MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Alamy.com => Topic started by: Alamy on October 09, 2019, 06:04
-
Here's our latest infographic detailing some of the charitable initiatives we're currently involved in.
(https://image-store.slidesharecdn.com/77632671-00ad-46b7-b2b5-df4259630bdb-large.jpeg)
-
Charity is nice
but such a shame you had to cut none exclusive rates by 20% :'(
-
You forgot to mention "cutting commissions" as part of your DNA ;)
-
Has anyone else noticed that Alamy has changed its payment date? I remember I used to receive payment in Paypal in the first week of the month. Now it claims to pay us within 9 working days of the month. Today is the 9th, and the payment has not arrived in Paypal yet.
Alamy should really help its starving contributors more.
-
It's hard to fathom how tone deaf you have to be - how little you understand your contributor community - to post here about how you're taking a portion of profits to donate to charities (all of which I'm sure are most worthy).
Not once, but twice you've pleaded the business needed a larger share of the gross as your reason for cutting royalty payments to contributors (in the time I've been with Alamy).
From my perspective, that's our money that you have decided to donate to charities on our behalf. Don't expect me, and I suspect many other contributors, to feel good about that.
-
No one can disrespect a charity. Good to hear that people help other people.
But you have to calculate better.
Sending a team to India to patch a school network must have
cost many many times more than hiring some local professionals?
After all the team visited and networked three of the six schools!
:P
-
Considering the way the stock business is going, I think being charitable to your contributors should be a priority. It's not like we're all getting rich down here. Much by the contrary.
-
It's hard to fathom how tone deaf you have to be - how little you understand your contributor community - to post here about how you're taking a portion of profits to donate to charities (all of which I'm sure are most worthy).
Not once, but twice you've pleaded the business needed a larger share of the gross as your reason for cutting royalty payments to contributors (in the time I've been with Alamy).
From my perspective, that's our money that you have decided to donate to charities on our behalf. Don't expect me, and I suspect many other contributors, to feel good about that.
I don't think that's how it works.
I think the only reason Alamy exists is to help fund these charities, i.e. that's what it was set up for.
-
It's hard to fathom how tone deaf you have to be - how little you understand your contributor community - to post here about how you're taking a portion of profits to donate to charities (all of which I'm sure are most worthy).
Not once, but twice you've pleaded the business needed a larger share of the gross as your reason for cutting royalty payments to contributors (in the time I've been with Alamy).
From my perspective, that's our money that you have decided to donate to charities on our behalf. Don't expect me, and I suspect many other contributors, to feel good about that.
I don't think that's how it works.
I think the only reason Alamy exists is to help fund these charities, i.e. that's what it was set up for.
Yes I remember reading about this and somehow the way in which the whole thing is set up sounds like a legitimate way of having to avoid paying taxes
-
I agree that this is pretty tone deaf. Sure - charity is nice, but I'd like to see a lot more info on the actual charities and how much their administrators are paid and what their connection is to Alamy before I woo yay.
The cut for contributors from 60 to 50% of sales and then to 40% tells a very different story than giving some profits to Charity.
-
Please start another company for your charity aspirations and stop using contributor commissions to make you look generous. It's a bit of a sham
-
I agree that this is pretty tone deaf. Sure - charity is nice, but I'd like to see a lot more info on the actual charities and how much their administrators are paid and what their connection is to Alamy before I woo yay.
The cut for contributors from 60 to 50% of sales and then to 40% tells a very different story than giving some profits to Charity.
Look at docs tab and be prepared to be surprised.
https://beta.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details/?subid=0®id=1075453
-
I agree that this is pretty tone deaf. Sure - charity is nice, but I'd like to see a lot more info on the actual charities and how much their administrators are paid and what their connection is to Alamy before I woo yay.
The cut for contributors from 60 to 50% of sales and then to 40% tells a very different story than giving some profits to Charity.
Look at docs tab and be prepared to be surprised.
https://beta.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details/?subid=0®id=1075453
that does seem a bit - um - incestuous.
-
Now it claims to pay us within 9 working days of the month. Today is the 9th, and the payment has not arrived in Paypal yet.
Surely you've not got to this stage in your life without knowing what 'working days' are?!
