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?
Mr. D says
When I was still querying, I did think more of those agents who responded. It seemed more polite, I guess.
Angela Ackerman says
I don't think they should 'have to' respond–we're talking hundreds of emails a week, which takes away from clients.
However, one thing I would like to see is no form rejections on Full requests. In that case, I believe the agent should provide a quick sentence or two as to why they are passing…it's only respectful to the writer in my mind.
Stephanie M. Lorée says
Yes, I think they should respond. This won't stop me from querying or respecting agents that have a no-response policy, but those agents who always respond, even with an auto-form, get priority in my book.
Geekamicus says
I think as long as they have an auto responder that notes that the query has been received, it's at least better than wondering your whole life if it got lost in cyberspace. On the other hand, I think that the world has lost a little something if the common courtesy of a response to a direct question is considered too much work.
Authoress says
I always thought your response policy as an agent was excellent.
It's not about "owing" anyone anything. It boils down to common courtesy in the context of a business communique (which is what a query really is). If you are open to submissions and someone submits, it is common courtesy to respond.
This applies in many areas of life; not just querying agents.
(Imagine how much business a real estate agent would get if he only responded to phone calls from people who had a certain type of house. Or lived on a certain street. Claiming he didn't have *time* to respond to everyone who inquired about listing with him. A silly analogy, but you see my point.)
I am still cheering from the rooftops over Janet Reid's excellent post. She's got it nailed.
lauralynnelliott says
The only problem with agents not responding is that the author is hanging out there in limbo with no idea what the answer might be. How long should an author wait before deciding the agent isn't going to answer?
Whirlochre says
As I see it, the rules for writers and agents should be the same as those for strangers bumping across one another in some eternal limbo, ie if someone nods at you then it's rude not to nod back.
Given that writers and agents have potentially more in common than strangers chancing upon each other in limbo, I'm with the Reids rather than the Gardners on this one.
Josin L. McQuein says
I don't think agents owe anyone a response, but I also don't think a confirmation email is too much to ask for. It's automated and triggered by something hitting the inbox, which would alleviate the questions of whether something was received or not. (Which is the biggest flaw in the "no response = no" system.)
There are ways to semi-automate the responses, too, by sending each email to a specified folder (as opposed to deletion) that would automatically email each rejected submission a form rejection. Then, all the agent would have to do is clear that folder at the end of each day.
The only extra time required is that extra click of 'delete all'
Amber says
I'm not sure anyone ever "owes" a response to an email, but it is certainly polite and the standard practice for business communication, which this is. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth for someone to give detailed instructions for submissions and inordinately long response times, even for the positive, yet they can't be bothered to copy/paste a form rejection. Of course, agents can do anything they want, but I think the best authors, the ones agents really want to represent, can and do vote with their submissions.
Allison M. Dickson says
If an agent has the common courtesy to either acknowledge the receipt of a query or sending some sort of rejection, either form or personal, I will think more highly and will be more likely to query that agent.
Do they "owe" us? Well, I'm not big on that phrase. But is it unprofessional or rude to expect writers to adhere to often strict communication standards and then not even deign to acknowledge the people who are working their asses off to get an agent's attention? Hell yes, it is rude. If you're that jaded or so bogged down you can't work professional courtesy into your schedule, then maybe you're in the wrong business.
Roger Floyd says
Yes, I think an agent should respond to all queries, even if it involves nothing more than a postcard or an e-mail reply. Whether they respond or not isn't likely to keep me from querying, but it seems only common courtesy to respond. Look at it from the author's POV. How does he/she know if the agent received the letter? That's especially true if the query went by snail mail. The only exception might be if the agent makes it clear in advance that no response within a well-defined maximum time means no.
Lisa Aldin says
If it's in the policy, then I have no problem with an agent not responding. It's nice to know how long to wait though. So if I haven't heard anything in, say, 2 weeks, I know to write it off as a rejection. That's helpful, so I don't need a response then. My rejections folder is getting awfully full anyway!
Anonymous says
I understand why many agents don't respond, but I sincerely appreciate those who take the time to send a quick response (even canned). While querying, I kept a very organized agent spreadsheet, and it was great to be able to note rejections.
I imagine that most agents probably appreciate it when editors respond to their queries as well.
Rick says
I don't think agents should HAVE TO respond or be THROWN IN PRISON, and from a pragmatic side of things I understand the the no-response-means-no as a timesaver and way to increase efficiency. I won't NOT query someone because they don't respond.
But I think it's rude, and yes, I think you do owe it to authors. Like agents, authors are professionals, we are expected to go through a series of arduous rituals if we intend to query successfully – I've seen lots of agents who prefer personalized queries, and I'm talking about more than just their name.
They want details, they want comparisons to their lists, and they want specifics and nitty-gritty and things that take a lot of time and opportunity cost from the author's end of things.
To not even respond with a form letter that lets an author no they're no longer under consideration is… hypocritical, in this context.
