# Dean Wesley Smith talks about agents



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

A Side Note about Agents

Some are still looking for an agent or hiring one when contacted by a publisher, so I thought it would be a good idea to point to this new post from DWS. I frequently don't agree with DWS, but on this he has more experience than I ever will. If his comments are harsh, they are very much in line or maybe even milder than what the much published Laura Resnick has to say in the comments.

I suppose the most salient comment is this:



> And if you "trust them" you need to really have a bucket of cold water dumped over your head.


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

Well DWS seems to be lumping all agents together: they're all bad apples. But that isn't the case. There are indeed plenty of bad agents (I know this from personal experience), probably because anyone can call himself or herself an agent and hang out a shingle.

But there are plenty of good agents too who've had mutually beneficial partnerships with some of their authors for decades.

It's a bit trickier now figuring out when you really need one, I suppose.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Eric C said:


> Well DWS seems to be lumping all agents together: they're all bad apples. But that isn't the case. There are indeed plenty of bad agents (I know this from personal experience), probably because anyone can call himself or herself an agent and hang out a shingle.
> 
> But there are plenty of good agents too who've had mutually beneficial partnerships with some of their authors for decades.
> 
> It's a bit trickier now figuring out when you really need one, I suppose.


I don't say that he says that at all. But good or bad agent, we are responsible for our own career. If your current agent dies, who handles your work which she has a right to handle? Are you SURE you have a good agent? How do you tell? Do you really want your money going to someone else first? Why agree to something like that as so many agents insist upon?

There are a lot of issues and they are deeper than "he's lumping all agents together".

Read some of Laura Resnick's comments. Is your agent actually sending out your work? How do you know? Is your agent forwarding ALL offers? How do you know? You just "trust them"? Why? I can't even tell you how many authors I've known who had issues like this.


----------



## Anne Frasier (Oct 22, 2009)

i loved the agent post, and i've def experienced some of this. but yeah, i agree that he's unfairly lumping them all together. i had the same agent for 20 years and i totally trusted him and would trust him in the future. i had to find a new agent when i began writing outside old agent's zone. and since then i've dealt with the very things laura was talking about. i lost out on an offer that was on the table because the agent dropped the ball. just vanished in middle of it.  i recently had an editor from a major pub (house that is already pubbing me in another genre) contact me directly to say they'd really like to see a suspense from me. earlier, i'd sent agent a suspense proposal that had been written with that pub in mind, but it was never submitted by agent. so right now i have no agent, but i was thinking i'd like to have one for foreign rights until i read the DWS article.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Anne Frasier said:


> i loved the agent post, and i've def experienced some of this. but yeah, i agree that he's unfairly lumping them all together. i had the same agent for 20 years and i totally trusted him and would trust him in the future. i had to find a new agent when i began writing outside old agent's zone. and since then i've dealt with the very things laura was talking about. i lost out on an offer that was on the table because the agent dropped the ball. just vanished in middle of it. i recently had an editor from a major pub (house that is already pubbing me in another genre) contact me directly to say they'd really like to see a suspense from me. earlier, i'd sent agent a suspense proposal that had been written with that pub in mind, but it was never submitted by agent. so right now i have no agent, but i was thinking i'd like to have one for foreign rights until i read the DWS article.


I don't think he is so much lumping all agents together as saying you have no way of knowing whether an agent is doing this stuff until it's too late. Laura certainly doesn't say all agents are bad. Some aren't. But how the heck do you really know whether all the offers are being forwarded (a BIG issue)?

On the other hand, good or not, do writers really need agents? Are they actually QUALIFIED to go over contracts (as opposed to a good IP attorney)? And if not, what are authors paying them for?

It's a lot to think about. I'm sure many authors will continue to have agents, but hopefully they'll do that with some business acumen and the realization that final responsibility is their own.


----------



## Anne Frasier (Oct 22, 2009)

i feel bad for agents, but i see their role in publishing continuing to diminish. Agents made sense back when everything was editor/agent dinners and face-to-face, hand you a manuscript typed on a manual typewriter that was handed to me by the author who took a train here from Chicago.  

and yes, when you have an agent everything goes through agent. i really have no idea how many copies i've sold or what's going on with the one book i have tied up with an agent. was it submitted to any foreign publishers? no idea. i think a lot of this is that agents are more overworked than ever. they used to be able to make a living with 35 writers as clients. now they need hundreds in order to hopefully squeak by another month or another year.  i had one agent (when i was shopping for a new agent) say he wouldn't rep a book unless he was sure he could get an offer of 250K. that was a few years ago, and i don't see his name anywhere anymore even though he was the hottest thing going at the time.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Anne Frasier said:


> i feel bad for agents, but i see their role in publishing continuing to diminish. Agents made sense back when everything was editor/agent dinners and face-to-face, hand you a manuscript typed on a manual typewriter that was handed to me by the author who took a train here from Chicago.
> 
> and yes, when you have an agent everything goes through agent. i really have no idea how many copies i've sold or what's going on with the one book i have tied up with an agent. was it submitted to any foreign publishers? no idea. i think a lot of this is that agents are more overworked than ever. they used to be able to make a living with 35 writers as clients. now they need hundreds in order to hopefully squeak by another month or another year. i had one agent (when i was shopping for a new agent) say he wouldn't rep a book unless he was sure he could get an offer of 250K. that was a few years ago, and i don't see his name anywhere anymore even though he was the hottest thing going at the time.


A few apparently are agreeing to money being split by the publisher. If I were to consider an agent again (I had one at one time), this would be non-negotiable. But for me, I don't see any reason for one and would use an attorney instead. I think there will always be some authors who are more comfortable with an agent though.

You're right that times are tough for them.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "A few apparently are agreeing to money being split by the publisher."


Anyone know of a reasonable argument for sending 100% of the money to the agent?


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Anyone know of a reasonable argument for sending 100% of the money to the agent?


Not me.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

I don't disagree with his remarks about agents. But if I were a newbie coming across his blog before I knew much about who he was, I'd be put off by his tone. He's written this stuff a hundred times, but he's not talking to the same people every time. Why call people new to the game stupid and silly because they believe agents are the way to go, especially when that's what they've been told. 

I don't know. Maybe I'm cranky.


----------



## PaulLev (Nov 2, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> Read some of Laura Resnick's comments. Is your agent actually sending out your work? How do you know? Is your agent forwarding ALL offers? How do you know? You just "trust them"? Why? I can't even tell you how many authors I've known who had issues like this.


I agree completely with JR, Dean, and Laura Resnick - the point being that the very profession of agent weakens the author by adding another component to the negotiation and payment process. And that's the case with even the most wonderful agent in the world. In my own career, none of my science fiction novel sales (5), none of my domestic nonfiction sales (10), and less than a handful of 20+ international translation sales were due to my agent. I'm much happier - not to mention more money in my pocket - now without an agent.


