Slog
News & ArtsMonday, March 9, 2009
Books / Money Amazon ≠ Charity
Posted by Paul Constant on Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Slate ran a story on Friday that follows up on my story about how Amazon.com does just about nothing for the Seattle arts community.
It turns out, Amazon does just about nothing for any charities at all:
...Paul Constant, books editor at the Seattle alt-weekly the Stranger...hit a stone wall: "[Amazon.com] has refused to return repeated e-mails and calls from The Stranger about the company's seemingly nonexistent contributions to the Seattle arts scene," he wrote at the time. "Internet searches for any sign of philanthropy on behalf of the company prove fruitless."
Wait … no corporate giving at all? None?
Amazon.com's own account hardly inspires confidence. True, their Giving page cites employee efforts, and the Bezos family maintains its own comparatively modest foundation. The company has also allowed other people's donation money—and page views—to course through its site. But the only listed donations by Amazon.com itself are a single Nonprofit Innovation Award that has not been given since 2005, and the delivery after "recent flooding in Southeast Kansas, [of] more than 10 pallets of household goods ... to local Red Cross shelters in Coffeyville, Kansas." What they don't note is that "recent" is July 2007—and, as Amazon.com is the largest employer in Coffeyville, that their own employees may have been among those benefiting from the goods.
It's a great article that explains exactly why Amazon should be a little more benevolent—basically, because it's managed to thrive on the benevolence of the government holding back state taxes—and it also points out lemonade stands that give more to charity than Amazon. You should read it.
2
Well, with Obama repealing the tax credit for charitable contributions, I'm sure that will cause Amazon and other companies like it to dramatically increase their giving! Oh, wait...
3
The best way to become an oversized, overpowerful company is to hoard as much of your cash as possible.
You don't win friends with salad.
You don't win friends with salad.
4
Amazon pretty much doesn't help anybody locally.
Say what you will about Paul Allen getting the state to force us to pay for a Billionaires Tunnel from his SLU properties and SFM/EMP and buddy Bill's Gates Foundation straight to the stadiums and his private jet at Boeing Field, but at least he helps local arts.
Say what you will about Paul Allen getting the state to force us to pay for a Billionaires Tunnel from his SLU properties and SFM/EMP and buddy Bill's Gates Foundation straight to the stadiums and his private jet at Boeing Field, but at least he helps local arts.
10
@7. According to this, they've been turning profits since 2003.
http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/inv…
A good question is whether the business of business is to promote social causes. Milton Friedman wrote in 1970 that the answer is "no." His famous article is posted, against copyright laws, by some libertarians at the link below. The article was published originally in the NY Times. I lean toward agreeing with Friedman. Managers of public firms should not be making charitable decisions with shareholders' cash. One would not want, for example, a public firm to give cash to supporting Proposition 8. It's the job of the shareholders to make these decisions after they get their earnings in the form of dividends or profits from selling shares. This article was taken as gospel where I got my business degree, and I suspect that the managers of Amazon are familiar with it and its arguments.
http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/li…
http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/inv…
A good question is whether the business of business is to promote social causes. Milton Friedman wrote in 1970 that the answer is "no." His famous article is posted, against copyright laws, by some libertarians at the link below. The article was published originally in the NY Times. I lean toward agreeing with Friedman. Managers of public firms should not be making charitable decisions with shareholders' cash. One would not want, for example, a public firm to give cash to supporting Proposition 8. It's the job of the shareholders to make these decisions after they get their earnings in the form of dividends or profits from selling shares. This article was taken as gospel where I got my business degree, and I suspect that the managers of Amazon are familiar with it and its arguments.
http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/li…
11
Oops. Sorry about those quotes around the word "no" in my post. Friedman was convinced of his opinion.
12
paul allen got his paltry charity called out on Real Time with Bill Maher on friday - ouch.
paul is a private citizen, not a public corporation.
paul is a private citizen, not a public corporation.
13
A private citizen who made his billions purely by accident -- the explosive growth of Microsoft that made him one of the richest men in the world came AFTER he left the company. He left MS before Windows came out.
