
#FutureChat recap: Agents of change
Coming Friday 20 February in #FutureChat: benefits and challenges of the publishing workforce's gender profile. Join us each Friday for our live #FutureChat with The FutureBook digital community at 4 p.m. London (GMT), 5 p.m. Rome, 11 a.m. New York, 8 a.m. Los Angeles.
Illuminating the landscape
Getting a piece of the action has not, historically, been the way literary agents portrayed their services. Maybe at the breakfast table. Or over a quiet Campari. Rarely for the record.
And despite several years of rapid digital-driven experimentation and a growing number of "agent-assisted" approaches to publication, the idea that the best thing to do for a client may be just that -- to get yourself a producer's role in a client's business -- can come as one jarring pronouncement. For all the disruption that the industry! the industry! has endured, knuckles still go white, eyes widen, change still crackles and surges through publishing.
So we learned when Curtis Brown's Jonny Geller gave us his blog post Joined agency at The Bookseller. A lot of attention went to his call for consolidation. His point there was that 300 or more agencies in the UK industry alone presents a broad but potentially shallow field of support to authors by agencies, many of which are too small (he proposes) to handle the new complexities of multi-platformed properties.
But the dicier point he brought to the table lay in that piece-of-the-action idea: the Gellerian view is that it may be not only feasible but imperative for an agent to function as a player in a client's business. Here's how he puts it:
Where I think our industry falls down is the fear of participation. We need to be part of the deal, not just negotiating it. We need to be in partnership with the talent we believe in and create opportunities in every media for them. This is not simply being on their side when we broker the complex relationships with publisher and producer, but driving the deal as a partner, a stakeholder in our clients’ success. There are many ways to structure a deal and many ways of being a literary agent.
While not run out of town on a rail of righteous indignation, Geller was, of course, answered by Shiel Land agent Piers Blofeld in a rebuttal post, Disjointed agency.
And Blofeld's point of entry was the conflict-0f-interest question: where does an agent's engagement as "a partner, a stakeholder" cross a line into something more about profit than advocacy? He wrote:
Those “conflicts of interest” are called that for a reason. It’s all very well saying that “there is rarely a conflict if the deal is fair and advantageous to the creator” but if the deal is more fair and more advantageous to others then there is a conflict of interest. Agents exist solely to protect the interests of their clients. The danger of the management route is that it opens up the possibility that the interests of the agency might be perceived as superceding the interests of authors. That is dangerous territory indeed.
And when we took the issue to The FutureBook digital publishing community, which convenes each Friday in the tweeterie as #FutureChat, one of the early and best comments came from Los Angeles, and from a source who knows something about what he's saying.
You'll see author and writing instructor James Scott Bell's tweet below, in which he writes "One problem is anyone can claim to be an agent, and will have dozens of anxious writers sign up." This reality has dogged the agenting sector relentlessly and, indeed, becomes more glaring in the light of "author services" scams that crop up, as Jane Friedman said to me the other day, "like toadstools."
Bell is a particularly astute observer of this point because he is not only an author (and authors, too, work without industry credentials, after all), but also an attorney. Attorneys operate under regulations. He can see both sides.
On one hand, an unregulated industry can debate just such worthy issues as Geller has raised and Blofeld has decried.
On the other hand, per Bell's mention of those "anxious writers" -- a creative corps that is, perforce, primarily amateur -- goes to the heart of the dilemma. It is traditionally the prime directive that the author-client's interests come first. That being the fundamental aim, the question, then, is what can be done with the model that's both fair and supportive of the author but also progressive and sustaining for the agency?
To Geller's point, can we expect a loose net of hundreds of one- and two-room agencies to survive in a scenario of falling advances, stubbornly low royalties, and increasingly sophisticated demands of cross-discipline representation?
Not for nothing has author and game designer Dave Morris (who also joined our #FutureChat) been quoted frequently around this debate saying not only that the author's best friend (if you want a career as a pro) may be a large agency, but also the agenting job is getting harder, responsive to more fields, some quite technical:
Increasingly, publishing deals draw on experience of other industries. Mine is in videogames, for example. Your agent won’t know as much as you may do about those new fields. Be ready to act as their consultant as much as they are yours.
