I can't tell if this comment is real or parody. If it's real, and you really don't understand the point, ask yourself why a $100k donation would be useful addition to a TV commercial.
Why a $100k donation is useful? Well obviously because it's good that they gave $100k... You prefer $50m of ads with 0 donation? You do you, but I prefer the former...
How about $49m in ads with $1m in donation?
Perhaps $45m in ads with $5m in donation?
Or maybe $40m in ads with $10m in donation?
You might as well do $5m in ads with $45m in donations, build a community center (or a dozen) and name it after your brand or something.
Obviously there are reasons for them choosing the split that they did, but we don't need to pretend that $100k is some upper end that cannot be surpassed.
But it was their right to choose for to split it. The conversation is about not castigating someone for charity, no matter how small. The flip side is also not touting it. Ironically, maybe Dominos would have been better off keeping their heads down and spending $0 on charity.
Here's the correction
> How about $50m in ads with $1m in donation?
> Perhaps $50m in ads with $5m in donation?
> Or maybe $50m in ads with $10m in donation?
The $50m is how many they are going to spend in ads, it's fixed. They want to reach theses eye balls, and increasing the amount donated won't increase the amount of eye balls. They are going to spend $50m in ads. They want theses minutes of airtime... donating more won't pay for more airtime (unless it become news worthy but that's a whole other level).
How is taking a second look at the amount that you'll actually donate and seeing that the proportions will generate some backlash and possibly result in negative press a bad idea to have?
I assume that the donation also comes from a particular budget allocation, which can be adjusted as necessary.
> They want to reach theses eye balls, and increasing the amount donated won't increase the amount of eye balls.
"Company A donates $10 to charity."
"Company A donates $100k to charity."
"Company A donates $1m to charity."
I doubt that each of those would result in equal amount of attention, though I'll concede that with a marketing budget like that they can probably make even $100k seem like the best thing ever to the casual observer. I'd say that there's still a certain scaling to the "newsworthiness" aspect, rather than a binary yes/no choice.
At the end of the day, it's up to them to choose how much they'll donate towards any particular initiative and how much they'll spend on popularizing this initiative, both factors having a certain impact on the effectiveness of that campaign.
Of course, without a doubt they've done analysis of this and found that $100k is the optimum amount to donate, so that they can play it up as this great initiative, without donating more than they desire, seeing as they're not obligated to. And that exact amount is what a lot of people take issue with, especially when compared to the aforementioned marketing budget.
It seems like some parody of a corporation-driven society.