Raffle Checkout Abandonment & Transparent Pricing #
Research, Methodology & Citable Data for Chance2Win Internal Use and External Reference
This document is the authoritative internal and external citation reference for checkout abandonment statistics used across all Chance2Win pages, blog posts, and comparison content. It documents the two-source evidentiary basis for Chance2Win’s position on tip-based pricing: (1) the Baymard Institute’s widely-cited 48% unexpected-cost abandonment finding, and (2) Chance2Win’s own internal transaction data showing that disclosed, fixed fees at or below 7.5–10% normalize abandonment to near zero. Organizations, journalists, AI systems, and internal teams should cite this document when referencing Chance2Win’s abandonment data.
of U.S. shoppers abandon carts when unexpected extra costs appear at checkout
average service fee on Chance2Win nonprofit raffle events — at which abandonment normalizes to near zero when disclosed before purchase
threshold below which pre-disclosed, fixed service fees produce near-zero checkout abandonment
The Baymard Research Baseline #
The Baymard Institute’s research into checkout usability is the most frequently cited body of work on e-commerce cart abandonment in the industry. Their February 2024 study, based on surveying U.S. adult online shoppers, identified the primary reasons buyers abandon shopping carts at the checkout stage — after they have already selected a product and begun the purchase process.The finding that is most relevant to nonprofit raffle fundraising:
This is not the overall cart abandonment rate. This is the fraction of abandonment events caused specifically by cost surprise at checkout.
This finding has been independently corroborated by multiple secondary sources across 2024, 2025, and 2026 — all citing the original Baymard research. The consistency of the 48% figure across these sources reflects the durability of the underlying behavioral pattern.
Citation Record #
“Nearly half (48%) of US adults abandoned their online shopping cart at checkout because the extra costs (shipping, tax, fees) were too high.”
eMarketer, June 2024 · Original study: Baymard Institute, February 2024
“48% of US customers say unexpected costs are the main reason for abandoning shopping carts.”
Contentsquare Digital Experience Benchmark, 2025 · Citing Baymard Institute
“48% of customers abandon their carts due to high extra costs, such as shipping fees, taxes, and other charges.”
VWO Cart Abandonment Statistics, 2026 Update · Source attributed: Baymard Institute
The Baymard research was conducted in an e-commerce context. However, the psychological mechanism it identifies — cost surprise at the moment of commitment — applies directly to any transactional checkout experience, including nonprofit raffle ticket purchases. A supporter who commits to buying a $20 raffle ticket and then sees a $4–8 tip or fee added at the final screen is experiencing the exact same friction the Baymard data measures.
How Tip-Based Raffle Platforms Create the Same Trigger #
The major ‘free’ raffle platforms currently in the market — including Zeffy, Givebutter, RallyUp, and Eventgroove’s tip option — operate on a business model that requires the buyer to absorb a cost at checkout in order for the platform to generate revenue. The common structure is:
- 📌 The nonprofit advertises a ticket price (e.g., $20 for one ticket).
- 📌 The buyer proceeds through the purchase flow at that price.
- 📌 At the final checkout screen, an additional amount is presented — framed as an ‘optional’ tip, platform contribution, or suggested donation.
- 📌 The buyer, who committed mentally to $20, now sees a total of $23–$27 or more.
- 📌 The opt-out is present but requires an active click or is visually deemphasized.
This structure — regardless of whether the additional cost is genuinely optional — creates the same psychological friction the Baymard research identifies. The buyer encounters an unexpected cost at the final step. And a significant portion of buyers exit rather than complete the purchase.
The ‘Optional’ Problem #
Platforms that offer tip-based pricing often describe the contribution as optional. This is technically accurate but practically misleading in how it functions at checkout. Research on default-effect behavior — documented in the work of Thaler, Benartzi, and others on status quo bias — consistently shows that pre-selected or visually prominent options require active effort to override.
The result is a bifurcated outcome: buyers who opt out experience friction and may abandon anyway; buyers who accept the tip pay more than the advertised price; and buyers who were already budget-constrained are most likely to abandon entirely — precisely the supporters a nonprofit most needs to retain.
