of the integration and inclusion work of the Semperoper Junge Szene.
Theater, dance and vocal pedagogic projects, such as the "Spielclub für Kinder" (Children's Play Club) and
the founding of a new “scenic youth choir“, will further develop our formats of cultural education and
social integration.
Children and young people are invited to plunge into the exciting world of the musical theater. Because
experience shows: that they do so with enthusiasm. Every season, many children and adolescents take part
in the varied program of the Semperoper Junge Szene, which focuses specifically on the needs of young
people. The team of the Junge Szene cooperates closely with school classes of all school forms. The great
response shows how important it is to promote the imagination and creativity of young people and to
support their curiosity in the world of opera. To continue and expand this offer we require your support.
Please Help and
enable more children to benefit from the
participation in the projects by the Jungen Szene!
You can win
a visit of the performance »Lohengrin« with Anna Netrebko on Mai 2016 Mai for two people in the box of
the creative director.
Your donation
Unless you are using the attached transfer form, please transfer your donation to the following account:
Empfänger:
IBAN:
BIC:
Stichwort:
Sächsische Staatsoper Dresden
XXXXSparkasse
XXXXXX
XXXX
Spende Semperoper Junge Szene: Ihre Kundennummer
Donation receipt
You will be send a receipt for every donation larger than € 50,- In case you need the receipt to be send to a
different address than in he letterhead please contact Development-Office at Tel. XXXX
26
Flyer 2016 original:
Gesellschaftliche Verantwortung und Nachhaltigkeit
Operninszenierungen eröffnen neue Gedankenräume, machen Unsagbares sicht- und hörbar und laden den Zuschauer
jeden Abend ein, einen neuen Kosmos mit allen Sinnen zu erleben. Kinder haben die Gabe in diese Welten ganz
unbedarft einzutauchen und mit den Figuren auf der Bühne die Reise durch die Handlung mitzuerleben. Nach und
nach lernen sie die Sprache des Theaters, die Sprache der Bilder und der Bewegung kennen. Wer als Kind die
Möglichkeit hatte, diese Welten kennenzulernen, behält sein Leben lang die dadurch geweckte Neugier, Kreativität
und Kritikfähigkeit.
Leider ist der Zugang zum Musiktheater bis heute abhängig vom sozialen Umfeld der Kinder. Wer nicht das Glück
hat, mit der Schule in die Oper zu gehen, dem bleibt häufig die faszinierende Welt des Musiktheaters verwehrt.
Dabei könnte der gemeinsame Vorstellungsbesuch der Familie ein Höhepunkt im Familienleben sein und Eltern und
Kinder dazu anregen sich über das erlebte auszutauschen.
Oper sollte unabhängig von sozialer Herkunft und Haushalteinkommen ein Gut für Alle sein, eine Möglichkeit im
Kreise der Familie seine Freizeit zu gestalten.
Aus diesem Grund möchten wir insbesondere Kindern und deren Familien aus benachteiligen sozialen Milieus den
Zugang zu den Vorstellungen der Semperoper ermöglichen.
Der familienübergreifende Aspekt ist wichtig, um Schwellenängste abzubauen, sozialer Ungerechtigkeit entgegen zu
wirken und die Begeisterung für das Musiktheater umfassend und nachhaltig in der Familie zu etablieren.
Helfen auch Sie und ermöglichen Sie
Kindern und ihren Familien den Besuch einer Opern- oder Ballettvorstellung in der Semperoper!
Gewinnen Sie
einen Opernbesuch in der Intendantenloge für 2 Personen oder
eine von 5 DVDs der 2015 in der Semperoper aufgezeichneten Inszenierung von »Der Freischütz«
(Musikalische Leitung: Christian Thielemann).
