4 ms·

Because ad revenue can be used for the non-profit? Ecosia's whole thing is that when you use it, you indirectly help plant trees - "the search engine that plant

Because ad revenue can be used for the non-profit? Ecosia's whole thing is that when you use it, you indirectly help plant trees - "the search engine that plants trees".

jksflkjl3jk3 2y ago
Do they disclose what percentage of their revenue is donated? If it's just a token amount, then I'd rather not support a marketing gimmick and would prefer to just donate directly to an organization focused on trees. If it's a significant amount, then it seems unlikely that they'll be able to compete with for-profit alternatives that can focus on developing the best product.
- MrToadMan 2y ago
  You can explore the amount paid out to projects by month, region and partner projects in those regions here: https://blog.ecosia.org/ecosia-financial-reports-tree-planting-receipts/ https://blog.ecosia.org/ecosia-financial-reports-tree-planti...
- scarfaceneo 2y ago
  You can donate to an organisation and use their search engine.
- Gerardo1 2y ago
  But are you donating to an organization to plant trees? What has the lower barrier of entry: making a point to donate your money, or switching your default search engine?
  - lxgr 2y ago
    Definitely switching default search engines.
- notTooFarGone 2y ago
  So by your definition it should not exist, but it does and they donate non negligible amounts. So where is your fault?
- mrweasel 2y ago
  I really struggle to understand your confusion. How do you think normal companies work? Ecosia is profitable, they take some percentage of that profit and use to plant trees. In a "normal" company that money goes straight into the pockets of the company owners. Profit is measured after investments into R&D, salary, marketing everything that come with running a business. Sure they could "just" spend more on developing their product, but from what I can see they don't really need to, it's already a good product. So rather than stuffing the pockets of an owner or shareholders, they donate that profit, or parts of it, to organisations that plants trees. Most people wouldn't donate to a tree planting organisation, but they will switch their search engine, if it's good enough and even if that plant only 100 trees, that's better than no trees. I worked for a company that spends it's profit on helping sick children. The owners make enough money. They donate over €1.000.000 per year to a foundation, rather than putting that money into the pocket of the owners. The customers might not even know that they support that foundation, but that also doesn't matter as long as they get the products they want and the price they want. Your suggestion is that the owners should pocket that cash, and I should go donate to that foundation directly?
  - jefftk 2y ago
    > In a "normal" company that money goes straight into the pockets of the company owners. Only if the company returns money to its shareholders (ex: pays a dividend or does a stock buyback). Many growth-focused companies don't do this -- Amazon didn't do it for its first 22y, Google for its first 17, Netflix for 24, etc.
    - mrweasel 2y ago
      Ecosia isn't an stock based company (AG), it's a GmbH.
      - SahAssar 2y ago
        A gmbh is basically equivalent to a LLC (US) or a Ltd (UK) from my understanding. A gmbh can still be stock based.
- culi 2y ago
  Yup, their financial reports are completely public and transparent. As a non-profit you could also access that data through other means https://blog.ecosia.org/ecosia-financial-reports-tree-planting-receipts/ https://blog.ecosia.org/ecosia-financial-reports-tree-planti...
lxgr 2y ago
But GP raises a good point: Are these two things that benefit from any kind of synergy in terms of skills required by the employees working there, target audience etc.? If not, it generally seems like a better idea to keep the two concerns separate in two different non-profit organizations. (I don't think it would be a problem for one non-profit to donate funds to another, especially if doing so was explicitly stated as its goal when it's incorporated.)
- andy12_ 2y ago
  It seems they kind of do this already. [1] "We send out payments to different partners each month to plant and protect trees in biodiversity hotspots across the globe." [1] https://blog.ecosia.org/ecosia-financial-reports-tree-planting-receipts/ https://blog.ecosia.org/ecosia-financial-reports-tree-planti...
- moooo99 2y ago
  Ecosia themselves does not really plant trees. Instead they pay out money to different projects all around the world. They are very transparent about it. They list the amounts paid, the partners, the tree species, etc. They are also fairly efficient from what you can tell by their reports.
  - lxgr 2y ago
    I didn't assume so, but they still do two things: Making money, and picking a purpose of what to do with it (in this case, planting trees). As somewhat of a sympathizer of effective altruism (the idea of efficiency being an important factor in charities, not necessarily the implementation and even less the community), this isn't super appealing to me.
    - tasuki 2y ago
      > Making money, and picking a purpose of what to do with it Who doesn't? Why else would one make money other than to do something with it? If they didn't make money, how would they support the tree-planting?

