Yeah, yeah, I know what the law reads, very strict, but given it was written eons ago, are we so archaic of a society that we do not realize laws need to be updated with technology? Does that make it any better? These rich trying to get richer lot will eventually be walking around a wasteland attempting to eat one another. The rest of us will not be here to see it. They will have wiped of off this rock. Great world. Thanks for the memories.

As long as Getty insists on charging those kind of prices, it is on its way to biting the dust.

It’s not as if it is selling one photograph exclusively — once. The photo is not exclusive. Getty is selling it over and over again at an exclusive price.

It has its stock photography section, you say? Most of the content on the cheaper stock photography sites, including Getty, is crap. I believe anyone can submit work for sale — amateurs and all. That’s why it’s crap.

It will just take one photography company to realize the money-making potential of charging reasonable prices for professional, non-exclusive photography to knock Getty off its high chair.

One photograph at $300.00 sold, say, five times = $1,500.
Same photograph at $20.00 sold, say 100 times = $2,000.

Getty’s content will languish in cyberspace, as does much of it already does, and Getty will die.

It is fascinating that you are meeting with Getty.

It is interesting that Klein observes the rise of photo sharing sites and has even acquired iStockPhoto. It is also very telling when he says essentially that he will watch that market but that Getty needs to “maintain high editorial standards”

Flickr and Zooomr are gaining ground in the low-end marginal customers, with increasing traction for serious professional applications. Also it is not surprise that Getty is trrying to enter into the disruptive business model by buying iStockphoto.

The trend of disruption tends to follow a similar pattern across many industries, whether it is PCs vs large computer systems, iTunes vs CD sales or a free commuter newspapers vs established newspaper giants.

Waiting and watching the new disruption is a common pitfall for companies. Cramming some aspect of the new disruptive thing into the current business model is a common response. (Newspapers did this with their online strategy for most of the past five years. Doesn’t work.)

The very difficult challenge for Getty Images, or any other company in this position, is to balance these two conflicting corporate goals:
* Support the current business and its customers;
* Grow new business opportunities which potentially cannibalize the current business;

There is a method to do this, but it is certainly not easy.

Separate strategic business questions into three files
1)Revitalizing the current business;
2)Abandoning processes, products and services that customers no longer value or can’t earn their keep;
3)Creating new opportunities for the future.

Details on how this technique would apply in the newspaper industry are discussed in the link below. It would seem to apply to Getty’s business as well:

http://www.ondisruption.com/my_weblog/2006/10/fivews_for_fixi.html