15
While not caring much for their software (or many of their corporate practices), I do respect Microsoft's sponsorship of the local arts community, for example, by purchasing or leasing local artists' work for display in their offices. It doesn't have to be much, but a token gesture goes a long way toward developing positive relationships.
That said, I don't really expect Amazon as a company to devote much to charity. What I would like to see, however, is more individual contribution from the local software community. Where's Jeff Bezos on the local arts radar? I honestly don't know, but as one who has one foot in the software world and another in the local arts scene, Seattle's arts community gets really paltry patronage from the local well-heeled software folks, who from what I can gather prefer to spend their ca. six-figure salaries and (mostly) childless lifestyles on cheaply built condos and giant televisions.
That said, I don't really expect Amazon as a company to devote much to charity. What I would like to see, however, is more individual contribution from the local software community. Where's Jeff Bezos on the local arts radar? I honestly don't know, but as one who has one foot in the software world and another in the local arts scene, Seattle's arts community gets really paltry patronage from the local well-heeled software folks, who from what I can gather prefer to spend their ca. six-figure salaries and (mostly) childless lifestyles on cheaply built condos and giant televisions.
19
Private charity is nothing but a dodge to let people avoid paying the income tax necessary to ensure the government fulfills all of its responsibilities. A couple donations during the holidays is a cheap price to pay so that your conscience is clear as people go cold and hungry the rest of the year. If there are necessities we need (I consider art necessary) then we should tax corporations and get those necessities, not use passive little guilt trips to try to get them to put a couple drops in the bucket.
The fact that Amazon has thrived and has avoided taxation without charity giving is all the proof you need that it was not and is not necessary. Not to mention the fact that sales taxes are regressive and the less we see of sales taxes the better (please don't give me any condescending bullshit about the poor being to backwards to know how to hunt for deals on Amazon, thx.)
The fact that Amazon has thrived and has avoided taxation without charity giving is all the proof you need that it was not and is not necessary. Not to mention the fact that sales taxes are regressive and the less we see of sales taxes the better (please don't give me any condescending bullshit about the poor being to backwards to know how to hunt for deals on Amazon, thx.)
20
@9
Are you suggesting that President Obama's budget proposal will not reduce tax deductions for charity donations?
Or that said reduction in tax deductions for charity donations will have no effect on charitable giving?
Are you suggesting that President Obama's budget proposal will not reduce tax deductions for charity donations?
Or that said reduction in tax deductions for charity donations will have no effect on charitable giving?
21
So if Milton Friedman sez it it should be done? Or not done in this case.
I am not an economist nor do I have an econ degree, but it seems to me that by Friedman's logic Amazon as a public company in search of profit and profit alone should also cease providing healthcare and any other benefits to its employees because it cuts into profits, they should stop advertising and marketing, get rid of foosball tables, employee discounts, parking spaces, stock options and bonuses, ignore child labor laws and workplace safety regulations because they cut into profit.
But Milton Friedman wrote an article 31 years ago in the New York Times so Amazon should not now or ever make a charitable donation because it is against an economic theory.
I am not an economist nor do I have an econ degree, but it seems to me that by Friedman's logic Amazon as a public company in search of profit and profit alone should also cease providing healthcare and any other benefits to its employees because it cuts into profits, they should stop advertising and marketing, get rid of foosball tables, employee discounts, parking spaces, stock options and bonuses, ignore child labor laws and workplace safety regulations because they cut into profit.
But Milton Friedman wrote an article 31 years ago in the New York Times so Amazon should not now or ever make a charitable donation because it is against an economic theory.
23
Microsoft is motivated to sponsor arts and other things in part because they have a bad corporate image. Since Amazon does not have a bad corporate image really at all, there is little impetus to make charitable contributions of any kind.
Now if this cheapskate thing were to snowball, I bet we'd see some sponsorships show up.
Now if this cheapskate thing were to snowball, I bet we'd see some sponsorships show up.
24
@19: Correct me, here, but are the two ends of this spectrum countries that systematically and scientifically create, run, fund and monitor the social programs that fix the ills combatted by "charities" versus countries where all that work is left to bored rich spouses. In this model, expecting corporations to move into the somewhat-responsible gummint role would fall somewhere in the middle of those two extremes?
