The point about being able to "raise prices under the pretense of inflation" is a red herring. You know what's better than raising prices and then blowing the surplus on ads? Raising prices and pocketing it. You only spend it on frivolous projects if there's nothing better to do with it (eg. because the fed flooded the economy with dollars).
Yes, there are other pizza chains, but Domino's has almost twice the market share of its closest competitors, meaning it can waste money in an irrational way with few consequences, contrary to the rational actor and healthy competition that most models assume: https://medium.com/edison-discovers/dominos-takes-50-of-pizz...
This is a good deep dive into these sorts of dynamics: https://www.amazon.com/Peoples-Republic-Walmart-Corporations...
For years, lots of companies gorged themselves by burning money by doing stock buybacks just for the sake of pumping share prices for fleeting short term gains for executives and shareholders, while everything that makes the company actually operate is slowly hollowed out. Many of these same companies will then ask for bailouts after wasting all this money and making bad business decisions, like airlines. This example with Domino's is actually pretty mild in comparison to money wasted with things like stock buybacks and executive bonuses. Macroeconomic models also don't take bailouts into account, which are usually needed because companies make bad, irrational decisions that favor extreme short term thinking.
> "Raising prices and pocketing it"
Precisely, that's what many of these companies are doing. Whine about inflation and raise prices for consumers while simultaneously bragging about record earnings on shareholder calls, the only place in practice where they are obligated to tell the truth. If inflation was really the primary cause of price increases, you'd likely see them slashing earnings projections in line with that, but that's not happening. It's certainly a contributor, but to know if a company is telling the truth you have to look at their earnings when they're saying that.
Besides, the company already allocated budget for this last year as part of their broader video budget. This commercial run just happens to be about the donation. These things are usually done by some Chief of Bullshit and Diversity Officer and the ad agency chose to highlight it to tick the “social responsibility” slot in this year’s slate of commercials.
Would you rather they spent the money on more ads of dripping cheese? Would it be ok to spend $50mm promoting it if the donation was also $50mm? What a nothingpizza.
Tell that to Peloton.