So to #FutureChat we went. You'll see me quote an extended volley between Tim Lewis and Jane Steen -- their back-and-forth is instructive because it hinges, as they agree, on a new imprecision to many terms. Uncertain jargon seems to be a part of the upheaval in some areas of the business these days.
And Bell was waiting for us, at 8 a.m. Pacific time.
One problem is anyone can claim to be an agent, and will have dozens of anxious writers sign up. #FutureChat
— James Scott Bell (@jamesscottbell) February 13, 2015
#futurechat My response to @jonnygeller's Agent Manifesto in 2012. Not much has changed, methinks http://t.co/AJZIJHeVGf @Porter_Anderson
— Roz Morris (@Roz_Morris) February 13, 2015
@Porter_Anderson 1/2 I can see both sides of that coin. more rights being used for authors = more $ for authors = good thing #futurechat
— Melinda Primrose (@MMPrimrose) February 13, 2015
@Porter_Anderson 2/2 but conflict of interest = bad b/c authors may get pushed into bad contracts #futurechat
— Melinda Primrose (@MMPrimrose) February 13, 2015
#futurechat I think small agents can survive if they move more into self-publishing assistance.
— Tim @ Stoneham Press (@StonehamPress) February 13, 2015
@StonehamPress Oh please, no. #futurechat
— Jane Steen (@janesteen) February 13, 2015
@janesteen #futurechat Why? Does not have to be bad (though clearly there are bad examples).
— Tim @ Stoneham Press (@StonehamPress) February 13, 2015
@StonehamPress I think agency and self-publishing assistance are two fields that need to be kept apart. #futurechat
— Jane Steen (@janesteen) February 13, 2015
@janesteen #futurechat Maybe this is a case of language. What you define an "agent" as.
— Tim @ Stoneham Press (@StonehamPress) February 13, 2015
@StonehamPress An agent represents a principal in business deals. #futurechat
— Jane Steen (@janesteen) February 13, 2015
@janesteen #futurechat Guess I am using it as anyone who provides a key service to authors. Contract arrangement seems so 20th century.
— Tim @ Stoneham Press (@StonehamPress) February 13, 2015
@StonehamPress Dangerous confusion of terms here #futurechat
— Jane Steen (@janesteen) February 13, 2015
@janesteen #futurechat I think the confusion re agents roles is the entire crux of this debate.
— Tim @ Stoneham Press (@StonehamPress) February 13, 2015
.@Porter_Anderson strikingly similar pros & cons to Q of large v small GP practices, IMHO #FutureChat
— Carol Cooper (@DrCarolCooper) February 13, 2015
Yep @Porter_Anderson Large practice has the know-how & connections. Small has personal touch #FutureChat
— Carol Cooper (@DrCarolCooper) February 13, 2015
I'd love to see a happy medium @DrCarolCooper @Porter_Anderson #FutureChat
— Dana Britt (@Dana_Britt) February 13, 2015
Totally agree @Dana_Britt @Porter_Anderson happy medium good thing to aim for. My main concern: don't get so hung up... #futurechat
— Carol Cooper (@DrCarolCooper) February 13, 2015
...@Dana_Britt @Porter_Anderson on the business model that you forget the patient. I mean author #FutureChat
— Carol Cooper (@DrCarolCooper) February 13, 2015
What if agencies evolve so that they are service providers to authors, not gatekeepers? @StonehamPress @Porter_Anderson #FutureChat
— Chris Lynch (@chrislynch_mwm) February 13, 2015
Oh, very nice concept! @chrislynch_mwm @StonehamPress @Porter_Anderson #FutureChat
— Dana Britt (@Dana_Britt) February 13, 2015
@StonehamPress maybe partnerships with other small niches. i think. #futurechat
— Melinda Primrose (@MMPrimrose) February 13, 2015
@MMPrimrose Authors can't afford blind trust in agents or publishers. Our "babies" are at risk. #futurechat @Porter_Anderson
— Carol Buchanan (@CarolBuchananMT) February 13, 2015
ok to be small if you're focused. One person with deep knowledge and commitment can serve a small # of clients @Porter_Anderson #futurechat
— chris weber (@Chris_C_Weber) February 13, 2015