----------



## Carradee (Aug 21, 2010)

I read DWS as focused on "You don't really need an agent" and "These are land mines that (per author experience) are common among agents", not so much saying "Every agent on Planet Earth is bad." He's a bit forceful about it, but that's his chosen tactic for getting his point across. (Any communication method-mild, forceful, hyperbole-will get your point across to some readers, but not to all. The method you use doesn't necessarily invalidate or validate anything you say.)

And as mentioned, Laura Resnick is more forceful about the topic than Dean is.



Terrence OBrien said:


> Anyone know of a reasonable argument for sending 100% of the money to the agent?


I can't find the link, but I recently saw someone claiming that agents had to get 100% of the monies to verify that the publisher had paid the author the correct amount.

Um, yeah, because you actually need the money in hand to verify that the number is correct. Riiight.

Because _of course_ everyone's money ran through my pockets when I did company payroll&#8230;


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

shelleyo1 said:


> I don't disagree with his remarks about agents. But if I were a newbie coming across his blog before I knew much about who he was, I'd be put off by his tone. He's written this stuff a hundred times, but he's not talking to the same people every time. Why call people new to the game stupid and silly because they believe agents are the way to go, especially when that's what they've been told.
> 
> I don't know. Maybe I'm cranky.


I agree that sometimes his tone is harsh, but any tone is going to put off some people. And a lot of people are simply not going to believe him because they've been told so many times that you HAVE to have an agent to be a real author--that an agent is the golden key to success.

But I still think what he says is an important message.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Anyone know of a reasonable argument for sending 100% of the money to the agent?


That's the way they did it years ago and agents like to retain it. Back in the 30's and 40's authors who had an agent and lived away from NYC found an agent on the ground in NYC convenient. The agent would pick up the check from the pub and place it in his bank account and then make a deposit directly to the author's account or mail the author a certified bank check. It was like a gentleman's club. Banking with out of state banks was more cumbersome back then, out of state checks took some time to clear.

Some authors without agents would take the train to the pub in NYC and get their check themselves and have lunch or dinner with the pub.

Then agents only got 10%, then one (who was a lawyer) won a famous big award for his author client vs the pub and the author upped it to 15%. Quickly other agents thought they too deserved 15%.

Today ethics seem lacking.


----------



## Carradee (Aug 21, 2010)

genevieveaclark said:


> Telling writers to negotiate their own foreign rights deals with publishers in foreign countries, governed by different sets of laws, and without the enforcement tools available to a large agency (say, you screw us on this and we're not giving you all this other business), seems like really, really terrible advice.
> 
> Even assuming Lone Writer was somehow competent at negotiation -- not a given! not everyone has to be good at that! -- exactly what does Lone Writer do in the event that a foreign publisher just decides not to send along royalties? Or sends really suspect royalty statements? Bring suit in a foreign country? All on their own steam?
> 
> Please.


Um, that's what IP/contract lawyers are for.


----------



## PaulLev (Nov 2, 2012)

genevieveaclark said:


> Telling writers to negotiate their own foreign rights deals with publishers in foreign countries, governed by different sets of laws, and without the enforcement tools available to a large agency (say, you screw us on this and we're not giving you all this other business), seems like really, really terrible advice.
> 
> Even assuming Lone Writer was somehow competent at negotiation -- not a given! not everyone has to be good at that! -- exactly what does Lone Writer do in the event that a foreign publisher just decides not to send along royalties? Or sends really suspect royalty statements? Bring suit in a foreign country? All on their own steam?
> 
> Please.


You think agents in America always get paid from their international associates or overseas publishers?


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

genevieveaclark said:


> Telling writers to negotiate their own foreign rights deals with publishers in foreign countries, governed by different sets of laws, and without the enforcement tools available to a large agency (say, you screw us on this and we're not giving you all this other business), seems like really, really terrible advice.
> 
> Even assuming Lone Writer was somehow competent at negotiation -- not a given! not everyone has to be good at that! -- exactly what does Lone Writer do in the event that a foreign publisher just decides not to send along royalties? Or sends really suspect royalty statements? Bring suit in a foreign country? All on their own steam?
> 
> Please.


Who says agents are competent to negotiate rights deals with domestic publishers much less with foreign ones? I'll take an attorney any day and I am perfectly competent to find one in the nation in question.

There is no reason for it to be 'Lone Writer' in contracts any more than in covers, etc. Why give a cut when you can hire someone? AND someone with much better qualifications than most agents have in legal matters.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

genevieveaclark said:


> Nope. I think any overseas deal is gonna be risky. But I think I have a much better chance of eventually seeing my money if it's a big agency yelling than if I'm the one making the phone calls.


Ha! They may not bother to pass along the offer, much less spend their time yelling. ETA: If the agency does bother to yell from across the world, who says they'll care? A letter from an in-country attorney threatening legal action is the most likely to be effective.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

genevieveaclark said:


> Right. No one suggests you work with a _bad_ agent. It does seem tough out there to distinguish between the good and the bad, but pretty much no part of this is easy, and doing it on your own is basically just putting a sign around your neck that says "kick me, I'm all by myself out here."


Again, tell me why I should be "all by myself out here". You aren't capable of hiring attorneys?

ETA: I hire artists. I hire cover designers. I hire formatters. I hire editors. And I hire ATTORNEYS.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

genevieveaclark said:


> I'm perfectly capable of hiring an attorney, and have done so several times. I am not perfectly capable of paying one to launch a lawsuit in a foreign country that could take years to resolve.
> 
> Are you?
> 
> You should have told us you hit the lottery.


A letter (from an attorney) to spur action is usually sufficient. If it isn't filing a legal action doesn't usually cost all that much. It doesn't take "hitting the lottery". Most publishers will cave well before. Most of these things end up with out-of-court settlements.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

genevieveaclark said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHA
> 
> Ok.


This back and forth is non productive and that is frankly a non-response. If you are unaware that most attorneys start with a letter before proceeding to a filing... *shrug*

Your opinion. My opinon. I see no point in further debate, but I assure you I am not "alone out there" without an agent. I am a heck of a lot more likely to be alone WITH an agent.