-
Not a big fan of philanthropy. It's profoundly undemocratic. How much and which groups get helped is decided based on who has the most money and their whims. And that's assuming it's all above board and not scam charities/ tax dodges or white washing of terrible people and organisations (when lets face it a lot of these things are).
No offence to people working for legitimate charities or people who donate (it's often the best we can do as individuals given the system we are in; I give myself).
Companies need to start paying their taxes and voters need to start electing people who they want to distribute that money fairly.
All this to say, what, start by treating your contributors fairly, then we can give to charity if we want, instead of fleecing us and choosing what you do with our cash.
-
Stock photographers will need charity if the agencies continue like this
-
Please start another company for your charity aspirations and stop using contributor commissions to make you look generous. It's a bit of a sham
They are open about how it works. No one is forcing you to submit work there.
-
It's hard to fathom how tone deaf you have to be - how little you understand your contributor community - to post here about how you're taking a portion of profits to donate to charities (all of which I'm sure are most worthy).
Not once, but twice you've pleaded the business needed a larger share of the gross as your reason for cutting royalty payments to contributors (in the time I've been with Alamy).
From my perspective, that's our money that you have decided to donate to charities on our behalf. Don't expect me, and I suspect many other contributors, to feel good about that.
It doesn't really make much difference to me what organisations or people do with their profits. All stock agencies aim to make a profit. If Alamy decided to spend their profit on luxury yachts what difference would it make?.
-
Please start another company for your charity aspirations and stop using contributor commissions to make you look generous. It's a bit of a sham
They are open about how it works. No one is forcing you to submit work there.
Maybe he is also a philanthropist, just an anonymous donor, who likes to help stumbled companies. When I saw they have to cut commission to stay competitive I just had to quickly browse my HDD-s for new uploads that can help them out.
The worst thing is I didn't really want to do it but that philanthropist gene inside me started a chemical reaction a wasn't capable to fight with.
-
Please start another company for your charity aspirations and stop using contributor commissions to make you look generous. It's a bit of a sham
They are open about how it works. No one is forcing you to submit work there.
Tremendous that you're happy with them donating our commissions to charity.
-
It's hard to fathom how tone deaf you have to be - how little you understand your contributor community - to post here about how you're taking a portion of profits to donate to charities (all of which I'm sure are most worthy).
Not once, but twice you've pleaded the business needed a larger share of the gross as your reason for cutting royalty payments to contributors (in the time I've been with Alamy).
From my perspective, that's our money that you have decided to donate to charities on our behalf. Don't expect me, and I suspect many other contributors, to feel good about that.
It doesn't really make much difference to me what organisations or people do with their profits. All stock agencies aim to make a profit. If Alamy decided to spend their profit on luxury yachts what difference would it make?.
The optics look terrible for them. How can they say they must cut commissions with one hand and with the other hand gloat what good people they are because they can afford to give money to charity?
-
Please start another company for your charity aspirations and stop using contributor commissions to make you look generous. It's a bit of a sham
Alamy IS the company they set up for their charity aspirations, i.e. to fund their family charities.
-
The money, the whole money and nothing but the money is in your DNA!
-
Alamy, respect your contributors! Be charitable to us!
I signed up to contribute to a photo agency , not do charity. Charities should be kept completely separate.
-
Alamy, respect your contributors! Be charitable to us!
I signed up to contribute to a photo agency , not do charity. Charities should be kept completely separate.
I'm not sure that Alamy's profit margin is any different to the rest of the industry what difference would it make if they spent the profit on coke and lapdancers? When you signed up to them their business model was quite open.
-
Pauws99. I just voiced my opinion. Please respect it and I will respect yours.
Alamy, respect your contributors! Be charitable to us!
I signed up to contribute to a photo agency , not do charity. Charities should be kept completely separate.
I'm not sure that Alamy's profit margin is any different to the rest of the industry what difference would it make if they spent the profit on coke and lapdancers? When you signed up to them their business model was quite open.
-
Yes of course you are entitled to your opinion but I think its fair to question it on a discussion board. I'm sure if Alamy were generating more income though this wouldn't be an "issue". The problem with Alamy is not what it does with its profit but not generating a good income for contributors in my view. The reason I sign up anywhere is the anticipation of making money if they deliver that short of moral issues such as using child labour I'm not too concerned with how they run their business.
