MicrostockGroup

This fact amazed me... : According to their web page, Alamy gives over 89% of its profits to medical research!
http://www.alamy.com/medical-research.asp

Essentially it's the photographers' money that is given away, but I still don't feel too angry about this

It's not only medical research, they support the Fischer family trust which includes education/literacy, maritime and conservation projects as well.
http://www.fischertrust.org/

They are not taking it from "their share", they are taking it from their profit.
Let's say the photographer gets 60%. Alamy gets 40%. Alamy has to cover their costs, let's say 30% goes to the expenses of running the business, that leaves 10% profit. And if 90% of that goes to charity, that would be 9% of the total cost of an image.

I presume they don't have shareholders, so no, it doesn't sound like a lot.  Where does 100% of most of the other sites profits go?  They have investors or shareholders to pay.

Good for them!

Are we supposed to be happy if the owners pocket the cash and buy private jets for themselves but upset if they give it away to improve people's lives? What a ridiculously upside-down view of the world people must have if they think the former is better than the latter.

It's 50% commission, Sean, which is better than even you get at iStock (don't you think you deserve a bigger slice? All those hundreds of thousands in commission you pay and you don't get any better service than a bronze exclusive whose barely made them $1,000. Still, your contribution helps keeps the billionaire owners happy, knowing they're getting a good return on their investment). The problem at Alamy isn't the discounts it's the volume of sales.

There is no evidence that Alamy are investing less in the site so that they can give more to charity. In the long-term that would be counter-productive not just for them and the photographers but for the charity, too. It would make no sense. If the site isn't good enough (and I'm not sure of that) then it is because they don't know what needs doing to it.

There is absolutely no link whatsoever between discounting prices and giving money to charity. A discount isn't the subtraction of photographer's commission after a sale, it is a price cut to secure a sale that (the vendor assumes) would not otherwise happen (because the buyer has cheaper alternatives).

So that was a very illogical post, not up to your normal standard at all.

Well since it is a % of the profits we are talking about they could double their spending on bringing in new customers and still give away 89% of their profits.  Their profits would just be less. 

I think it is great the owners of Alamy have decided to share what would otherwise be coming to them ... the profits.  Well done Alamy

11% of their income and 11% of their profits are two entirely different things.  They said they keep 11% of their profits.

Take this example.

image sale $100

40% to photographers, $40
50% finding new customers, $50
5% running the site, $5
4% book keeping etc. $4
1% profits.

Now they give 89% of their profits to charity, .. that's 89 cents.  They give 11% of their profits to their owners as a dividend in the company, 11 cents.

I think this would be more in the ballpark. While it may not be just %1 of profits I do believe it may well be under 5% though.

And hey, how many agencies do donate to charities on a scale like that though? Still a nice move. I hope the money is spent wisely on the "right" projects.

We're going a bit off topic here, but isn't the difference between the 25% commission that a bronze exclusive and the 40% that a diamond gets that extra "love", not to mention the higher upload quotas?

I have great respect for Alamy donating much of its operating profit to medical research, and it makes me even happier than I already was to be a contributor there.

I just want to remind everybody here that Alamy pays 60% and there is no upload quotas. Alamy gets my love allright