Does Vice Make Nice?
The Viability and Virtuousness
of Charity Lotteries
Derek N. Hassay
ABSTRACT. Globally, charities are under increasing pressure to find
alternative sources of funding. Although charitable gaming has long been
considered a viable source of revenue for charities, opponents of gaming
have raised concerns about the potential negative consequences associ-
ated with gambling. The current paper examines a unique form of charity
gaming–the charity super lottery (CSL)–that offers a number of fund-
raising benefits to cash-strapped charities. Results from a preliminary
study of CSL ticket buyers suggest that the CSL may be both a virtuous
and viable source of fundraising. Interviews revealed that CSL consum-
ers (1) viewed the ticket purchase as a donation rather than gambling,
(2) were unlikely to be involved in other forms of gambling, and finally
(3) perceived the CSL purchase as a complementary rather than supple-
mentary form of charity support behavior. Implications for the fund-
raisers of charitable organizations and directions for future research are
discussed. doi: 10.1300/J054v18n01_04 [Article copies available for a fee from
The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address:
<email@example.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com>
© 2007 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]
John Peloza is a Marketing PhD student at Haskayne School of Business, University
Derek N. Hassay, PhD, is Assistant Professor of Marketing, Haskayne School of
Business, University of Calgary.
Address correspondence to: Dr. Derek N. Hassay, Marketing Area, Scurfield Hall,
Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary, 2500 University Avenue NW,
Calgary, AB, Canada, T2N 1N4 (E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org).
Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, Vol. 18(1) 2007
Available online at http://jnpsm.haworthpress.com
©2007 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
doi: 10.1300/J054v18n01_04 57
KEYWORDS. Donations, gambling, charities, consumer behavior
The urge to gamble is so universal and its practice so pleasurable,
that I assume it must be evil.
Charitable and voluntary organizations are often heavily dependent on
government funding to support their delivery of programs and social ser-
vices. However since the 1980s, governments have been re-evaluating and
reducing their role in the delivery and support of social services (Larson
1995) such as educational and health care institutions, programs for the
poor, and the arts. This trend is global, occurring in the United States
(Miller 1998), Canada (Foster and Meinhard 2003), Australia (Bednall,
Walker, Curl, and LeRoy 2001), New Zealand (Chaney and Dolli 2001),
and Europe (Olabeunaga 2000), and has forced many charities to seek
alternative sources of funding.
One prominent source of alternative funding for many charities is
charity gaming. Despite the prominence of charity gaming, consumer
motivations for supporting these fundraising efforts remain all but un-
explored. The current paper begins to address this void in a number of
ways. First, the paper explores both the appeal and potential concerns
associated with charity gaming. The paper also introduces a unique form
of charity gaming–the charity super lottery (CSL)–that is believed to
offer a number of benefits over other forms of charity gaming. Results
from a preliminary study of consumer attitudes towards CSL play are also
presented; a study that is believed to be the first examination of consumer
attitudes toward charity gaming. Finally, suggestions for future research
into various aspects of charity gaming are presented.
The paper is organized as follows. First, a review of the global fund-
raising environment and the need for alternative sources of funding is
presented. Next, the authors examine charity gaming as an alternate source
of fundraising with a focus on the positive and negative consequences
associated with charity gaming. The paper then introduces and discusses
the charity super lottery and the potential benefits that this form of charity
gaming offers cash-strapped charitable organizations. A presentation of
the results of a preliminary study examining the attitudes of CSL ticket
buyers follows. An agenda for future research follows. The paper con-
cludes with recommendations for policy makers and charities interested
58 JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING
in exploring charity gaming, and more specifically CSLs, as a means of
funding charities and other nonprofits.
THE GLOBAL FUNDRAISING ENVIRONMENT
The charitable sector is a significant contributor to the economic engines
in most developed economies. For instance, in 2000, an estimated $200
billion was donated to charitable organizations in the United States alone
(Lindahl and Conley 2002). Moreover, the nonprofit sector in the United
States employs nearly 50% more paid workers than the construction in-
dustry and three times as many as the agriculture sector (Kirchhoff 2003).
In the United Kingdom, the charity and nonprofit industry accounts for
4% of the total workforce (Weir and Hibbert 2000), with the annual in-
come of the industry estimated as high as £18 billion (Sargeant 1999).
However, despite charities increasingly turning their attention to how they
market themselves and their causes (Handy 2000; Hankinson 2001;
Peltier, Schibrowsky, and Schultz 2002), two significant challenges–
decreasing government support and increasing competition–threaten the
survival of many of these organizations.
Decreased Government Support
Historically, government funding has been second only to individual
donations as the largest source of operating revenue for charities (Kirchoff
2003), and therefore represents a critical source of funding for many
charities. Not surprisingly, charities around the world are under increasing
financial pressure as a result of decreasing levels of government support
(e.g., Mescon and Tilson 1987; Polonsky 2003). In Canada, charitable
organizations have experienced reduced funding from both federal and
provincial governments (Foster and Meinhard 2003). As governments
downsize and/or extract themselves from the provision of certain social
services, there has been an expectation that the charitable and voluntary
sector would find alternative sources of funding and assume a greater role
in the delivery of these services (Foster and Meinhard 2003). The Canadian
experience mirrors that of the United States. For example, in an effort to
manage its budget deficit, California has reduced its funding of public
services since the 1980s (Miller 1998). According to Miller (1998) these
cutbacks have led to under-funded, overcrowded, and crumbling public
services; services that had been the envy of the nation in the 1960s. And
John Peloza and Derek N. Hassay 59
this trend is not unique to North America. Similarly, public funding of
charities in Spain has been stagnant or decreased during the past 10 years
(Olabuenaga 2000). Further, the management challenge faced by chari-
ties is compounded by the increasingly erratic commitment and timing of
government funding (Scott 2003).
Increasing Competition Within the Charity Sector
Because of government funding cuts and the off-loading of services,
charities have been asked to do more with less, which has led to an inten-
sification of competition between charities for individual donor support
(Webb, Green, and Brashear 2000). As a result, fundraising has become
more difficult and more expensive, forcing many charities to question
their ability to pursue their missions (Bendapudi, Singh, and Bendapudi
1996; Scott 2003).
