And the industry is changing...

[seawasp]

... in more ways than just E-books. See this post by Kristine Kathryn Rusch -- and other related posts she has made of late. Short form: in at least some cases -- and apparently far more widespread than initially thought -- the business models have shifted to the point that many agents are not performing the original and primary duty as author's defenders, contract watchdogs, and hardass negotiators. As that's the primary POINT of having an agent, this means that -- if true -- these agents have essentially BECOME exactly what the worst naysayers used to SAY they were, just leeches taking 15% for nothing more than making you sign a publisher's contract.

She doesn't say that *ALL* agents are like this, of course, but she does paint a very, VERY disturbing picture of how the industry has become more self-contained, less accommodating, and how the agencies and publishers have become more intertwined with each other. If even 20% of the agents end up in this category, it calls into question whether it's worthwhile to look for an agent -- since you have a significant chance of choosing one that is genuinely NOT acting in your interest, but in the interest of the PUBLISHER. In point of fact, Ms. Rusch answered that question point-blank and said, flat out, that I was in fact wasting my time looking for an agent and had best do it all myself.

I have NEVER had an experienced long-time writer in the business say that before; it has been the UNIVERSAL advice until this point that you not only should have an agent, you NEED an agent to do well.

This is... game-changing news, if it's at all true.

Comments

[tetsujinnooni.livejournal.com]

I read her article as indicating the agents were representing the interests of neither the author nor the publisher - but the agency itself, as if it had any purpose other than to serve the needs of the authors who employ that agency.

[sinanju.livejournal.com]

That was my take, as well. They're trying to insert themselves between writer and publisher to their own advantage. They'd happily screw the publishers too, if they could.

[autopope.livejournal.com]

Her story does not match my experience.

Admittedly, my experience in the past decade is with a single agency who have done well by me (700% increase in book advances over 8 years :) so I'm probably insulated from the worst the industry can do. But? This is not what I'm seeing.

[seawasp]

Undoubtedly, but as you say, you may be somewhat insulated from what she's describing, which seems to be a change from the 90s onward.

[muirecan.livejournal.com]

From her article I don't think the rot is universal with Agents and Agencies. But the rot has certainly infected the barrel and it can be hard to spot.

The most critical thing I gathered is to go over any contract with an agency/agent with a ruler and a fine tooth code and check anything that sounds odd to you. Do the same with your publisher contract even though this is what your Agent should be doing for you. ::sigh::

Basically she talked about seeing several contracts from agencies lately where the contract takes all rights for pretty much ever to you book or books in some extreme cases.

[rezendi.livejournal.com]

A bad agent is worse than no agent; this has always been true.

[justin-alexande.livejournal.com]

Authors should be particularly leery of agencies who are setting themselves up as e-publishers. One the one hand, I think it's absolutely vital that authors retain the e-rights to their books until they start getting reasonable contracts for electronic distribution from publishers. On the other, when your agent is the one publishing your book... well, your agent is now little or no different than any other publisher.

In the digital future there's basically two bodies of skills that authors need out-sourced:

(1) Packaging. This includes arranging for editing, cover art, and the actual act of getting your books published to as many digital markets as possible.

(2) Marketing.

(3) Licensing. (Including foreign rights and translations.)

How these services will be paid for remains to be seen. There's already a growing market of flat-fee service providers for packaging.

One potential future is where either publishers, agents, or a combination of the two start earning a small percentage. They'll take care of the packaging, marketing, and licensing in exchange for their 10% or 15% or 20% cut of revenue. The most successful companies in this vein will be those who create value-added, aggregated content sites.

Another is where publishers basically cease to exist and agents survive by handling marketing and licensing. An industry will emerge for packaging services: Covers. Editing. Translations. "Publishing" the book to digital markets for you. But these will likely all be paid for with one-time flat fees and the people providing these services will have no long-term interest in the book itself.

[muirecan.livejournal.com]

The whole series of articles she has written over the last few weeks have been very interesting starting with the one where she realized that there was something very wrong with her royalty statement from one of the big six.

[joycemocha.livejournal.com]

I have heard others say what Kris has saying...but that's all been within the past few years (and, also, I have been at cons with C.J. Cherryh and Jane Fancher, so that might be a factor as well).

I can't remember when I started saying "To heck with this" with regard to agents. Maybe it was after a period of reading agent blogs, and realizing just how subjective it's getting. At this point, I think I'm almost better off seeing what direct sales to readers will get. New York publishing is so messed up at the moment that until they figure out what's happening in this brave new world of electronic publishing, it's safer to do it on your own. Or in the small press world.

[burger-eater.livejournal.com]

This is worth reading.

Honestly, I don't know how much of what they're saying I can trust. There's useful information there, but there's also so much pearl-clutching (on her posts) and bombast (on his) that the whole thing seems off.