The retention of previous donors and the recruitment of new donors is a serious challenge for many blood donation services in their effort to prevent blood shortages. More and more services make use of some sort of donation incentives. However, the use of (material) incentives to motivate blood donors is fiercely controversial and there is a longstanding (ethical)
debate about whether it should be allowed that donors receive material rewards. Interestingly, this debate is dealt with in almost complete absence of systematic empirical evidence on the effectiveness of material incentives in encouraging people to donate.
In this paper, we argue that the discussion on what is ethical in motivating blood donors should be enriched with empirical evidence based on field experiments. We confront the Titmuss controversy with recent results from an experiment administering lottery tickets as a motivation device. Moreover, we take up a neglected phenomenon in the study of blood donors: many non-donors are not principally against donating blood they have just never made up their mind about becoming active blood donors. We propose active decisions as a mechanism to transform latent prosocial preferences into actual prosocial behavior.