3 ms·

Amazon notes[0] that they "will donate 0.5% of the purchase price from your eligible AmazonSmile purchases". Looking at my purchase history over the last six ye

Amazon notes[0] that they "will donate 0.5% of the purchase price from your eligible AmazonSmile purchases". Looking at my purchase history over the last six years, that number is closer to 0.25% (presumably because many purchases weren't considered eligible). I still keep my purchases going to my charity of choice, but make no mistake: opting for AmazonSmile contributions won't move the needle on your charity. You have to make contributions directly out of your own wallet. Bonus points if your employer will match them. [0] https://smile.amazon.com/gp/chpf/about/ref=smi_se_dshb_aas_saas https://smile.amazon.com/gp/chpf/about/ref=smi_se_dshb_aas_s...

dunefox 6y ago
> opting for AmazonSmile contributions won't move the needle on your charity It's better than the opposite, which is nothing.
- blacksmith_tb 6y ago
  Wouldn't the opposite be giving to those organizations directly? I'm not opposed to Smile, but presumably it isn't intended to be the only source of funding. Still, like you say, it's better than not giving anything.
  - dunefox 6y ago
    The opposite of using Amazon Smile is not using it. It costs you nothing and benefits charities.
- mynameisash 6y ago
  Sure, it's better than nothing, but I worry that there will be people who think that their use of Smile is enough and might deter some active giving. I've funneled tens of thousands of dollars through Amazon in six years that resulted in only about $65 of donations, so less than $1/mo. But I also give $100/mo (x2 with my employer match) to the same charity. So Smile donations will barely register compared with active, intentional giving.
0-_-0 6y ago
"All worldwide charities have received £180,650,306.59 as of November 2020" [0] That might move a needle... [0] https://smile.amazon.co.uk/gp/chpf/dashboard?ref_=nav_cs_smile https://smile.amazon.co.uk/gp/chpf/dashboard?ref_=nav_cs_smi...

dunefox 6y ago

> opting for AmazonSmile contributions won't move the needle on your charity It's better than the opposite, which is nothing.

blacksmith_tb 6y ago
Wouldn't the opposite be giving to those organizations directly? I'm not opposed to Smile, but presumably it isn't intended to be the only source of funding. Still, like you say, it's better than not giving anything.
- dunefox 6y ago
  The opposite of using Amazon Smile is not using it. It costs you nothing and benefits charities.
mynameisash 6y ago
Sure, it's better than nothing, but I worry that there will be people who think that their use of Smile is enough and might deter some active giving. I've funneled tens of thousands of dollars through Amazon in six years that resulted in only about $65 of donations, so less than $1/mo. But I also give $100/mo (x2 with my employer match) to the same charity. So Smile donations will barely register compared with active, intentional giving.

0-_-0 6y ago

"All worldwide charities have received £180,650,306.59 as of November 2020" [0] That might move a needle... [0] https://smile.amazon.co.uk/gp/chpf/dashboard?ref_=nav_cs_smile https://smile.amazon.co.uk/gp/chpf/dashboard?ref_=nav_cs_smi...