3 ms·

Honest? Why should we believe all of the Amazon smile purchases will continue and contribute to charity? If the program is getting scrapped, are we to believe A

Honest? Why should we believe all of the Amazon smile purchases will continue and contribute to charity? If the program is getting scrapped, are we to believe Amazon is going to send 0.5% of everyone’s purchases to charity? This is an attempt to recover revenue, nothing more.

gretch 4y ago
Just look at other companies. Here's Meta as an example https://about.meta.com/giving-together/ https://about.meta.com/giving-together/ They gave $7B to all sorts of random stuff like cat shelters Pretty much every company has some stuff like this. Don't you see think it'd be weird if Amazon was the 1 company that doesnt? Edit: Better article here that distinguishes between Meta's matching and donation from meta users https://about.fb.com/news/2022/11/fundraise-for-nonprofits-giving-season/#:~:text=money%20long%2Dterm.-,When%20you%20sign%20up%20to%20donate%20monthly%20to%20a%20nonprofit,in%20total%20across%20all%20organizations https://about.fb.com/news/2022/11/fundraise-for-nonprofits-g....
- anikom15 4y ago
  Sorry, I don’t really understand what you’re talking about. My point is they are trying to sugarcoat this as focusing on specific charities, whereas I believe total donation dollars is going to drop. In addition, I think Amazon is hoping to save on costs having to manage AmazonSmile itself.
  - Zanni 4y ago
    I suspect that saving the cost of managing AmazonSmile is the primary motivator. That's a lot of overhead! Two thousand pages of charities, most of which are collecting less than $30. I'd bet there are hundreds, if not thousands, of charities that Amazon was paying more to manage collection/disbursement than the actual charity received. (Or maybe not--there seems to be a minimum payout of $5.00, starting on page 1881.)
    - thrill 4y ago
      They could have simply raised their minimum to a number that covered the overhead.
astrange 4y ago
They're a public company so it'll be on their 10-K in some form. And of course the charities would notice if they didn't, though they're only going to mention good news.

gretch 4y ago

Just look at other companies. Here's Meta as an example https://about.meta.com/giving-together/ https://about.meta.com/giving-together/ They gave $7B to all sorts of random stuff like cat shelters Pretty much every company has some stuff like this. Don't you see think it'd be weird if Amazon was the 1 company that doesnt? Edit: Better article here that distinguishes between Meta's matching and donation from meta users https://about.fb.com/news/2022/11/fundraise-for-nonprofits-giving-season/#:~:text=money%20long%2Dterm.-,When%20you%20sign%20up%20to%20donate%20monthly%20to%20a%20nonprofit,in%20total%20across%20all%20organizations https://about.fb.com/news/2022/11/fundraise-for-nonprofits-g....

anikom15 4y ago
Sorry, I don’t really understand what you’re talking about. My point is they are trying to sugarcoat this as focusing on specific charities, whereas I believe total donation dollars is going to drop. In addition, I think Amazon is hoping to save on costs having to manage AmazonSmile itself.
- Zanni 4y ago
  I suspect that saving the cost of managing AmazonSmile is the primary motivator. That's a lot of overhead! Two thousand pages of charities, most of which are collecting less than $30. I'd bet there are hundreds, if not thousands, of charities that Amazon was paying more to manage collection/disbursement than the actual charity received. (Or maybe not--there seems to be a minimum payout of $5.00, starting on page 1881.)
  - thrill 4y ago
    They could have simply raised their minimum to a number that covered the overhead.

astrange 4y ago

They're a public company so it'll be on their 10-K in some form. And of course the charities would notice if they didn't, though they're only going to mention good news.