# Could candy crush in-app purchases gross revenue keep over a million children fed in africa? [closed]

Discussing the mobile app in-app-purchase model, candy crush came up, and someone said the gross revenue of that app family alone could keep over one million children fed in africa.

Some googling around I found some references:

1. The cost of feeding a child supposedly is "a little over \$1 a day" (USD\$ or CAD\$ ??)
don't trust data that came from a 5 min google search

But I could not find any reliable data on CC daily earnings. It could be over a million dollars, so the claim has some basis.

So, skeptics:

Is the sum of gross revenue of all the candy crush over all mobile platforms enough to feed a million children in africa?

## closed as off-topic by Christian, Oddthinking♦Apr 14 '16 at 15:13

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

• "Skeptics Stack Exchange is for challenging unreferenced notable claims, pseudoscience and biased results. This question might not challenge a claim, or the claim identified might not be notable." – Christian, Oddthinking
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

King brought in \$1.33 billion in revenue from its "Candy Crush Saga" property alone in calendar year 2014. If we were to divide this out daily to 1 million children in Africa, that would be approximately \$3.64 per child per day ((\$1.33billion/1million)/365days).

The cost to feed a child in Africa seems to vary wildly from source to source, searching yielded results from \$1 down to \$0.19 depending on the charity. A 2009 study found that African schoolchildren across multiple countries were fed on the equivalent of \$40/year (standardized at feeding a 700 Calorie meal 200 days of the year), which works out to \$0.20 per day (\$40/200days). Since this is only one meal of the day, we can assume it would cost \$0.60 to feed a child al three meals. Thus the \$1 estimate in your source is higher than expected (but could cover more varied food and administrative costs).

Either way, the above translating King's revenue for a million children (\$3.64 per day) is greater than that calculated costs of a full meal by a factor of 6. So it is within reason that King's yearly revenue could feed a million Africa yearly, if not more.

The central argument of this answer is theoretical in nature. We do not allow answers based uniquely on common sense or pure logic. Answers which are wholly based on a theoretical model are generally downvoted and may be deleted. See FAQ: What are theoretical answers?

• I'm split about this answer. Normally, self-made calculations are frowned upon on this site. However, this is the type of really simple math that would be okay in an answer. I really don't know what to think of it! – T. Sar Apr 14 '16 at 15:12
• This is a great answer. – DJClayworth Apr 14 '16 at 15:40
• @ThalesPereira so long the sources are real, trusteable and the calculations can be reproduced/verified, it is fine. IF you are worrying about the assumptions he took, he is assuming a bigger cost than the source explains. within the scope of the question, the answer is great. – Mindwin Apr 14 '16 at 17:19
• @Mindwin Yeah, you're probably right. I did threw in a upvote a while ago (I liked the answer), I'm just nor sure about it's fitness. I'm not saying it's wrong - I would be happy this one could stay along. – T. Sar Apr 14 '16 at 17:26
• @ThalesPereira my claim is not notable enough, but I got a satisfatory answer. – Mindwin Apr 14 '16 at 18:16