The increased competition amongst charitable organizations is also
a reflection of the growing number of charitable organizations. In the
United Kingdom alone, the number of charities is estimated to be growing
at a rate of 10,000 to 12,000 per year (Sargeant 1999; Weir and Hibbert
2000). The increased number of registered charities underscores both
society’s increasing need and the increasing competition for donor sup-
port. Unfortunately, as the number and scope of charities has increased,
individual giving levels have failed to keep pace with the growth
(Sargeant 1999). This situation confirms what officials at charitable
organizations have feared–that individual donors may not be able to, or
willing to, make up the shortfall from sustained government budget cuts
The challenges charities face as a result of government cuts and increas-
ing competitionare not restricted to any one country, or any one portion
of the charitable sector (Greene 2003). Furthermore, even those organi-
zations that typically do not rely on direct government funding (e.g., re-
ligions) are feeling the pressure created by government funding cutbacks.
Indeed, governments often expect churches to step in to help those in need,
but many parishes are “maxed out” (Donovan 2003).
AN ALTERNATIVE FUNDING SOURCE
Games of chance, such as lotteries, bingos, and 50/50 draws have been
leveraged by charitable organizations as a source of fundraising for years.
60 JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING
Although most often referred to as charity gambling, the term charity
gaming is adopted in the current paper to underscore the warm-hearted,
pro-social motivations associated with charity gaming. Moreover, the
charity gaming term is used to separate charity gaming from the emo-
tionally charged, morally questionable practice of gambling.
In 1995, charities in North America raised more than $1.3 billion
through gaming activities, with charity gaming accounting for over 3%
of the total gambling revenues in the United States (Nonprofit World
1996). Even strict Islamic cultures such as Iran feature raffles in support
of charitable causes. Charity gaming refers to fundraising activities such
as bingos held in support of churches and service organizations such as
the Kinsmen, Shriners, or Lions. In fact, according to Gattuso (1993),
bingos account for almost 45% of all charity gaming revenue. Although
Americans spent an estimated $10 billion on more than 75,000 charity-
sponsored bingo and casino games in 1993 (Johnston 1993), such fund-
raising efforts are typically small-scale fundraising. The reason is that
most of the charity gaming efforts are reliant on volunteers and there-
fore limited to small, local chapters of charitable organizations. Conse-
quently, charity gaming has had relatively little influence on the budgets
of large, social service organizations such as those involved in health
research, for example.
THE DEMAND FOR AND APPEAL OF CHARITY GAMING
Judged by the dollars spent, gambling is now more popular in
America than baseball, the movies, and Disneyland combined.
–Timothy L. O’Brien, Bad Bet (1989)
Charity lotteries are consistent with North America’s insatiable interest
in and demand for gambling. To illustrate, 86% of Americans have gam-
bled at some point in their lives, with 68% indicating that they had gambled
within the past year (Seligman 2003) and their motivations for gambling
are as varied as the forms of gambling available to them (Chantal and
Vallerand 1996; Dixey 1987). Gambling activities are broad and can in-
clude smaller-scale wagering such as tickets for government-sponsored
lotteries or larger-scale, more sustained gambling such as a visit to a
casino. It can also include informal forms of gambling such as sports
wagering in office pools and so on.
John Peloza and Derek N. Hassay 61
Although the desire to win money is often cited as a primary motivator
for gambling involvement (Miyazaki, Langenderfer, and Sprott 1999;
Platz and Millar 2001), there are a wide range of other motivators, such
as a desire to play which is the most commonly reported reason for gam-
bling. In fact, the recreational and leisure properties of gambling are often
found to be the single most popular reason for both starting and continuing
to gamble (Griffiths 1990; Tarras, Singh, and Moufakkir 2000). Moreover,
every motive-based typology of casual gambling (as opposed to patho-
logical gambling) includes at least some type of recreation/leisure mo-
tive (e.g., Smith and Preston 1984).
It has been suggested that government-sponsored lotteries are essen-
tially a form of taxation since portions of the proceeds are often used to
fund social causes (Stearns and Borna 1995). However, the potential
benefit to society from government-sponsored lotteries plays only a minor
role in the consumer’s decision to support, enter or participate in these
lotteries (Miyazaki et al., 1999). And although the motivations to play
and to win are arguably similar between charity gaming and government-
sponsored lotteries, a significant difference exists between gambling in
a charity versus traditional, for-profit gaming context. Specifically, when
one knows that the proceeds of a lottery, bingo or card game are going to
charity, it is believed that the “sting of losing” is decreased. As a result,
it is argued that charity gaming is, in general, taken far less seriously
and enjoyed more fully than for-profit gambling. Indeed, Zaslow (1986)
suggested that it is charities, rather than charitable gamblers, that are in
danger of becoming addicted to charitable gaming or at least the reve-
nues generated from such games.
Charity lotteries are also consistent with the North American penchant
for supporting charity. For example, 89% of Americans donated to a
charity in 2001 (Sullivan 2002), with an average annual donation amount
of $3,441 (Satov 2002). In Canada, 78% of adults have reportedly do-
nated to charity, with the average Canadian donor claiming $986 on their
tax returns (McKeown 2001). Further, three-quarters of donors report
having given to more than five charitable causes, with 28% indicating
that they had contributed in some way to more than 15 organizations (Fund
Raising Management 1999). In fact, it has been reported that individual
giving accounted for 75% of the estimated $203 billion in donations re-
ceived by charities in the United States in 2000 (Andreasen and Kotler
It is generally agreed that motives for supporting a given charity are sub-
sumed by either altruism or egoism (Batson and Shaw 1991; Harbaugh
1998). However, the majority of motives for supporting a charity are
62 JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING
subsumed by egoism, where egoistic motives are defined as those that
are self-serving in nature (Batson 1994). Egoistic motives include self-
esteem (Sargeant 1999), stress avoidance or alleviation (Bendapudi et al.
1996), reciprocity (Dawson 1988), and social pressures/public recogni-
tion (Bennett 2003; Cermak, File, and Prince 1994). Moreover, many of
the egoistic motives have an economic rationale with economic self-inter-
est having been found to not only motivatesupport for a charity, but also
the selection of which charity to support (Guy and Patton 1988). For ex-
ample, it has been reported that as much as 80% of all individual giving
is significantly affected by federal and state tax policies (Clotfelter 1985).
It has also been shown that the higher the cost to the helper (monetary
costs, effort, etc.), the lower the rate of helping behavior (Smith 1980).
