>

You know what would have made a bigger impact?  If they gave you the option at checkout, vs having to go to their *other* site and use it from there.. Not very many people knew about smile.amazon
it is a shame. I had mine set to benefit the small school my kids went to. >

Mine went to an org that helps people get out of Scientology >

That's funny, mine went into an org that helped bring people INTO scientology. >

There’s a charitable org for that?! WTF? >

Yeah, it's called scientology.
They are so charitable they sometimes give members a place to live. Against their will. Indefinitely. >

Oh - Scientology itself. Doh! Granted I’m sitting an ER waiting for admission right now, so my comprehension is likely a bit off. I thought you’d meant a charitable org that existed to help people into Scientology. LOL
My bad. >

I'm a different person making a joke. That first guy was also making a joke.
Good luck in the ER. Might want to get your go fund me started while you wait ;) >

Shit - you ain’t kidding there. Ugh. 
Thank you. >

My wife runs a small non profit children’s theatre. They never made more than a couple hundred dollars here and there, but the difference when it did come was a tangible impact. >

I did some work for a small children’s theater one summer.  $200 went a long way for them.  Sets and puppets aren’t free to make. >

Mine was personal as it went to the non profit fundraising to assist transplant patients, me being a transplant patient that uses that non profit. >

Can you PM me that organization? >

Now launching - Amazon Frown!
With each purchase over $200, an associate will visit a nearby hospital and give a sick child a purple nurple. >

Some kids have requested Macklemore to promise never to visit them in the hospital. >

Fine, we’ll send those kids Nickleback to cheer them up >

Calm down Satan, they're already suffering >

They just want a photograph >

The solution to Amazon's lack of prosocial operations is to tax Amazon their fair share so society benefits from allowing Amazon to do business in society. >

It’s sad that your post made me laugh because of how absurd the idea of that actually happening is >

Why? With that attitude it’s no wonder they get what they want. >

I never said it was impossible but you're kidding yourself if you think that something like that would be easy or even likely. You can act like it's a simple solution that wouldn't meet any resistance if you want to be Quixotic about it, but I'll choose realism. >

So lame. The Smile program actually made a huge difference to our local nonprofit. And my “prime” deliveries take 7-10 days. I’m over Amazon. >

Fun when you subscribe to toilet paper and it’s “delayed”. >

Funner still when it’s medication! >

I’m starting to get the feeling that the people who run Amazon are not very nice people. >

mine was my local food bank. they said the donations made a difference. 
I'm so mad at amazon. I was the last person i know who defended them , all because of smile. Now they can kick rocks. >

This was the final push I needed to cancel prime.  The planned parenthood I had as my charity has received ~$100k from the program.  It definitely was making a difference to them. >

Yea aside from using shopper panel idk that I need amazon anymore.  I was saving my $12 a month toward an expensive item I can't get nearby and is never on sale but fuckit. >

Given the number of charities involved, there's no way Amazon even attempted to quantify the impact of AmazonSmile contributions. This is about the board wanting control over who gets the money...and, likely, the cynical determination that the program has already done as much good for Amazon as it ever will, in terms of training people not to click through Google. >

Introducing, AmazonGrimace >

This bums me out. It really helped my child’s small school as well, a lot of parents used it. >

they're now donating to the big companies who give back to amazon, how weird. >

I think it's a very poor decision--it can't have cost them that much money, but it garnered so much good will, plus I think it actually got people to spend more without feeling guilty. 
Mine was set to Planned Parenthood and I know PP ended up getting quite a bit in total. >

Mine went to a draft horse rescue.  The Amish like to abuse their animals, work them almost to death, then as thanks for the horses service, they put the horses on the slaughter pipeline.  Smile helped fund them. >

Fuck the Amish tbh. They do good woodworking and that’s about it >

My aunts would have the local Amish loot their berry bushes. Then try to sell them the pies they made from the berries lol. >

Amazon claims it "didn't have a big impact," but for many smaller organizations -- and people -- the impact was HUGE.
For example, I set mine to benefit a group called Miracle Feet, which literally changes entire lives for about $300 (They provide low-cost equipment that corrects a deformity called "clubfoot" in children, mostly in developing nations). I was born with the condition, and the idea that somebody can be cured of it today made me feel great about every purchase I made from Amazon: I could give more than one kid the gift of a normal life just by buying the same stuff I'd have bought anyway. Huge. >

Well dang. Mine went to the animal rescue I got my two dogs from yrs ago. They were a small non profit. >