-
Pauws99. I just voiced my opinion. Please respect it and I will respect yours.
Alamy, respect your contributors! Be charitable to us!
I signed up to contribute to a photo agency , not do charity. Charities should be kept completely separate.
I'm not sure that Alamy's profit margin is any different to the rest of the industry what difference would it make if they spent the profit on coke and lapdancers? When you signed up to them their business model was quite open.
Nowhere was your opinion disrespected.
Even with indie files, you get 40% via Alamy, which is more than you get from other agencies. With distributor sales you get 30%, which is about what you get from other agencies, (except iS if indie).
If they weren't funding their charities they wouldn't exist at all.
So it's up to you, contribute to them, or don't.
You expressed your opinion about their modus operandi, Paws expressed an opinion about your opinion, that's how a forum works.
-
Pauws99. I just voiced my opinion. Please respect it and I will respect yours.
Alamy, respect your contributors! Be charitable to us!
I signed up to contribute to a photo agency , not do charity. Charities should be kept completely separate.
I'm not sure that Alamy's profit margin is any different to the rest of the industry what difference would it make if they spent the profit on coke and lapdancers? When you signed up to them their business model was quite open.
I'm with you ravens. Blowing on about your charity generosity a few months after cutting commissions by 20% is not a good look.
-
Isn't giving for charity also a way to pay less taxes? ::)
-
Isn't giving for charity also a way to pay less taxes? ::)
This was discusssed on this thread on the Alamy forum.
https://discussion.alamy.com/topic/12083-alamy-philanthropy-is-in-our-dna (https://discussion.alamy.com/topic/12083-alamy-philanthropy-is-in-our-dna)
Also possibly of interest, the Annual Report:
https://discussion.alamy.com/topic/12078-alamy-annual-report-and-accounts-overdue (https://discussion.alamy.com/topic/12078-alamy-annual-report-and-accounts-overdue)
-
Pauws99. I just voiced my opinion. Please respect it and I will respect yours.
Alamy, respect your contributors! Be charitable to us!
I signed up to contribute to a photo agency , not do charity. Charities should be kept completely separate.
I'm not sure that Alamy's profit margin is any different to the rest of the industry what difference would it make if they spent the profit on coke and lapdancers? When you signed up to them their business model was quite open.
I'm with you ravens. Blowing on about your charity generosity a few months after cutting commissions by 20% is not a good look.
When did they cut the commission 20% in the last few months. What did I miss?
I'm still getting 50% on exclusive and 40% on non-exclusive? I was getting 50% since about 2010 if I remember right? That's 10%
Personally I don't care about their charity or board, I'm only interested in what I make.
-
When did they cut the commission 20% in the last few months. What did I miss?
I'm still getting 50% on exclusive and 40% on non-exclusive? I was getting 50% since about 2010 if I remember right? That's 10%
Personally I don't care about their charity or board, I'm only interested in what I make.
10 is 20% of 50.
So each indie file sold earns you 20% less that it would have had it been 50%
-
When did they cut the commission 20% in the last few months. What did I miss?
I'm still getting 50% on exclusive and 40% on non-exclusive? I was getting 50% since about 2010 if I remember right? That's 10%
Personally I don't care about their charity or board, I'm only interested in what I make.
10 is 20% of 50.
So each indie file sold earns you 20% less that it would have had it been 50%
Oh that modern math again where a 10% cut is a 20% cut? The post should have said, 20% loss in potential earnings then, not 20% cut?
Changing commission from 50% to 40% is a 10% reduction in commission, no matter how anyone wants to slice it.
Blowing on about your charity generosity a few months after cutting commissions by 20% is not a good look.
Note, it uses the word commissions, not income or earnings?
And no I still don't care about their charity, I care about what they pay me! Selfish, aren't I?
-
When did they cut the commission 20% in the last few months. What did I miss?
I'm still getting 50% on exclusive and 40% on non-exclusive? I was getting 50% since about 2010 if I remember right? That's 10%
Personally I don't care about their charity or board, I'm only interested in what I make.
10 is 20% of 50.
So each indie file sold earns you 20% less that it would have had it been 50%
Oh that modern math again where a 10% cut is a 20% cut? The post should have said, 20% loss in potential earnings then, not 20% cut?
