I like that.
I like that.
> When the Georgia Aquarium broke ground in 2005, UPS made a generous donation: at no cost, they offered their logistics and shipping services for whatever the facility needed.
Fair enough. I like it. So how did the aquarium reply:
>"we’d like to transport ... four whale sharks in Taipei and two beluga whales in Mexico to Atlanta".
There is no way UPS would have been shipping those whales at any reasonable (even discount) price point.
At least they got this article out of it!
The publicity was probably worth the cost. If I had to ship a terracotta army, I'd much rather go with a company that is known to have successfully shipped a couple of sharks and whales.
With that said Georgia Aquarium keeps killing their beluga whales.
Can you explain that a bit? If I'm going to spend $1000 on ads, I can write them off as an expense, and save $X off taxes. If I decide to spend it on charity, will I save more than $X on taxes?
Advertising just annoys people -- to the extent that they will install software designed to block it.
Note that a) UPS didn't have to pay a additional dime for this article, or hundreds of others (google "UPS shipping beluga") and b) most of us are reading it voluntarily.
Which do you think is the better deal? Between this article and an intrusive popup ad jumping in your face, which do you think makes people think more positively toward UPS?
Without the deduction for charitable contributions, that wouldn't be an option.
I'm not sure why you have difficulty understanding this.
In any case, it should be all sorted now, so we're done here.
If I donate $1k, it reduces my taxable income by $1k, saving me ~$300ish.