Site not loading, here's a Google cached link [1]

Seems to me there's two separate issues.

First, if it were an abstract situation of "Generic Company spends...", I feel that's the wrong way round of thinking about it. All $6.5M came from Generic Company's marketing budget, complaining about only a relatively small % going to charity should be addressed equally at any other company buying a Superbowl ad who didn't spend any of their Superbowl marketing budget on charitable donations. Obviously there are plenty of bigger conversations to be had about the world at large, wealth equality, poverty, areas that charities address that as a species we should be able to just end as problems, etc. but it's not like this case in as example of a company which was expected to do $6.5M worth of good and wasted $5.5M on advertising. DoorDash never claimed to be a charity, nor (as far as I know) suggested they would give more money to charity to any of their funding sources. Unless we get rid of all marketing, or solve all problems so that no charities need donations, shouldn't we encourage companies to donate more even if it's for promotional motives?

The second point is about DoorDash specifically and their business doings/ethics. Maybe the fact that it's them, not an unnamed random company, means they should be criticised for being hypocritical in their marketing messaging vs. their actions? But that would be equally true or not had they made a charitable donation and only done very cheap, basic marcom around it. But that makes for a less exciting headline.

[1] https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:kArvLb...

Doesn't apply here, but in theory a charity could reinvest for growth like a startup and only than start helping people and do more good, no :) ?

Slippery slope, but might be the reasonable thing for effective altruism.

Sounds appalling at first, but then I realized there are so many companies these days that will say “for every pair of shoes bought, we will give a pair to someone in need”, etc. It’s just more charity/feel good marketing.

I’m not surprised they would do this for PR attention. The entire DD business model is fascinating. I don’t know their economics well enough to understand if it’s sustainable, but apparently I can get a Big Mac and fries delivered to my home for about $22, over 2x the cost of buying from McD directly.

The idea of a four party transaction just for me to eat a sandwich is nuts — me, McD, DoorDash, and the driver. I suppose it’s convenient if you’re willing to spend that much dime. The fact that they’re in business tells me people are even lazier than I imagined.

Wait. Am I to believe there's no incentive to virtue signal?

Cached version: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:kArvLb...

Some companies build their entire brand off of these kinds of things. When I was in my 20's I would have told people they were crazy if someone were to have told me this, but we should be about that cynical. They are systems mostly designed to make money and almost all communications are oriented to this goal.

I think most people accept capitalism, or accept that companies might act in self interest. The harder part is accepting how manipulative they can be with the power of their brand especially.

If you 'feel' a certain way about a brand, and that feeling has anything to do with a morality, then be doubly concerned.

And 95% of that $1 million donation, went straight into the expensive CEO’s bonus, for a job well done. And to other staff pay.

Call it an administrative fee. And this is why charities are bullshit.

Bonus points: If you’re rich, then start a charity, so that your Doordash buddies can donate to you.