Changing commission from 50% to 40% is a 10% reduction in commission, no matter how anyone wants to slice it.
Blowing on about your charity generosity a few months after cutting commissions by 20% is not a good look.
Note, it uses the word commissions, not income or earnings?
And no I still don't care about their charity, I care about what they pay me! Selfish, aren't I?
Semantics aside*, you are still being paid 20% less on your non-exclusive files, and that's all you care about.
*and no matter how you look at it, it's still a 20% reduction in commission.
If they went from 100% to 90%, that would be a 10% cut.
50% > 40% is a 20% cut.
-
Going from 50% to 40% is a 20% reduction in the commission you will earn.
Going from 100% to 90% would be a 10% reduction.
I remember when they promised us that they would never cut our commission again after going from 60% to 50% (a 17% cut).
It's old math...or the "new math" I learned in the 1960's LOL...which is now old math...
Sorry, Uncle Pete, just giving you a hard time, but the real point is that it is a bigger cut than it first appears.
I didn't mind so much when they first posted about their charities, since the charity was the impetus for the stock site to begin with. But after looking at the loss they wrote off last year in their Annual Statement, I'm not sure I believe they needed to cut commissions to improve operational costs. They said that earnings are flat, so the cut gives them 20% more revenue to work with. Seeing them pay dividends to their directors, write off a huge loan, and then brag about how charitable they are, without any info on just how they are going to improve operations, well, it certainly rankles.
Apologies to Shady Sue I somehow missed that your explanation and mine were nearly identical.
-
Going from 50% to 40% is a 20% reduction in the commission you will earn.
Going from 100% to 90% would be a 10% reduction.
It's old math...or the "new math" I learned in the 1960's LOL...which is now old math...
I remember when they promised us that they would never cut our commission again after going from 60% to 50% (a 17% cut).
More than anything, it is really disappointing. I didn't mind so much when they first posted about their charities, since the charity was the impetus for the stock site to begin with. But after looking at the loss they wrote off last year in their Annual Statement, I'm not sure I believe they needed to cut commissions to improve operational costs. They said that earnings are flat, so the cut gives them 20% more revenue to work with. Seeing them pay dividends to their directors, write off a huge loan, and then brag about how charitable they are, without any info on just how they are going to improve operations, well, it certainly rankles.
Agree with the above (we posted the arithmetical working-out simultaneously!)
Also, they were very aware of percentages given by most of their rivals (essentially crowd-sourced agencies) when they made their decision.
-
Going from 50% to 40% is a 20% reduction in the commission you will earn.
Going from 100% to 90% would be a 10% reduction.
It's old math...or the "new math" I learned in the 1960's LOL...which is now old math...
I remember when they promised us that they would never cut our commission again after going from 60% to 50% (a 17% cut).
More than anything, it is really disappointing. I didn't mind so much when they first posted about their charities, since the charity was the impetus for the stock site to begin with. But after looking at the loss they wrote off last year in their Annual Statement, I'm not sure I believe they needed to cut commissions to improve operational costs. They said that earnings are flat, so the cut gives them 20% more revenue to work with. Seeing them pay dividends to their directors, write off a huge loan, and then brag about how charitable they are, without any info on just how they are going to improve operations, well, it certainly rankles.
Agree with the above (we posted the arithmetical working-out simultaneously!)
Also, they were very aware of percentages given by most of their rivals (essentially crowd-sourced agencies) when they made their decision.
LOL I just saw your post and amended mine with an apology for having repeated what you said.
They do have the best commissions out there, and, like you, I think, I've been a big Alamy supporter, but they are losing some of my support.
-
LOL I just saw your post and amended mine with an apology for having repeated what you said.
They do have the best commissions out there, and, like you, I think, I've been a big Alamy supporter, but they are losing some of my support.
;D
Yeah, their charities are slightly 'odd/off' (IMO other charities do similar work more effectively), and their net $$ are well down for me on last year, sales being about the same, though better at the beginning of the year.
Pretty miffed with them today, having had both a partial-refund (of a file invoiced in January and paid in March) and an email telling me a reasonable-value sale from May was unrecoverable, the company being insolvent. :'( These things happen, but I haven't had any good news from them for ages to balance things out. Also it seems that their unrepaid loan to Videoloft/Manything is a more significant reason for their need to take more money from us.