Therefore, the popularity of charity gaming may be due, in part, to its
combination of two activities that are firmly inculcated in North American
society–charitable support and gambling. In fact, charity gaming can be
viewed as an almost perfect means of fundraising for charities. Specifi-
cally, it is expected that charity gaming satisfies both the egoistic (i.e.,
benefits me) and altruistic (benefits others) motives for charitable behav-
ior, while simultaneously satisfying the recreational (i.e., softer) motives
of gambling. Furthermore, charity gaming represents a synergistic com-
bination of these two desirable activities, insofar as each activity is im-
proved by the association–gambling for a good cause, and giving in a way
that is fun.
AN OPPOSING VIEW
Many individuals and governments are opposed to the expansion of
charitable gaming. For instance, it has been argued that lotteries are a form
of regressive taxation (Miyazaki, Hansen, and Sprott 1998; Stearns and
Borna 1995), that small-scale charity gaming is a target for criminal ac-
tivities such as theft and cheating and may even be infiltrated by organized
crime (Johnston 1993). In addition, ethical concerns have been raised
over the use of something as “evil” as gambling to fund the good deeds
of charities (Azmier and Roach 2000). Finally, opponents of charitable
gaming suggest that there is a potential for charities to become addicted
to, or at least dependent, upon gambling revenues for program funding
(Azmier and Roach 2000).
The opportunity discussed in this paper is for a premium class of lot-
tery or raffle, a type of Charity Super Lottery (CSL). This particular form
John Peloza and Derek N. Hassay 63
of charity gaming has a number of unique characteristics that mitigate
most if not all of the criticisms of charity gaming, and the use of gaming
as an alternate source of charitable funding. Each of these characteris-
tics will be explored in detail in the next section.
CHARITY SUPER LOTTERIES:
THE CANADIAN EXPERIENCE
A number of moralists condemn lotteries and refuse to see anything
noble in the passion of the ordinary gambler. They judge gambling
as some atheists judge religion, by its excesses.
–Charles Lamb, Essays of Elia (1832)
As in other nations, charity gaming is big business in Canada. For ex-
ample, 44% of non-religious charities in Canada use gaming as a fund-
raising method, and 69% of charities receiving funds from gaming sources
report those revenues to be important to the operation of the organiza-
tion (Azmier and Roach 2000). Moreover, charity super lotteries (CSLs)
have been permitted by Canadian provincial governments for decades
as an alternative and/or complementary source of funding for charities
and other nonprofit organizations. CSLs provide these organizations with
a complementary and/or supplementary source of funds to existing gov-
ernment, individual, and/or corporate support. And while our discussion
focuses on the Canadian CSL experience, CSLs are not unique to the
Canadian fundraising market. Indeed, the Heart Foundation of New
Zealand has operated Lottery Thirty Three for a number of years, while
the RSL Art Union of Australia has operated CSLs in support of War
Veterans for over 25 years. And there are many other examples of oper-
There are a number of variables that separate the CSL from charity
raffles and other forms of charity gaming, each of which is discussed
more fully in the section that follows:
Supersized Prize Pools. The typical prize pool for a CSL is in the mil-
lions of dollars with most CSLs in Canada, NZ, and Australia offering
million-dollar “dream homes” or cash prizes as grand prizes, with luxury
cars, exotic vacations, and thousands of smaller prizes consisting of
home electronics, home furnishings, and recreational equipment.
Ticket Price and Purchase Outlets. Given the value of the prize pools,
CSLs typically have price points in the $20 to $100 range; in contrast,
smaller-scale charity raffle tickets might be sold for as little as a dollar.
64 JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING
And unlike the traditional charity lottery, CSL tickets are available
through a wide variety of outlets. For example, they can typically be or-
dered through the mail, telephone, and Internet and are also sold at special
events. Moreover, CSL tickets can be purchased with cash, check, or even
credit cards. Ticket orders are typically not solicited door to door or office
to office. In contrast, charity raffle tickets are sold by volunteers through
direct sales (e.g., a table at a mall) on a cash-only basis. Finally, in response
to the lottery’s direct mail or advertising campaigns, CSL ticket orders
are processed by a licensed charity ticket agent (e.g., accounting firm).
Supersized Returns. With high ticket prices and a large number of tick-
ets issued, CSLs are capable of generating considerable returns for the
charity sponsor. In fact, many charities now rely on funds raised from
charity lotteries as a significant source of their annual budgets (Johnston
1993; Nonprofit World 1996). And according to Azmier and Roach
(2000), charitable gaming not only offers a high rate of return for mini-
mal effort, but also allows the charity to use uncommitted dollars auton-
omously (e.g., for operations).
Professional Management. CSL tickets are sold under the supervision
of professional managers, whereas small-scale lotteries are typically sold
directly by organizational volunteers. Moreover, professional manage-
ment of the CSL extends beyond the sale and processing of tickets, to
lottery promotion, interfacing with government regulators, draw manage-
ment, and also prize acquisition and fulfillment.
Promotion. Scale is required for a successful CSL and this extends
beyond the supersized CSL prize pool, premium ticket price, and financial
return to the size of the promotional campaign required to support a CSL.
Consequently, CSLs are supported by promotional budgets that can be
well over a $1 million with a diverse number of media outlets that typi-
cally include television, newspaper, direct mail, and radio.
Government Regulation. While the Canadian government ultimately
has control over all forms of charitable gaming, the CSLs are held to a
higher regulatory standard and undergo greater scrutiny. This more strin-
gent regulatory environment has been introduced to mitigate the risk of
corruption while simultaneously protecting charities from undue finan-
cial risk. First, all charities in Canada must apply for a license to operate
a lottery or raffle. Second, raffles with a prize pool over $10,000 are
governed by a unique set of rules and regulations and require that a li-
censed and bonded manager is appointed to manage the lottery. Thus, an
individual charity cannot manage a lottery internally unless it has a li-
censed lottery manager on staff. The CSL ticket sales process is moni-
tored and audited closely, and supporting documentation of ticket sales
John Peloza and Derek N. Hassay 65
is routinely checked by government officials. Finally, all promotional
materials for the CSL must be approved by government regulators, and
all advertising must contain the lottery license number issued by the gov-
The discussion of charity super lotteries, their characteristics, and how
they are operated and regulated in Canada illustrates not only how the CSL
ticket is different from other raffles and other forms of charity gaming.