----------



## PaulLev (Nov 2, 2012)

Just a case in point:  I was owed money from a British publisher - on a contract my American agent had negotiated.  The money was for a paperback edition. The hardcover had already been published; the acquisitions editor had left the publishing house.  The money wasn't all that much - not enough to retire on - but it was enough.  But not enough for my agent to pursue (for the 20% commission).  I twisted the agent's arm, who perhaps made a call, but got no results. I was told by my agent to forget about it - just chalk it up as a loss.  Shortly after, I contacted the original editor, now working outside of publishing.  He contacted his erstwhile boss at the publishing company, explained my situation, and I received full payment at the end of that month.   I just had one complaint: the money still came through my agent, who happily deducted the 20%.  That was when I decided I'd had enough with this agent, and agents in general.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

genevieveaclark said:


> Of course they start with letters. I laugh at the suggestion that a letter would be "sufficient" (and this did not imply I was "not aware"; given your generous reading, I'm going to assume you didn't see what I added to my post above). But we're talking about a situation where a publisher is cheating you enough that you want to involve a lawyer. Do you think that publisher is likely to be intimidated by a letter? Particularly if they know that it will only be you financing any legal challenge? If at any point in a dispute, the other side can look at your official looking letter and say, "you want me to pay you....or what?" and your answer is "another letter with fancy letterhead," you don't really have a strong position. A publisher who is already scamming you is not likely to feel too bad about it.
> 
> A publisher who is concerned about future business with an agent or agency might. Whether that agent or agency causes you additional problems is another question. As I said earlier, there are obviously a lot of scummy and / or incompetent agents out there. Getting a _good_ one is something else.


I simply refuse to give agents a CUT for doing work that I consider they are not competent to do--negotiate contracts, either in this country or other ones. I don't care how honest they are. And if the publisher doesn't care about attorneys, they sure as heck aren't going to care about agents. Did they seem impressed in PaulLev's case? No.

Yes, you have to be willing to take action further than a letter, but ofttimes a letter on an attorney's letterhead will indicate enough that you are willing to do so since the point of a letter is to threaten exactly that. Are the publishers "cheating" or merely being incompetent? Or assume that no one will bother (again, see the advice the agent gave Paul) so they can get away with it? Either way, they can often be pressured into doing what they are contracted to do.

I'm not saying if you want an agent, that you shouldn't have one. But I don't and I am quite definitely not "alone out there".


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

I couldn't disagree more. There are bad agents, sure. There are also stellar agents. I wouldn't trade my agent for anything in the world.


----------



## PaulLev (Nov 2, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> I simply refuse to give agents a CUT for doing work that I consider they are not competent to do--negotiate contracts, either in this country or other ones. I don't care how honest they are. And if the publisher doesn't care about attorneys, they sure as heck aren't going to care about agents. Did they seem impressed in PaulLev's case? No.
> 
> Yes, you have to be willing to take action further than a letter, but ofttimes a letter on an attorney's letterhead will indicate enough that you are willing to do so since the point of a letter is to threaten exactly that. Are the publishers "cheating" or merely being incompetent? Or assume that no one will bother (again, see the advice the agent gave Paul) so they can get away with it? Either way, they can often be pressured into doing what they are contracted to do.
> 
> I'm not saying if you want an agent, that you shouldn't have one. But I don't and I am quite definitely not "alone out there".


Exactly. A key problem with agents as authors' representatives is that agents need to stay on equitable terms with publishers. Unless there's a huge amount of money involved - enough to make it worthwhile for the agent to risk antagonizing the publisher on all future dealings - a publisher will never go to aggressive bat for an individual author.

Nowadays, getting rights back for a book a publisher is no longer marketing, and barely keeping in print, is a goal for an increasing number of authors. I know several who have been trying to do this, without success, for more than a year. I was in the same boat until I left my agent, appealed directly to my editor, and got rights to my books back.


----------



## PaulLev (Nov 2, 2012)

Hugh Howey said:


> I couldn't disagree more. There are bad agents, sure. There are also stellar agents. I wouldn't trade my agent for anything in the world.


Hugh, I truly wish you all the luck. From what I can see, your career is off to a truly stellar start, and you may well be an exception to the above. But you should still keep what we've been discussing here in mind as you proceed with your career.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

There are good agents, but as new author, without extensive network, how on earth do you know which agent is good only to his or her most successful clients and lets the rest slack off?

Hugh, you are hugely successful. OF COURSE any agent will do his or her best to satisfy and keep you. But how would the same agent treat a mildly successful, not-very-famous midlist author?

The quality of any business is not determined by how they handle their most successful, easy and profitable activities. It's determined by how they handle stuff-ups, customer complaints and marginal stuff.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> I couldn't disagree more. There are bad agents, sure. There are also stellar agents. I wouldn't trade my agent for anything in the world.


Since I don't trust any agent (I don't care how supposedly good) to judge contract terms, unless they are also an experienced IP attorney, I simply have a problem with the entire concept of their negotiating contracts. And as has been pointed out, how likely is it that an agent is going to be willing to antagonize publishers on whom their incomes depend for my benefit by aggressively negotiating? I simply don't see it. They are in a compromised position and claiming to do something most are not competent to do. Hence, the horrendous contract terms that have become so common in the industry.

My opinion and position, obviously. I don't expect everyone to agree, but you look at what goes on out there. Look at what Laura Resnick had to say in her comments, and I think that my position is at least defensible.


----------



## Anne Frasier (Oct 22, 2009)

the same agent might be a wonderful agent for one writer, and a horrible agent for another writer. 
it's really hard to find an agent who will stick with a writer for the long haul. they are all looking for THE book, and an agent can be very attentive during the honeymoon period, but forget a writer exists as the next promising star comes along. most of their focus is on finding new talent, not promoting existing talent. debut authors are where the money is (in the print world, which is the world in which most agents still live), not with writers who've written twenty or thirty books.


----------



## H.M. Ward (May 16, 2012)

my agent was a lawyer and was highly recommended, and still sucked stuff up. i didnt understand why she didnt try to fix it. i got a _things dont work that way_ kind of response. really? after the screw up (which the agent caused), the agent then encouraged me to self pub and offered to take 15% of my self pub earnings to be a sound board to bounce marketing ideas off of. im up to my eyeballs in marketing, which is why she wanted my book in the first place. *rolls eyes* this was a reputable, highly recommended NY agent with multiple offices. yeah. ick. we parted ways. i can suck things up on my own. 50,000 books sold in less than 2 years on my own, and here i am. i guess i didnt suck too much. sorry if i sound like a jerk. i should be old enough to have learned this lesson already, but nothing ever works the way it should. :/


----------



## yomamma (Feb 10, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> I couldn't disagree more. There are bad agents, sure. There are also stellar agents. I wouldn't trade my agent for anything in the world.


This. I love my agent.

I should say, I love my CURRENT agent. The first two were horrible.

An agent is not necessary for everyone. It depends on the path you want to go and how deeply involved you want other parties. For some of us, an agent is a lifesaver. For others, it's an unnecessary expense. But it's all with what's right for your career.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> I'm perfectly capable of hiring an attorney, and have done so several times. I am not perfectly capable of paying one to launch a lawsuit in a foreign country that could take years to resolve.
> Are you?


Yes.