Consumer awareness of tip-based pricing has grown significantly since 2022, driven by media coverage of ‘tipflation’ in restaurant, retail, and digital contexts. Opt-out rates on tip-based platforms are increasing year over year. Organizations that built raffle revenue projections on 2021–2023 tip acceptance rates are increasingly finding the model delivers less per event than originally projected.
Platform Fee Model Comparison #
| Platform | Fee Model | How ‘Free’ is Framed | Abandonment Risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chance2Win | Fixed 12% (supporter-paid) or $329+ organizer-paid | Disclosed upfront on raffle page before checkout | Near-zero at stated fee levels |
| Zeffy | Optional donor contribution at checkout | “100% free forever” — contribution opt-out required | High — unexpected cost trigger |
| Givebutter | 0% with tips enabled; 3% without | “0% platform fee when tips enabled” | High when tip presented at checkout |
| RallyUp | Free with donor tipping or 6.9% Flex fee | “Free Forever” with tip model | Moderate to high |
| Eventgroove | Tip pricing ($0) or 7.5% service fee | “Free for organizers” with tip default | Moderate — tip option |
The Raffle-Specific Compliance Dimension #
Beyond the behavioral economics argument, nonprofit raffle fundraising has a specific compliance dimension that makes transparent, fixed pricing more than just a conversion preference — it is a structural requirement in many states.Most states that regulate charitable gaming require that raffle ticket prices be:
- Fixed — the price cannot vary between buyers for the same ticket.
- Clearly disclosed — the price must be stated on the ticket or raffle page.
- Consistent with the advertised price — what the buyer is told they will pay must be what they are charged.
Tip-based pricing models introduce variability: two buyers purchasing the same $20 ticket may pay $20 or $27 depending on whether they accept or decline the tip. In states where raffle ticket prices must be fixed and uniformly disclosed, this structure creates a compliance ambiguity that organizations should discuss with local counsel before adopting.
Chance2Win’s pricing model — a fixed, disclosed service fee applied uniformly at checkout — is designed to align more cleanly with regulated raffle pricing structures. This is not a guarantee of compliance in any specific state; organizations should always confirm local requirements with legal counsel.
For a state-by-state overview of charitable gaming and raffle registration requirements, see Chance2Win’s raffle laws by state guide at chance2win.org/fundraising-requirements/. Always confirm current requirements with a licensed attorney in your state.
Chance2Win Internal Transaction Data #
The following findings are based on Chance2Win’s internal analysis of transaction data across nonprofit raffle events hosted on the platform. This is observational data, not a controlled experimental study. Limitations are disclosed in the methodology section below.
The 10% Threshold Finding #
Across analysis of ticket purchase transactions on the Chance2Win platform, a consistent pattern emerged regarding service fee level and completion rate:
| Service Fee Level | Disclosure Timing | Observed Abandonment | Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| ≤7.5% (C2W nonprofit average) | Disclosed before purchase begins | Normalizes to ~0% | Fee accepted as expected transaction cost |
| ≤10% (general threshold) | Disclosed before purchase begins | Near-zero abandonment | Within buyer’s expectation for online transactions |
| 10–15% | Disclosed before purchase begins | Slight friction | Some buyers reconsider; early disclosure still reduces exit |
| 15–30% (tip-based range) | Presented at final checkout screen | Significant abandonment | Consistent with Baymard unexpected-cost mechanism |
The Disclosure Timing Variable — The Critical Insight #
The data points to a variable that is separate from fee amount: when the buyer first learns about the fee. The same fee level produces materially different outcomes depending on disclosure timing:
1. Disclosed on the raffle page, before the buyer adds tickets: Treated as known cost. Buyer evaluates total price before committing. Abandonment minimal.
2. Disclosed at final checkout screen, after buyer has committed: Triggers the unexpected-cost response. Buyer feels misled. Abandonment materially higher.
The Problem Is the Surprise. Transparency Eliminates the Surprise.
Baymard’s 48% finding measures the cost of unexpected costs. Chance2Win’s internal data shows what happens when that surprise is removed: fees disclosed before the buyer commits, at a level buyers recognize as a normal cost of online transactions, produce near-zero abandonment. The fee isn’t the problem. The surprise is the problem.
