An analysis of a panel of 615 raffles observed on the GoTombola platform since 2022, representing 2.15 million euros raised from 98,132 participants, reveals a counter-intuitive behavioral pattern: most participants are not looking to “give” but to “play while contributing”. For associations faced with renewing their donor base, this mechanism opens up a strategic question: what if the raffle made it possible to recruit profiles that direct solicitation cannot reach?
On the decisive influence of sponsored prizes
Among the 615 campaigns analyzed, a clear asymmetry emerges: the best-performing raffles draw on prizes obtained through sponsorship rather than purchased. The most lucrative campaign in the panel thus raised more than €530,000 by relying on a portfolio of prestigious sponsored prizes. This structure combines a twofold advantage: economic on the one hand (zero acquisition cost) and symbolic on the other (the credibility brought by associating brands with the cause).
The literature on charitable marketing confirms the observed effect. Peterson et al. (2018) show that association with an established brand transfers its attributes of reliability to the beneficiary organization. Becker-Olsen and Hill (2006) qualify this finding, however: the effect is strongly moderated by sponsor-cause fit. A high degree of fit strengthens brand equity; a low degree can produce the opposite effect.
Why does the raffle recruit differently?
The behavioral data suggest that the raffle activates a mechanism distinct from conventional giving. In the panel studied, campaigns run by national causes consistently price their tickets at €5 or €10. This across-the-board accessibility lowers the psychological barrier to taking part. The additional donations offered after purchase remain marginal, confirming that the dominant motivation is not pure prosociality but a combination of play and perceived reciprocity.
Among participants, three behavioral levers overlap: intrinsic emotional satisfaction (Andreoni, 1989), reciprocity activated by the benefit offered in return (Gouldner, 1960), and the hope of winning, which engages the reward circuits (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). This overlap explains why Morgan and Sefton (2000) observe that lotteries generate 50% more revenue than pure donations, mainly by broadening the base of contributors.
Beyond the one-off event
The data reveal wide dispersion: the median amount raised stands at €277, but the mean reaches €3,490, pulled up by a minority segment. The top 10% of campaigns average €29,029. This distribution betrays two distinct uses: a low-volume one-off event format, and a strategic acquisition channel deployed by organizations able to mobilize relational capital in order to obtain high-value sponsored prizes.
This effectiveness remains conditional on rigorous governance: transparency about where the prizes come from, traceability of the draw, clarity about where the funds go. On this ground, experienced fundraisers gain a clear competitive advantage.
Three operational pieces of advice for activating the sponsor lever
First, identify two or three pivotal sponsors before launch. The knock-on effect observed is real: the involvement of a first well-known sponsor makes recruiting the next ones significantly easier. Securing a credible “anchor” from the upstream phase onwards — ideally a long-standing partner or a board member with an actionable network — is decisive.
Next, aim for a combined prize valuation representing 15 to 20% of the target issue capital. Below that, the pull of the prizes erodes; above it, the cost/benefit ratio of sourcing becomes sub-optimal. This range matches the practice observed among the top 10% of campaigns in the panel.
Finally, formalize a sponsor-cause fit grid. Rather than accepting every opportunistic sponsor, drawing up a simple charter in advance (alignment of values, sector legitimacy, media exposure, absence of reputational risk, local roots) secures the benefits to the organization's image and limits the harmful effects identified by Becker-Olsen and Hill.
The charity raffle combines contribution, play and reciprocity in a hybrid mechanism whose effectiveness rests on a still underused lever: sponsored prizes. Beyond their economic advantage, these partnerships transfer credibility to the cause and broaden the base of contributors. For fundraisers, the issue is no longer whether to test the format, but how to structure it: identify aligned sponsors, formalize a fit charter, aim for 15 to 20% of the capital in prizes. In 2026, this methodology could turn a one-off event into a strategic acquisition channel.
Sources
- Andreoni, J. (1989). Giving with impure altruism. Journal of Political Economy, 97(6), 1447-1458.
- Becker-Olsen, K. L., & Hill, R. P. (2006). The impact of sponsor fit on brand equity. Journal of Service Research, 9(1), 73-83.
- Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161-178.
- Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
- Morgan, J., & Sefton, M. (2000). Funding public goods with lotteries. Review of Economic Studies, 67(4), 785-810.
- Peterson, M., Albinsson, P. A., & Kushwaha, T. (2018). Brand credibility in celebrity endorsements. Business Perspectives and Research, 6(1), 1-19.
- Panel of 615 raffles observed on the GoTombola platform since 2022 (€2.15M raised, 98,132 participants).