-
Didn't our good Lord say something about when you give to the needy you shouldn't call attention to yourself. Yes, it is in Matthew 6:3, when you give to charity, don’t even let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be secret.
-
We're giving Alamy a hard time as they recently cut our commissions 20% and then boast their charitable contributors. Not sure one is directly related to another. Since 2007, they've donated over $6 million so it's not a huge amount over 12 years. Their charity-giving program was initiated long way before our commission cut.
Nevertheless, they're shooting themselves in the foot by posting on here since they should know better or don't care. Many contributors, including myself, are concerned that our hard work isn't being rewarded and in my case when it is, I feel like I'm being taken a ride by buyers who purchase Personal Use licenses for cheap to use commercially.
I wish that the charitable donations would be more related to the photography industry. They do have a students' program and this is a great initiative. More of these would be welcome. Anyway, not like contributors have a say anyway.
P.s UK taxpayers are already paying part of their tax towards the UK's commitment towards overseas aid (which includes social programs in India) - 0.7% of GDP (source: https://www.theweek.co.uk/63394/foreign-aid-how-and-where-is-britain-s-budget-spent (https://www.theweek.co.uk/63394/foreign-aid-how-and-where-is-britain-s-budget-spent))
-
Didn't our good Lord say something about when you give to the needy you shouldn't call attention to yourself. Yes, it is in Matthew 6:3, when you give to charity, don’t even let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be secret.
Yebbut Alamy hasn't said that Christianity is in their DNA.
-
Didn't our good Lord say something about when you give to the needy you shouldn't call attention to yourself. Yes, it is in Matthew 6:3, when you give to charity, don’t even let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be secret.
Yebbut Alamy hasn't said that Christianity is in their DNA.
Same thing is expressed in many cultures, "Good deeds should be done with intention, not for attention.", "A good deed dies, when it is spoken about", "Do charity silently, or else the charity is you", etc
-
Didn't our good Lord say something about when you give to the needy you shouldn't call attention to yourself. Yes, it is in Matthew 6:3, when you give to charity, don’t even let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be secret.
Yebbut Alamy hasn't said that Christianity is in their DNA.
Same thing is expressed in many cultures, "Good deeds should be done with intention, not for attention.", "A good deed dies, when it is spoken about", "Do charity silently, or else the charity is you", etc
If everything were equal, there is a group of contributors who would prefer to be associated with a charity enterprise they considered worthwhile than one which was run purely for profit or to pay off a debt. How would they know this was a possibility if they weren't informed?
Not that everything is equal. 'Better charities are available' (subjective opinion), the directors awarded themselves big bonuses and they'd rather throw huge amounts of money on James West's hobby/side hustle than promote their core business.
-
P.s UK taxpayers are already paying part of their tax towards the UK's commitment towards overseas aid (which includes social programs in India) - 0.7% of GDP (source: https://www.theweek.co.uk/63394/foreign-aid-how-and-where-is-britain-s-budget-spent (https://www.theweek.co.uk/63394/foreign-aid-how-and-where-is-britain-s-budget-spent))
Wow, I hadn't realised it had sunk so low. Still, with all the money being wasted on Brexit I suppose I should be relieved it isn't lower.
Still, I'm not sure how naming and shaming the UK for its current poor Overseas Aid Programme is relevant to this thread - and other countries do worse - indeed the very article you quote says the UK is the only country which has met it's UN target, so not sure why you've singled us out at all.
-
Are we still getting DACS payments in October or did these go to charity as well?
-
Are we still getting DACS payments in October or did these go to charity as well?
I claim mine directly, but there's a thread on their forum re DACS.
-
P.s UK taxpayers are already paying part of their tax towards the UK's commitment towards overseas aid (which includes social programs in India) - 0.7% of GDP (source: https://www.theweek.co.uk/63394/foreign-aid-how-and-where-is-britain-s-budget-spent (https://www.theweek.co.uk/63394/foreign-aid-how-and-where-is-britain-s-budget-spent))
Wow, I hadn't realised it had sunk so low. Still, with all the money being wasted on Brexit I suppose I should be relieved it isn't lower.
Still, I'm not sure how naming and shaming the UK for its current poor Overseas Aid Programme is relevant to this thread - and other countries do worse - indeed the very article you quote says the UK is the only country which has met it's UN target, so not sure why you've singled us out at all.