----------



## ChrisWard (Mar 10, 2012)

I have to say  I have a pretty low opinion of agents from the years I spent subbing to them.  I just wonder if I went back to them now with 15-odd five star reviews on the first book in my series whether I'd still get form rejections back.  The ones I have the lowest opinion of though are the ones who requested manuscripts or parts of from me and THEN responded with a form letter.  I felt that if personal contact had been established once they could at least have the decency to send me a personalised rejection.  I'm pretty much with DWS, however if they wanted paperback rights I'd be interested.  For the ebooks?  Not a chance.


----------



## Lefty (Apr 7, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> Since I don't trust any agent (I don't care how supposedly good) to judge contract terms, unless they are also an experienced IP attorney, I simply have a problem with the entire concept of their negotiating contracts. And as has been pointed out, how likely is it that an agent is going to be to antagonize publishers on whom their incomes depend for my benefit by aggressively negotiating? I simply don't see it. They are in a compromised position and claiming to do something most are not competent to do. Hence, the horrendous contract terms that have become so common in the industry.
> 
> My opinion and position, obviously. I don't expect everyone to agree, but you look at what goes on out there. Look at what Laura Resnick had to say in her comments, and I think that my position is at least defensible.


Good people are hard to find, and they tend to gravitate to where the payoff is (since they are fee based). I'm the equivalent of a literary agent (or sports agent) in the commercial real estate world. I shop tenants around in the market for the best deal (buy side). I'm not an attorney, but I know office leases better than most of them (I mentioned this is Courtney's thread). I know what should be in there and what shouldn't. I negotiate against attorneys in every transaction. Most attorneys are great at static issues (indemnity, waiver of subrogation, etc., but I beat them on the functionality of the lease. If you pay your rent on time and the building doesn't burn down, 90% of the lease doesn't matter, and a lot of these legal issues are moot. But how does a tenant live under this lease? What are their options and flexibility? What's the cost? And here is where the buy-side advocate comes in. Most attorneys don't know this, or don't know how to negotiate it: All of this is market driven. And I know the market because I'm fighting in it every single day. Lawyers aren't. There are a lot of schlocks out there, but if you have a good agent, they bring a lot of value to the transaction.

To take this further from an agent perspective, if I represent Exxon for a large lease, I can almost name my terms. If I represent an upstart without cash or credit, well, I do the best I can for them. They may grow into a huge tenant one day (likely not), but I'll work hard for them. If I did a good job for them before, I'll likely keep the business. Down the road, they are another five years into their business, track record, paid their rent on time, etc. Now we have a little more leverage to negotiate a better deal.

Some superstars in the NFL now are way undervalued (JJ Watt comes to mind, but I'm biased). They had to sign for less because they did not have the value behind them. Now they do, and next time around, they'll earn their value. A lot of players are also overpaid. All of this is market driven.

The magic can be any part of the deal. Maybe it's negotiating the best economics, maybe it's getting the best business terms, hell, maybe it's just getting a deal done at all. Find an agent with a good track record and reputation, and they will do well for you. Their risk is their reputation and they cannot afford a bad one.

TLDR?: Everything is market driven. It's all about leverage.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Since I am not hiring an agent and don't see even the slightest advantage to having one and have expressed that belief, I see no point in taking part in this conversation further.

CB, I suggest reading Laura Resnick's comments again.

I am going to quote one of her comments then I'm done.



> "That's because most writers are so desperate to get published that they'll fall all over themselves to be the next schmuck. "
> 
> That's absolutely true, RD-but there's also a lot more to it than that. The exact problems and behaviors in Bryson's lawsuit and the exact problems and behaviors (all too familiar!) in Melanie's comment above occur at ALL levels of the profession, not JUST among agents in their relations with aspiring writers.
> 
> ...


----------



## Lefty (Apr 7, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> Since I am not hiring an agent and don't see even the slightest advantage to having one and have expressed that belief, I see no point in taking part in this conversation further.
> 
> CB, I suggest reading Laura Resnick's comments again.
> 
> I am going to quote one of her comments then I'm done.


I suggest you read my post again. Who is Laura Resnick? Was she in the DWS deal? Didn't read it, but I generally like what he says.

I read the Bryson brief thingy. Know what? He hired his old HS buddy (with an evergreen clause, BTW), who died, then (to a large extent) let the successor manage some of his assets. For several years Bryson did nothing to watch his basket (the new agent needs to be shot, BTW). If I did this, I'd be fired, and I should be. And it would have happened a lot earlier than this guy. Billy Joel's best friend and manager screwed him out of $30MM. Does that mean all managers are bad?

I can't defend bad agents, but I can defend, or at least empathize with, great ones.

For the sake of debate, I'll go read the Resnick thing, but my points about hiring good people will be the same.


----------



## Lefty (Apr 7, 2011)

I read the first few comments and my points are the same about hiring people that can bring value to a transaction.

Do I need an agent to negotiate my first book? Probably not. I think we all have a feel for what the market is. For a book with a 1MM print first run? Prolly. I'd like to see what the other big guys and girls are getting. Would I use JCM Managment LLC of whatever Bryson used? Would I hire my best friend, or the guy that took over his company after his passing? Probably not, unless they repped a lot of other folks with a million first runs.

Would I pay someone 15%? Probably not, unless they brought a hell of a lot of value, and that value better equal more than 115% of the deal I had. In perpetuity? No, unless the value-add continued. And I agree that the money should flow through me. 

Stephen King doesn't know what the book market is, because he doesn't negotiate in it every day. At the highest levels, these folks may very well earn their money. At the $5,000 advance level, YMMV (hence the schlocks!). 

My point was that agents have the potential to add value, sometimes the value is just not getting an extra grand or two. You don't get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate. Negotiate with your potential agent and tell 'em how the cow ate the cabbage. It's all about creating leverage.

I could go on, but I only have four beers left.


----------



## NickSpalding (Apr 21, 2010)

Hugh Howey said:


> I couldn't disagree more. There are bad agents, sure. There are also stellar agents. I wouldn't trade my agent for anything in the world.


I wholeheartedly concur.


----------



## Dee Ernst (Jan 10, 2011)

It's easy for DWS and Konrath to preach the Gospel Of Indie - you don't need agents, editors, publishers, etc. - because they know how to do all the things that agents, editors and publishers do.  Because for years an agent or editor or publisher was helping them along and showing them how to do it.  So I get that for somebody who's experienced in this industry doesn't need an agent to negotiate anything.  But for somebody like me, who jumped into this two years ago and never even SAW a publishing contract until a month ago - thank God for my agent.  She pushed for me for years and worked her butt off for no money.  So when people came knocking, I immediately called her and pulled her back in.

Yes, I called my attorney.  He was honest enough to say he knew nothing about publishing, so he advised a literary attorney ($400/hr. minimum) He also knew nothing about movie options, but could recommend an entertainment attorney.  The entertainment lawyer would have charged me, just for looking at the option and advising me if it was any good or not - roughly two times what I was being offered for the first go-round. So my agent negotiated everything.  Not alone - she called in a LA agent who was familiar with Hollywood contracts.  She called a foreign rights agent, who's working on that for me.  And because she's been doing this for years, and knows all about the publishing industry, she managed to increase the advance I'm getting for the next book, when I would have jumped at the first number and been grateful.

