For-profit companies spend between 7 and 9 percent of their revenue on marketing. Among nonprofits that spend anything on advertising, the median is 0.66 percent of expenses.
That gap is not a coincidence. It reflects a deeply held belief in the nonprofit sector that spending money on marketing is somehow at odds with the mission - that every dollar going to promotion is a dollar not going to athletes, programs, or facilities. Boards push back on marketing budgets. Donors question overhead ratios. Executive directors cut marketing first when budgets get tight.
The result is organizations doing genuinely important work that almost nobody knows about.
What the gap actually costs
Here's what that actually costs. A nonprofit organization powered by sport raising $200,000 a year is spending roughly $1,300 on marketing. That $1,300 is doing the work of telling the world why the organization exists, why it deserves support, and why a donor should choose it over the forty other nonprofits in their inbox. It is not enough. It was never going to be enough.
Where the 0.66% comes from
The overhead myth is the culprit. For decades, donors and watchdog organizations evaluated nonprofits almost entirely on overhead ratios - what percentage of revenue goes to administration and fundraising versus programs. The lower the overhead, the better the organization, the thinking went. That framing penalized investment in anything that looked like infrastructure, including marketing.
The problem is that it is wrong. Research from organizations including Bridgespan and the Stanford Social Innovation Review has consistently shown that the nonprofits with the strongest program outcomes are also the ones that invest in organizational capacity rather than starving it. You cannot scale impact you cannot communicate. You cannot retain donors who have never heard from you since the thank-you email.
Spending like the mission depends on it
The math is straightforward. A nonprofit organization powered by sport that raises $200,000 a year and spends 7 percent on marketing - closer to the for-profit benchmark - is spending $14,000. The difference between $1,300 and $14,000 is a Google Ads account that actually runs, an email program that reactivates lapsed donors, and a social presence that makes the case to people who have never heard of the organization before. Those are not luxuries. They are the infrastructure that determines whether the organization is still operating in five years.
The nonprofits that grow are not the ones that spend the least on marketing. They are the ones that treat donor acquisition and retention as a discipline worth investing in. The 0.66 percent figure is not a badge of honor. It is a description of why most of these organizations are stuck.
For-profit marketing spend is measured as a share of revenue (Gartner 2025 CMO Spend Survey, 7.7%; Deloitte/Duke CMO Survey 2025, 9.4%). The 0.66 percent nonprofit figure is the median advertising spend as a share of expenses among nonprofits that advertise (Whole Whale 2024 Nonprofit Advertising Benchmark Study with CauseIQ). The two measure different things, so the comparison is directional rather than like-for-like.