Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« North Korea and Shakespeare | Intern Exposes Own Mother's Band to… »

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Occupy / Books / Money Does Amazon Care About Seattle?

Posted by Paul Constant on Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 5:01 PM

In an e-mail titled "Amazon doesn't care about us?" Slog tipper Aaron writes:

I saw The Nutcracker at McCaw Hall last week, and while looking through the program I realized something. Under donations to PNWB, Microsoft and Boeing were at the top of the list. Who wasn't on the list? Amazon. Come to think of it, I can't remember EVER seeing Amazon's logo on anything related to supporting the community and arts. Microsoft, Boeing, and Starbucks? Absolutely. Am I missing something? Is there at least some Ballard theatre group Amazon helped fund? Or does Amazon really not give a fuck about us? I've heard Jeff Bezos is some money-obsessed libertarian, so maybe I shouldn't be surprised.

For sure, Amazon doesn't have the same charitable giving structure that Microsoft and Boeing have, Aaron. So far as I know, they still don't offer matching donations, and their name is almost always missing from the big donor lists where you'll find Microsoft and Boeing and other local organizations. I've been writing about their lack of giving since April of 2008. In the time since that story, they've started giving a little bit of money to different organizations—the biggest local recipient, I believe, is the Hugo House, although they also funded the Stranger's Literature Genius award this year, too. They also provide money to 826 Seattle, ACT Theatre, and other organizations, both local and not. You can find a full list of present and former Amazon.com recipients right here.

But the fact remains that what Amazon.com offers is a drop in the bucket compared to every other organization. (Hell, they pony up way more for Jeff Bezos's bodyguard service than they provide for the arts.) If you measure how much a corporation cares about their community by how much they pour into local arts organizations—and there are very few other thermometers available to rate corporate concern, frankly—then the answer is no. Amazon doesn't give a fuck about Seattle.

The only way to express your displeasure for Amazon.com's charitable giving policy is with your cash. Stop doing business with them, and tell them why you're not doing business with them anymore. If you as a consumer want to support the local economy, you should spend your money with local organizations that spend money locally. Back when I started writing about this story, when everyone was concerned that the bottom was dropping out on business, people made up all kinds of excuses for why Amazon should be so thrifty. But now, when people are openly discussing Occupying Amazon, the company needs to reassess their corporate values and consider whether they should become responsible neighbors. After years of branding to get their logo recognized by everyone, customers are starting to pay attention to where the Amazon logo isn't.

Comments (34) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

Aaron might wonder how many of his fellow audience members bought tickets to that same show, went to dinner beforehand, maybe slipped a little something into the donation envelope, and went for drinks nearby after, thanks to their paychecks from Amazon. It doesn't make up for Amazon's not buying space for its logo atop the program, but it's nothing to sneeze at exactly, is it?

Posted by gloomy gus on December 27, 2011 at 5:12 PM

This was the first Christmas in probably the past 10 years that I did not spend a penny with Amazon. It wasn't a protest, they just didn't offer anything I wanted to buy that I couldn't get cheaper or faster or more locally somewhere else.

Posted by DOUG.

on December 27, 2011 at 5:12 PM

Good on them for their support of the arts. What was missing from their charity list? How about helping the poor out a little? You know, like food banks, community health centers, you know, something that their employees might have to use.

Posted by Tingleyfeeln on December 27, 2011 at 5:16 PM

I don't mean to excuse Amazon's lack of community support (it's inexcusable), but Jeff Bezos did personally donate $10M to MOHAI earlier this year. It's probably a drop in the bucket compared to his kooky clock project, but it does show he cares for the city.

Also, I don't think "you measure how much a corporation cares about their community by how much they pour into local arts organizations." Or not solely arts organizations, at least.

Amazon should be sponsoring orgs that support diversity, public safety, human services, and more. Basically, as a gigantic online business making money hand over fist, they should support nonprofits across the gamut in communities in which they are physically doing business. Their sales probably don't garner sales tax in those areas, after all.

They need to get a lot better at giving back, no doubt.

Posted by kitschnsync on December 27, 2011 at 5:19 PM

What @1 said.

Also please consider that Boeing and Microsoft are much older (and quikly fading) corporations while Azon is compaitively younger and swiftly growing.

We shouldn't expect corporations to fill in the gaps where our Goverent has failed us, that's silly.

Posted by GlamB0t on December 27, 2011 at 5:41 PM

I'd like to buy an "A" and a "M" please.

