> The $50m is how many they are going to spend in ads, it's fixed.
How is taking a second look at the amount that you'll actually donate and seeing that the proportions will generate some backlash and possibly result in negative press a bad idea to have?
I assume that the donation also comes from a particular budget allocation, which can be adjusted as necessary.
> They want to reach theses eye balls, and increasing the amount donated won't increase the amount of eye balls.
"Company A donates $10 to charity."
"Company A donates $100k to charity."
"Company A donates $1m to charity."
I doubt that each of those would result in equal amount of attention, though I'll concede that with a marketing budget like that they can probably make even $100k seem like the best thing ever to the casual observer. I'd say that there's still a certain scaling to the "newsworthiness" aspect, rather than a binary yes/no choice.
At the end of the day, it's up to them to choose how much they'll donate towards any particular initiative and how much they'll spend on popularizing this initiative, both factors having a certain impact on the effectiveness of that campaign.
Of course, without a doubt they've done analysis of this and found that $100k is the optimum amount to donate, so that they can play it up as this great initiative, without donating more than they desire, seeing as they're not obligated to. And that exact amount is what a lot of people take issue with, especially when compared to the aforementioned marketing budget.
It seems like some parody of a corporation-driven society.
How is taking a second look at the amount that you'll actually donate and seeing that the proportions will generate some backlash and possibly result in negative press a bad idea to have?
I assume that the donation also comes from a particular budget allocation, which can be adjusted as necessary.
> They want to reach theses eye balls, and increasing the amount donated won't increase the amount of eye balls.
"Company A donates $10 to charity."
"Company A donates $100k to charity."
"Company A donates $1m to charity."
I doubt that each of those would result in equal amount of attention, though I'll concede that with a marketing budget like that they can probably make even $100k seem like the best thing ever to the casual observer. I'd say that there's still a certain scaling to the "newsworthiness" aspect, rather than a binary yes/no choice.
At the end of the day, it's up to them to choose how much they'll donate towards any particular initiative and how much they'll spend on popularizing this initiative, both factors having a certain impact on the effectiveness of that campaign.
Of course, without a doubt they've done analysis of this and found that $100k is the optimum amount to donate, so that they can play it up as this great initiative, without donating more than they desire, seeing as they're not obligated to. And that exact amount is what a lot of people take issue with, especially when compared to the aforementioned marketing budget.
It seems like some parody of a corporation-driven society.