I didn't read it as an attempt to shame....the opposite in fact.
-
P.s UK taxpayers are already paying part of their tax towards the UK's commitment towards overseas aid (which includes social programs in India) - 0.7% of GDP (source: https://www.theweek.co.uk/63394/foreign-aid-how-and-where-is-britain-s-budget-spent (https://www.theweek.co.uk/63394/foreign-aid-how-and-where-is-britain-s-budget-spent))
Wow, I hadn't realised it had sunk so low. Still, with all the money being wasted on Brexit I suppose I should be relieved it isn't lower.
Still, I'm not sure how naming and shaming the UK for its current poor Overseas Aid Programme is relevant to this thread - and other countries do worse - indeed the very article you quote says the UK is the only country which has met it's UN target, so not sure why you've singled us out at all.
I didn't read it as an attempt to shame....the opposite in fact.
Me too.
Anyway, what we really want to know is, will Halloween be postponed until 31st of January? :D
-
When did they cut the commission 20% in the last few months. What did I miss?
I'm still getting 50% on exclusive and 40% on non-exclusive? I was getting 50% since about 2010 if I remember right? That's 10%
Personally I don't care about their charity or board, I'm only interested in what I make.
10 is 20% of 50.
So each indie file sold earns you 20% less that it would have had it been 50%
Oh that modern math again where a 10% cut is a 20% cut? The post should have said, 20% loss in potential earnings then, not 20% cut?
Changing commission from 50% to 40% is a 10% reduction in commission, no matter how anyone wants to slice it.
Blowing on about your charity generosity a few months after cutting commissions by 20% is not a good look.
Note, it uses the word commissions, not income or earnings?
And no I still don't care about their charity, I care about what they pay me! Selfish, aren't I?
Semantics aside*, you are still being paid 20% less on your non-exclusive files, and that's all you care about.
*and no matter how you look at it, it's still a 20% reduction in commission.
If they went from 100% to 90%, that would be a 10% cut.
50% > 40% is a 20% cut.
And what is it from 60% to 40%? I'm trying to grasp at a bold number like 20% but I suppose that's wrong.
-
Going from 50% to 40% is a 20% reduction in the commission you will earn.
Going from 100% to 90% would be a 10% reduction.
I remember when they promised us that they would never cut our commission again after going from 60% to 50% (a 17% cut).
It's old math...or the "new math" I learned in the 1960's LOL...which is now old math...
Sorry, Uncle Pete, just giving you a hard time, but the real point is that it is a bigger cut than it first appears.
I didn't mind so much when they first posted about their charities, since the charity was the impetus for the stock site to begin with. But after looking at the loss they wrote off last year in their Annual Statement, I'm not sure I believe they needed to cut commissions to improve operational costs. They said that earnings are flat, so the cut gives them 20% more revenue to work with. Seeing them pay dividends to their directors, write off a huge loan, and then brag about how charitable they are, without any info on just how they are going to improve operations, well, it certainly rankles.
Apologies to Shady Sue I somehow missed that your explanation and mine were nearly identical.
Yeah but I deserve it? :) Because I was differentiating earnings, income and money vs commission rate.
I do understand, I'm just pointing out that 10% of one, may be 20% of something else, but they aren't the same.
Everyone have fun. I'm done for now, until some agency issues another cut, which will happen, and we can go over the math again. (https://i.postimg.cc/YqC3vC8g/cheers.gif)
-
Are we still getting DACS payments in October or did these go to charity as well?
I got a notice in the mail (https://i.postimg.cc/zXqSP8ky/bcake2.gif)
https://discussion.alamy.com/topic/12011-dacs-payback-2019/?tab=comments#comment-220558
For anyone who wants to read.
-
When did they cut the commission 20% in the last few months. What did I miss?
I'm still getting 50% on exclusive and 40% on non-exclusive? I was getting 50% since about 2010 if I remember right? That's 10%
Personally I don't care about their charity or board, I'm only interested in what I make.
10 is 20% of 50.
So each indie file sold earns you 20% less that it would have had it been 50%
Oh that modern math again where a 10% cut is a 20% cut? The post should have said, 20% loss in potential earnings then, not 20% cut?
