Why Doesn't Amazon Standardize/Force "Amazon Smile"?

[Miles 2,512]

Amazon is a huge industry, so much so that it probably plays a role in the world's economy.

Sooo... WHY doesn't Amazon standardize (ergo force) the use Amazon Smile (AKA smile.amazon.com)?

What is AmazonSmile?

AmazonSmile is a simple and automatic way for you to support your favorite charitable organization every time you shop, at no cost to you. When you shop at smile.amazon.com, you’ll find the exact same low prices, vast selection and convenient shopping experience as Amazon.com, with the added bonus that Amazon will donate a portion of the purchase price to your favorite charitable organization. You can choose from nearly one million organizations to support.

Find out more about Amazon Smile HERE: About AmazonSmile

I recently just used Amazon Smile to buy some engine oil and a filter for my [parents'] 1989 Chevy Camaro RS [305 TBI] (of which I will be changing the oil myself, and enjoying doing so, as a gearhead).  

(Plus, buying oil on Amazon is definitely [usually] cheaper than at an automotive parts store where they mark up the prices as if nobody even knows the difference).

I choose Code.org as the charity I use when shopping on Amazon Smile because I'm a college graduate with a B.S. in Computer Science.






Yeah, I know, it looks like I spent more on the filter than the oil but there was a $2.00 off coupon special so it [the filter] only cost me $12.39 (plus I think that the oil would probably be priced a lot higher if I'd have bought it in a auto parts store; Amazon just prices their products so damn reasonably - much cheaper than in a parts store!) You might also wonder why I'd buy such a top tier filter but just conventional oil. See, the thing is, we try to keep our Camaro in as great of condition as possible, but we don't put many miles on it. My parents bought it brand new in 1989 for $14,000 out-the-door (white paint, red cloth interior, T-Tops, and an Auto-Trans), and it now [as of today] has around 50,000 original miles on it right now. We don't drive it enough to need synthetic, since we only drive it to car shows, car cruises, and other certain occasions - but we change the oil once a year. So, I like to buy the best oil in a reasonable price range on Amazon, and pair it with a great oil filter. (Learn more about the Purolator Boss oil filter here; and learn more about Quaker State Advanced Durability here and here).


It's also nice to have them tell you it will ship earlier than expected 

I'm honestly both amazed and confused at why you can shop at Amazon without going through Amazon Smile. 

Does anyone else use Amazon Smile? If so what charity do you/did you choose (you don't have to say if you don't want to)?

If you are only now hearing about Amazon Smile now and have an Amazon account, you should definitely make the switch to Amazon Smile. 

[Catpone Cerberus 23,428]

I Don't use amazon but it's obvious for me.
 

5 minutes ago, Miles said:

you’ll find the exact same low prices,

 

5 minutes ago, Miles said:

Amazon will donate a portion of the purchase price

Since you don't pay more to them, it means that Amazon get less when you use AmazonSmile. And what does business like amazon want? That's right, money. So they won't force you to use AmazonSmile because they would get less money that way, than when you don't use it.

Edited July 7, 2017 by The Cerberus

[Miles 2,512]

24 minutes ago, The Cerberus said:

Since you don't pay more to them, it means that Amazon get less when you use AmazonSmile. And what does business like amazon want? That's right, money. So they won't force you to use AmazonSmile because they would get less money that way, than when you don't use it.

I get your point, but why would Amazon even have Amazon Smile in the first place if that's the case. Your argument makes no sense. If they cared about losing a small portion of their money by donating to a charity of the customer's choice, Amazon wouldn't have smile.amazon.com to begin with! 

I'm a Libertarian Capitalist. This is a win-win in my eyes. Amazon still makes bank even through Amazon Smile while also being humanitarian by donating a portion of their profit to charity. 

It looks to me like you're really missing the point, and don't understand how economy works. 