It's easy to say agents aren't worth what they earn if you're savvy enough to do all this stuff yourself.  But like others on this board, I think my agent is golden.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Panting ALL agents with the same broad brush is like painting all indies with that same brush.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

CB,

Question about payment in your business. Do you get a fixed fee for placing a tenant in a building? Another form of payment? Paid by tenant or building owner?

Book agents get a cut of future royalty earnings. Do you have anything like that in commercial RE? Are there cases where agents get a cut of all future rent?

Suppose it's a ten year lease. Are you involved for all ten years? Getting paid?

Who employs you? Owner or tenant?

Thanks. I know nearly zero about your business.


----------



## Guest (Dec 8, 2012)

shelleyo1 said:


> I don't disagree with his remarks about agents. But if I were a newbie coming across his blog before I knew much about who he was, I'd be put off by his tone. He's written this stuff a hundred times, but he's not talking to the same people every time. Why call people new to the game stupid and silly because they believe agents are the way to go, especially when that's what they've been told.
> 
> I don't know. Maybe I'm cranky.


When I was a newbie, I actually found it refreshing. There's nothing quite like the perspective of a seasoned long-term professional to cut through all the noise and misinformation out there. I still find his posts extraordinarily valuable.


----------



## Lefty (Apr 7, 2011)

Terrence, there are a lot of variables and each market is different, but generally, we get paid 4% of the gross aggregate value of the lease, half upon execution and half upon commencement, paid by the landlord, not discounted.

I only get paid for the initial rent stream. I would get paid if they renewed or expanded, but only if I was involved in the transaction (if they fire me and hire my competitor, I do not get paid on the term of that tenancy (I mentioned an "evergreen" clause in one of my other posts, which would be the case if I got paid in perpetuity)).

My client is the tenant, so I negotiate against the landlord's rep, which is the person with their name on the sign in front of the building.

I gotta punt right now, but there are a lot of similarities in what I do to what book agents do.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Patty Jansen said:


> Hugh, you are hugely successful. OF COURSE any agent will do his or her best to satisfy and keep you. But how would the same agent treat a mildly successful, not-very-famous midlist author?


I get to watch Kristin work with all of her agents, and she treats every one like they are her only agent. It's amazing. We recently had a 10-year anniversary for her agency, so a hundred or so of her clients met to mingle, and the same attitude was held by Jamie Ford (a mega bestselling author) and those who had not yet landed a contract.

Don't get me wrong: I completely understand that there are predators out there, but the idea that all agents are bad for you is absolute bunk. Confidentiality won't allow me to discuss, but I can tell you that my agent has nixed deals that would have made her hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to take deals that made her tens of thousands, because she wanted to protect certain rights of mine. And she hasn't made a penny off my KDP sales, which is where 95% of my money comes from. The chances that I landed the only decent agent in the biz is hard to fathom, which wrecks the argument that agents suck and should be avoided.

Certainly, beware. But be open minded as well.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> I get to watch Kristin work with all of her agents, and she treats every one like they are her only agent. It's amazing. We recently had a 10-year anniversary for her agency, so a hundred or so of her clients met to mingle, and the same attitude was held by Jamie Ford (a mega bestselling author) and those who had not yet landed a contract.
> 
> Don't get me wrong: I completely understand that there are predators out there, but the idea that all agents are bad for you is absolute bunk. Confidentiality won't allow me to discuss, but I can tell you that my agent has nixed deals that would have made her hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to take deals that made her tens of thousands, because she wanted to protect certain rights of mine. And she hasn't made a penny off my KDP sales, which is where 95% of my money comes from. The chances that I landed the only decent agent in the biz is hard to fathom, which wrecks the argument that agents suck and should be avoided.
> 
> Certainly, beware. But be open minded as well.


It should be noted that most of the agents and agent practices that Laura discussed and that are at the base of the Bryson lawsuit are not _predatory_.

Do all agents suck? I didn't see anyone say that. Are they necessary is rather a different question and a different discussion.

ETA: But Paul, below, put it better than I did.


----------



## PaulLev (Nov 2, 2012)

Hugh Howey said:


> I get to watch Kristin work with all of her agents, and she treats every one like they are her only agent. It's amazing. We recently had a 10-year anniversary for her agency, so a hundred or so of her clients met to mingle, and the same attitude was held by Jamie Ford (a mega bestselling author) and those who had not yet landed a contract.
> 
> Don't get me wrong: I completely understand that there are predators out there, but the idea that all agents are bad for you is absolute bunk. Confidentiality won't allow me to discuss, but I can tell you that my agent has nixed deals that would have made her hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to take deals that made her tens of thousands, because she wanted to protect certain rights of mine. And she hasn't made a penny off my KDP sales, which is where 95% of my money comes from. The chances that I landed the only decent agent in the biz is hard to fathom, which wrecks the argument that agents suck and should be avoided.
> 
> Certainly, beware. But be open minded as well.


The point that I and others have been making in this discussion is not that all agents are bad, but that the very structure of the agent-author-publisher relationship tends work against the author, and badly so. So, sure, your agent or any agent might well be able to go against this dynamic, and I've no doubt there are more than one, but that doesn't change the dynamic or the huge number of examples of bad behavior out there.

I guess we could put this matter as a question of (a) are helpful agents the exception, (b) are bad agents the exception, or (c) are helpful and bad agents more or less evenly distributed? Given from own experience what I know to be the truth of DWS's and Laura Resnick's points, I have to regretfully go with (a).


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> Are they necessary is rather a different question and a different discussion.


I was brokering my own media deal before I got an agent. The deal I ended up with is worth 200X what I was brokering. 

I was getting offers from foreign territories. I could have brokered these on my own and hired a lawyer to look over the contracts. The $2,000 and $5,000 offers (already quite high) became $50,000 and $250,000 deals.

Are agents necessary? No. Will you make more money, get better protection of your rights, have more time to write, and land with better publishers if you employ an agent? In my case (and others that I know of) yes. Which makes the unqualified accusations made against agents absolutely ridiculous. It only takes one exception to disprove the rule. I know of several. What are the chances that these are the only exceptions?

For every Bill Bryson, there are hundreds of top authors who wouldn't do without their agents and dozens of indies who are doing better by having one (blockbuster or no).

