The business exists to make money. That’s why it’s a business. Having a co donation scheme with a charity is just a way to let people incentivize extra purchases.
If people simply didn’t buy those items and just donated directly that would be more efficient. That’s always an option
I think the objection in this case is that they’re using a incredibly trivial amount of charity as advertising. Notice in the asterisk on the ad that total donations are capped at $43k, so not only are they donating an insultingly small amount of each purchase they’re also limiting their potential donations if they manage to generate enough excess sales.
This was advertsing masquerading as charity. Just writing a cheque to the charity for $43k would have done as much or more, but since their real goal is goosing sales numbers not donating to charity that would run counter to their goal.
Just writing a cheque to the charity for $43k would have done as much or more, but since their real goal is goosing sales numbers not donating to charity that would run counter to their goal.
This – it’s virtue-signalling to raise sales numbers. If I make a big public statement about my charitable giving, it’s seen very differently than when a big corporation does it.
Another question I have: is anyone changing their purchasing choices because of this? Would you choose a Pepsi fountain drink or a Gatorade instead of a bottle of Coke just because of this? Or add a share size Snickers bar to your gas purchase which you wouldn’t otherwise?
Someone found a way to piggyback charity on top of business operations. If that equation changes the charity is going away and the business operations are staying.
Kum & Go isn’t a charity, yet they found a way to go from zero charitable activity to nonzero. That’s a plus.
If you honestly see that as a negative, you should take it as a wake-up call that you’re using an irrationally pessimistic lens to view the world.
It’s just as much the case someone in marketing found a way to use their company for charity, as it is that a business found a way to use charity for marketing.
If a little girl‘s puppy needs to get to the vet and the only vehicle I have is an armored personnel carrier, I’m gonna drive that vehicle to take the puppy to the vet. Not because it’s the best vehicle for the job, but because it’s the vehicle I have.
For some people, their vehicle for helping charities is the company they work for. They have to find a way that works with the constraints of that vehicle. In a business, one of those constraints is “it has to help the bottom line”.
Kum & Go isn’t a charity, yet they found a way to go from zero charitable activity to nonzero. That’s a plus.
So you’re saying the ends are what is important, not the reason the action was taken?
To me, there’s an important philosophical question here – if the right action (or a demonstrably good action) is taken, does it matter why? I think it does.
Let’s say my neighbor doesn’t maintain their property – they don’t mow or clean the landscaping. I decide to do this for them on my own, with their permission of course. There is a difference if I’m doing this to be a good neighbor, as opposed to making sure the neighborhood looks good because I’m selling my house. My actions are the same in both cases, as are the effects and side effects – only the motivation differs. Therefore that motivation deserves to be interrogated and explored.
If you honestly see that as a negative, you should take it as a wake-up call that you’re using an irrationally pessimistic lens to view the world.
I don’t see myself as a pessimist, but I’ll admit this observation is probably correct.
https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/521367538
The charity navigator ratings for the organization that runs the no kid hungry campaign don’t look terrible
The problem isn’t the charity, it’s the restrictive way a business handles charity donating.
Why a quarter? Why these select brands? Could’ve done so much better.
The business exists to make money. That’s why it’s a business. Having a co donation scheme with a charity is just a way to let people incentivize extra purchases.
If people simply didn’t buy those items and just donated directly that would be more efficient. That’s always an option
They could have done nothing.
Hey, I just pissed on you while you were on fire when I could’ve used water.
I could’ve done nothing.
Got it. Organizing a charitable drive, even if more limited in scope than going full 501© non-profit, is morally equivalent to pissing on people. GTFO.
I think the objection in this case is that they’re using a incredibly trivial amount of charity as advertising. Notice in the asterisk on the ad that total donations are capped at $43k, so not only are they donating an insultingly small amount of each purchase they’re also limiting their potential donations if they manage to generate enough excess sales.
This was advertsing masquerading as charity. Just writing a cheque to the charity for $43k would have done as much or more, but since their real goal is goosing sales numbers not donating to charity that would run counter to their goal.
This – it’s virtue-signalling to raise sales numbers. If I make a big public statement about my charitable giving, it’s seen very differently than when a big corporation does it.
Another question I have: is anyone changing their purchasing choices because of this? Would you choose a Pepsi fountain drink or a Gatorade instead of a bottle of Coke just because of this? Or add a share size Snickers bar to your gas purchase which you wouldn’t otherwise?
They’re betting that it will change behavior.
Someone found a way to piggyback charity on top of business operations. If that equation changes the charity is going away and the business operations are staying.
Kum & Go isn’t a charity, yet they found a way to go from zero charitable activity to nonzero. That’s a plus.
If you honestly see that as a negative, you should take it as a wake-up call that you’re using an irrationally pessimistic lens to view the world.
It’s just as much the case someone in marketing found a way to use their company for charity, as it is that a business found a way to use charity for marketing.
If a little girl‘s puppy needs to get to the vet and the only vehicle I have is an armored personnel carrier, I’m gonna drive that vehicle to take the puppy to the vet. Not because it’s the best vehicle for the job, but because it’s the vehicle I have.
For some people, their vehicle for helping charities is the company they work for. They have to find a way that works with the constraints of that vehicle. In a business, one of those constraints is “it has to help the bottom line”.
So you’re saying the ends are what is important, not the reason the action was taken?
To me, there’s an important philosophical question here – if the right action (or a demonstrably good action) is taken, does it matter why? I think it does.
Let’s say my neighbor doesn’t maintain their property – they don’t mow or clean the landscaping. I decide to do this for them on my own, with their permission of course. There is a difference if I’m doing this to be a good neighbor, as opposed to making sure the neighborhood looks good because I’m selling my house. My actions are the same in both cases, as are the effects and side effects – only the motivation differs. Therefore that motivation deserves to be interrogated and explored.
I don’t see myself as a pessimist, but I’ll admit this observation is probably correct.
I just say no to the donation every time. No one cares where I live. It’s never caused me a problem.
There’s nothing wrong with a company having the goal of making money.
If someone can find a way to achieve that goal by donating to charity, that’s a win for literally everyone involved.
If someone pissed on me while I was on fire I’d thank them.
Better than what you’re doing
Oh but anger feels so good! Seriously Master Kenobi, why can’t I use anger to fuel my use of the Force? It’s such a potent source of energy!
They probably had to negotiate with the brands so the brands could cough up 10¢ of that 25¢. Only certain brands agreed.