Businesses shouldn't be in the business of charitable donations. They should be in the business of generating money to their owners.

_mpaul said:

---

Businesses shouldn't be in the business of charitable donations. They should be in the business of generating money to their owners.

---

I'm shocked that you didn't add political donations to that statement as well.

This program was never about charities. It was about eliminating the affiliate payment. They gave a smaller amount to the charity than they would have to the affiliate who sent you a link. The smile program forces you to use a nonaffiliate link. Since they recently reduced the affiliate payment, this allows Amazon to force you to their app instead of the website and still pay the same or less to a 3rd party. None of this has anything to do with anything but their bottom line.

I don't have an issue with this. It makes sense for Amazon to reign this in. Most companies concentrate their charitable giving to one or a handful of charities. The scope of this is actually kind of shocking. I was not really aware of it because I don't buy a ton on Amazon. So administratively this makes sense.

And I think the OP proves Amazon's other reasoning for reigning this in because the giving is so diluted it's hard to hit any kind of helpful scale. I'm sure the OP's school appreciated the $11 but big deal.