8 ms·

> All US charities have received $400,026,236.70 as of December 2022. $400 million in donations to charities and Amazon has the gall to say "the program has no

> All US charities have received $400,026,236.70 as of December 2022. $400 million in donations to charities and Amazon has the gall to say "the program has not grown to create the impact that we had originally hoped."

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
TMWNN 4y ago
One million eligible recipients around the world, according to Amazon, so $400 per recipient over the decade the program has existed.
- kelnos 4y ago
  That's the average, sure, but since Amazon allows each customer to pick a charity, I imagine some charities got a lot more, and some a lot less. According to my account page, I've generated $100.71 for the charity I selected, and, overall, they've received $273.64 as a part of the program. So I guess the charity I selected wasn't all that popular. But I expect other, more mainstream charities, were.
  - atomicnumber3 4y ago
    The FSF has received almost 35k. That's not bad imo.
    - indrora 4y ago
      Amazon (via Smile) and Microsoft (via employee donations) are probably the two biggest funding sources for the FSF.
      - jyap 4y ago
        Their patrons page says otherwise: https://www.fsf.org/patrons https://www.fsf.org/patrons “Patron pages for past fiscal years” section
        indrora 4y ago
        These are ones that they want to name. It would be politically inconvenient for the FSF to accept that they get donations in kind from Amazon or Microsoft, given the FSF's regular attacks on the two companies.
  - sh1mmer 4y ago
    We give to the Southern Poverty Law Center, who according to the app have received $315k up to Nov 2022. Sad to see this program go.
    - zoklet-enjoyer 4y ago
      SPLC, like most non-profits, is a scam https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-reckoning-of-morris-dees-and-the-southern-poverty-law-center https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-reckoning-of-mo...
      - stonogo 4y ago
        I can't decide which is funnier, the fact that you think a fifteen-year-old experience is relevant now, or the fact they had to update the story multiple times because the author kept getting facts wrong. Not exactly a slam dunk on backing up the "most non-profits are a scam" claim.
        SamBam 4y ago
        Huh? The article is less than three years old; nothing but the first and last few paragraphs focus on the author's 15-year-old experience; and the couple of corrections at the end were fairly trivial, especially for such a long article.
        dexterdog 4y ago
        The SPLC is one of the non-profits that is most responsible for this general assumption. The only one that might be more of a household name as a bad non-profit is Komen.
- stonogo 4y ago
  Assuming equal distribution is disingenuous. FreeBSD as an example has received nearly twenty thousand dollars through this program. It made a difference.
- shusaku 4y ago
  Checking my account right now: I generated $2.86, and my charity received $399.79. Yay for being average I guess! I’m surprised they couldn’t squeeze more out of this program though. With credit cards, I think the points system definitely works to make you feel better about your purchase.
  - andrewmutz 4y ago
    Points go towards charity?
    - iso1631 4y ago
      You think "I'm spending $500 for this dohicky, but I'm getting some magical points too". Intellectually you know those points are worth about $5, but there's an element of "mystery box" too. Maybe those points will be worth $50, or even more. Like airline miles. You can convince yourself that X number of miles is "worth" $10k because they let you fly business class to Asia. In reality you don't value that flight at $10k because you wouldn't pay $10k to fly business class if you didn't have the points.
  - myvoiceismypass 4y ago
    Where can you see this detail in one's amazon account?
    - shusaku 4y ago
      Go to smile.amazon.com, scroll to the bottom of the page, and you should see “Your AmazonSmile”. Click on that.
  - rjh29 4y ago
    IMO they tried to strike a balance, the existence of Smile helps drive traffic to Amazon and improve their PR, but they make it harder than it should be (you have to use a speciic link, you have to enable push notifications on mobile etc.) so they don't end up having to pay too much. Logically they could have made Smile an option you set once and it's applied forever, but they didn't.
- jonas-w 4y ago
  Have a look at this pdf someone else posted. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34435574 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34435574
jabberwox 4y ago
Absolute peak corpo-speak. I think I can translate: > We don't want to send smaller amounts of money to a huge amount of charities chosen by users, since some users likely chose charities that we do not support. It also doesn't allow us to print out those huge oversized checks for photo ops. We will continue to give a bare pittance out to a small number of organizations selected for peak public relations points while minimizing cost and maximizing tax write-offs and greasing the right palms to advance our business.
- dylan604 4y ago
  wow. are you looking for a gig? i have some public facing pages that i need rewritten. you sound perfect! ;-)
- gst 4y ago
  I asked ChatGPT to translate your paragraph back to positive sounding corporate speak: > We are committed to being strategic and efficient with our charitable giving by focusing on a select number of organizations that align with our values and support our business objectives. This approach allows us to make a meaningful impact and gain positive visibility through high-impact initiatives and partnerships. Additionally, it maximizes the benefits of our charitable investments, including cost savings and tax advantages.
jvnnmfjvfjvflkj 4y ago
[flagged]
jmbwell 4y ago
Yeah. If they had hoped for more impact, they could have, say, made Smile the default, instead of only very occasionally reminding you to use their inexplicably different URL for smile purchases.
- ABeeSea 4y ago
  The entire point of the url restriction was to save money on google search ads and boost costumers starting their search from Amazon first. The search ads savings was what went to charities.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

