JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. . The University of Chicago Press and Journal of Consumer Research, Inc. are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Consumer Research.

No abstract

No abstract

Marketer interest in using virtual reality (VR) as a persuasion tactic continues to rise. Notably, one sector at the forefront of utilizing this tactic for persuasive means is nonprofit marketing. Many charities have devoted considerable resources to creating VR appeals under the assumption that this medium will increase donations over and above present tactics. However, research has not yet examined the persuasive consequences VR may provide over more traditional channels. This research seeks to understand the opportunities and limitations this emerging tactic can offer marketers. Specifically, we examine the donation effectiveness of three real VR charitable appeals by assessing actual donation behaviors, and find that VR appeals increase donations compared to a two-dimensional (2D) format. This work addresses a timely and relevant issue for practitioners and opens doors to future research investigating VR’s applications to marketing. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11002-021-09601-8.

The proliferation of peer-to-peer fundraising platforms (e.g., GoFundMe, Rally, Fundly) poses conceptual and substantive challenges for behavior scientists and fundraisers. This article explores how fundraisers should craft their appeals to maximize their chance of success. Four fieldand laboratory-studies find that direct appeals (i.e., narratives written in the first person by the intended recipient) raise less money than otherwiseidentical indirect appeals (i.e., narratives written in the third person, seemingly by a third party on behalf of the intended recipient). The cause? Prospective donors ascribe lesser (greater) credibility to direct (indirect) appeals, which in turn curtails (increases) their giving. Since the narrative voice (direct vs. indirect) in which appeals are crafted is often discretionary (i.e., adjustable), our findings offer prescriptive guidelines for fundraisers.