Moreover, this discussion provides support for the earlier assertion that
the CSL addresses many of the criticisms surrounding the use of gaming
in support of the charity mission. For instance, the relatively expensive
CSL ticket price precludes impulse purchasing and is generally out-of-
reach for more vulnerable consumer segments. In addition, CSLs offer
none of the “quick-fix” experiential consumption benefits offered by video
lottery terminals, card games, or scratch-and-win raffle tickets typically
associated with compulsive gambling. Therefore, CSLs appear to address
many of the individual consumer behavior concerns that have been raised
about gambling in the past.
Likewise, CSLs in Canada at least are shielded from the kinds of sys-
temic problems that can plague other gaming ventures. For example, the
issue of illegal activity or interference is largely mitigated by the close
supervision of government regulators. And yet, government regulation
is not the same thing as government operation and as a result, CSLs are
different from the regressive tax lotteries which are, by definition, gov-
Finally, public concerns over the use of gaming revenues as a source of
funding for public goods is largely a moot point, because charities are
already hooked on what critics would suggest are the ill-gotten gains of
gambling. Through the mechanism of government gaming grants (pay-
outs from government-sponsored lotteries), 20% of Canadian charities
report that gaming grants from the government account for over half of
their annual revenues, with 28% citing gaming grants as their top funding
source, and fully 84% agreeing that many charities would not have the
money necessary to run their programs without government gaming grants
Next, the results of a preliminary study of consumer attitudes towards
CSLs are presented. Although no a priori themes or hypotheses were de-
veloped, the study was guided by a desire to learn more about the appeal of
CSLs. Specifically, the study sought to reveal why, when, and how con-
sumers buy CSL tickets. More generally, consumers were asked to discuss
the role that charity gaming plays in their charity support behavior and the
role that charity support behavior plays in their lives.
66 JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING
PRELIMINARY INSIGHTS INTO CSL TICKET BUYING
An exploratory qualitative study was undertaken to gain insight into
the CSL phenomenon. Participants were selected from a large, Western
Canadian city, and were selected on the basis that they purchased at least
one CSL ticket in the past year. For the current study, a CSL ticket was
defined as one that cost a minimum of $20 per ticket.
Canada, and in particular this city, was selected for this study because
it has a long history with charity lotteries. For instance, residents of this
city have been able to purchase charity lottery tickets (e.g., with a home
as the grand prize) for over 25 years. Today, there are no less than seven
different CSLs available to the city’s residents with several more oper-
ating within the province. As a result, this location presented an excellent
opportunity to examine the CSL phenomenon within a population of key
informants-consumers that were aware of, and had purchased one of
Key informants (Gilchrist 1992) were recruited using a snowball-sam-
pling technique, beginning with the friend of a work colleague. Although
no attempt was made to mirror the demographic composition of the local
community, the participants interviewed were representative of the diver-
sity within this community. Ultimately, seven informants participated in
this exploratory study, five females and two males who were diverse in
their age (e.g., 25 to 55 years), marital status (e.g., single, married, di-
vorced), race (e.g., Asian, Caucasian), and profession (e.g., student, house-
wife, chef, lawyer).
The desire for depth of insight and few a priori themes or questions
suggested that depth interviews would be the most appropriate data col-
lection technique (McCracken 1988). Accordingly, data collection in
the initial interviews followed the interpretive paradigm (Stewart 1992).
Although these interviews were focused on CSL purchase behavior, they
also examined charity support more generally. Thus, initial interviews
were largely unstructured in an attempt to uncover themes and concepts
central to the research objective (Miller and Crabtree 1992). However,
as per the methodology described by Schouten (1991), subsequent in-
terviews were guided by previous ones and became more structured in
order to probe themes identified in preceding interviews. As Stewart
John Peloza and Derek N. Hassay 67
(1992) indicated, these latter semistructured interviews are more in line
with the positivist paradigm.
As a result, the methodology was consistent with that recommended
by McCracken (1988) for long interviews. Interviews were scheduled for
45 minutes duration with some interviews lasting for an hour or more.
Interviews were recorded (audio-only) and transcribed for subsequent
analysis. Member checks were used to validate the data collected during
the interviews, specifically the insights and interpretations drawn by the
A number of themes were uncovered in this research that are of inter-
est to charities and policy makers. Although a number of themes were
uncovered consistently across participants, they are presented here in an
order that is consistent with the paper’s objectives: first to explore the
purchase behaviors specific to the CSL and then to place this purchase
in the broader contexts of charity gaming and charity support.
CSL Ticket Purchase Motives. The most common reason for CSL ticket
purchasing was an altruistic one–to support the charity or cause. When
asked to describe their reasons for buying CSL tickets, the majority of
participants indicated that they viewed these tickets as a form of donation
first, and a lottery ticket second. In fact, many participants actually used
the words “donation” and “contribution” when talking about their ticket
purchases. Bob (M, 54), for example, made the following comment:
The first thing is that it is a contribution and the second thing is that
your actual contribution puts you in a situation where you might
benefit from the contribution beyond the good roles of the charity.
It’s the primary motivation behind investing more than a couple of
bucks in chance. It’s kind of nice to have fun and do some good,
you know. With some fun involved with taking that chance, you
also can feel good about the overall outcome. That it’s not a
waste–like throwing $20 into a slot. You’re throwing $20 into a
chance, but even if you lose, you’ve done some good at the end of
In addition, comments like “I know I won’t win” and “I write the money
off as soon as I write the cheque” suggest that the purchase motivation is
more about giving to the cause than about winning a prize. For example,
68 JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING
Karen (F, 33) remarked that purchasing a ticket felt like giving the money
directly to the cause:
The difference between these lotteries and other lotteries like 6/49
is that I see the benefits of having an investment or some sort of
support behind a local hospital. So it’s more tangible. It’s kind of
like putting the money right there in the hospital. Because it’s a
case in my neighborhood and affects people in my community.
For Vera (F, 47), the fact that she had not won anything in a charity
lottery to date, had not prevented her from supporting the charity year
after year; behavior that she attributed to the positive feelings (i.e., warm
glow) she received from purchasing a ticket:
It’s a donation with a dangling carrot at the end, where there might
be some payback; but it’s not an expectation. I’m not ever disap-
pointed when I don’t win something, and I won’t not support the
lottery next year because I didn’t win last year.