TMWNN 4y ago

One million eligible recipients around the world, according to Amazon, so $400 per recipient over the decade the program has existed.

kelnos 4y ago
That's the average, sure, but since Amazon allows each customer to pick a charity, I imagine some charities got a lot more, and some a lot less. According to my account page, I've generated $100.71 for the charity I selected, and, overall, they've received $273.64 as a part of the program. So I guess the charity I selected wasn't all that popular. But I expect other, more mainstream charities, were.
- atomicnumber3 4y ago
  The FSF has received almost 35k. That's not bad imo.
  - indrora 4y ago
    Amazon (via Smile) and Microsoft (via employee donations) are probably the two biggest funding sources for the FSF.
    - jyap 4y ago
      Their patrons page says otherwise: https://www.fsf.org/patrons https://www.fsf.org/patrons “Patron pages for past fiscal years” section
      - indrora 4y ago
        These are ones that they want to name. It would be politically inconvenient for the FSF to accept that they get donations in kind from Amazon or Microsoft, given the FSF's regular attacks on the two companies.
- sh1mmer 4y ago
  We give to the Southern Poverty Law Center, who according to the app have received $315k up to Nov 2022. Sad to see this program go.
  - zoklet-enjoyer 4y ago
    SPLC, like most non-profits, is a scam https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-reckoning-of-morris-dees-and-the-southern-poverty-law-center https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-reckoning-of-mo...
    - stonogo 4y ago
      I can't decide which is funnier, the fact that you think a fifteen-year-old experience is relevant now, or the fact they had to update the story multiple times because the author kept getting facts wrong. Not exactly a slam dunk on backing up the "most non-profits are a scam" claim.
      - SamBam 4y ago
        Huh? The article is less than three years old; nothing but the first and last few paragraphs focus on the author's 15-year-old experience; and the couple of corrections at the end were fairly trivial, especially for such a long article.
      - dexterdog 4y ago
        The SPLC is one of the non-profits that is most responsible for this general assumption. The only one that might be more of a household name as a bad non-profit is Komen.
stonogo 4y ago
Assuming equal distribution is disingenuous. FreeBSD as an example has received nearly twenty thousand dollars through this program. It made a difference.
shusaku 4y ago
Checking my account right now: I generated $2.86, and my charity received $399.79. Yay for being average I guess! I’m surprised they couldn’t squeeze more out of this program though. With credit cards, I think the points system definitely works to make you feel better about your purchase.
- andrewmutz 4y ago
  Points go towards charity?
  - iso1631 4y ago
    You think "I'm spending $500 for this dohicky, but I'm getting some magical points too". Intellectually you know those points are worth about $5, but there's an element of "mystery box" too. Maybe those points will be worth $50, or even more. Like airline miles. You can convince yourself that X number of miles is "worth" $10k because they let you fly business class to Asia. In reality you don't value that flight at $10k because you wouldn't pay $10k to fly business class if you didn't have the points.
- myvoiceismypass 4y ago
  Where can you see this detail in one's amazon account?
  - shusaku 4y ago
    Go to smile.amazon.com, scroll to the bottom of the page, and you should see “Your AmazonSmile”. Click on that.
- rjh29 4y ago
  IMO they tried to strike a balance, the existence of Smile helps drive traffic to Amazon and improve their PR, but they make it harder than it should be (you have to use a speciic link, you have to enable push notifications on mobile etc.) so they don't end up having to pay too much. Logically they could have made Smile an option you set once and it's applied forever, but they didn't.
jonas-w 4y ago
Have a look at this pdf someone else posted. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34435574 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34435574

jabberwox 4y ago

Absolute peak corpo-speak. I think I can translate: > We don't want to send smaller amounts of money to a huge amount of charities chosen by users, since some users likely chose charities that we do not support. It also doesn't allow us to print out those huge oversized checks for photo ops. We will continue to give a bare pittance out to a small number of organizations selected for peak public relations points while minimizing cost and maximizing tax write-offs and greasing the right palms to advance our business.

dylan604 4y ago
wow. are you looking for a gig? i have some public facing pages that i need rewritten. you sound perfect! ;-)
gst 4y ago
I asked ChatGPT to translate your paragraph back to positive sounding corporate speak: > We are committed to being strategic and efficient with our charitable giving by focusing on a select number of organizations that align with our values and support our business objectives. This approach allows us to make a meaningful impact and gain positive visibility through high-impact initiatives and partnerships. Additionally, it maximizes the benefits of our charitable investments, including cost savings and tax advantages.

jvnnmfjvfjvflkj 4y ago

[flagged]

jmbwell 4y ago

Yeah. If they had hoped for more impact, they could have, say, made Smile the default, instead of only very occasionally reminding you to use their inexplicably different URL for smile purchases.

ABeeSea 4y ago
The entire point of the url restriction was to save money on google search ads and boost costumers starting their search from Amazon first. The search ads savings was what went to charities.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]