[Glacies Frost 428]

This is actually fairly simple, if you think about it. Amazon gets to have its cake and eat it to, to use the old adage. By allowing for the donation choice through Smile, Amazon comes off looking like the good guy, who really cares about giving to those in need. On the other hand, by not standardizing it, it still gets to make full profit off of those too lazy or apathetic to  make the switch. For them it's a win-win. They can say they give you the choice, but that they can't (or won't) force you to. This makes them look good while also providing them the maximum profit off of the lazy/apathetic shoppers. By the way, I'm not saying they don't care, just that this business model actually allows them to have more profit than standardizing would... and I know they care, since they shove that "shop through smile.amazon.com" pop up down my throat every time I sign in.

[Discordian 6,013]

I can name a few reasons.

 

One, because forcing people to donate to charity can drive business away. People usually only trust certain charities, or outright refuse to give to charity at all under the assumption that they'll take some of that money for themselves rather than actually give it to the charity cause as they advertise. 

 

Also, some would rather support the business instead of the charity. I get a lot of mileage out of Amazon and I'd hate for them to suddenly take measures to increase revenue that could negate the benefits of using Amazon over other services

 

 

[Catpone Cerberus 23,428]

19 minutes ago, Miles said:

I get your point, but why would Amazon even have Amazon Smile in the first place if that's the case. Your argument makes no sense. If they cared about losing a small portion of their money by donating to a charity of the customer's choice, Amazon wouldn't have smile.amazon.com to begin with! 

Marketing. 

If there was two identical shops next to each other with same selection and same prices, but one gives part of the price to charity and one doesn't, who gets more customers?

Amazon gets more customers who like the idea that they are helping someone by buying there. So it is profitable because it attracts people who like to idea of giving money to charity but doesn't want to do it themselves. (but because it is same price to them, they think that this is how they can help without paying extra or "losing money") but if all of their customers who doesn't want to use or doesn't know about AmazonSmile  were to do that, they would lose money.

Sure, they wouldn't care about losing "small portion" but if that "small portion" would be lost in every purchase, the amount of lost money goes pretty high.

If I was a business and let's say smart phone was 100$ and I were to launch campaign where 1$ from that goes to charity if you use special service. Let's say I have 1 000 000 customers and 10 000 of them use this service, I lose 10 000$, and that is small amount in context but if every one of the customer were to use this service, I would lose 1 000 000$, and that's not a small money anymore, You see what I'm trying to say?

 

-Edit- Glacies said it better than me.

 

-edit also- 

Quote

...and don't understand how economy works.

I'm not going to fight about this but let's simply say that I have went through a education that includes how to make your own business, do things in that business, market Etc. 

I don't say I'm expert on these things but I do understand how to make money. 

Edited July 7, 2017 by The Cerberus

[Miles 2,512]

Just now, Glacies Frost said:

This is actually fairly simple, if you think about it. Amazon gets to have its cake and eat it to, to use the old adage. By allowing for the donation choice through Smile, Amazon comes off looking like the good guy, who really cares about giving to those in need. On the other hand, by not standardizing it, it still gets to make full profit off of those too lazy or apathetic to  make the switch. For them it's a win-win. They can say they give you the choice, but that they can't (or won't) force you to. This makes them look good while also providing them the maximum profit off of the lazy/apathetic shoppers. By the way, I'm not saying they don't care, just that this business model actually allows them to have more profit than standardizing would... and I know they care, since they shove that "shop through smile.amazon.com" pop up down my throat every time I sign in.

I agree with you. And from a Libertarian Capitalist viewpoint, this is a great strategy. But like you said, they do care, and they do advertise Amazon Smile to non-Smile customers non-stop. But in my eyes that's a great, humanitarian thing. 

I have to ask - why don't you use it? It doesn't cost you any more at all. 

[Glacies Frost 428]

Just now, Miles said:

I have to ask - why don't you use it? It doesn't cost you any more at all. 

