It's a marketing campaign that ends up helping people and the real world.
They have that money to spare because their customers think their products are desirable.
It seems to me you're trying to detract from what happened here by trying to argue that their products aren't that good? I'm not sure what you're implying, but I'll repeat, they've only been able to help, even as a marketing ploy, because they have accumulated profits - proof that their customers value what they produce.
The quality of their product, in the eyes of their customers, has everything to do with their ability to pull off this stunt.
I'm not trying to detract from anything they've done, and their products are fine, as far as I know.
What I'm saying is that there is no correlation between their success in dealing with an infectious disease in the area around one of their facilities and the quality of their consumer products.
The quality of their products (in the eyes of their consumers) is what enabled them to have all this money sitting around, that came from profits, to help deal with this situation.
They have that money to spare because their customers think their products are desirable.
It seems to me you're trying to detract from what happened here by trying to argue that their products aren't that good? I'm not sure what you're implying, but I'll repeat, they've only been able to help, even as a marketing ploy, because they have accumulated profits - proof that their customers value what they produce.
The quality of their product, in the eyes of their customers, has everything to do with their ability to pull off this stunt.