Individual donations and social media communication: Italian cultural NPOs' strategies after the pandemic

5 
 
Introduction 
 
As there is a dearth of research in this area, the present study aims to identify 
the most effective social media communication strategies for increasing 
individual monetary donations to Italian cultural NPOs in the post-pandemic 
era. However, although we have attempted to be as exhaustive as possible, we 
recognise the vastness of the subject and therefore do not exclude the 
possibility that future research may provide additional strategies to those 
presented in this study. Furthermore, since culture has always been ranked 
among the least supported causes, with medical research and social causes 
always taking the lead, special consideration has been given to cultural 
welfare. Specifically, our survey also examines whether highlighting the social 
and health impacts generated by cultural NPOs would increase donations and 
move culture up in the list of donors’ preferred causes. Hence, for the purposes 
of our research we adopted a two-step mixed methodology. Initially we 
conducted in-depth interviews with three Italian cultural NPOs and two 
cultural fundraising consultants for third-sector organizations. Afterward, we 
administered two questionnaires for two distinct target groups – i.e.: actual 
and potential Italian cultural donors – to test their inclination towards the 
strategies, or aspects of them, emerged during the interviews. We have 
therefore organized the present thesis into four chapters, following a path 
from the general to the specific. Indeed, Chapter 1 opens with a brief 
introduction to cultural fundraising before delving into the existing literature 
on individual giving and defining the lacunae and the research question. 
Thereafter, Chapter 2 defines the empirical context of this investigation, 
Chapter 3 explains in detail the methodology adopted, and Chapter 4 reports 
the findings. Lastly, the Conclusions provide a concise overview of our work 
and suggest future directions for research.
6 
 
1. Cultural fundraising: focus on individual donations 
 
According to the Oxford Learner's Dictionary, fundraising is defined as «the 
activity of collecting money for a charity or organization, often by organizing 
social events or entertainments» (Oxford University Press, 2023). In a similar 
fashion, Treccani describes fundraising as «[tr.] the activity of seeking funds 
that are necessary for the functioning of nonprofit organizations» (Dizionario 
di Economia e Finanza, 2012). Through these definitions, one can easily 
understand fundraising as an activity aimed at raising financial resources and 
ensuring economic sustainability for a given organisation; however, it goes far 
beyond this simplistic notion. This is why we prefer the description provided 
by Pier Luigi Sacco, who sees fundraising as the end point of a chain of 
relationships and social interactions based on mutual exchange. Furthermore, 
as per Sacco contributing implies that all involved actors give and receive 
something, we can interpret fundraising as an activity that enriches all the 
stakeholders (Sacco, 2006). For this reason, many scholars stressed that 
building long-term relationships is a milestone for an effective fundraising 
strategy (Fishel, 2002; Bonicelli & Pasini, 2006; Waters, 2011; Lindqvist, 2012; 
Curry, Rodin, & Carlson, 2012; Azizi & Moon, 2013; Jung, 2015; Erwin & Dias, 
2016). It follows that fundraising is not limited to simply 'asking for money'; 
rather, it requires a corpus of techniques, specialized knowledge, and 
professional experience to attract contributors who take active part in 
pursuing the mission and the objectives of the organization. It is important to 
note that people can support socially meritorious causes not only by donating 
money but also by giving their time, professional skills, physical goods, or any 
other means possible. All of the above forms of giving are interrelated and can 
potentially influence each other; for example, volunteers' advocacy and good
7 
 
word-of-mouth can play an important role in attracting new donors (Sacco, 
2006; Hommerová & Severová, 2019; Coen Cagli, 2022).  
In what follows, we will enter the realm of cultural fundraising, namely 
fundraising for cultural and arts organizations.  
1.1 First steps into the world of cultural fundraising  
Albeit the term 'cultural fundraising' is relatively recent, its underlying 
concept is not new. Indeed, for many centuries the arts, at least in Europe, were 
financed by wealthy individual patrons who, on occasion, were aided by local 
governments (Masacci, 2006; Alexander, 1996, 1999). Nonetheless, Massimo 
Coen Cagli specified that most of Italy's public cultural institutions were 
created with the investment of communities, often including ordinary citizens 
as well, and not just a major patron such as Lorenzo il Magnifico and Alfonso 
I d'Este. In particular, Coen Cagli argues that Italian communities began to 
fund culture in the Age of Municipalities (between the 11
th
 and 13
th
 centuries) 
by investing in the commons for creating and maintaining welfare conditions 
(Coen Cagli, 2021; Zorzi, 2016). He also stressed how the phenomenon 
continued throughout history by reporting some 19
th
-century cases. For 
instance, he mentioned the Biblioteca Popolare Circolante di Prato, founded 
by Antonio Bruni, which was based on a system of community fundraising. 
Another example is the case of the Teatro Garibaldi in Mazara del Vallo’s 
interior furnishings which were built with donations of wood from 
fishermen's boats (Coen Cagli, 2021). However, despite Italy's long tradition 
of community funding for culture, there has been a widespread perception in 
Europe over the centuries that supporting the arts was mainly a responsibility 
of the State and the upper classes (Srakar & Čopič, 2012, Martinoni, 2006). 
Nevertheless, certain political and economic developments of the last decades 
have changed this perception by strengthening the idea that supporting
8 
 
