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

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/

If they're taking this from their share, it's ok.  But doesn't 89% of the profits sound a lot?

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.

If they're taking this from their share, it's ok.  But doesn't 89% of the profits sound a lot?

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.

I think people would be more happy if they used more of the profits to improve the site and the lives of its contributors a bit more than some happy feeling gesture by the guy with the checkbook.  I mean, how can they give all that away when contributors are constantly complaining about all the large volume discount sales they get?

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.

I think people would be more happy if they used more of the profits to improve the site and the lives of its contributors a bit more than some happy feeling gesture by the guy with the checkbook.  I mean, how can they give all that away when contributors are constantly complaining about all the large volume discount sales they get?

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

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on August 29, 2010, 01:49

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

It's not illogical at all.  It's money that they are just giving away that they could use to improve the site, or otherwise create some new value, that would enable them to make buyers less likely to seek immense volume discounts.  Right now, it seems they are pretty much just riding steady as she goes, when they could be pushing the envelope and driving sales, through improvements, advertising, new markets, etc.  Heck, I don't care, I don't have images there anymore.  But I would certainly want more plowed back into the business than 11% of income.

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.

...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.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on August 29, 2010, 01:49

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.

That is one thing that pisses me off at IStock, the "we love all our contributors equally spiel". I don't want to be loved an equal amount to a bronze contributor, I am in a business relationship with IStock and I want to be loved like someone who has bought in more than 1/4 million dollars for the company, not like someone that has just signed up and does nothing but take up reviewers time with snapshots and clog up the forums with bitching.

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.

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