Over the past decade, online fundraising platforms have quietly shifted how they collect revenue. What used to be a clear, mandatory platform fee of around 5% has now largely become a “voluntary” tip asked of donors. While marketed as making fundraising free for charities, the cost has effectively moved onto supporters, often without them fully realising it.
How it started: The “free” pivot (2017 - 2019)
In the early 2010s, platforms such as GoFundMe and JustGiving charged a standard 5% fee on donations. Around 2017–2019, they shifted to a voluntary tip model, presenting it as a way for donors to support the technology that keeps fundraising running.
At first, this approach seemed generous. Donors could help keep platforms operational while ensuring more money reached the intended cause. The psychological appeal was clear: it tapped into donors’ natural desire to give, offering them a way to support the infrastructure behind the donation directly.
The psychology of tipping today (2020 - present)
Fast forward to today, and the tipping landscape looks very different. Suggested tips now often sit between 15% and 20%, and platform designs nudge donors towards paying them.
Behavioural nudges and defaults: High default tip settings make the suggested amount feel like the “standard” choice. Many donors simply accept it without thinking, a phenomenon known as default bias.
Choice architecture and friction: Checkout flows are designed for speed. Opting out of the suggested tip or setting it to zero often requires multiple clicks or navigating a “custom amount” menu, creating subtle friction that encourages higher contributions.
Social pressure and guilt: Once donors see the tip screen, they may feel embarrassed to decline, fearing they’re being “stingy” or harming the cause, even though the tip goes to the platform, not the charity.
Warm glow and reciprocity: After reading an emotional story or seeing the impact of their donation, donors are in a generous frame of mind, making them more likely to add a tip.
Where it is now: “Tip Traps” and regulatory action
While voluntary tips have become standard, they haven’t been without controversy. Recent research shows that 76% of donors feel frustrated by these “tip traps,” often feeling misled when they discover that part of their gift went to the platform rather than the cause.
At the same time, these tips have become a significant revenue source for platforms. For example, JustGiving saw profits rise sharply after adopting this model.
Regulators are taking notice. The UK Fundraising Regulator introduced new rules in late 2025 requiring platforms to give the zero-tipoption equal prominence to suggested amounts. The current debate centres on whether platforms should shift from an “opt-out” default of 15–20% to an“opt-in” model starting at zero, which would likely reduce tip revenue substantially.
Comparing current tipping practices (late 2025/early2026)
- GoFundMe
o Default tip: 18%
o Settingtip to £0: Sliding scale includes 0% option
- JustGiving
o Default tip: 17%
o Settingtip to £0: Must click “enter custom amount” to type 0
- Crowdfunder
o Default tip: 20%
o Settingtip to £0: Sliding scale bottoms at 10%; manual entry required for 0
Summary: The evolution
- Primary charge
o Early 2010s: 5% Platform fee (mandatory)
o Now (2025–2026): Voluntary tip (defaulted to 10–20%)
- Perception
o Early 2010s: Transparent Fee
o Now (2025–2026): “Free” for charities, hidden costs
- Psychology
o Early 2010s: Transactional cost
o Now (2025–2026): Behavioural nudge / social pressure
- User feeling
o Early 2010s: Awareness
o Now (2025–2026): “Misled” or “Trapped”
In short, fundraising platform tipping has evolved from a transparent transactional fee to a psychologically informed model that encourages donors to cover platform costs. While it can maximise revenue for the platform, it has also sparked significant donor frustration and regulatoryattention. Understanding this shift can help supporters make more informedchoices and encourage platforms to adopt fairer practices.
About the author
