One of the perennial topics of discussion in the literaryosphere surfaced this past week: The no response means no policy on queries.
On the one hand agent Rachelle Gardner discussed the reasons for her no-response-means-no policy (though she often will respond, just not always), and Janet Reid explained why she responds to everyone.
When I was an agent I responded to everyone, but it was by no means an easy task, and sometimes in retrospect I wonder if I really should have had that policy. But regardless of which policy agents pursue, I still maintain that agents don’t owe authors a response. I know it’s frustrating as an author to send queries into the ether, but agents have every right to set their own submission policy, and if an authors doesn’t agree with it they are more than welcome to query someone whose policy they prefer.
That, ultimately, was one of the main reasons I had a always-respond policy. Like Janet Reid I hoped people would look kindly on that and give me first shot at their projects. But it was by no means easy to maintain, and I certainly would never pass judgment on agents with a different policy.
What do you think? Should agents respond to everyone or is it too much to ask? Do you check an agent’s response policy before deciding who to query?
Speaking from personal experience, I know queries get lost, dropped in spam boxes, missed completely, etc. so either an auto responder or something similar to Janet's method (I think she's amazing btw) is a perfect solution that would streamline the agent's use of time and also keep the author informed. I also absolutely agree with Janet's remarks that follow up questions, tirades, arguments, etc. should be deleted after that first auto response.
I don't think agents "owe" authors anything, but sometimes the reasons given for instituting the "No response means no" policy makes me roll my eyes.
I don't have a lot of sympathy when an agent says they ignore or don't respond to authors because they're overwhelmed, get too many queries, are too busy, etc. First, your website says you're open to queries. You are inviting people to query. Guess what? That's what they'll do.
If you're getting overloaded, shut it down until you can catch up. You're too busy? We're ALL busy. I work two jobs, parent three small children and write. When I was still querying agents, I carved out the time to customize according to the particular agent's criteria. And e-mails? In one of my jobs, I receive between 100 and 200 emails a day regarding questions about tax regs. Responding to those is only a tiny part of my job duties–and I don't get 8 to 12 wks to respond to those e-mails. My employer doesn't think I'm exceptionally nice for responding; he considers it me doing my job.
IMO, "no response means no" is acceptable if there is an auto responder stating the query was received. The same policy used on requested partials and fulls? No. That's rude, unprofessional and unacceptable.
I understand the issue of how many emails/submissions agents/editors receive. As I am frequently told at my day job when I complain to my boss about how much work I have and how much more he expects from me – "not my problem". Contracts are issued in this business. Money changes hands in this business. And as a (hopeful) collaborator in a money-making business I expect to be treated as a business partner. As someone who receives the same respectful treatment as I am sure the editors and agents expect. Having been an actor for a couple of decades (the only other field I can think of where "thanks but no thanks" is heard just as often) I always got a response. Usually on the spot (ouch) but at least I knew and could move on. Do I read submission guidelines and submit based on them? Absolutely. So I won't have to worry about this policy because I won't be approaching those entities. I still think that the authors should not be the only party in this business who gets less respect than the others.