Posted by GlamB0t on December 27, 2011 at 5:43 PM

I just had a chat with a couple of programmers on this issue. They said there is a debate within the company about charitable giving, and the general consensus is that the employees would rather have higher salaries than have Amazon do the charity thing a lot. The execs listen to that. Also, I would like to point out that Jeff himself just gave 15 million for brain cancer research. http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/…

Seriously, deal.

Posted by treefort on December 27, 2011 at 5:53 PM

@7, the employees would rather have higher salaries than have Amazon do the charity thing a lot

False dichotomy. I hope your programmer friends don't buy that bullshit.

Corporate community relations are just another budget item, they don't affect salary for employees in companies of Amazon's size.

Posted by kitschnsync on December 27, 2011 at 6:03 PM

I wouldn't give money to a ballet company whose christmas eve performances of the nutcracker include lightsabers and letter jackets, either.

Posted by aaronbrethorst

on December 27, 2011 at 6:16 PM

@7: Too bad for your friends that Amazon is a white collar sweatshop with shit benefits.

Posted by DOUG.

on December 27, 2011 at 6:18 PM

I don't buy the alignment of corporations with charitable giving unless it's par of the nature of the corporation. Amazon doesn't need to buy good will, and it has a mandate to return value to shareholders. Many companies agree, and support and facilitate giving by employees (which Amazon does not seem to do, either), rather than give directly from corporate profits which technically belong to shareholders.

Other firms see, and shareholders seem to agree, that corporate giving is part of the picture. Thus, Boeing and Microsoft, who want good local press, and want a vibrant community for its employees to enjoy (and thus help recruit people into this area) give.

Jeff hasn't lived in Seattle for years (he lives on the eastside in a former timber baron mansion, I believe), and I don't know where most executives live. I don't know what stake they have here, nor do they think that they have to get the community to support them.

That said, I worked at Amazon many years ago, and Jeff was a terrifically generous person and cared deeply about the arts and scientific research. Not every company will align its interests the same way.

Posted by GlennFleishman

on December 27, 2011 at 6:26 PM

there are 2 consistent things i hear from people who work(ed) at amazon (mostly in engineering)

1) your job might suck depending on what "team" you're on

2) bezos is a giant asshole

the dude is brilliant but, if you want some serious insight, go put "steve yegge on jeff bezos" into google.

Posted by Swearengen on December 27, 2011 at 6:49 PM

You know who gave/gives even less? Steve Jobs and Apple. Where's that story? Oh that's right, we can't disparage the demi God who made all the expensive shiny toys.

Posted by Chali2Na on December 27, 2011 at 6:54 PM

You want Amazon to pony up? TAX THE MOTHER FUCKERS!!! If we had a tax base that the wealthy corporations contributed to we could have public funding for the arts and money to provide services for the poor.

So you don't like the fact Amazon doesn't give to charity? TAX THE MOTHER FUCKERS!!!!

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on December 27, 2011 at 6:59 PM

One of Amazon's core tenets is frugality: http://www.amazon.com/Values-Careers-Hom… If you can convince Amazon that donating money to a ballet will lower product prices, get products to customers faster and increase the selection then they will donate. Until then, they will strategically invest the money on initiatives that directly improve those things.

Posted by baever on December 27, 2011 at 7:39 PM

@9, that is a christmas eve tradition at PNB. the audience loves it.

Posted by scary tyler moore

on December 27, 2011 at 7:57 PM

#14 is right, the entire point of the game they're playing is that assholes win.

Posted by raku on December 27, 2011 at 8:36 PM

You're comparing AMZN to MSFT? Ok, let's start with their financials.

AMZN earned a measly $60 million last quarter on razor thin margins, whereas MSFT cleared $7.2 billion. That's a difference of over 100 times.

I'm guessing donations as a function of earnings probably shows AMZN to be the more generous.

Also, AMZN has over $2 billion in long term debt (MSFT has none), so any donations they do give consist of borrowed money.

Posted by seandr on December 27, 2011 at 9:05 PM

They don't give a shit about their employees, either. The place burns people out and simply shovels more warm bodies into the bio-reactor. They attract talent, consume it to the husk, and look for more. I'd LOVE to work for a stable local company, but will never take a job at Amazon. I tell everyone I know. People in my professional network feel the same.

Not really surprised they don't donate much compared to their peers.

And to the person who says that there are more people buying tickets to local art thanks to Amazon giving them jobs - I call bullshit. How could they buy tickets to a 7 or 8 pm show? They're still at work or answering email from their couch in a semi-vegetative state.

