4 ms·
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 s
by 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 agoSorry, 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 agoI 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 agoThey could have simply raised their minimum to a number that covered the overhead.