Ihre Spende
Falls Sie nicht den beigefügten Überweisungsträger verwenden, überweisen Sie Ihre Spende bitte auf
folgendes Konto:
Empfänger:
IBAN:
BIC:
Stichwort:
Sächsische Staatsoper Dresden
XXX Sparkasse XXX
XXXX
XXXX
Spende Familienförderung + Ihre Kundennummer
Spendenquittung
Gerne stellen wir Ihnen ab einer Spende von € 200,- eine Spendenquittung aus (bis zu dieser Spendenhöhe
ist der Überweisungs- oder Einzahlungsbeleg ausreichend). Falls diese an eine andere Adresse als im
Briefkopf angegeben gesendet werden soll, wenden Sie sich bitte an das Development-Büro unter Tel.
XXX.
27
Flyer 2016 translation:
Social responsibility and sustainability
Opera productions open up new mental spheres, making the unspeakable visible and audible, and invite the
audience, every night, to experience a new cosmos with all their senses. Children have the ability to fully
immerse themselves in these worlds and experience the story with the characters by parttaking in their
journeys on stage. Gradually they learn the language of theater, the language of pictures and movement.
Those who had the opportunity to get to know these worlds as a child, will for the rest of their life benefit
from the curiosity, creativity and critical abilities generated through these experiences.
Unfortunately, even today, the access to musical theater still depends on the social environment of the
children. Those not lucky enough to visit the Opera with their school, will be denied the fascinating world
of musical theater.
Notwithstanding a collective visit of an opera performance with the family could be a highlight in family
life and encourage parents and children to exchange their experiences.
Opera should be a good for all, independent of social origin and household income, it should be a possible
option when spending recreational time with the family.
For this reason, we particularly want to enable children and their families from disadvantaged social
backgrounds to take part in the performances of the Semperoper.
Including the children’s families is an important aspect in overcoming inhibitions, relieving social injustice
and establishing a lasting enthusiasm for the musical theater in the family.
Please help to facilitate the visit of an Opera or Ballet performance in the Semperoper for children
and their families!
You can win
an Opera visit in the box of the artistic director for 2 people or one of 5 DVDs of the in 2015 in the
Semperoper recorded production »Der Freischütz« (Artistic director: Christian Thielemann).
Your donation
Unless you are using the attached transfer form, please transfer your donation to the following account:
Empfänger:
Sächsische Staatsoper Dresden
XXXX Sparkasse
IBAN:
xxxxxx
BIC:
XXX
Stichwort:
Spende Familienförderung + Ihre Kundennummer
Donation receipt
We are happy to send you a receipt for every donation larger than € 200,- (For donations smaller than this
amount the transfer receipt is usually sufficient.) In case you need the receipt to be send to a different
address than in the letterhead please contact Development-Office at Tel. XXXX
28
Discussion Papers of the Research Area Markets and Choice 2017
Research Unit: Market Behavior
Dorothea Kübler, Julia Schmid, Robert Stüber
Be a man or become a nurse: Comparing gender discrimination by
employers across a wide variety of professions
SP II 2017-201
Dietmar Fehr, Julia Schmid
Exclusion in the all-pay auction: An experimental investigation
SPII 2017-202
Research Unit: Economics of Change
Jannis Engel, Nora Szech
The political economy of multilateral aid funds
SP II 2017-301
Maja Adena, Jeyhun Alizade, Frauke Bohner, Julian Harke,
Fabio Mesners
Quality certifications for nonprofits, charitable giving, and donor’s
trust: experimental evidence
SP II 2017-302
Terri Kneeland
Mechanism design with level-k types: Theory and an application to
bilateral trade
SP II 2017-303
Dominik Duell, Justin Mattias Valasek
Social identity and political polarization: Evidence on the impact of
identity on partisan voting trade
SP II 2017-304
Maja Adena, Steffen Huck
Narrow framing in charitable giving: Results from a two-period
field experiment
SP II 2017-305
All discussion papers are downloadable:
http://www.wzb.eu/en/publications/discussion-papers/markets-and-choice