That's simple, really. One, haven't picked a charity yet, two, I've been kinda lazy, and three, I haven't actually BOUGHT anything on Amazon in over a year and a half.

[Miles 2,512]

Just now, The Cerberus said:

You see what I'm trying to say?

I don't see how what you said differs from what I said... So... Yes and no?

Obviously it's a marketing thing. Just like you said:
 

1 minute ago, The Cerberus said:

Amazon gets more customers who like the idea that they are helping someone by buying there.

So, you're really just proving my point more than yours.

---
 

1 minute ago, Glacies Frost said:

That's simple, really. One, haven't picked a charity yet, two, I've been kinda lazy, and three, I haven't actually BOUGHT anything on Amazon in over a year and a half.

I see. I guess if you don't buy online often, there's less incentive. However if you do shop online often, it seems like Amazon Smile offers a pretty neat incentive. In my opinion, for the things that I buy, usually Amazon has cheaper prices than in-store prices. I don't shop on Amazon *all* the time (maybe a few times a year via Amazon gift cards), but when I know I need something, and that something is cheaper on Amazon, I'm most likely going to buy it through Amazon.

[Catpone Cerberus 23,428]

Just now, Miles said:

I don't see how what you said differs from what I said... So... Yes and no?

Obviously it's a marketing thing. Just like you said:
 

So, you're really just proving my point more than yours.
 

I was answering to this

 

26 minutes ago, Miles said:

but why would Amazon even have Amazon Smile in the first place if that's the case. Your argument makes no sense. If they cared about losing a small portion of their money by donating to a charity of the customer's choice, Amazon wouldn't have smile.amazon.com to begin with! 

 

1 hour ago, Miles said:

WHY doesn't Amazon standardize (ergo force) the use Amazon Smile

You asked why they don't make everyone use it, I said because they would lose money, then you said that why Smile would be a thing if they would care about losing "small portion" of the money and lastly I explained why it wouldn't be "small portion" if everyone used it. 

[Miles 2,512]

6 minutes ago, The Cerberus said:

I was answering to this

 

 

You asked why they don't make everyone use it, I said because they would lose money, then you said that why Smile would be a thing if they would care about losing "small portion" of the money and lastly I explained why it wouldn't be "small portion" if everyone used it. 

Bull.

Even if every single Amazon customer used Amazon Smile, Amazon would still make profit. They wouldn't set up a system that would be a detriment to them.

Anywho, I need to get to bed. I didn't sleep last night (or should I say "couldn't" sleep last night). Oyasumi 

[Discordian 6,013]

That's still a huge portion less profit though. A lot of money that could be used to keep/hire better customer support, more warehouse workers, and even keeping costs low for sellers who put their stuff on Amazon. Imagine if Amazon had to raise their "take" from sales. It would ultimately raise individual sellers' prices so they can keep their profits coming.

[Miles 2,512]

4 minutes ago, Discordian said:

[1] That's still a huge portion less profit though. A lot of money that could be used to keep/hire better customer support, [2] more warehouse workers, [3] and even keeping costs low for sellers who put their stuff on Amazon. [4] Imagine if Amazon had to raise their "take" from sales. It would ultimately raise individual sellers' prices so they can keep their profits coming.

1. Honestly, I really, really don't believe that. Amazon makes bank, regardless of whether or not customers use Smile or not. Their customer support is pretty damn good, and I doubt a small loss of profit would make any difference, as it seems, at least to me, that Amazon has always put the customer first. 

2. Have you seen videos showing how crappy of a job it is to be an Amazon warehouse worker? I don't find that relevant to this subject anyway, though.

3. Again, Amazon makes great profit regardless of whether or not customers use Smile. I don't think it would affect the costs for sellers.

4. Redundancy. Amazon isn't going to be losing much profit from Smile anyway. Even when they do donate, they are still making profit, which is pretty incredible anyway, considering Amazon typically has lower prices than in-stores (even those with their own online markets like Walmart), at least for automotive products and audio equipment products from my experience.