Posted by nullbull on December 27, 2011 at 9:19 PM

Amazon has knife edge profits in the 1 to 2 percent range.

And their electronics like Kindle and Fire lose money!

Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe

on December 27, 2011 at 9:20 PM

@8

So you believe the money already exists in Amazon's budget. It just needs to be shifted from, uh, whatever you think it's being spent on to local charities.

What is it being spent on now? And how do you know this about Amazon?

Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn on December 27, 2011 at 9:25 PM

@18

Facts! Listen to you, on the Slog. With your facts!

I have it on good authority that Amazon already has the money in their budget. They can donate to charity and it won't come out of salaries, and it won't be borrowed. It's just there! I read it on the slog.

Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn on December 27, 2011 at 9:28 PM

No. Next rhetorical question, please.

Posted by Westlake, son! on December 27, 2011 at 10:11 PM

I'd love to see the entitled Occupiers occupy the entitled Amazonite campus. They'd mutually self-destruct in a black hole of whining.

Posted by K3 on December 27, 2011 at 10:47 PM

It's a shame Paul won't be able to understand @18. It's pretty much all you need to know about the subject, but it fails to prove that Amazon is evil, so Constant won't be interested.

Posted by also on December 27, 2011 at 11:36 PM

Microsoft's profit last year $23B
http://www.bing.com/finance/search?q=MSF…

Amazon's profit last year: $1.15B
http://www.bing.com/finance/search?q=AMZ…

Microsoft is a much larger and more profitable company than Amazon. It's not reasonable to expect the same level of contributions from them.

(Full disclosure I'm an engineer at Amazon and I used to work for Microsoft. I think they're both great companies to work at.)

Posted by ishanrc on December 28, 2011 at 7:42 AM

@25 and he will casually ignore 13's comment.

Posted by Devin on December 28, 2011 at 8:56 AM

Amazon's first responsibility is its fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders. No corporation should give away the money of its shareholders. Let the shareholders as individuals donate should they choose.

What organizations does Tim Keck, cheapjack Stranger publisher, support. I do notice the greedhead chisels a lot of ticket buyers. Let's occupy his office.

Posted by Let's occupy the cheapjack greedhead's office on December 28, 2011 at 9:12 AM

How is it that Apple (Which has a high profit margin) killed all charitable donations upon Steve Jobs return in 1997 and they get a free pass. But Amazon (which has a low profit margin) doesnt and suddenly we need to force them into donating money to charity?

Posted by Kinison

on December 28, 2011 at 9:56 AM

So the measure of a corporation's civic-mindedness is how much tax-deductible money they give to "charities" that are primarily entertainment venues for rich white people? Fascinating.

The scandal here isn't that Amazon doesn't participate in this scam. The scandal is that Microsoft and Boeing do, and that you fell for it.

Posted by Doctor Memory

on December 28, 2011 at 10:00 AM

First of all, @8 is completely right. When it comes to wages, Amazon is primarily a price taker, not a price maker. Unless employees were willing to accept below-market wages, Amazon would not be able to pay for charitable giving by reducing salaries. Too many people would leave.

On the other hand, when it comes to its products, Amazon is a price maker, simply because it often has the lowest price by far for many goods. So it is possible that more charitable giving would cause Amazon to raise prices.

Anyway, everyone comparing Amazon to all these other companies is missing the point. The point is that Amazon is not, in any real sense, a local company. They're an international megacorporation that happens to be headquartered in Seattle, just like Wal-Mart is an international megacorporation that happens to be headquartered in Arkansas. If you're okay with that, great! But if you want your money to support your local community -- which doesn't just include charity, but also events (like book readings), and even just the street life and vitality you get from a rich retail scene -- then you should be shopping at truly local stores.

Posted by aleks on December 28, 2011 at 12:32 PM

If you measure how much a corporation cares about their community by how much they pour into local arts organizations—and there are very few other thermometers available to rate corporate concern...

Really? The arts are more important than community groups, the homeless, education, health, etc.? Only in the warped world of Slog writers.

Posted by bigyaz on December 28, 2011 at 2:13 PM

@1: You have no idea whether your hypothesis that amazon.com employees greatly support the local arts scene. You have no proof.

Posted by Weekilter on December 28, 2011 at 2:55 PM

@18: I would think that that profit margin, or lack thereof, is part of the overall problem with Amazon. It's probably easier to be more generous to the local community when you have nearer to retail as opposed to wholesale pricing.

Posted by zachd