Indeed, most players revealed that if they were to actually win some-
thing, it would be perceived as “just a bonus.” Indeed, during some in-
terviews participants were compelled to search for their tickets, since
they could not remember where they were placed despite the fact the
lottery draw date had long passed.
Consumer motivations for purchasing CSL tickets also have relevance
to the pricing of the tickets. Given that the majority of participants view
the purchase of a CSL ticket as something more akin to a donation than
a form of gambling, it is perhaps not surprising that they also viewed the
price of these tickets differently than other lottery tickets. In fact, con-
sumers were found to be relatively insensitive to the price of these tickets.
For example, even though she has routinely purchased $100 premium
charity lottery tickets, Tracey (F, 25) is far more price sensitive when it
comes to buying traditional, government-sponsored lottery tickets: “When
we buy them it’s whatever change we have in our pocket, that’s how
many tickets we buy. I would never break a bill to buy a lottery ticket.”
Later, Tracey talked about the possibility of buying another CSL ticket:
“Even if it was a $100 ticket I would consider it if my friend [with MS]
phoned me and asked me to buy a ticket for a lottery. I would just write
Earl (M, 30) reported spending about $5 per month on government-
sponsored lotteries. He revealed that he typically buys them when the
John Peloza and Derek N. Hassay 69
jackpot is sufficiently large as to warrant buying a ticket. And yet Earl, a
student, stated that he had purchased several CSL tickets over the past
two years, most of which cost $100 per ticket. He explained his purchase
of these tickets, with their significantly higher price, by saying “You’re
helping out a good cause. It makes it a lot better.”
For Bob (M, 54), the cause behind the lottery is necessary for the con-
It’s the primary motivation behind investing more than a couple
bucks in a chance. My thinking personally is I’m going to take a
chance and it’s going to be more than a couple bucks then there has
got to be a good cause.
In fact, Bob revealed that the decision to purchase a charity lottery
ticket is not made lightly, and that he and his wife consult prior to mak-
ing a decision. He explained the process as follows: “We tend to make
decisions like that together ...weseethepromotions, see what the
cause is about.”
Lotteries as Complementary Support Behavior. Participant comments
suggest that CSLs do not cannibalize other forms of charitable support. In
part, it appears that the reason for this is that the charity lottery ticket pur-
chase, although primarily altruistic, offers hedonic benefits atypical of
the traditional fundraising methods. For instance, a number of partici-
pants commented on the fact that lotteries were a novel, fun way to give.
And, as a result, participants considered their charity lottery ticket pur-
chases as a separate means of charitable support.
To demonstrate, participants who support charities that were not cur-
rently using a lottery to raise funds were asked if they would be interested
in buying a ticket if a lottery was sponsored by that charity. Many indicated
that they would not only be likely to buy a ticket, but that the purchase
would likely not affect their current form(s) of support. Vera (F, 47), who
supports the YMCA (an organization that currently does not offer a lot-
tery), indicated that not only would she be willing to support a YMCA
lottery, but that this support would not diminish her current cash dona-
tions. She said, “If they had a lottery I would buy a ticket to support it in
addition to the financial sponsorship [I currently give].” Similarly, Tracey
(F, 25) had this to say about the potential of a lottery in support of the
With my friend who has MS, if she asked me, I wouldn’t even see it
as a lottery. It would be me supporting my friend and her cause, and
that would be the difference. There’s more emotional attachment.
70 JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING
Personal Relevance. Another major theme uncovered during the qual-
itative interviews was that the purchase decision appears to be primarily
driven by the degree of personal relevance that the cause held for that
person. In this regard,charity lotteries appear to bequite similar to other
forms of charitable support. Indeed, although participants did report
buying lottery tickets at the behest of friends and family, this was the ex-
ception rather than the rule. Rather, most participants revealed that they
typically purchased tickets that supported organizations or causes that
held personal significance.
For Tracy (F, 25), causes that affect her or her family and friends get
I have a friend that has MS. So, anything related to that, she was in-
volved in. I always donated my time. And if it was charitable con-
tributions they were looking for, I always contributed, because it’s
something she’s leading, and it’s close to her heart.
Vera (F, 47) shared a similar experience:
It’s primarily the cause. I bought the Legion lottery last year to
support that cause. My dad was a member of the Legion, so it was
a family commitment kind of purchase.
Many respondents revealed that they had “favorite” causes that they
supported. Moreover, these causes were typically given priority when
it came time to make a decision about which charities to support. Chris
(F, 40), who actively supports the Humane Society, indicated that she
regularly buys their lottery tickets. The personal relevance of this char-
ity made the purchase of these lottery tickets an emotional one; she
stated, “That’s to do with my heart, where my heart is.” Similarly, when
asked about hospital lotteries that she had supported, Chris indicated
that she only bought tickets from “her hospital” and that she wouldn’t
conceive of supporting another hospital’s lottery.
Chris’ comment illustrates an important sub-theme of personal rele-
vance, namely that participants felt most strongly about charity lotteries
that generated funds for their local community. And, as Chris’ comment
about her hospital indicates, “community” may be as narrowly defined
as one’s own neighborhood. To illustrate, Sue (F, 55) commented:
One thing that’s really important to me is it needs to be local some-
how involving my community. And really, it’s important for me to
know how much of that money is going to the cause.
John Peloza and Derek N. Hassay 71
Fund Administration. A number of participants indicated that it was
very important for them to know how the CSL proceeds would be used.
This is in stark contrast with the typical government-sponsored lottery
where consumers may/may not even know that the proceeds are being
used to support public services and charitable organizations. A number of
participants demonstrated a genuine concern over the proportion of funds
raised by the CSL that actually ended up going to the designated charita-
ble organization(s). These comments appeared to indicate that the partici-
pants recognized that there are considerable costs associated with running
a CSL (e.g., prizing, promotion). For some participants it was an issue
that needed to be satisfied before a purchase was made:
If World Vision were to have a lottery I would probably buy a ticket
but I would also look at the whole idea of where does this money
go. I don’t want a lot of money chewed up in administration costs.
I guess I question that with the lottery. I would like to see the finan-
cial statements. (Karen, 33)
For others, it is a matter of knowing where the proceeds go, and that
those proceeds are put to use locally:
For example, putting a fountain down the street for kids might be
legitimate versus funding somebody’s trip somewhere that they’ve
always wanted to go. For example, I support Amnesty International.