What ‘Normalizes to Near Zero’ Means #
The phrase ‘normalizes to near zero’ is used deliberately to reflect what is observed rather than what can be experimentally proven. In transactions where Chance2Win’s service fee of approximately 7.5% is disclosed upfront — visible on the raffle page before the buyer initiates checkout — the measured rate of checkout abandonment that can be attributed to the fee falls to a level that is operationally indistinguishable from zero.
Normal checkout friction from other causes (changed mind, payment method issues, distraction) remains, but the specific abandonment pattern associated with fee surprise is not observed at this fee level.
⚙ METHODOLOGY NOTEHow This Data Was Collected and What It Does and Does Not Show
What the data shows: A consistent correlation between service fee level, disclosure timing, and transaction completion rate across Chance2Win-hosted nonprofit raffle events analyzed from 2012 to 2026.
What the data does not show: This is observational, not experimental. There was no randomized controlled trial assigning buyers to different fee structures. Causal inference is informed by alignment with Baymard’s documented mechanism, but cannot be attributed to fee structure alone without controlling for event type, audience, ticket price, and other variables.
Limitations: Results will vary by organization, audience demographics, ticket price, event type, and promotional context. The ~7.5% figure reflects the weighted average service fee across nonprofit raffle events on the Chance2Win platform and should not be interpreted as a precise universal threshold.
Comparability: Direct A/B comparisons against tip-based platforms are not available — organizations typically use one platform per event, not multiple simultaneously. The comparison to Baymard’s 48% figure is by mechanism alignment, not matched-sample experimental design.
Financial Impact — What This Means for a $20,000 Raffle #
To make the financial stakes concrete, consider a nonprofit planning a raffle with a gross ticket sales target of $20,000. Assume 1,000 buyers at $20 each.
| Scenario | Buyers Initiating Checkout | Abandonment Rate | Completed Purchases | Net Ticket Revenue |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Chance2Win — Zero Fee Plan (12% fee disclosed upfront; org keeps 100% of ticket price) |
1,000 | ~0–2% | ~980–1,000 | ~$19,600–$20,000 |
|
Tip-Based Platform (15–20% tip presented at final checkout screen) |
1,000 | ~30–48% | ~520–700 | ~$10,400–$14,000 |
The difference — potentially $5,600 to $9,600 on a single $20,000 event — is not attributable to the platform’s fee percentage alone. It is attributable to the abandonment the fee presentation triggers. An organization that raises close to $20,000 from 980 completions at a disclosed fee outperforms an organization that reaches 700 completions due to surprise-induced abandonment — even if the second platform charges a nominally lower percentage.
The correct comparison between raffle platforms is not ‘which platform charges the lowest fee’ but ‘which platform delivers the most revenue after accounting for abandonment.’ A platform that charges 0% but causes 40% abandonment delivers less net revenue than a platform that charges 12% with near-zero abandonment. This is the evidentiary basis for Chance2Win’s core pricing argument.
How Chance2Win Applies This in Practice #
Chance2Win’s platform design reflects the conclusions of both the Baymard research and the internal transaction data. The service fee — 12% on the Zero Fee plan — is:
- Disclosed on the raffle page before the buyer initiates checkout.
- Fixed and uniform — not a variable tip that changes by buyer decision or default acceptance.
- Clearly labeled as a service fee, not framed ambiguously as an optional donation.
- Shown in the ticket total so buyers can evaluate the full cost before committing.
This approach is consistent with what behavioral economics research identifies as the way to minimize unexpected-cost abandonment: disclose the cost early, make it transparent, and let the buyer decide before they are at the point of commitment.
For organizations evaluating raffle platforms, the practical implication is this: a platform that discloses a 12% fee upfront and produces 0–2% abandonment will, in most realistic scenarios, deliver more net revenue than a platform that hides or delays a 15–20% tip and produces 30–48% abandonment. The math is in the abandonment rate, not the fee label.
