Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon Closing AmazonSmile

aboutamazon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 581 posts

Re: Amazon Closing AmazonSmile

#201

Post by m463 »

gnicholas wrote: post #5
nicklevin wrote: post #2

There were seemingly odd hoops for customers to jump through to have their purchases qualify for Smile. Didn't type in the 'smile' URL? Too bad, no donation for you. One of the oddest was requiring push notifications in order for mobile purchases to count ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21233815 ).

I would often forget to type "smile" when searching for stuff, but then I'd just add to cart, close the window, and go to my cart via smile. That seemed to work. But I think we can all see this for what it is — belt tightening. Will they increase other philanthropic activities to the tune of what they were previously giving away via Smile? I would be very, very surprised if so.

> belt tightening

I suspect this is the time when the charities need smile donations the most.

Re: Amazon Closing AmazonSmile

#202

Post by Fatnino »

m463 wrote: post #201
gnicholas wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would often forget to type "smile" when searching for stuff, but then I'd just add to cart, close the window, and go to my cart via smile. That seemed to work. But I think we can all see this for what it is — belt tightening. Will they increase other philanthropic activities to the tune of what they were previously giving away via Smile? I would be very, very surprised if so.

> belt tightening I suspect this is the time when the charities need smile donations the most.

Charity starts at home.

Specifically Bezos' bottom line.

Re: Amazon Closing AmazonSmile

#203

Post by AppleBananaPie »

godelski wrote: post #193
jonathankoren wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t so much think it doesn’t have an impact, as much nothing on the list has any PR pizzazz. $316.62 to a grade school? Lame. $100,000 novelty check to a board member’s favorite charity that happens to be run by his son? Now that’s pizzazz with a capital P!

That just means bad marketing. > Amazon has helped fund over 20 thousand charities of your choosing. These small charities couldn't have made it without your help.

easier to get promoted by replacing a program with a new one you made

Re: Amazon Closing AmazonSmile

#204

Post by ugh123 »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #189
orf wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast majority of those 1 million organizations received less than 100 dollars.

I suppose, it does bring me joy that a local no-kill shelter got $42,631.17 and I was able to get about $30 into that, its not ground breaking, but that's kind of the point of smile right. I guess I can donate out of my own pocket to the same shelter moving forward.

I wonder if some of these places were just really really good about advertising and asking their customers/community to give them a nod in their Prime accounts.

Re: Amazon Closing AmazonSmile

#205

Post by ugh123 »

It would be interesting to see if Amazon were to add more give-some-to-charity options to their cart checkout process, if people would be just as willing to add that spend (or more) to their total. I think theirs a big opportunity for charities with not a lot of risk to AMZN.

Re: Amazon Closing AmazonSmile

#206

Post by ROTMetro »

lazyasciiart wrote: post #177
SoftTalker wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and small charities like this are generally volunteer-run and a very high percentage of their income goes to their charitiable purpose. Large charities leech off the existence of the problems they are claiming to solve. If they actually solved them, they wouldn't be needed any more. Name any large organization that has ever worked itself out of needing to exist. And their executives make a lot of money.

Are you saying that e.g. homelessness in America has not been solved because the organizations working on it are not trying to solve it?

California allocated 7 billion in 2022 to homelessness. There are 172,000 homeless in California. So that is $40,000 per homeless person, per year, in just state funds. Lot's of people keep a roof over their heads while making less money than that a year. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Re: Amazon Closing AmazonSmile

#207

Post by nfpsupporter »

I am saddened by this news. No doubt the charities they select are the same ones that can afford to buy TV ads, magazine ads, internet ads, and direct mail advertising. What a great way to spend the donations!

Meanwhile, the smaller nonprofit organizations that have no advertising budget, no payroll, no employee benefits, etc. that run on a shoestring budget will never miss the measly $1000 a year that Amazon Smile generated, right?

If they were serious amount making a significant impact, they would allow for donations to the smaller organizations that spend virtually every dollar on their programs rather than huge salaries and elaborate holiday parties that larger nonprofits can afford.

If you are interested, IRS provides copies of tax returns for many US-based charities. Look at the bigger ones to see where your donations are actually being spent, and the large sums they have in their bank and investment accounts.

Re: Amazon Closing AmazonSmile

#208

Post by kennywinker »

systemvoltage wrote: post #191
giancarlostoro wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The people who really, really hate guns are more likely to work for tech companies than their counterparts, at least in my experience. Depends on the company, I have worked at a Defense Contractor for example, the sentiment towards guns was pro-guns despite the diverse political views of everyone there.

Gun ownership is split between party lines but not as much as people think. There is still a good chunk of Democrats that own guns (including myself). https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/the-dem...

Gun ownership isn't the same thing as being anti-gun control. The majority of people, many of them gun owners and haling from both "parties", would like to see some basic restrictions on how quick and easy it is to buy a gun.

Re: Amazon Closing AmazonSmile

#209

Post by Rebelgecko »

kotaKat wrote: post #105
laverya wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

There's no grounds in the TOS to boot anything that's not a hate group as identified by the SPLC or ADL. Amazon doesn't want to get set up with a lawsuit if they boot a group outside of those bounds on either side of the aisle or if they try to change the rules to fit one group or another.

There was a big push last month from Gabbie Giffords and her PAC+501(c)*s to get Amazon to brand pro-gun charities as hate groups

Re: Amazon Closing AmazonSmile

#210

Post by [deleted] »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #209
kotaKat wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no grounds in the TOS to boot anything that's not a hate group as identified by the SPLC or ADL. Amazon doesn't want to get set up with a lawsuit if they boot a group outside of those bounds on either side of the aisle or if they try to change the rules to fit one group or another.

There was a big push last month from Gabbie Giffords and her PAC+501(c)*s to get Amazon to brand pro-gun charities as hate groups

[deleted]
Post reply on HN