DWS and I share this concern, I would guess: Wishing the best for writers. I almost always agree with him. In this case, I'm having to speak up because he's handing out HORRIBLE advice. If you start having enough success that agents are approaching you (and keep in mind that I had agents approaching me and signed with my current agent long before I ever made it into the top 500 on the Kindle list), it behooves you to listen to them. It could make all the difference in your career. I know for a fact that I wouldn't be in the position I am now without an agent. No way.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> I was brokering my own media deal before I got an agent. The deal I ended up with is worth 200X what I was brokering.
> 
> I was getting offers from foreign territories. I could have brokered these on my own and hired a lawyer to look over the contracts. The $2,000 and $5,000 offers (already quite high) became $50,000 and $250,000 deals.
> 
> ...


What accusations? I have made no "accusations", Hugh.

I had an agent before I went indie and I have had two agents approach me since, if you must know. And no it does most definitely does not "behoove me to listen to them". I will not have someone in my employ whose interests, by the very nature of the relationship, are antithetical to mine.

ETA: Nowhere did I say that all agents are bad or unethical. I would appreciate it if you would stop saying that I did. I do think there is a problem in the very nature of the relationship as it now exists. Working with an agent has worked out great for you. I am happy for you. (What are her arrangements if she dies, by the way because then her rights to her interest in your work goes to her estate to manage?) That doesn't mean that for all of us or most of us, hiring an agent is the best choice. There are strong cons and it doesn't make_ me _a bad person to voice them.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

PaulLev said:


> The point that I and others have been making in this discussion is not that all agents are bad, but that the very structure of the agent-author-publisher relationship tends work against the author, and badly so. So, sure, your agent or any agent might well be able to go against this dynamic, and I've no doubt there are more than one, but that doesn't change the dynamic or the huge number of examples of bad behavior out there.
> 
> I guess we could put this matter as a question of (a) are helpful agents the exception, (b) are bad agents the exception, or (c) are helpful and bad agents more or less evenly distributed? Given from own experience what I know to be the truth of DWS's and Laura Resnick's points, I have to regretfully go with (a).


You might be right. That isn't what DWS is saying. I don't read him as suggesting we properly vet and interview our agents; I read him as saying that agents are unnecessary.

[quote author=DWS]
Send your work* directly to editors*, no matter which country they are in. *It really is that simple*.

Keep control of your own career. Period.

*Agents are no longer needed in this new world of publishing for most writers*. Sorry agents, but it is a fact. And some of you know it.[/quote]

This is bad, bad, bad advice. Horrible. How many authors know how to get a bidding war going in Germany? Or handle a pre-empt offer? How many go to the London and Berlin book fairs, where many major foreign deals get made? Or BEA? I'm sorry, I wouldn't be so vociferous if I didn't know this to be overreaching nonsense. My situation is not that grand of an exception. Explore your options. Your agent works for you. You still have 100% control of your career.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> What accusations? I have made no "accusations", Hugh.


I'm referring to DWS.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> I will not have someone in my employ whose interests, by the very nature of the relationship, are antithetical to mine.


Then fire them and hire someone who is. Make sure your agent knows up-front what's important to you. If they aren't delivering, get a new one.

I'm sorry you had bad experiences with your agents. I think with your talent and the level of success you've had, you could find one who will listen to your concerns and help you further your career. I really do.

My agent has often acted against her own best interests and for mine. The chances that she's the only one are very slim. I don't want authors to come into this thread and walk away thinking all agents, everywhere, for all time, are out to get them and working against their best interests. That would be as dangerous as thinking that all agents are great and wonderful. Advising caution is one thing, but that's not what DWS is doing. He's saying to pretend agents don't exist.

I suppose I'm repeating myself, so I'll step back and hope I've offered a second opinion worth considering.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> Then fire them and hire someone who is. Make sure your agent knows up-front what's important to you. If they aren't delivering, get a new one.
> 
> I'm sorry you had bad experiences with your agents. I think with your talent and the level of success you've had, you could find one who will listen to your concerns and help you further your career. I really do.
> 
> ...


The bolded is the basic problem though, Hugh. You just said that her interests are basically antithetical to yours and she has to act against her own interests, which is one heck of a lot to ask of anyone. Agents_ often_ may have to act against their own best interests if they are going to do the best job for their clients. They may have to negotiate aggressively regarding a contract with a company and people in that company upon whom their livelihood depends. They may have to walk away from a deal that would make them a lot of money. They may have to pass along a deal they don't want you to consider.

_I will give you that some agents do thi_s, but it shows how there is a flaw in the very basis of the business relationship. Then you throw in that in the current publishing environment, agents are pretty much forced (for survival) to take on more clients than they can reasonably handle which increases the likelihood of slipshod practices. There is also the fact that we simply have no way of knowing whether an agent is doing what they say they are doing (no, I"m not a trusting person from bad experiences) and I see a lot of arguments for not having an agent at least for most of us.

That does NOT mean all agents are bad or that no one should hire one. Obviously, I think most of us don't need one, so there we disagree, but if you (generalized you) do want one, remember that you are hiring an employee and make darn sure you know everything you should about who you're hiring. Make sure you get a good contract _with them_ that covers things like what happens if they die. Have an attorney go over your agency contract.

Like you, I am just repeating myself, so I'll stop now.


----------



## Hudson Owen (May 18, 2012)

Here's a bad agent story for you.

Back in the mists of the mid-90s, I had a West Coast agent for my screenplays (you noticed the sparkles around 'West Coast').  As required, I sent my scripts to be opened by hand and signed for, which was $30+ in those days.  Mike paid $150 for coverage.  If the script got good coverage, Mike sent it out.  If it needed a re-write or a polish, I did the re-write, mailed it back, and Mike forked out another $150, sometimes to a working screenwriter for coverage notes.

I called Mike on the phone maybe twice a year to keep in touch, and we had long chats, and I waited for a good word from his end and worked on my next script.  One day when I called, a stranger answered the phone, the new agent.  It seems that Mike had been fired from the agency, or had up and left, absconding with company funds.  Mike had other business interests, you see.  Seems that he had stopped sending scripts out maybe a year ago and there were now 2,000 scripts sitting in the office.  Plus Mike has used the office for trysts.  Mike had accepted thousands of dollars each from writers desperate to live the life of a screenwriter, and dumped their scripts in the trash after pocketed their money.  On balance, I didn't lose money to Mike; he lost money on me.

Having a good Hollywood agent/attorney/manager was, and still is, helpful in La La Land, both on the contact and negotiating ends.  The film industry is much more fragmented today, giving the indie--the writer/director--a better opportunity at access.  Even back then, you could type a letter to an A-list director and expect to receive a personal response, perhaps typed by the director himself!  This was in the days before the million and one workshops and mega sites like Trigger Street, with hundreds of thousands of screenwriters hanging out together online.  Give each one a candle and they could light up the Hollywood Hills.  Yep.

Yeah, I wouldn't mind the services of a good agent to cover my various literary and theatrical properties.  There are only so many hours in the day to do things.  Having the bad experiences I have had with agents has slaked my former thirst for mother bird that places worms in the throbbing upturned beak, that's all.