I’m super disappointed. Mine had been going to Sea Shepherd Conservation Society which has received $90,000+ from the program. >

This is what happens after switching my smile charity to the AFL-CIO. >

Once you have the market and crushed your competitors the nice guy act fades away >

This sucks, and I can’t do anything about it but I’ll take this chance to advocate for my favorite small charity The Mattie Miracle Cancer Foundation >

Mine was personal also, as it went to a small not-for-profit rehab center where my sister works as the chief medic.   She loved this programme, and talked not infrequently about how it helped them;  last year was the first year since she's been there that they were able to give the staff bonuses.   This is gonna hurt these charities.  Wish there'd been some middle ground or other solution. >

Just cancelled my Prime. This will hurt so many people and for what? 0.5% increased profits? I hate what the world has become. >

Amazon smile replaced by Amazon Faak You >

Hoping a writer from The Onion sees this comment and accepts my gift of "Amazon Snarl." >

Mine went to a local humane society that takes in over 1000 dogs a year. >

Similarly, mine went to a small TNR and cat rescue which depends on community support. >

One more reason not to help line Jeff Bezos ' pockets. >

Good reason to cancel Prime >

I’ve been using Amazon less and less. Because of this I may quit prime. The Internet is sucking lately, Amazon, google, Wikipedia, I’m having to find alternatives to all these, not to mention all the social media outfits I had to quit. >

wait what's wrong with wikipedia? >

AmazonSmile cost $40 million per year. The Amazon CEO made $200 million last year.
He could pay the entire AmazonSmile charity from his massive compensation and still have a massive amount of money left with no change in his lifestyle at all. >

For those who won’t read the article:
Amazon’s decision to end the program was part of a strategic shift to support initiatives that work on a larger scale, like its $2 billion contribution to build affordable housing >

Plot twist: the affordable housing it is building is a company town for Amazon warehouse workers so they can't ask for better wages or benefits without risking homelessness. >

Are you making assumptions or is this something you’ve found evidence of? >

Oh boy, anyone who knows about the history of factory towns would know how beyond exploitive they are. And regularly held an insane amount of power over people's head. >

Yup good ol mill store where your can spend your paycheck before you have it for the low low price of 25% higher then an actual store.  The personally pay day loan. >

I'm just gonna have to put them on the list of charities we give to at the end of the year. I was supporting a store that takes donated art supplies and provides them to teachers and artists for cheap, along with other community and school programs for kids. >

When will we get a "killedbyamazon" like we have for Google?
Honestly, Amazon is fucking bad, but at least Amazon Smile was doing good work. >

If Amazon gave me the option of choosing to spend a small % extra on each purchase so that I could donate it to the charity of my choice, I’d do it. I like having them manage the payment for me. 
I mean, yes, I could just donate to the different organizations anyway (Jesus, I’m lazy) and I probably will. But it’s easier to have the donations build up bit by bit over time. >

Amazon out here just trying to kill itself every day! >

The thing is by the community buying stuff from Amazon the probably hurt the local community more than the benefited.
I had friends that used this but I don't buy stuff on Amazon so it made more sense to just donate $10 once in awhile. >

Everyone drop their prime... It's a toxic company.  Worse then Walmart which with their environmental fuckyouism, shutting down main streets throughout the country, and shitting on their employees and this country says a lot.  I remember my local Walmart catching heat for advertising they pay so little you still will qualify for state assisted healthcare.  Costco treats their employees well and tries to be ethical about how they source their products.  Buy local when possible.  Amazon is just too damn easy.  Believe me I know!  Often times doing the right thing is hard unfortunately. >

If it’s cheaper on Amazon than no I’m not buying shit local. >

I get it if you're struggling, but Amazon is a shitty company.  They treat their employees poorly.  For me it's Costco that helped me replace Amazon.  Treat their employees well and are competitive, often cheaper then again, with better quality products and easy returns. >

We can't do charity the investors won't like it.  - Bozos >

Arguably the opposite. Bezos has taken a step back in the past few years. New CEO has been more stingy, including cutting a lot of the Alexa stuff that was Bezos’ pet project. >

I'm very disappointed in Amazon. I've used Smile for years. >

They said they want to focus on things like affordable housing. I really hate that idea. The corporations are getting more and more powerful and entangled in our lives. They provide wages, health insurance, Walmart is going into banking and now they want to be in charge of our housing?! We're really on a bad path. These companies know everything about us. >

Lol at the people that think billionaires and capitalists were ever on the common persons side. >

you know you could just donate yourselves still.  no need to wait till you buy something from amazon. >

As someone who works in non profits, it’s not that bad honestly…most organizations actually were against it because people felt like they were giving to their charities they support already when in reality it’s like cents a year…please just make a yearly contribution that you’re comfortable making or volunteer if you can.
It’s also a collective right off for Amazon for taxes. >


It’s also a collective right off for Amazon for taxes.

