[kijin]

UPS knew what they were getting into. You don't pledge transportation services to the world's largest aquarium without expecting to ship some fish.

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.

[acveilleux]

The cost was probably tabulated and tax deductible. That helps.

[StavrosK]

I don't understand this mentality. Costs are always tax-deductible, it's not as if this is some added perk. Same with donations, "ooh, donations are tax-deductible!" Yeah, so is an advertising campaign, you're not doing me a favor here.

[s_baby]

If you've already decided you're going to be charitable you can be much more generous because of the deduction.

With that said Georgia Aquarium keeps killing their beluga whales.

[StavrosK]

> If you've already decided you're going to be charitable you can be much more generous because of the deduction.

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?

[Turing_Machine]

Charity gets you goodwill and free distribution of your message.

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.

[StavrosK]

This is irrelevant. I'm asking why "tax deductible" is touted as a benefit of charity, when costs are already tax deductible.