culture is an interest of everyone who, thus, is called upon to contribute 
personally (Martinoni, 2006). Aimed at increasing the public awareness of the 
value of culture in our society, this new perspective is linked to the emergence 
of the ‘knowledge economy’ that is funded on the concepts of core innovation 
and creativity (Masacci, 2006; Sacco, 2006). In addition, if the industrial model 
was based on vertical integration, the knowledge society is founded on new 
forms of horizontal integration between different actors – e.g.: the public 
administration, the Third sector, the education system, the for-profit sector, 
and the civil society (Sacco, 2006). Looking at policy developments, there are 
three processes that a plethora of states – including Italy – have been 
embarking on since the second half of the last century and that are closely 
related to what we have just illustrated. Specifically, they are: the process of 
privatization, the one of decentralization, and the reduction of public support 
for cultural organizations. In the Italian framework, for instance, a turning 
point in the matter of decentralization was marked by the so called ‘Legge 
Bassanini’, which introduced the principle of vertical subsidiarity. What is 
important, here, is that all these actions had a common purpose, namely the 
«reduction or reinvention of the government’s role» (Srakar & Čopič, 2012, p. 
227; Masacci, 2006; Comunian, 2006; Legge Bassanini, art. 4, clause 3a, 1997; 
Arena, 2003). In such an intricate scenario, cultural organizations were 
encouraged to adopt the American model of the funding mix strategy based 
on the diversification of sources of income (DiMaggio, 1986; Alexander, 1999). 
For this reason, at the turn of the millennium an increasing number of 
European arts organizations began to assimilate the American approach to 
funding (Fishel, 2002). This strategy proved to be essential for guaranteeing 
organizations’ economic sustainability, especially in times of crisis (Byrnes, 
2009; Taylor, 2010; Lindqvist, 2012). Looking at our present, we can say that
9 
 
these theories have not been abandoned in the drawer; rather, as recent 
economic crises have further exacerbated the decline in public support, some 
experts are still emphasizing the importance of the funding mix for cultural 
organizations (Proteau, 2018; Besana, Bagnasco, Esposito, & Calzolari, 2018). 
On the other hand, Katja Lindqvist observed that the diversification of sources 
of income makes cultural organizations dependent on several stakeholders, 
especially for NPOs, where this link is more complex than for for-profit 
organizations. This is why, according to her, for NPOs it is crucial to embrace 
a stakeholder perspective and develop a shareholder strategy in order to 
boost, for instance, donations and thus assure long-term financial stability 
(Lindqvist, 2012).  
Returning to the discussion on funding mix, we will now list some possible 
revenue sources for cultural NPOs. However, we would like to emphasise 
that, as the literature on this point provides countless classifications, what we 
report here is not exhaustive, but limited to mentioning only some of the most 
important items. Moreover, as a preliminary point, we would like to clarify 
that, in general, NPOs can benefit from both indirect and direct funding. While 
the former consists mostly of tax exemptions, the latter is more articulated. 
Indeed, direct incomes can derive from organizations’ own activities, public 
entities, other Third Sector organizations, corporations as well as from single 
individuals. Among the principal sources of direct funding we count: sales of 
goods/services (including commercial activities); membership and ‘Friend of’ 
schemes; donations (including crowdfunding); corporate sponsorships; 
partnerships; State or local calls; EU calls; revenues from systems of tax 
incentives (e.g.: the Art Bonus, 5x1000, and 2x1000 in Italy); bequests; and 
deaccessioning (Hommerová & Severová, 2019; Alexander, 1999; Comunian,