Anyway, I am going to bed now. I have got to get to sleep. I didn't get an ounce last night and I'm at the point where auto-pilot could kick in any time now. Good night.

[Catpone Cerberus 23,428]

47 minutes ago, Miles said:

Even if every single Amazon customer used Amazon Smile, Amazon would still make profit.

Yes, they would make profit, I didn't say that. But they would make Less profit, and no sane corporation would purposely make themselves to make less money.

You asked why they don't force it and I answered, it doesn't matter if they could survive with less or not, because they don't want to do it. No matter how much one believes that they have a good heart, they are here to make as much money as they can, and that's what they will do and have always done.

Edited July 7, 2017 by The Cerberus

[Discordian 6,013]

I'm just throwing possible reasons out there. You might have a counterpoint for any of those reasons but ultimately the decision and the reasons lie with Amazon themselves. If you want to know you can always try contacting them directly.

[Miles 2,512]

8 hours ago, The Cerberus said:

Yes, they would make profit, I didn't say that. But they would make Less profit, and no sane corporation would purposely make themselves to make less money.

You asked why they don't force it and I answered, it doesn't matter if they could survive with less or not, because they don't want to do it. No matter how much one believes that they have a good heart, they are here to make as much money as they can, and that's what they will do and have always done.

 

7 hours ago, Discordian said:

I'm just throwing possible reasons out there. You might have a counterpoint for any of those reasons but ultimately the decision and the reasons lie with Amazon themselves. If you want to know you can always try contacting them directly.

I'm of the opinion that Amazon would make more profit it they forced/standardized Amazon Smile because I feel it would bring more customers to buy from Amazon. There are a lot of users who don't even known Amazon Smile exists, and there are also a lot of non-users who probably don't know it exists either.

I could be wrong. But I just think that it would attract more people to buy from Amazon if Smile was forced/standardized. Thus, more people buying from Amazon - even with that meaning more donations - still means more money that Amazon receives.

Anyway, it's not really a huge deal. Amazon will do as they please, and customers will also do as they please. In the end, it doesn't really matter.

[Black Sabbath 2,484]

5 minutes ago, Miles said:

I'm of the opinion that Amazon would make more profit it they forced/standardized Amazon Smile because I feel it would bring more customers to buy from Amazon.

Why exactly? If people would buy more things from Amazon simply because they'd support a charity organisations by doing so, then they'd just use Amazon Smile in the first place.  

 

 

[Miles 2,512]

Just now, Yamet said:

Why exactly? If people would buy more things from Amazon simply because they'd support a charity organisations by doing so, then they'd just use Amazon Smile in the first place.  

Because like I said, there are many people who DON'T know that Amazon Smile even exists!

[Black Sabbath 2,484]

2 hours ago, Miles said:

Because like I said, there are many people who DON'T know that Amazon Smile even exists!

Yeah, but they don't have to standardize it just to make more people aware of it. They can just advertise it better.  

Edit: And then they will still get all of the potential customers who'll buy stuff just to support a charity, but they won't have to sacrifice too much of their potential profit since their normal store is still there.   

Edited July 7, 2017 by Yamet

[Jeric 46,835]

 

It's a trival matter to default it to Smile, place a default charity option as a one time set-up, release an app that people have been asking for, and link up via API's to various charity oversight organizations. 

They don't because they don't want to, and there are other legal complications involving some of the requested options. Then there is this, beneficiary perk with less cost. 

Smile accounts for 0.00012% of total sales revenue. If that was actually 5% ... you haz issues with investors. They don't wanna. That's why. 

Amazing PR move though. I'm also against auto charitable contributions from a different reason. I don't want people to have an out of sight out of mind mentality with charity. When someone donates, it should come with consistent consideration because a charity is also a cause that requires money and visibility. 

