As you have probably read, Amazon recently announced the end of its Amazon Smile program. Through Amazon Smile, 0.5% of eligible Amazon purchases were donated to a charity selected by each shopper. Amazon cited the disparate impact of the program and the desire to have a greater impact in more concentrated areas, such as affordable housing. The announcement also coincided with recently announced layoffs at Amazon.
To its credit, Amazon Smile gifted $449 million to nonprofits globally over its 10-year history. That is a huge number and one that any company would be happy to publicize. The problem? The average annual gift per charity in the US was only $230. To that extent it is hard to disagree with Amazon—the overall impact per organization was minimal.
The end of Amazon Smile raises a few important topics. First, it is worth watching how Amazon restructures its charitable giving. Amazon has alluded to the fact they plan to have a larger impact in designated areas—how will they follow through with that promise? And aside from grantmaking, how can Amazon use its technology and platform as a tool that benefits donors and nonprofits? As one of the largest companies in the world, Amazon has tremendous potential for impact.
Second, many have likely encountered a non-fundraiser board member or organizational leader who suggests that you should promote Amazon Smile (or Facebook giving, or an ice bucket challenge) to increase fundraising productivity. Do not be afraid to use that suggestion as an opportunity to (politely) educate. Talk to them about the importance of building relationships with donors, educating and engaging them, thanking them, and eventually asking them to support again—all things that are not possible with platforms like Amazon Smile. Be sure to use data to illustrate your points. Most of these leaders probably see the headline that Amazon has given $449 million (we should get some of that!), and not the small print that explains it only equals a few hundred dollars per year for an organization.
Finally, educate leaders on the things you are doing to have a much larger impact than one $230 gift. Discuss a new stewardship program and how you are monitoring its effect on donor retention. What does a 1% increase in retention look like in terms of dollars? What about 5% or 10%? Or talk about an upgrade strategy for donors from the past year—what does a 5% increase in average gift look like?
It can be awkward or hard to have these conversations. You don’t want to come off as telling someone, especially a leader, that they are wrong. Sometimes allowing yourself time to gather data and suggesting individual follow-up is a more tactful approach. But by helping other “non-fundraisers” understand the fundamentals of our work, we can gradually reduce the high time commitment/low-impact activities in our day-to-day work.