Because ad revenue can be used for the non-profit? Ecosia's whole thing is that when you use it, you indirectly help plant trees - "the search engine that plants trees".

jksflkjl3jk3 2y ago

Do they disclose what percentage of their revenue is donated? If it's just a token amount, then I'd rather not support a marketing gimmick and would prefer to just donate directly to an organization focused on trees. If it's a significant amount, then it seems unlikely that they'll be able to compete with for-profit alternatives that can focus on developing the best product.

MrToadMan 2y ago
You can explore the amount paid out to projects by month, region and partner projects in those regions here: https://blog.ecosia.org/ecosia-financial-reports-tree-planting-receipts/ https://blog.ecosia.org/ecosia-financial-reports-tree-planti...
scarfaceneo 2y ago
You can donate to an organisation and use their search engine.
Gerardo1 2y ago
But are you donating to an organization to plant trees? What has the lower barrier of entry: making a point to donate your money, or switching your default search engine?
- lxgr 2y ago
  Definitely switching default search engines.
notTooFarGone 2y ago
So by your definition it should not exist, but it does and they donate non negligible amounts. So where is your fault?
mrweasel 2y ago
I really struggle to understand your confusion. How do you think normal companies work? Ecosia is profitable, they take some percentage of that profit and use to plant trees. In a "normal" company that money goes straight into the pockets of the company owners. Profit is measured after investments into R&D, salary, marketing everything that come with running a business. Sure they could "just" spend more on developing their product, but from what I can see they don't really need to, it's already a good product. So rather than stuffing the pockets of an owner or shareholders, they donate that profit, or parts of it, to organisations that plants trees. Most people wouldn't donate to a tree planting organisation, but they will switch their search engine, if it's good enough and even if that plant only 100 trees, that's better than no trees. I worked for a company that spends it's profit on helping sick children. The owners make enough money. They donate over €1.000.000 per year to a foundation, rather than putting that money into the pocket of the owners. The customers might not even know that they support that foundation, but that also doesn't matter as long as they get the products they want and the price they want. Your suggestion is that the owners should pocket that cash, and I should go donate to that foundation directly?
- jefftk 2y ago
  > In a "normal" company that money goes straight into the pockets of the company owners. Only if the company returns money to its shareholders (ex: pays a dividend or does a stock buyback). Many growth-focused companies don't do this -- Amazon didn't do it for its first 22y, Google for its first 17, Netflix for 24, etc.
  - mrweasel 2y ago
    Ecosia isn't an stock based company (AG), it's a GmbH.
    - SahAssar 2y ago
      A gmbh is basically equivalent to a LLC (US) or a Ltd (UK) from my understanding. A gmbh can still be stock based.
culi 2y ago
Yup, their financial reports are completely public and transparent. As a non-profit you could also access that data through other means https://blog.ecosia.org/ecosia-financial-reports-tree-planting-receipts/ https://blog.ecosia.org/ecosia-financial-reports-tree-planti...

lxgr 2y ago

But GP raises a good point: Are these two things that benefit from any kind of synergy in terms of skills required by the employees working there, target audience etc.? If not, it generally seems like a better idea to keep the two concerns separate in two different non-profit organizations. (I don't think it would be a problem for one non-profit to donate funds to another, especially if doing so was explicitly stated as its goal when it's incorporated.)

andy12_ 2y ago
It seems they kind of do this already. [1] "We send out payments to different partners each month to plant and protect trees in biodiversity hotspots across the globe." [1] https://blog.ecosia.org/ecosia-financial-reports-tree-planting-receipts/ https://blog.ecosia.org/ecosia-financial-reports-tree-planti...
moooo99 2y ago
Ecosia themselves does not really plant trees. Instead they pay out money to different projects all around the world. They are very transparent about it. They list the amounts paid, the partners, the tree species, etc. They are also fairly efficient from what you can tell by their reports.
- lxgr 2y ago
  I didn't assume so, but they still do two things: Making money, and picking a purpose of what to do with it (in this case, planting trees). As somewhat of a sympathizer of effective altruism (the idea of efficiency being an important factor in charities, not necessarily the implementation and even less the community), this isn't super appealing to me.
  - tasuki 2y ago
    > Making money, and picking a purpose of what to do with it Who doesn't? Why else would one make money other than to do something with it? If they didn't make money, how would they support the tree-planting?