@Porter_Anderson @StonehamPress @JonnyGeller Small niches in subject matter can be rich in media -- book, ebook, transmedia. #futurechat
— Carol Buchanan (@CarolBuchananMT) February 13, 2015
@Porter_Anderson @thebookseller What about the new agent models...the "literary change agents"? Thoughts? #FutureChat
— Laura Bastian (@laurabastian1) February 13, 2015
@Porter_Anderson @JonnyGeller Agent as consigliere, not a business manager. The role is evolving. Interesting read. #FutureChat
— Laura Bastian (@laurabastian1) February 13, 2015
@Porter_Anderson That so many small agents/agencies can survive indicates their role is necessary and valued. #FutureChat
— RichRennicks (@RichRennicks) February 13, 2015
@RichRennicks not necissarily indication of value. new clients would be an indication of value imo #futurechat
— Melinda Primrose (@MMPrimrose) February 13, 2015
@MMPrimrose No shortage of new books & new authors being published. More than ever in fact. #FutureChat
— RichRennicks (@RichRennicks) February 13, 2015
@RichRennicks agree with that, but how many small agencies are getting those new authors? no way to tell really #futurechat
— Melinda Primrose (@MMPrimrose) February 13, 2015
Stepping into #futurechat. @janesteen said I should be here. I brought cookies. http://t.co/C9x9ygZfab
— K Grubb (@10minnovelist) February 13, 2015
@10minnovelist #futurechat I hope you are respecting the EU cookie rules (e.g sharing)
— Tim @ Stoneham Press (@StonehamPress) February 13, 2015
@StonehamPress I ALWAYS do what the EU tells me. ;) #futurechat #sharing
— K Grubb (@10minnovelist) February 13, 2015
RT @Chris_C_Weber: To be an author is to be a business, and no business can survive without some outside help. @Porter_Anderson #futurechat
— K Grubb (@10minnovelist) February 13, 2015
@Porter_Anderson different media have different agency structures, don't they? Confusing for authors #futurechat
— Jane Steen (@janesteen) February 13, 2015
Agents that demonstrate added value & practice transparency can thrive these days- so much opportunity @Porter_Anderson #FutureChat
— Dan Wood (@DanWoodOk) February 13, 2015
@MMPrimrose Supposedly agent sells to publisher who has distributors ala Ingram. #futurechat @Porter_Anderson @CurtisBrown
— Carol Buchanan (@CarolBuchananMT) February 13, 2015
.@MMPrimrose @CarolBuchananMT Distributor almost never = producer these days. Agencies can function usefully as producers. #FutureChat
— Dave Morris (@MirabilisDave) February 13, 2015
.@MMPrimrose @Porter_Anderson @CurtisBrown Want a deal with a studio/network? You need a big multi-discipline agency for that. #FutureChat
— Dave Morris (@MirabilisDave) February 13, 2015
@MirabilisDave so an author with a smaller agency would have to move on when success strikes? #futurechat
— Jane Steen (@janesteen) February 13, 2015
@janesteen @MirabilisDave Isn't that often the way? Or at least they change publishers. #FutureChat
— Carla Douglas (@CarlaJDouglas) February 13, 2015
@janesteen @MirabilisDave Or hire more specialized helpers for foreign rights, movies, etc. #futurechat @Porter_Anderson 1/2
— Carol Buchanan (@CarolBuchananMT) February 13, 2015
@janesteen #futurechat Foreign Rights sales probably most significant in my mind.
— Tim @ Stoneham Press (@StonehamPress) February 13, 2015
.@Porter_Anderson @StonehamPress Do you think this is as true for digital as it is in the print world? #Futurechat
— Dan Wood (@DanWoodOk) February 13, 2015
@DanWoodOk foreign rights + digital seems to be growing from everything I've seen #futurechat
— Melinda Primrose (@MMPrimrose) February 13, 2015
Imho, when dealing with self-publishing, it's a mistake fr agents to think "what are we good at." That leads to old paradigm. #futurechat
— Camille LaGuire (@camillelaguire) February 13, 2015
@CarolBuchananMT #futurechat "I sold your Korean rights! What do you mean I did nothing!"