If Amnesty offered a lottery, and the lottery was set up in such a way
that the majority of the outcome was going to the charity and not the
winners of the lottery, then I would be involved. (Bob, 54)
What is particularly interesting is that the preceding comments refer
not to charities that currently operate CSLs but rather those that do not.
On the one hand, these comments reflect the participants’ support for
CSLs that are run efficiently (i.e., return as much of collected revenues
to charity beneficiary as possible). And, on the other, they appear to
suggest that the market is not yet saturated with CSLs.
What is also interesting is that participants seem to be concerned that
the proceeds of CSLs benefit the local community, just as they are when
it comes to the smaller-scale charity gaming activities. Thus, the prize
pool does not seem to detract the purchaser/donor from his/her focus–
community support. However, what differentiates these two forms of
charity gaming is the heightened interest that the CSL ticket buyer has
in the amount of money that actually goes to the charity. Based on this
72 JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING
finding, it would seem that charity lottery organizers need to insure that a
proper public accounting of CSL fundraising goals and actual outcomes
CSL Ticket Buyers Exhibit Minimal Gambling Tendencies. Participants
were also asked to share their views on gambling and their own gam-
bling behaviors in an attempt to ascertain whether CSL ticket buyers
have a proclivity for gambling. This issue was explored in response to
the well-publicized view that all gaming has the potential to create com-
pulsive gamblers, and that even charity lotteries may fuel the flames of
this addiction. However, this preliminary study suggests that there is no
relationship between charity gaming in the form of a CSL and other
forms of gambling, and no indications that such ticket purchases will lead
to gambling addiction.
In fact, preliminary results gained from these interviews revealed that
the person who supports CSLs may not have any interest in other forms of
gambling. Indeed, most indicated that they are not even frequent purchas-
ers of government-sponsored lottery tickets. Those who did report pur-
chasing such tickets do so infrequently and reported that these purchases
were typically made as a type of impulse purchase (e.g., “Happened to be
in the mall,” “Was asked to join a lottery pool at work”) or as a response
to an unusually large prize (e.g., $10 million or more). For example, Vera
(F, 47), who had purchased many CSL tickets, didn’t gamble regularly on
government-sponsored lotteries, stating that “I only buy those when the
prize is significant, [With significant] being over $10 million.”
Moreover, participants highlighted the cost of the CSL ticket as a factor
that distanced this form of charity gaming from traditional government-
sponsored lotteries. For example, the typical CSL ticket is priced between
$20 and $100, which makes impulse purchases unlikely. In contrast,
their own behavior concerning the purchase of government-sponsored
lotteries, which typically cost $1 to $2, suggests that these lotteries are
far more susceptible to developing the type of impulse-control disorder
associated with compulsive gambling.
Interestingly, despite each of the participants spending hundreds of
dollars on CSL tickets over the previous two years, none of them con-
sidered themselves to be “gamblers.” Indeed, CSL play was viewed by
participants as not just a nicer vice, but completely distinct from the
types of gambling typically viewed as vice. For example, Tracey (F, 25)
said, “I’m not a gambler. I’ve spent time in Las Vegas and didn’t put
one quarter in a slot machine.”
John Peloza and Derek N. Hassay 73
Globally, governments have reduced their support of charitable orga-
nizations over the past few decades. At the same time, they have elimi-
nated many of the social services they once offered, thereby creating even
more demand for the services provided by an already under-funded charity
sector. In this environment, charity gaming–and given their size, CSLs
specifically–represent a promising means of raising additional revenue
for cash-strapped charities. Although preliminary, the findings pre-
sented in the current paper suggest that many of the potential concerns
associated with traditional gambling are not expected with the charity
super lottery, making such charity lotteries a win-win for both charities
and their supporters. The charity super lottery, then, potentially repre-
sents both a viable and virtuous means of fundraising for charities seek-
ing new and sustainable funding sources.
Although the results of the study presented in the current paper are
clearly preliminary, they do offer a glimpse into the decision processes
of consumers who support charity gaming. However, the potential for
charity gaming to be an important alternative source of funding for chari-
ties requires a much deeper understanding of the phenomenon. Specifi-
cally, the insights from the current paper can be used to develop a future
research agenda for charity gaming in the following areas:
• It has been predicted that there will be a decline in traditional forms
of giving to charitable organizations as a result of fundraising
through charity lotteries (Azmier and Roach 2000; Morgan 2000).
And yet, this preliminary study suggests that at least in the case of
premium charity lottery tickets, purchases are largely driven by a
desire to donate. Qualitative validation of the consumer motives be-
hind participation in charity gaming and the apparent lack of canni-
balization from charity gaming on other traditional forms of charity
support is needed.
•Examination of the antecedents required for a successful charity
lottery. For example, does a nonprofit organization such as school
or university have the same opportunity to exploit charity lotteries
as a charity-supporting cancer research? Are there organizational
attributes that lead to a more successful lottery? Does the size and
74 JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING
scope of the organization matter? The current study examining
a range of charitable organizations from hospital fundraising foun-
dations to social services for children. However, there may be
characteristics and consumer insights that are unique to the form of
charitable organization sponsoring the charity gaming.
•Similar to the previous opportunity, further research is needed into
the impact of the form of charity gaming on consumer behavior. For
example, are the pro-social motives witnessed in the current sample
of CSL ticket buyers also found in the more intimate, social forms
of charity gaming such as bingos or casinos? It has been suggested
that these forms of charity gaming are potentially more addictive
due to the “rush” that a gambler experiences when confronted with
the physical (e.g., lights, sounds) and social (e.g., other gamblers)
environment of a casino (Spanier 1994).
• Quantitative research is needed to further examine the relationship
between the consumption of charity gaming and traditional gambling
behavior. Are consumers of charity gaming indeed less likely to en-
gage in other forms of gambling behavior?
• The opportunity for charity gaming, and charity lotteries specifi-
cally, to become a source of donor or volunteer recruitment requires
examination. For example, are consumers of charity gaming more
likely to become supporters of that charity after being exposed
through charity gaming? Does participation in charity gaming relate
to support of charitable organizations overall?
• The current study considered charity lotteries only in the Canadian
context. A comparison of the regulation and operation of Canadian
CSLs with those in other jurisdictions (e.g., Australia, New Zealand)
may provide guidance for other jurisdictions looking to develop
legislation. In addition, examination of legal and cultural constraints
to exporting the CSL opportunity, as well as other novel forms of
charity gaming, is required. What are the cultural barriers that
charities in other countries face? What is the legal and taxation
treatment of profits that charities in other countries receive from
charity lotteries and other forms of large-scale charity gaming?