----------



## PaulLev (Nov 2, 2012)

Hugh Howey said:


> Your agent works for you. You still have 100% control of your career.


But logically that is just not the case. Unless you (the author) are literally part of every conversation between your agent and editor, or potential editor, literally in the same room, phone call, or Skye connection, you cannot possibly have 100% control of your career. In fact, in all of those conversations, you at best have a backseat, secondary kind of control, where you can approve or veto a deal, discuss it with your agent, but not directly participate in its negotiation with the editor/publisher. It is precisely this separation of author and publisher that DWS is attempting to fix with his advice.


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

Hugh Howey said:


> My agent has often acted against her own best interests and for mine. The chances that she's the only one are very slim.





JRTomlin said:


> _I will give you that some agents do thi_s, but it shows how there is a flaw in the very basis of the business relationship.


I think what Hugh is actually saying is that his agent has acted against her own financial interests in the short term. In the long term no one but a fool acts against their own interests if all factors are being considered.


----------



## Anne Frasier (Oct 22, 2009)

I like agent K and have long admired the way she rose to the top so quickly. I think she has integrity, but i know for a fact that she dumps authors who underperform. So to say she treats them all the same -- not the case.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

CB,

Thanks. Always interesting to learn something about the other guy's sector.



> It only takes one exception to disprove the rule.


That's true. However, in business this type of rule usually flows from a probability distribution. The fact that the probability is not 100% doesn't help much in making a decision. Aggregate all the decisions and probability distributions a manager makes, and the probability of success falls on the side of prudence. Ignoring all the rules because of single exceptions to each almost guarantees failure when one of them ends in disaster.



> "Then fire them and hire someone who is. Make sure your agent knows up-front what's important to you. If they aren't delivering, get a new one."


That 15% commission has a very long tail.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

PaulLev said:


> But logically that is just not the case. Unless you (the author) are literally part of every conversation between your agent and editor, or potential editor, literally in the same room, phone call, or Skye connection, you cannot possibly have 100% control of your career. In fact, in all of those conversations, you at best have a backseat, secondary kind of control, where you can approve or veto a deal, discuss it with your agent, but not directly participate in its negotiation with the editor/publisher. It is precisely this separation of author and publisher that DWS is attempting to fix with his advice.


I wonder if it's ever possible for an author to listen in or for those calls to be recorded? That would be extremely beneficial to hear how an agent is negotiating on your behalf.

I fully agree with Hugh on this. A good agent can more than pay for themselves many times over by simply negotiating a better deal. A good agent is almost always a better bet than an attorney, unless it's a literary attorney. An attorney, even an IP attorney, will not know what points on a contract are negotiable and to what extent. It's the agent's familiarity with the nuances of what different houses have done and can do that gives an author an edge. IF the agent is a good one.

I actually think it makes more sense for the publisher to send the entire amount to the author and for the author to then send the agent their cut. I can't imagine why anyone would allow their agent to have full control over that. Split payments at the very least.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

PamelaKelley said:


> I wonder if it's ever possible for an author to listen in or for those calls to be recorded? That would be extremely beneficial to hear how an agent is negotiating on your behalf.
> 
> I fully agree with Hugh on this. A good agent can more than pay for themselves many times over by simply negotiating a better deal. A good agent is almost always a better bet than an attorney, unless it's a literary attorney. An attorney, even an IP attorney, will not know what points on a contract are negotiable and to what extent. It's the agent's familiarity with the nuances of what different houses have done and can do that gives an author an edge. IF the agent is a good one.
> 
> I actually think it makes more sense for the publisher to send the entire amount to the author and for the author to then send the agent their cut. I can't imagine why anyone would allow their agent to have full control over that. Split payments at the very least.


Ummm.

Our rights to our work are a form of intellectual property. "Literary attorneys" are in fact IP attorneys (although not all IP attorneys are expert on that type of IP). Obviously you want an attorney with experience and expertise in literary contracts. That hardly needed to be pointed out (ETA: or so I thought. Obviously I was wrong).

You don't just hire an attorney off the street without knowing their expertise any more than you do that with an agent.



CB Edwards said:


> I suggest you read my post again.* Who is Laura Resnick? Was she in the DWS deal? Didn't read it, but I generally like what he says.
> *
> I read the Bryson brief thingy. Know what? He hired his old HS buddy (with an evergreen clause, BTW), who died, then (to a large extent) let the successor manage some of his assets. For several years Bryson did nothing to watch his basket (the new agent needs to be shot, BTW). If I did this, I'd be fired, and I should be. And it would have happened a lot earlier than this guy. Billy Joel's best friend and manager screwed him out of $30MM. Does that mean all managers are bad?
> 
> ...


You might not like what DWS said in this case. 

Laura Resnick is a traditionally published, Campbell-Award winning fantasy author who commented at some length on the DWS post. http://www.amazon.com/Laura-Resnick/e/B000AP8KXO

Nothing more to say in this debate, just answering your question. 

ETA: I'm thoroughly drugged because of a nasty flu bug. Not quite competent to post.


----------



## PaulLev (Nov 2, 2012)

PamelaKelley said:


> I wonder if it's ever possible for an author to listen in or for those calls to be recorded? That would be extremely beneficial to hear how an agent is negotiating on your behalf.


That would help, sure, but the author would still be removed from the direct negotiation.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> Ummm.
> 
> Our rights to our work are a form of intellectual property. "Literary attorneys" are in fact IP attorneys (although not all IP attorneys are expert on that type of IP). Obviously you want an attorney with experience and expertise in literary contracts. That hardly needed to be pointed out.
> 
> You don't just hire an attorney off the street without knowing their expertise any more than you do that with an agent.


Actually, I've seen many people make the the assumption that any IP Attorney could handle negotiating a literary contract, so I'd disagree that it "hardly needed to be pointed out." In fact, I think there was recently a thread on that topic alone.

A lot of things that seem obvious, are not to those who are newer, and it's "hardly necessary" to be so condescending. Some people come here to pick fights, I'm not one of them.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

PamelaKelley said:


> Actually, I've seen many people make the the assumption that any IP Attorney could handle negotiating a literary contract, so I'd disagree that it "hardly needed to be pointed out." In fact, I think there was recently a thread on that topic alone.
> 
> A lot of things that seem obvious, are not to those who are newer, and it's "hardly necessary" to be so condescending. Some people come here to pick fights, I'm not one of them.


You didn't see my edit to that comment that I was obviously wrong that it didn't need to be pointed out. That was my assumption and I wasn't trying to be condescending.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> You didn't see my edit to that comment that I was obviously wrong that that didn't need to be pointed out. That was my assumption and I wasn't trying to be condescending.