— Tim @ Stoneham Press (@StonehamPress) February 13, 2015
@StonehamPress "or your Mars rights, just in case..." #futurechat @Porter_Anderson
— Carol Buchanan (@CarolBuchananMT) February 13, 2015
.@CarolBuchananMT @Porter_Anderson Yep, and I think @JonnyGeller would say a big agency can help pull all that together #FutureChat
— Dave Morris (@MirabilisDave) February 13, 2015
@MirabilisDave @MMPrimrose @Porter_Anderson @CurtisBrown So could you say an author's agency needs might depend on their genre? #FutureChat
— Carla Douglas (@CarlaJDouglas) February 13, 2015
.@CarlaJDouglas @MMPrimrose @Porter_Anderson Depends on whether the book might become something else. Genre not only indicator. #FutureChat
— Dave Morris (@MirabilisDave) February 13, 2015
I would willingly speak with an agent to handle foreign rights, etc., for a flat fee rather than any percentage. #FutureChat
— Deb Kinnard♜ (@DKinnard) February 13, 2015
This stuff is only news to book people, of course. The big agencies in LA have been packaging cross-media deals for decades. #FutureChat
— Dave Morris (@MirabilisDave) February 13, 2015
@Porter_Anderson @Chris_C_Weber They almost always say "no SF/fantasy" btw :) #FutureChat
— Dave Morris (@MirabilisDave) February 13, 2015
@MirabilisDave Literary fiction? @DrCarolCooper @Porter_Anderson @Chris_C_Weber #futurechat
— Carol Buchanan (@CarolBuchananMT) February 13, 2015
.@CarolBuchananMT @DrCarolCooper @Porter_Anderson @Chris_C_Weber As a term it seems too vague to be useful. But that's a different topic.
— Dave Morris (@MirabilisDave) February 13, 2015
.@DrCarolCooper @CarolBuchananMT @Porter_Anderson @Chris_C_Weber Agents are pretty happy to handle non-genre books, generally. #FutureChat
— Dave Morris (@MirabilisDave) February 13, 2015
Especially as media landscape fragments, organizing by knowledge for genre-specific channels seems crucial @Porter_Anderson #futurechat
— chris weber (@Chris_C_Weber) February 13, 2015
@Chris_C_Weber #futurechat Depends on how the role of agents evolves. Either by genre or by role (e.g individual country rights)
— Tim @ Stoneham Press (@StonehamPress) February 13, 2015
So is there an agency that covers every role but only for a single genre? Vertically integrated genre-agency? @StonehamPress #futurechat
— chris weber (@Chris_C_Weber) February 13, 2015
.@Porter_Anderson #futurechat I don;t follow what Geller is saying. boutique agencies have handled these rights forever. why different now?
— Scott Waxman (@scottwaxman) February 13, 2015
#futurechat @Porter_Anderson @JonnyGeller these big agencies are novices at the 360 model so way too early to claim victory IMHO
— Scott Waxman (@scottwaxman) February 13, 2015
Globalization is still sort of hiding in the closet when it comes to publishing. One problem is law in different countries. #futurechat
— Deb Kinnard♜ (@DKinnard) February 13, 2015
Will agents of yesterday be agents of tomorrow? How does the digital revolution impact this job? New competences/activities? #FutureChat
— Marcello VENA (@marcellovena) February 13, 2015
@Chris_C_Weber @Porter_Anderson How many ways can a book be chopped up and re-served? Up to author to know this, too. #FutureChat
— Carla Douglas (@CarlaJDouglas) February 13, 2015
.@Porter_Anderson As I understand it the average is going up but the mean down- bigger advances than ever at the top, no? #FutureChat
— Dan Wood (@DanWoodOk) February 13, 2015
@CarolBuchananMT @Porter_Anderson @scottwaxman @JonnyGeller Agree Carol. Agents need to embrace the changes & needs of authors. #FutureChat
— E S Moxon (@word_seeker) February 13, 2015
@Porter_Anderson We always see the sky falling. "Books are dead!" Then they're not. If there are too many agents, they'll adapt. #FutureChat
— RichRennicks (@RichRennicks) February 13, 2015
Join us each Friday for our live #FutureChat with The FutureBook digital community at 4 p.m. London (GMT), 5 p.m. Rome, 11 a.m. New York, 8 a.m. Los Angeles. Main image - Shutterstock: Stefano Garau