Changing commission from 50% to 40% is a 10% reduction in commission, no matter how anyone wants to slice it.
Blowing on about your charity generosity a few months after cutting commissions by 20% is not a good look.
Note, it uses the word commissions, not income or earnings?
And no I still don't care about their charity, I care about what they pay me! Selfish, aren't I?
Semantics aside*, you are still being paid 20% less on your non-exclusive files, and that's all you care about.
*and no matter how you look at it, it's still a 20% reduction in commission.
If they went from 100% to 90%, that would be a 10% cut.
50% > 40% is a 20% cut.
And what is it from 60% to 40%? I'm trying to grasp at a bold number like 20% but I suppose that's wrong.
From 60% to 40% that would be a reduction of 33.3333...% in potential earnings ::)
-
When did they cut the commission 20% in the last few months. What did I miss?
I'm still getting 50% on exclusive and 40% on non-exclusive? I was getting 50% since about 2010 if I remember right? That's 10%
Personally I don't care about their charity or board, I'm only interested in what I make.
10 is 20% of 50.
So each indie file sold earns you 20% less that it would have had it been 50%
Oh that modern math again where a 10% cut is a 20% cut? The post should have said, 20% loss in potential earnings then, not 20% cut?
Changing commission from 50% to 40% is a 10% reduction in commission, no matter how anyone wants to slice it.
Blowing on about your charity generosity a few months after cutting commissions by 20% is not a good look.
Note, it uses the word commissions, not income or earnings?
And no I still don't care about their charity, I care about what they pay me! Selfish, aren't I?
Semantics aside*, you are still being paid 20% less on your non-exclusive files, and that's all you care about.
*and no matter how you look at it, it's still a 20% reduction in commission.
If they went from 100% to 90%, that would be a 10% cut.
50% > 40% is a 20% cut.
And what is it from 60% to 40%? I'm trying to grasp at a bold number like 20% but I suppose that's wrong.
From 60% to 40% that would be a reduction of 33.3333...% in potential earnings ::)
Which means you used to get 50%more than you are getting now :) never mind it's all in a good cause.
-
.
-
When did they cut the commission 20% in the last few months. What did I miss?
I'm still getting 50% on exclusive and 40% on non-exclusive? I was getting 50% since about 2010 if I remember right? That's 10%
Personally I don't care about their charity or board, I'm only interested in what I make.
10 is 20% of 50.
So each indie file sold earns you 20% less that it would have had it been 50%
Oh that modern math again where a 10% cut is a 20% cut? The post should have said, 20% loss in potential earnings then, not 20% cut?
Changing commission from 50% to 40% is a 10% reduction in commission, no matter how anyone wants to slice it.
Blowing on about your charity generosity a few months after cutting commissions by 20% is not a good look.
Note, it uses the word commissions, not income or earnings?
And no I still don't care about their charity, I care about what they pay me! Selfish, aren't I?
Semantics aside*, you are still being paid 20% less on your non-exclusive files, and that's all you care about.
*and no matter how you look at it, it's still a 20% reduction in commission.
If they went from 100% to 90%, that would be a 10% cut.
50% > 40% is a 20% cut.
And what is it from 60% to 40%? I'm trying to grasp at a bold number like 20% but I suppose that's wrong.
33% say the image sold for $100 you used to get $60 you now get $40 which is 67% of $60 therefore your income is cut by 100%-67%= 33%. Your share is cut by 20% but you income by more.
-
I claim DACS directly. It was direct deposited to my bank about 2 weeks ago. I read on the Alamy forum that DACS is sending them out in batches. Funny that I got mine in the US before several people from the UK. It could be alphabetical (my last name starts with C). Anyway, I'd guess you will receive yours very soon.
I also just got the forms showing the UK tax withheld along with the (free) form from HMS Revenue that I'd need to claim the tax back. Unfortunately, the IRS charges $85 for the form on this end. Ah well, a little more toward foreign aid to India...can't complain about helping those in need. Looking at it that way makes it less annoying for me that I'm paying foreign taxes I can't write off or get back.
