# 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?

## 1 Answer

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.

• 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! Apr 14 '16 at 15:12
• This is a great answer. 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. 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. Apr 14 '16 at 17:26
• @ThalesPereira my claim is not notable enough, but I got a satisfatory answer. Apr 14 '16 at 18:16