3 ms·
This seems incredibly poorly done from a PR perspective and there's no way to make this headline read well for them. Why not create and announce they're moving
by antiterra 4y ago
This seems incredibly poorly done from a PR perspective and there's no way to make this headline read well for them. Why not create and announce they're moving to something like "Amazon GiveBack" that gives some sliders to users to vote on the allocation?
Sure, people could still call them out on how it's a reduction of what they're donating, but there's a much higher chance the headline reads well for them.
As it is, the underlying symbolic implication is that Amazon is getting rid of its smile and instead.. frowning?
- Spivak 4y agoI would actually kinda love that in a let's just ride the wave of dystopia kinda way. > Announcing "Amazon Frown": Every year we will donate $10 million dollars each to <worst people imaginable> but you can stop us. Select your most hated group and 1% of your purchase amount will be reduced from the donation.
- MrLeap 4y agoThis is a beautiful suggestion that would be guaranteed to drive engagement.
- kylehotchkiss 4y ago> that gives some sliders to users to vote on the allocation? A lot of charities tend to side with one political affiliation or the other. When people see %not their political affiliations% charity, they take it personally, and try to boycott the service. So this might do more harm than good.
- antiterra 4y agoTrue, but the evil PR goal here is to eventually decomisison the sliders and just say that Amazon participates in philanthropy without generating a bad headline/sentiment. I think they could find neutral enough charities in the meantime, such as those for specific health conditions, habitat for humanity, etc