I do not understand why there is a ntevgiae overtone in this review of a successful segment of the photography business and the plans by one company to try and get even more value from it. The brief ntevgiae commentary that surrounds the only partially pasted article from Fast Company (FC) is of no value to many parts of the photography industry. I would expect more from the author who is a long time photography industry journalist.The very interesting FC article outlines that the photo service at Vail, as it stood, was a “profitable line of business.” The reason it is profitable is because people actually buy the pictures. Not everyone buys (quite clearly the author included), but enough guests buy pictures to make it a profitable concession. Anyone who has ever been involved in such a photography business can tell you there are many people who appreciate and value this type of photography service (again quite clearly not the author). The headline of the FC article even says they are “betting” (aka: taking a risk, sticking their neck out) on this new model. Your headline question “Would You Rather a Tangible Vacation Photo or a Facebook Post? “ is a good one in relation to the FC article. Vail hopes guests want both. Your headline question should also be the last question in your article, not the terribly confusing one that appears there instead.The author mentions never ordering photos. This means he must have been photographed (but then does not buy them from the “eager youngster”). This is exact group that Vail is hoping to capitalize on: now the higher percentage of guests which are the “non-buyers” will have the unique opportunity to share their photographic memories of their Vail vacation exponentially online not with just a few house guests that see a framed hardcopy on a “buyers” mantle if you happen to buy one. Will this bring more guests to the resort? We shall see.Now for the $10 million photography question: Will they now “sell” more photos and related products than before because the photos are now easier to share online? Remember, such photos have been posted online for years. The difference is new technology and looser sharing restrictions are now making it faster and easier to share them with the world. This is not only increases the marketing reach exponentially but also the number of potential “buyers” of each and every photograph exponentially.There is room for much success from many different approaches using this new model. But as with any “bet” there is also room for failure. What is for sure is that we all be able to learn something from this “bet”.Other ObservationIt is interesting how everyone is quick to throw photography prices under a bus. Daily for many years it will be that (“outrageously priced” / “widely inflated” once in a lifetime) photo of your entire family (at the top of the ski mountain framed and displayed in a special spot in your home) that is reminding you of that amazing vacation and is making you smile.If anything it is the best value at the resort. It has a shelf life of 100 plus years, it is a historical visual timestamp of your life and can be passed on for generations! What other souvenir can you buy at Vail Mountain that will do this for only $35. How many of your great-grand mothers souvenir tee shirts or giant candy bars do you pull out of a shoe box when telling your kids all about her 40 years after her death? I understand that some media outlets and the public will always think the cost of a photograph taken by this type of service is “outrageously priced” or “widely inflated” but (again) I would expect more from a long time photography industry journalist.