Thank you. I hope you feel better, the flu is no fun.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

PamelaKelley said:


> Thank you. I hope you feel better, the flu is no fun.


Sorry to have sounded condescending. Thanks. I've been sick for a couple of weeks and can't decide which is worse the meds or the flu.  

ETA: Worse, I am supposed to be finishing a book and feel too rotten to work on it which makes me feel guilty. But it really didn't occur to me that people wouldn't know to look for an attorney with experience in a pretty specialized field. I always recommend Passive Guy's blog for some good post on the HUGE pitfalls to be found in literary contracts.


----------



## Anne Frasier (Oct 22, 2009)

i need to quit reading this thread, because i can't stop commenting.  argh. 

one thing it took me a long time to learn: an agent's relationship with editors and publishing houses is more important than an agent's relationship with his or her writers.  agents have worked years to build those editor/agent relationships, so it's easy to see how some agents will toss writers under the bus in order to save the editor/agent relationship. also, never tell your agent something you don't want your editor to know. ever.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

The problem, Hugh, is that you are in the minority. The overwhelming minority. I've had two agents, neither sold a thing for me. It's easy to say fire them and get a better one but its harder to actually accomplish that for most writers. I know dozens of agented writers or once-agented writers and such a small percentage of them actually say nice things about their agents or former agents.

Sure there are some fine agents out there who are decent, ethical and hard working, like Kristin Nelson, but they are a very rare breed.


----------



## Remington Kane (Feb 19, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> And she hasn't made a penny off *my KDP sales, which is where 95% of my money comes from*.
> 
> I was brokering my own media deal before I got an agent. T*he deal I ended up with is worth 200X what I was brokering.*
> I was getting offers from foreign territories. I could have brokered these on my own and hired a lawyer to look over the contracts. *The $2,000 and $5,000 offers (already quite high) became $50,000 and $250,000 deals.*


If $50,000 and $250,000 deals are only 5% of your income, then the 95% you're making on KDP must be far more than any of us imagined.
Congratulations and keep those Wool books coming!


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

Adam Pepper said:


> I know dozens of agented writers or once-agented writers and such a small percentage of them actually say nice things about their agents or former agents.


You're assuming that it's the agents who are the problem and not the authors, at least in part. (I've been to some writers conferences. Lots of nuts in the cereal bowl, you ask me.)



Adam Pepper said:


> Sure there are some fine agents out there who are decent, ethical and hard working, like Kristin Nelson, but they are a very rare breed.


What is the evidence here for concluding this? Gotta be anecdotal, right? My own experience with four different agents FWIW: I have absolutely nothing nice to say about three, and only nice things to say about one.


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

genevieveaclark said:


> My points above are about DWS's advice wrt foreign publishing deals, which is...terrible.


Sold!


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

My evidence is purely anecdotal, and it sounds like I can add you to my list.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

One of the issues in the Byrson v Morris suit is the agent's 15% commission. The agent claims he is entitled to continued payment. The author says he isn't and is asking the court to sever the long tail. The author can't just fire that long tail.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> One of the issues in the Byrson v Morris suit is the agent's 15% commission. The agent claims he is entitled to continued payment. The author says he isn't and is asking the court to sever the long tail. The author can't just fire that long tail.


Exactly, which is why a reference in a previous post to working "a la carte" has nothing to do with the problem of the long tail. Fortunately, not having an agent does not equate to being "all on your own".

Publishing, traditional publishing, is a minefield. Handing over control to someone else is risky. Maybe for some it is worth the risk, but it is still a risk.


----------



## Carradee (Aug 21, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> Publishing, traditional publishing, is a minefield. Handing over control to someone else is risky. Maybe for some it is worth the risk, but it is still a risk.


Contracts in general are land mines. I've had a magazine contract (which I refused to sign) pretty much say I could never, ever write anything else that could be interpreted as "related" to the article they wanted me to write. I've also seen at least one person fired because s/he didn't realize their work contract barred them from freelancing on the side.

Writers as an industry often have multiple contracts going on at once, which is multiple opportunities for contract terms to conflict.

The issue in general is that many writers approach agents and publishers as if the writer is the _employee_ of the agent or publisher. An employer tells the employee what to do, how to do it, when to do it, where to do it, etc. The employee can also reasonably expect the employer to provide a day's pay for a day's work-though I have seen companies tell the employees "Hey, we can't afford to pay you this week" when they come in for their checks. I personally have had an employer cut my pay and hours without warning-an action that was explicitly forbidden in the labor laws poster we had on the wall.

The horror stories are in every industry.

Perhaps you disagree with DWS's advice. That's your prerogative. His advice won't work for everyone. No advice does.

But his advice *does work for some folks*. Him. Laura Resnick. Others.

Personally, I'm far more comfortable in answering "How am I going to pay the bills?" as a freelancer than I ever was as an employee. One income source, if interrupted = no income.

I _hate_ that.

As a self-publisher, I'm reluctant to put anything in Select, because the idea of relying on a single income source gives me a knee-jerk reaction. (Amazon also isn't as high a percentage of my sales as a lot of folks, so&#8230 Even as a freelancer, I refuse to let any one company or client provide all my income.

However, that is *me*.

Lots of folks aren't bothered by the "one income source" thing. Therefore their approach to employment, self-publishing, life, etc. will differ significantly from mine.

What's good advice for me will be _bad_ advice for someone someone who _wants_ a single, steady income stream; and vice versa.

And nothing's wrong with that.

*ETA:* Not trying to call Select a bad thing. I do believe it fits some folks' strategies and personalities. Just not mine.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Carradee said:


> Contracts in general are land mines. I've had a magazine contract (which I refused to sign) pretty much say I could never, ever write anything else that could be interpreted as "related" to the article they wanted me to write. I've also seen at least one person fired because s/he didn't realize their work contract barred them from freelancing on the side.
> 
> Writers as an industry often have multiple contracts going on at once, which is multiple opportunities for contract terms to conflict.
> 
> ...


The bolded is where we tend to go wrong. That is a huge mistake, but I don't consider using Select to be the equivalent. Why not is for another thread. 

As you say, what works for one may not work for another. I agree with DWS's advice. Hugh doesn't. That's fine as long as we're basing that on our own needs and not what people have been saying for decades that writers have to do.


----------



## Guest (Dec 9, 2012)

The agent became necessary, and dominant, when the publishers eliminated their first readers. That step saved the publishers a lot of money in salaries, benefits, etc.
Publishers had their mail rooms open unsolicited manuscripts and immediately stuff them into the return envelopes. From then on, publishers wanted submissions to come through agents, who served as the first readers.
But now that's changed with Kindle, B&N, etc., putting up everything that comes in (well, practically everything).
Seems there have a lot of gems in the unsolicited pile after all.
Agents are scrambling to redefine their role in the marketplace. And publishers are wondering why they were left behind when the ebook train left the station.


----------

