Compared to the heydays, how much turnover is lost?

A lot. I guess it could be close to 50 percent. It just evaporated as budgets shrunk at newspapers and magazines, and because we lost a big chunk of the commercial segment to iStock, and later Shutterstock. But the good news is that our turnover has stabilized in the last year. It feels we have hit the bottom.

Does that mean that prices will no longer go down?

It depends how you look at it. Print is stabilizing. But the high volumes online combined with the still-poor budgets put pressure on the average price per image. The easily reproducible pictures — made today by amateur photographers — will no longer be the work of professionals. The professionals should make better imagery. High quality pays out, but never on the scale we were used to.

How did HH survive?

Our main asset is — and always has been — the 500 or more Dutch photographers. That is a unique collection: high quality, very diverse, in-depth. On top of that we have a broad range of foreign collections and agencies that we represent on the Dutch market. Everything from news to sports, nature, food, lifestyle, fashion, red carpet, creative and entertainment. From Magnum Photos to paparazzi. So, we’re highly specialized when it comes to Dutch content and extremely broad in our international coverage.

What is hot and what’s not?

Bas: Entertainment, red carpet—both national and international — is in high demand. And so is sport, well soccer to be precise. Hard to sell are photo stories dealing with serious social or cultural issues.

Is there still a substantial editorial market?

Sure! Seventy percent of our turnover is media. But editorial today is totally different from editorial a decade ago. One example: rumors of a divorce between Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie surfaced in Holland in the early afternoon. Within an hour, maybe two, all other news — including politics and economics — was pushed into the background.

Media tend to consolidate and so is the pool of main suppliers of imagery. We deliver more and more imagery to fewer media companies. Some of our photographers really benefit from this as their images are sold more and more. But others don’t as their imagery is used just in a one-off situation. Then the revenue is poor, compared to the heavy suppliers.

So how does one make a living as a photojournalist or documentary photographer today?

That’s hard for all, but older photographers have a different perception than young ones. When you were a professional in the “good old days,” it can be extremely tough to adapt and accept the new reality of low prices and an ever-growing competition. Young, upcoming photographers just accept this situation. Many have a second source of income, besides photography. Some take commercial assignments, do post-production for others, give workshops. And if they are smart they keep their fixed expenses as low as possible.

Is that appealing?

Photojournalism and documentary seem more popular than ever before. Self-expression, a sense of freedom and status is what attracts them. They want to be both relevant and adventurous. After years of making selfies, maybe it is the logical next step.

I do think, however, that because of the low prices, we will see a shift in content being produced. Low-hanging fruit, easy and fast, hit and run, will prevail over more serious long-term projects. I do see a positive trend: higher pricing for better photography will, and is already, picking up.

Whether it is sustainable enough to ensure the survival of high-end documentary photography is a tough question. I hope we all understand the importance of this. A too-late recognition will endanger the future of the longstanding and great history of documentary photography.

And video?

The wires protect their video content with expensive subscription models. I see a growing demand and use of video on entertainment websites. But as long as online media have no substantial and sustainable way of earning money, photography will dominate the media, both off- and online.