That is not what it was.  It was a way to get people to engage directly with Amazon instead of being referred to Amazon by google. By doing that, Amazon could send money to charities instead of paying google. >


As of 2022, the company said it has donated $449 million to various charities. 

Maybe I'm just pessimist in regards to pricing... But I would fundamentally frame it as "Customers donated $449 million".
I felt the same way with Blizards first rounds of "buy a pet to for 10 and 5 go to the make a wish foundation" thing. "we donated x millions"... Well NO. your customers did, and you made both bank with selling a cosmetic pet for arguably atrocious amounts of profit while selling both the software AND require a subscriptions, and you got to additionally claim the tax rebate.
Granted, they later changed it to 100% of proceeds, but still. >

By that logic, isn't any donation by a company with positive profit essentially a donation by the customers? I mean, I would love to give them the brownie points if they continue to do it. But now that they stopped... >

Well, sure. In a way.
But if it's directly linked to the purchases and not an unrelated decision decoupled from customer decisions, that is still "different".
Your purchase decision isn't tied to "but money goes to charity", because at no time of the purchase does a potential donation later enter into the process?
I still think that is different from using donation as a direct marketing ploy to GENERATE the profits, with a serious question attached to whether it comes out of their profits, or whether it's a slapped on amount on top of what they actually "think they could make without it". Regardless of how marketing WANTS to frame it.
Hence me prefacing it with generally being pessimistic towards pricing, value both intrinsic and "market value". That definitely plays into my face gaining the expression of having smelt a really bad fart whenever I read about stuff like that. >

I understand where you are coming from. I too would be furious if grocery stores had claimed the "donate the change at checkout" as their donations.
In the case of Smile, personally I give it to Amazon. Mainly because regular Amazon exists and there was no markup on Smile. So customer pays the same whether on Smile or not. Otherwise, it would become a good thing under that logic that they abandon Smile and choose their own organizations to donate, decoupling the purchases, which is not what most people agree.
But I agree with the Blizzard example. That is essentially a charitable fundraising. >


Mainly because regular Amazon exists and there was no markup on Smile. So customer pays the same whether on Smile or not.

But isn't that kind of going "you can donate the same to us directly" then?
The thing is I'm just hesitent to see the price they ask as "the price it takes", and then THEM donating a part.
Also that would be even MORE reason to frame it as "the customers chose the donation", if the customer is asked to make the choice to give the money to charity or to amazon.

Otherwise, it would become a good thing under that logic that they abandon Smile and choose their own organizations to donate,

Only in terms of clarifying about WHO donates. Secondly only if they'd lower prices in that amount, too. Then you'd have the money and YOU could choose where to put it, and they'd have their "without that" profit from which to donate from.
So then we'd be at your initially proposed example.

That is essentially a charitable fundraising.

Is it if they make bank for their shareholders while doing it? For that the "take for themselves" part would be logically either have to be limited to the expenses, or the difference solely put towards expending the fundraising effort further.
NOW it is basically charitable fund-raising + their donation of  making the thing. But back then it was basically "uncharitable fundraising" at best. And that was at a 50:50 split. Amazon basically had a 199:1 split.

which is not what most people agree.

Well that would be purely about "money gets to charity (or not anymore)" and be somewhat decoupled from the ethical clarification of who claims what about the money that does get donated and how it interacts with money being made for ones own pocket.
There is a difference in claiming "less money for charity is great" and "I am generally pessimistic about the way the transactions get portrayed" >

How hard would it be for Amazon to buy up and preserve huge swaths of the remaining Amazon basin rainforest so shoppers can keep breathing? >

It's disgusting and absolutely not necessary. Purely a greed driven motive. Bean counters don't care about company image, just money. Greedy fucks. >

It’s ridiculous that Amazon killed it. >

I skimmed the article so apologies if I missed it in there, but I didn't see it mentioned that the average donation came out to just $230 last year because there were so many charities involved. That's not a very impactful number. I'm sure it made a bigger difference to some charities, but that average is pretty low.