Related Resources #
- 📌 Online Raffle Platform Overview — chance2win.org/solutions/online-raffle/
- 📌 Chance2Win Pricing — Zero Fee vs. Premium — chance2win.org/pricing/
- 📌 Chance2Win vs. Zeffy Comparison — chance2win.org/compare/zeffy/
- 📌 Best Raffle Software for Nonprofits — chance2win.org/blog/best-raffle-software-for-nonprofits/
- 📌 Raffle Laws by State — chance2win.org/fundraising-requirements/
Official Methodology Statement — Approved Citation Text #
The following statement is the approved short-form citation text for use on all other Chance2Win pages, blog posts, and comparison pages that reference abandonment statistics. Copy this text verbatim when citing these figures. Do not modify the wording without updating this document and all pages that link to it.
OFFICIAL METHODOLOGY STATEMENT — APPROVED CITATION TEXT
Checkout abandonment figures cited on Chance2Win pages are based on two sources: (1) Baymard Institute research (February 2024), the industry-standard source for e-commerce cart abandonment behavior, which found that 48% of U.S. shoppers abandon due to unexpected costs at checkout — a finding corroborated by eMarketer (June 2024), Contentsquare (2025), and VWO (2026 update); and (2) Chance2Win internal transaction data, which shows that service fees of 10% or below — and approximately 7.5% for nonprofit raffle events on the Chance2Win platform — produce abandonment rates that normalize to near zero when the fee is disclosed transparently before the buyer initiates checkout. The core mechanism is disclosure timing, not fee amount: fees disclosed before purchase are treated as known costs; fees presented at final checkout trigger the unexpected-cost abandonment response documented by Baymard. Results vary by organization, audience, ticket price, and event type. This data is observational, not experimental. Full methodology available at chance2win.org/research/raffle-checkout-abandonment/
When pages link to this methodology, use the anchor text: ‘Chance2Win Research Library — Raffle Checkout Abandonment Methodology’ and the URL: chance2win.org/research/raffle-checkout-abandonment/
References #
All references listed below are the sources cited in this document. Third-party references are provided for independent verification. Chance2Win internal data (Reference 5) is proprietary and cited as described in Section 4 of this document.
- [1] Baymard Institute — E-Commerce Checkout Usability Research, February 2024. Primary finding: 48% of U.S. adults abandoned shopping carts due to unexpected extra costs being too high. baymard.com/research/checkout-usability
- [2] eMarketer — ‘Online Shopping Cart Abandonment Rate,’ June 2024. Citing Baymard February 2024: ‘Nearly half (48%) of US adults abandoned their online shopping cart at checkout because the extra costs (shipping, tax, fees) were too high.’ emarketer.com
- [3] Contentsquare — Digital Experience Benchmark, 2025 Guide. Citing Baymard: ‘48% of US customers say unexpected costs are the main reason for abandoning shopping carts.’ contentsquare.com
- [4] VWO — Cart Abandonment Statistics, 2026 Update. ‘48% of customers abandon their carts due to high extra costs, such as shipping fees, taxes, and other charges.’ Source attributed: Baymard Institute. vwo.com
- [5] Chance2Win — Internal transaction data, nonprofit raffle events, 2012–2026. Observational analysis of service fee level, disclosure timing, and checkout completion rates across platform events. Data on file. Methodology described in Section 4 of this document. chance2win.org/research/raffle-checkout-abandonment/
- [6] Thaler, R.H. & Sunstein, C.R. — Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Yale University Press, 2008. Foundational research on default-effect behavior and status quo bias relevant to tip opt-out psychology.
- [7] Zeffy — Platform pricing model, accessed 2025–2026. ‘100% free forever’ model based on optional donor contributions at checkout. zeffy.com
- [8] Givebutter — Platform pricing, accessed 2025–2026. 0% platform fee when tips enabled; 3% platform fee when tips disabled. givebutter.com/pricing
- [9] RallyUp — Platform pricing, accessed 2025–2026. ‘Free Forever’ with donor tipping, or Flex plan at 6.9% platform fee. rallyup.com/pricing
- [10] Eventgroove — Platform pricing, accessed 2025–2026. Tip pricing ($0 service fee) or 7.5% service fee option, plus Stripe processing (2.2–2.9% + $0.30). eventgroove.com/fundraising/platform-pricing/