I don't think that anyone was UK-bashing ... I think he was saying that those from the UK were already helping out India... at least that's how I took it. 0.7% of GDP has to be a big number £-wise
And I totally agree, I don't begrudge the charities, but the huge loan write off to the video company and the large dividends to directors when they are cutting our commissions on already deteriorating sales numbers, plus their refusal to require new clients to pay up front, leading to so many uncollected commissions, or the failure to investigate all these bogus personal use licenses, that I do begrudge.
-
@Brasilnut, sorry if I misunderstood your meaning.
-
@Brasilnut, sorry if I misunderstood your meaning.
No worries :)
-
There seems to be some confusion on the difference between percentages and percentage points. If a commission rate is 40% and that is then cut to zero what has happened is that commission has been cut by 40 percentage points, which in this case is 100%. If the rate was cut from 100% (i.e the agency hands all the cash over) to 60%, that would still be a cut of 40 percentage points but would also be a 40% cut.
To look at it from another perspective, if your commission was cut from 40% to zero, would you complain that you had suffered a 40% cut in earnings? I don't think so!
I hope that clears up the confusion.
As for Alamy, I'd rather that they hadn't cut the commissions but at the same time I have always been happy that the profit they make goes into cancer research rather than into lining the pockets of billionaire venture capitalists who are eternally looking for more and more sneaky ways to screw us (yes, you know who they are, and you probably STILL supply them). I'm sorry if that doesn't fit in with the general view here.
-
There seems to be some confusion on the difference between percentages and percentage points. If a commission rate is 40% and that is then cut to zero what has happened is that commission has been cut by 40 percentage points, which in this case is 100%. If the rate was cut from 100% (i.e the agency hands all the cash over) to 60%, that would still be a cut of 40 percentage points but would also be a 40% cut.
To look at it from another perspective, if your commission was cut from 40% to zero, would you complain that you had suffered a 40% cut in earnings? I don't think so!
I hope that clears up the confusion.
As for Alamy, I'd rather that they hadn't cut the commissions but at the same time I have always been happy that the profit they make goes into cancer research rather than into lining the pockets of billionaire venture capitalists who are eternally looking for more and more sneaky ways to screw us (yes, you know who they are, and you probably STILL supply them). I'm sorry if that doesn't fit in with the general view here.
Harmaceutical companies fund most research, so 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. The money is still passing through billionaire capitalists.
-
Stock photographers will need charity if the agencies continue like this
Indeed, if you only do stock photography as incomes in some countries, like USA, and you sales are no so good, you probably live of charity. :)
-
I'm paying foreign taxes I can't write off or get back.
I think there is a place to claim foreign taxes paid, so you should be able to get it back. I'm pretty sure that's what I do (would have to confirm with my accountant to be sure).
-
I'm paying foreign taxes I can't write off or get back.
I think there is a place to claim foreign taxes paid, so you should be able to get it back. I'm pretty sure that's what I do (would have to confirm with my accountant to be sure).
Since I don't know where Wordplanet is, I'll just answer for myself in the USA. I get a deduction and credit for VAT (for example) or any other foreign taxes. And I should include that my accountant does the work, I just give her the zipper bag full of everything and she's the brains.
Yes, I get it back, without filing some long form to claim it back, by credits on my US taxes.
https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/foreign-tax-credit (https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/foreign-tax-credit)
-
I'm paying foreign taxes I can't write off or get back.
I think there is a place to claim foreign taxes paid, so you should be able to get it back. I'm pretty sure that's what I do (would have to confirm with my accountant to be sure).
Since I don't know where Wordplanet is, I'll just answer for myself in the USA. I get a deduction and credit for VAT (for example) or any other foreign taxes. And I should include that my accountant does the work, I just give her the zipper bag full of everything and she's the brains.
Yes, I get it back, without filing some long form to claim it back, by credits on my US taxes.
https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/foreign-tax-credit (https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/foreign-tax-credit)
Hi - I'm in New York.
The IRS form would enable me to have DACS actually pay the full DACS sum to me rather than withholding a portion for HMS Revenue. The taxes withheld are less than the $85 it would cost me to get them back, since my DACS payout is in the low $$$. Since I am not actually receiving that money, I cannot take it as a deduction on my income tax, since it isn't income. Just like you can't deduct lost earnings. But thanks for trying to help. DACS sent me a completed HMS Revenue form for free. I believe they withhold about 20% which is lower than my tax bracket, so I guess I'm not really losing out.