27 minutes ago, Miles said:

I'm of the opinion that Amazon would make more profit it they forced/standardized Amazon Smile because I feel it would bring more customers to buy from Amazon. There are a lot of users who don't even known Amazon Smile exists, and there are also a lot of non-users who probably don't know it exists either.

They would lose a whole hella lot. This specific thought experiment is old hat in business. There is a point in which charitable given no longer has a good ROI. That plateau is where most corporations stop at ... unless it's PR meant to be a rebuttal (Phillip Morris is a great example). 

[Glacies Frost 428]

16 minutes ago, Jeric said:

They would lose a whole hella lot. This specific thought experiment is old hat in business. There is a point in which charitable given no longer has a good ROI. That plateau is where most corporations stop at ... unless it's PR meant to be a rebuttal (Phillip Morris is a great example). 

To expand on this, there's only so much good will you can count on customers giving you because you are either i) supporting a charitable organization or ii) ARE a charitable organization. The fact of the matter is also quite simple. If a person becomes accustomed to something, they take it for granted and no longer consider it impressive. It becomes "old hat," in a sense, and will from there on have significantly less return on investment for the company. This is why PR stunts and advertising change drastically in a very small time span. There's a limit on how long people will remain engaged with a PR campaign before something new has to be added to shake things up. 

[Miles 2,512]

@Jeric @Glacies Frost

Hmmm, okay, I understand your points, and I get what you mean by old hat...

However, the reason I figured it would bring more customers (and more profit) was because there are a lot of anti-corporation/anti-capitalist people who hate Walmart, Amazon, etc... If people who were against buying from big name companies (Amazon in this case) were taught about the ability to have part of their payment go to a charity/organization of their own choice, they may change their mind and start buying from Amazon. Basically, it could teach people that capitalism and humanitarianism can actually go hand-in-hand, and thus bring people who previously would not have used Amazon to come around to using it. 

Plus, Jeric, it's not an auto-contribution (it isn't out-of-sight out-of-mind). People have to choose which charity/organization they want part of their payment to go towards.

Anyway, I now understand why it's not standardized. It totally depends on the amount of new customers they would receive and how many total users that would utilize Amazon Smile. 

What if they made it an opt-out rather than opt-in option? Might still be risky, I don't know.

[Jeric 46,835]

56 minutes ago, Miles said:

Plus, Jeric, it's not an auto-contribution (it isn't out-of-sight out-of-mind). People have to choose which charity/organization they want part of their payment to go towards.

My comment about auto contributing, along with that rapid fire list of other things .... yeah that's from other people who use Smile and customers who want Amazon to go to that system. None of those are my ideas, nor is my response my preference. I'm far more altruistic than that. 

You asked why they don't push Smile more, and I answered it. Amazon knows how to increase donations they pay for. Amazon didn't launch Smile for purely altruistic reasons. If so there were better ways of going about partial matching sales. No. They crunched the numbers and forecasted how much it would cost them. They also have numbers on how many people who use it forget in subsequent purchases. And they bank on that lapse. It's predictable behavior -- and as optimistic as I am I can't ignore the realities of corporate governance and strategies. 

Also, it would not increase revenue for them more than the current system. There is a very specific formula that most corporations use that account for tax benefits, behavior, and the residual revenue plateau that charity brings -- salient facts I cannot ignore. 

Broadcasting charitable contributions does increase sales, through a mixture of awareness and visibility. Making the customer a part of the decision also plays on known retail psychology and moves sales higher, but there is a ceiling. Smile as-is makes them money. Smile as some have suggested ... cuts into revenue. 

All of this is so strongly tested and replicated, it might as well be considered a law and not a business and marketing theory. 

[Jeric 46,835]

@Miles

I come to eat crow a little on something. One of my points was that Amazon wouldn't push Smile to customers that have previously used it. I was wrong. This just happened. So I stand corrected! They do apparently remind shoppers to use it. Legit.