•The current study focused on the consumer behavior of those people
who support charity lotteries. However, many consumers are op-
posed to charities that introduce such tactics as fundraising initia-
tives. Further research is needed to uncover the potential negative
effects on existing donors who oppose such efforts. Can the intro-
duction of a profitable charity lottery actually cause the charity to
lose money in the long run?
John Peloza and Derek N. Hassay 75
Although preliminary, the results from this exploratory study have im-
portant implications for charities looking for alternative sources of fund-
ing, and for policy makers interested in finding alternative ways to support
the charity sector as it assumes more responsibility for the delivery of
Implications for Policy Makers
This research offers a number of potential implications for public
policy makers and, specifically, government officials who are looking
to work with charitable organizations in the provision of social services.
• Encourage the development and promotion of more potentially non-
addictive forms of charity gaming, such as charity lotteries. It is ar-
gued that the current forms of charity gaming, such as charity casi-
nos, are more likely to lead to unwanted side effects such as problem
gambling and addiction than the type of lotteries discussed here.
• Develop rules that encourage responsible use of CSLs. As in the
Canadian environment, development and management of the CSLs
needs to be monitored closely to ensure that the practice is free of
illegal activities, and enjoys the benefits of professional management
• Discourage the use of socially responsible marketing messages to
promote government-sponsored lotteries. Such messages have been
shown to be of marginal promotional value to consumers and are
likely to confuse consumers who wish to support more charity-spe-
cific charity gaming options.
Implications for Charities
For charities, this research raises the possibility of adding charity
gaming and specifically lotteries to the current mix of fundraising. The
following recommendations are offered to those organizations looking to
expand their fundraising activities:
•Consider adding a lottery, particularly if the charity has a strong
donor, volunteer, or membership database to draw upon. These sup-
porters are likely to incrementally support the lottery. Additionally,
the lottery may be an excellent way to build the donor database.
76 JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING
•Ensure that charity lottery marketing efforts emphasize the under-
lying cause, and clearly communicate how the charity plans to use
the proceeds from the lottery within the local community.
•Scale is required for a successful charitable lottery. Bigger prize
pools create more excitement and generate greater publicity, bigger
“dream” homes generate greater walk through traffic. However, the
costs of the prize pool must be covered to avoid a deficit and this
means that an equally large investment in promotion will be required
to sell the number of tickets necessary to be successful.
Andreasen, Alan and Philip Kotler (2003), Strategic Marketing for Nonprofit Organi-
zations, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Azmier, Jason and Robert Roach (2000), The Ethics of Charitable Gambling: A Sur-
vey, Calgary, AB: Canada West Foundation.
Batson, C. Daniel (1994), “Why Act for the Public Good? Four Answers,” Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20 (5), 603-10.
Batson, C. Daniel and Laura Shaw (1991), “Evidence for Altruism: Toward A Plural-
ism of Prosocial Motives,” Psychological Inquiry, 2 (2), 107-122.
Bednall, David H. B., Ian Walker, David Curl, and Heather Le Roy (2001), “Business
Support Approaches for Charities and Other Nonprofits,” International Journal of
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 6 (2), 172-187.
Bendapudi, Neeli, Surendra Singh, and Venkat Bendapudi (1996), “Enhancing Help-
ing Behavior: An Interactive Framework for Promotion Planning,” Journal of Mar-
keting, 60 (July), 33-49.
Bennett, Roger (2003), “Factors Underlying the Inclination to Donate to Particular
Charity Types,” International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Manage-
ment, 8 (1), 12-29.
Berdahl, Loleen (1999), The Impact of Gaming Upon Canadian Nonprofits: A 1999
Survey of Gaming Grant Recipients, Calgary, AB: Canada West Foundation.
Cermak, Dianne, Maru File, and Russ Alan Prince (1994), “A Benefit Segmentation of
the Major Donor Market,” Journal of Business Research, 29 (2), 121-131.
Chaney, Isabella and Nitha Dolli (2001), “Cause Related Marketing in New Zealand,”
International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 6 (2), 156-163.
Chantal, Yves and Robert Vallerand (1996), “Skill Versus Luck: A Motivational Ana-
lysis of Gambling Involvement,” The Journal of Gambling Studies, 12 (4), 407-418.
Clotfelter, Charles (1985), Federal Tax Policy and Charitable Giving, Chicago:
Dawson, Scott (1988), “Four Motivations for Charitable Giving: Implications for
Marketing Strategy to Attract Monetary Donations for Medical Research,” Journal
of Health Care Marketing, 8 (2), 31-37.
John Peloza and Derek N. Hassay 77
Dixey, Rachel (1987), “It’s a Great Feeling When You Win: Women and Bingo,”
Leisure Studies, 6, 199-214.
Donovan, Gill (2003), “Charities Respond to State Budget Cuts,” National Catholic
Reporter, 39 (17), 7.
Foster, Mary and Agnes Meinhard (2002), “A Contingency View of the Responses
of Voluntary Social Service Organizations to Ontario Government Cutbacks,”
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 19 (1), 27-41.
Fund Raising Management (1999), “Toward 2000: Charitable and Social Change
Giving in the New Millennium–Part 2,” 30 (4), 24-28.
Gattuso, Greg (1997), “Demand High for Charity Help,” Fund Raising Management,
27 (11), 7.
Gattuso, Greg (1993), “What’s Ahead for Charity Gambling?” Fund Raising Manage-
ment, 24 (7), 19-25.
Gilchrist, Valerie J. (1992), “Key Informant Interviews,” in eds. Benjamin F. Crabtree
and William L. Miller, Doing Qualitative Research, 70-89, Newbury Park: CA: Sage.
Greene, Stephen (2003), “Taxing Times for Charity,” The Chronicle of Philanthropy,
September 18, (http://philanthropy.com).
Griffiths, Mark (1990), “The Cognitive Psychology of Gambling,” The Journal of
Gambling Studies, 6 (1), 31-42.
Guy, Bonnie and Wesley Patton (1988), “The Marketing of Altruistic Causes: Under-
standing Why People Help,” The Journal of Services Marketing, 2 (1), 5-16.
