Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Alamy featured, unfeatured and pinned this topic

Thanks for posting.

 

Interesting this has been posted (and pinned) in the contributor forum just as Alamy's 2018 Annual results are due.

I await their 2018 annual results with interest.

I see there's a little more info here https://www.alamy.com/about-us/about-alamy-our-philosophy.pdf and here https://www.alamy.com/about-us/

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

I have nothing against philanthropy but do feel aggrieved if we have had our income cut to help fund it.

 

+1

  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite sure what this means or how they manage it, but according to UK Charity Commission website, the Fischer Family Trust have managed to spend more than they received in donations and endowments in every year, bar one, since 2014. They do have some assets but I can't see £190,000 bringing in a massive investment income. Anybody with financial nous know how it is possible for a charity to consistently spend more than they receive? Are charities allowed to go into debt?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

The cynic in my can't help thinking that there must be some tax benefits involved in all this somewhere. 

 

 

the logician in me would think you get tax benefits from money paid out to contributors as well. 😀.  So it's all a question of priority from then on

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, geogphotos said:

FFT shows a turnover of over £6 million selling assessment software to schools. Perhaps they could start subsidising Alamy with their profits and we could keep our commission?

 

SBL does not appear to have published a research paper since 2014.

 

I have nothing against philanthropy but do feel aggrieved if we have had our income cut to help fund it. And with James West being Mike Fischer's nephew there does seem to be a lot of DNA in these arrangements. 

 

The cynic in me can't help thinking that there must be some tax benefits involved in all this somewhere. 

 

I find it a little strange that 87% of FFT's spend go to SBL. It wouldn't be my cause of choice to donate to, given my loss of income (not so good for my own urinary tract, to be honest). As you mention, the last research paper appears to have been published 2014. The research quoted for clinical trials and other research areas of focus (i.e. cancer immunotherapy) all seem more than a few years old. That doesn't reflect so well, imho.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Alamy unpinned this topic
21 hours ago, geogphotos said:

I have nothing against philanthropy but do feel aggrieved if we have had our income cut to help fund it. And with James West being Mike Fischer's nephew there does seem to be a lot of DNA in these arrangements. 

 

The cynic in me can't help thinking that there must be some tax benefits involved in all this somewhere. 

+1

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Joseph Clemson said:

Not quite sure what this means or how they manage it, but according to UK Charity Commission website, the Fischer Family Trust have managed to spend more than they received in donations and endowments in every year, bar one, since 2014. They do have some assets but I can't see £190,000 bringing in a massive investment income. Anybody with financial nous know how it is possible for a charity to consistently spend more than they receive? Are charities allowed to go into debt?

 It obviously has a financial reserve. You'll find that the National Trust has done the same most years. But then the NT does have a coupla gigaquid in the bank.

I spend more than I earn most months- the rest comes out of savings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

I note that, following the mixed reaction to their posting, they have now unpinned it.

 

I also note that Alamy's 2018 financial results have been filed and will be available here within 5 days.

 

Mark 

Could be interesting. Perhaps more cash is needed, hence the reduction in charity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Philanthropy - yes.  All good causes. 

Here's another one to consider:  the poor photographers that supply Alamy images. 

Roll back the latest commission cut and I'll cheer along with the rest of your fans.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Reimar said:

Philanthropy - yes.  All good causes. 

Here's another one to consider:  the poor photographers that supply Alamy images. 

Roll back the latest commission cut and I'll cheer along with the rest of your fans.

Doesn’t seem likely if you look at the financial report. Great idea, though!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.