The AmazonSmile program, where a small percentage of sales is given to a designated nonprofit, is a nice sentiment but will likely prove a net loss for most participating organizations.
The sentiment is admirable - provide exposure to nonprofits on the popular shopping site and donate a portion of sales to worthy causes. Unfortunately, for years I have seen nonprofits waste time, energy and hope on similar online charity malls, where supporters must shop through a certain website that then gives portions of proceeds to participating organizations. My issues with them - and with AmazonSmile - are that they are not very generous, they only benefit nonprofits with a large supporter base and they usually have a negative overall ROI for organizations that participate.
How It Works
I had been shopping on Amazon recently and did not notice anything about AmazonSmile until Beth Kanter mentioned it on Facebook. As you see, at smile.amazon.com you can choose a charity. That charity then gets a donation based on how much I spend while shopping.
$5 of every $1000
Through Amazon Smile, .5% of a shoppers total purchase is donated to a designated nonprofit. That means I would have to spend $1000 to generate a $5 donation. While I like to think I"m generous, I don' t plan on spending anywhere near $1000 for gifts and no matter what I spend, the resulting dontation amount is not as generous as I would like to see. Considering the amount of profit that the company makes on each purchase, .5% seems like less than a pittance. Rather than an altruistic gesture, it comes off feeling more like the classic baiting technique used by retailers for years. Sales, “Buy one, get one free” or “Free gift with purchase” promotions all work on the principal that once they get you into their shopping environment with the bait, you will not just buy the sale item but will spend much more than the retailer loses through the promotion.
Despite being positioned as a donation, since this actually a purchase, donors don’t get the tax benefit. A read through the “About Amazon Smile” section reveals that “Donations are made by the AmazonSmile Foundation and are not tax deductible by you.“
In order for this promotion to generate any serious dollars, organizations need many supporters spending thousands of dollars. It is doubtful that any but the top nonprofit brands will be able to do this. Weather large in size or in name recognition like American Red Cross or DoSomething.org, the advantage will go to the larger and more well known brands rather than smaller, less well known nonprofits. I have nothing against the better known brands, I just see the Smile program as doing little to mitigate their advantages.
This is akin to the controversy over Popularity Contest Philanthropy that arose in 2010 around contests by Pepsi, Chase Community Giving and others. See also this interesting study that mentions the costs vs. benefits of one such campaign.
I saw only large national brands like Nature Conservancy and charity:water on the main page, so I did a search for my small town in Northern California to see if any local agencies were listed. While local nonprofits came up in the search, it says Amazon will contact them to see if they want to participate. Seems like a way to get customers to provide Amazon with an excuse to contact nonprofits to enlist the organizations help in promoting Amazon, with little return on their effort.
Many charity malls have required that nonprofit staff spend considerable time setting up the system, marketing and promoting their participation. To be fair, the reports I have heard say that it is easy to sign up to participate in AmazonSmile. But the resources used to sign up is only part of the equation.
If an organization decides to promote their participation, time is spent in writing up and distributing the message. If on average a staff person spends 2 hours in setup, promotion and data management and if that person is paid $20 per hour, there is $40 in investment. Supporters would need to spend $8000 to generate the $40 donation needed to break even. I think there are other intangible costs as well including diluting the year-end fundraising message of the organization and the disappointment that comes with the realization that the effort did not pay for itself.
On a more global level, one could argue that using Amazon results in a net loss for the planet that is not offset by the donations generated. Greenpeace has criticized Amazon, among others, for “heavy use of coal-derived power for their massive data centers.” Using Amazon instead of shopping locally does not support your local small business community and likely results in your purchase having a larger carbon footprint because of the delivery. Convenient, yes, but conscientious? Not so much. In my research I came across the site Green Shipping which provides a way to make shipments carbon neutral.
I agree that there is a public relations value to participating organizations in Amazon reminding shoppers about those worthy nonprofits. I also think Amazon benefits by way of association much more than they pay out in donations.
From my point of view, a more equitable way of helping nonprofits would be for Amazon to choose a group of charities - a mix of smaller and medium-sized organizations - to receive donations. They then would distribute 5% of their profits earned from November 15 - December 31st evenly among those organizations. Same net PR gain for Amazon but greater impact on organizations that may be less well-known. Even include some of the big names, as long as there is a more even playing field.
I would welcome having my theory of most organizations losing money be disproved. I look forward to hearing from participating organizations come January to see what their results were in dollars gained vs. effort spent. I hope I’m wrong and it is a financial boon to most, but I doubt that will be the case for all but the largest, most well known organizations. Hence the frown :(.