25
21: There are plenty of reasons to object to Friedman's reasoning. You don't need an economics degree to do so. I happen to agree with him on this one because I, for one, would not want the manager of some company that a slice of my 401k was invested in donating to Yes on the next Proposition 8 with company earnings. I'd rather that those earnings be allocated to me so that I could donate to No on the next Proposition 8. Charitable contributions, in other words, should be made by individuals, not by public firms. The endpoint of the logic is not that firms should maximize profits at all costs, just that they should not be deciding which social causes to promote with other people's money.
26
@25, Amazon.com has not had a problem donating money to political causes, including Dave Reichert and "Friends of John McCain." They have had a problem giving to the arts, which their business is built around.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/expend.p…
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/expend.p…
28
Nice point by 26 about Amazon's business having been built (at least initially) around the (literary) arts and also that they have been involved with political donations.
My partner and I are members of SAM's "Contributors Circle" thanks to Microsoft's donation-matching program and I have to say that I always feel out of place at their events since I'm 30, middle class, and slightly "of color." Practically everyone at their events is old and white, and many give off the appearance of being rich too. It always seems like the majority of people there are more interested in the social and high-minded scholarly aspects of being art museum members than being particularly supportive of the current local arts community. What gives? Is SAM too "exclusive" for more mainstream folks to feel comfortable supporting at higher levels? (With MS matching we donate $1000 yearly.)
We do the same for the Pacific Science Center although there are always lots of families at their Discovery Circle events. With the amount of money in this city, I'm surprised that the arts and cultural institutions aren't better supported, especially the smaller ones. And I've always wondered at Amazon's noticeable absence from all of the major donor lists. I don't think they are obligated to donate anything, but I find their lack of communication about it to be really lame. Clamming up won't make them look any more charitable than publicly explaining their reasons for keeping their profits to themselves would.
My partner and I are members of SAM's "Contributors Circle" thanks to Microsoft's donation-matching program and I have to say that I always feel out of place at their events since I'm 30, middle class, and slightly "of color." Practically everyone at their events is old and white, and many give off the appearance of being rich too. It always seems like the majority of people there are more interested in the social and high-minded scholarly aspects of being art museum members than being particularly supportive of the current local arts community. What gives? Is SAM too "exclusive" for more mainstream folks to feel comfortable supporting at higher levels? (With MS matching we donate $1000 yearly.)
We do the same for the Pacific Science Center although there are always lots of families at their Discovery Circle events. With the amount of money in this city, I'm surprised that the arts and cultural institutions aren't better supported, especially the smaller ones. And I've always wondered at Amazon's noticeable absence from all of the major donor lists. I don't think they are obligated to donate anything, but I find their lack of communication about it to be really lame. Clamming up won't make them look any more charitable than publicly explaining their reasons for keeping their profits to themselves would.
29
@26 That is a good point. I failed to distinguish between political campaigns and charity. Firms often donate to political campaigns out of a belief their business climate will improve should one of the sides win. I object to this sort of spending on other grounds, as I feel that it leads to the corruption of our political system. As a shareholder, however, the firm might indeed be making that donation in my interest, as the result will be better cashflows or profits down the road. The firm would never be making a donation to charity in my best interest. I want the firm to focus on making cash and then distributing the profits to all stakeholders, not making decisions on which social causes to promote. The exception might be when the firm needs to burnish its image by making donations to "worthy" causes. And there's the rub. What is worthy to a manager may not be worthy to me.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
It's Spring! Who's Ready for Street Harassment? by Cienna Madrid
-
SL Letter of the Day: Insane Demands by Dan Savage
-
SL Letters of the Day: Just Say No to DSGs by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Gonna Boil My Laptop After Answering This One by Dan Savage
-
Bigot Florist Files Countersuit by Dominic Holden
-
New Gun Enthusiast... by Dan Savage
-
America Doesn't Care About Black People by Charles Mudede
-
"Bus service shouldn't be optional—it should be a right." by Cienna Madrid
-
US Military Grants Itself the Power to Police American Streets and "Quell" "Civil Disturbances" by Brendan Kiley
-
Fucking NBA Rejects Kings Move to Seattle by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (29) RSS