There are business models so brazen that you almost have to respect them. Imagine this: People buy food for the needy because they want to help. They reach for canned goods, pasta, or baby food, put the products into their shopping cart, and then donate them to food banks. A nice gesture. An act of solidarity.
And while customers believe they are doing something good, at the same time the supermarket’s cash register rings.
Not just a little. But quite legally. With the usual retail margin. With profit.
How brilliant is that? The generosity of others becomes a source of income. The customer donates. The needy receive the goods. And the retailer profits. A win-win-win situation – at least for two parties involved.
Particularly remarkable is the matter-of-fact way in which this system is defended. As soon as politicians suggest that the margins made on such collection campaigns be passed on to aid organizations, outraged clearing of throats can be heard from executive suites. After all, they say, they have already done enough. They support the campaigns organizationally. They donate surpluses. They fight against food waste.
All true.
But that does not answer the crucial question: Why should the willingness of customers to donate be considered a normal sales transaction?
If someone buys food to put on their own family’s table, a retail margin is taken for granted. That is what commerce is for. But when a customer consciously shops for the needy, the transaction suddenly becomes something else. Then it’s no longer about consumption, but about solidarity.
And solidarity, in fact, is not a commodity.
The real scandal, therefore, is not that supermarkets profit from such campaigns. The real scandal is that many people now consider this completely normal. We have apparently grown used to the fact that even charity has a profit and loss statement.
Perhaps we will soon see the next level of innovation. Why not loyalty programs for charity? Donate ten cans for the needy and get double loyalty points on the eleventh product. Or a premium membership for particularly generous customers. Marketing departments would surely come up with creative solutions.
Of course, this thought is somewhat exaggerated. But only a little.
Because the fundamental question remains: Whom should the generosity of citizens serve? People in need – or the quarterly figures of publicly traded companies?
Anyone who seriously claims that both are equally legitimate may have forgotten what a donation is really about.
Namely, about giving.
Not about profiting from it.
A commentary by C. Hatty