Handy, Femida (2000), “How We Beg: The Analysis of Direct Mail Appeals,” Non-
profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29 (3), 439-454.
Hankinson, Philippa (2001), “Brand Orientation in the Charity Sector: A Framework
for Discussion and Research,” International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Marketing, 6 (3), 231-242.
Harbaugh, William (1998), “What Do Donations Buy? A Model of Philanthropy Based
on Prestige and Warm Glow,” Journal of Public Economics, 67 (2), 269-284.
Johnston, David (1993), “The Dark Side of Charity Gambling,” Money, 22 (10),
Kirchhoff, Sue (2003), “Non-profits Start Making Painful Cuts,” USA Today, Septem-
ber 17, Section B: 01.
Larson, Jan (1995), “Sweet Charity,” American Demographics, 2 (3), 68-73.
Lindahl, Wesley and Aaron Conley (2002), “Literature Review: Philanthropic Fund-
raising,” Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 13 (1), 90-112.
Marchand, June and Sylvie Lavoie (1998), “Non-profit Organizations’ Practices and
Perceptions of Advertising: Implications for Advertisers,” Journal of Advertising
Research, 38 (4), 33-40.
McCracken, Grant (1988), The Long Interview, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
McKeown, Larry (2001), “Trends in Individual Donations: 1984-2000,” Canadian
Centre for Philanthropy Research Bulletin, 9 (1), 1-4.
Mescon, Timothy S. and Donn J. Tilson (1987), “Corporate Philanthropy: A Strategic
Approach to the Bottom-Line,” California Management Review, 29 (2), 49-61.
Miller, Matthew (1998), “Explaining California’s ‘Mississippification’: A Dramatic
Decline in Public Services,” U.S. News and World Report, 124 (19), 32.
78 JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING
Miller, William F., and Benjamin F. Crabtree (1992), “Primary Care Research: A
Multimethod Typology and Qualitative Road Map,” in Benjamin F. Crabtree and
William L. Miller (eds.) Doing Qualitative Research, 3-28, Newbury Park: CA: Sage.
Miyazaki, Anthony, Ann Hansen, and David Sprott (1998), “A Longitudinal Analysis
of Income-Based Tax Regressivity of State-Sponsored Lotteries,” Journal of Pub-
lic Policy & Marketing, 17 (2), 161-172.
Miyazaki, Anthony, Jeff Langenderfer, and David Sprott (1999), “Government-
Sponsored Lotteries: Exploring Purchase and Non-purchase Motivations,” Psy-
chology & Marketing, 16 (1), 1-20.
Morgan, John (2000), “Financing Public Goods by Means of Lotteries,” Review of
Economic Studies, 67 (233), 761-784.
Nonprofit World (1996), “Charities Turning to Gaming Fundraisers,” 14 (6), 9.
Olabuenaga, Ruiz (2000), El sector no lucrative en Espana (Third Sector in Spain),
Madrid: Fundacion BB.
Peltier, James, John Schibrowsky, and Don Schultz (2002), “Leveraging Customer
Information to Develop Sequential Communication Strategies: A Case Study of
Charitable-Giving Behavior,” Journal of Advertising Research, 42 (4), 23-41.
Platz, Laurie and Murray Millar (2001), “Gambling in the Context of Other Recreation
Activity: A Quantitative Comparison of Casual and Pathological Student Gam-
blers,” Journal of Leisure Research, 33 (4), 383-395.
Polonsky, Michael Jay (2003), “Who Receives the Most Help? The Most Needy or
those with the Best Marketers?” International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Marketing, 8 (4), 302-04.
Sargeant, Adrian (1999), “Charitable Giving: Towards a Model of Donor Behavior,”
Journal of Marketing Management, 15 (4), 215-238.
Schouten, John W. (1991), “Selves in Transition: Symbolic Consumption in Personal
Rites of Passage and Identity Reconstruction,” Journal of Consumer Research,17
Scott, Katherine (2003), Funding Matters: The Impact of Canada’s New Funding
Regime on Nonprofit and Voluntary Organizations, Ottawa, ON: Canadian Council
on Social Development.
Seligman, Dan (2003), “In Defense of Gambling,” Forbes, 171 (13), 86-87.
Smith, Ronald and Frederick Preston (1984), “Vocabularies of Motives for Gambling
Behavior,” Sociological Perspectives, 27 (3), 325-348.
Smith, Scott (1980), “Giving to Charitable Organizations: A Behavioral Review and a
Framework For Increasing Commitment,” in Jerry Olson (ed.) Advances in Con-
sumer Research Vol. 7, 753-756, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Spanier, David (1994), Inside the Gamblers Mind, Reno, NV: University of Nevada
Stearns, James and Shaheen Borna (1995), “The Ethics of Lottery Advertising: Issues
and Evidence,” Journal of Business Ethics, 14 (1), 43-51.
Stewart, Moira (1992), “Approaches to Audiotape and Videotape Analysis: Interpret-
ing the Interactions Between Patients and Physicians,” in Benjamin F. Crabtree and
William L. Miller (eds.) Doing Qualitative Research, 149-162, Newbury Park:
Sullivan, Aline (2002), “Affair of the Heart,” Barron’s, 82 (49), 28.
John Peloza and Derek N. Hassay 79
Tarras, John, A.J. Singh, and Omar Moufakkir (2000), “The Profile and Motivations of
Elderly Women Gamblers,” Gaming Research and Review Journal, 5 (1), 33-46.
Webb, Deborah, Corliss Green, and Thomas Brashear (2000), “Development and Vali-
dation of Scales to Measure Attitudes Influencing Monetary Donations to Charita-
ble Donations,” Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (2), 299-309.
Weir, Laura and Sally Hibbert (2000), “Building Donor Relationships: An Investiga-
tion Into the Use of Relationship and Database Marketing by Charity Fundraisers,”
The Services Industries Journal, 20 (2), 114-123.
Zaslow, Jeffrey (1986), “Poker, Blackjack, ‘Pull Tabs’ and Charity: Small-Time Gam-
bling Flourishes in West,” Wall Street Journal, April 25, 1.
80 JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING
the Haworth Document
Delivery Service and Rightslink
To request single articles from Haworth, visit
www.HaworthPress.com/journals/dds.asp.You can order
single articles here directly from Haworth or through
Rightslink . We have over 40,000 articles ready for
immediate delivery, and you can find articles by title,
by author name, by keyword, and more!