Agents may not "work for" authors, but we don't work for agents either. Professional relationships are a two-way street.
Christine Fonseca says
While I really appreciate the agents that respond, I don't find myself upset or frustrated in the least when an agent doesn't respond to a query. I take it as a no and move on.
Patty Blount says
I have to say yes. Queries are business letters and should be acknowledged -even if it's by form rejection. Authors have no way of knowing if spam filters ate a query, a network was down, or your dog ate the print-out.
We wonder, should I follow up? Will I be annoying and unprofessional if I do?
I'd take the form rejection over no reply any day.
Monica Shaughnessy says
When I was querying agents, I did give priority to those who responded. They were on my "A" list. Those who had the policy of not responding were usually on my "B" list.
It's perfectly fine for agents to set their own policies on submission. On the flip-side, writers are able to set their own policies, too.
Rebekah James says
I have to agree that no response is really difficult for authors. I do understand that the sheer bulk of email makes it difficult for agents, but queries aren't spam, there is someone sitting on the other end waiting for a response. A simple form letter of "sorry, but no thank you" is fine. If an agent can't be bothered with the simple courtesy of a form letter to show that they actually received/glanced at your project, then why on earth would you assume that they would be able to sell your work in a field where personal relationships and good manners are everything? Double that for agents who ask for full submissions and don't bother to respond.(this has happened to me several times. It's unprofessional and busy or not – it comes across as terribly arrogant.
Lydia Sharp says
I have no problem with the "no response means no" policy as long as there is a time frame given. Such as "if you haven't heard from me within 4 weeks, it's a no."
That helps the writer keep things organized on their end, and prevents a LOT of frustration.
Ishta Mercurio says
Good questions.
On the one hand, an agent's response/submission policy has nothing to do with whether I will query him or her. My reasons for querying have to do with whether I think we will work well together, what books they have represented, the level of editorial guidance and overall communication involved with this agent, etc.
HOWEVER: I am much, MUCH more likely to re-query with a different project if the agent or agency has responded to me with a kind rejection, and a HUNDRED times more likely to re-query with a different project if the agent has gone so far as to include a quick note about why they are passing on my project. One agent told me that my book was too similar to another book by an existing client, and my respect for him as a person and opinion of him as someone who would be good to work with multiplied by about a million.
Should agents be obligated to do this? Of course not. But I'll like them a lot more if they do. It shows that they respect my time – both the time I took to research and sub to them, and the time that I'll spend waiting to hear back from them before sending out my next batch of queries. If I send out 5, and wait to hear back, it's better for me if I hear from everyone within a month than if I wait the whole two months for a response that might not come. I can move on to someone else that much faster.
I wonder, if agents are really too busy for even a pre-fabbed form rejection, why they open themselves to queries in the first place. Why not say that you aren't actively building your list? Surely that would cut down on the sheer volume of queries in the first place? Or is that an inaccurate assumption on my part?
anaquana says
I believe that agents have every right to institute whichever policy they think is best for them. That said, when I was querying, I put all of the agents who had a no response = no policy at the bottom of my list.
E. Arroyo says
I think having a form response that they got it would suffice. Just so I know it went into some inbox. That would be nice.
Cheryl says
I think, if the agent does have a 'no response means no' policy, then they should definitely outline that in their submissions and give a reasonable timeline, after which you can safely assume they're not interested. Then the writer is not sitting there in limbo because they know if they haven't heard from agent Jane Doe in four weeks, she's not interested and they can move on. That wouldn't be unreasonable to me.
Personally, though, I would prefer even a form email to say 'sorry, your novel is not for me.'
Annie says
As other commenters have mentioned, I always think more highly of agents who give some kind of response–even a form rejection. It's nice to be able to move on from that query if things just aren't going to work out. I certainly don't begrudge no response policy agencies (they must get an insane about of email), but I don't necessarily think better of them.
That said, I also appreciate when agents give a timeline for their no response policy, like "If you haven't heard from us in two months, please consider that a rejection." It may be cold, but again, at least you can move on with your querying.
Seleste says
I don't think agents should have to respond, however, as others have said, I think it's more polite. I *do* think agents' policies should be made clear on their website, and if a no response stand is chosen, an auto-responder with a timeline ("If you haven't heard back in _________, it's a no.") is important.
Also, if pages are requested, there should always be a response. On a partial, a form reply is fine, but I agree with the person who said a full request should at least get a brief sentence (even if it comes from a list of canned responses) as to why the agent passed.
To me, those things are in line with authors personalizing queries and not mass-emailing. Polite and professional.
On the agents' side, however, I don't think "Dear Agent" or mass-emailings deserve responses. Those are the queries who didn't take the time to do it politely or professionally, and as such can be responded to in kind (those I would sort of look at like junk mail).
Remus Shepherd says
Agents should always respond. Especially those who receive paper manuscripts with SASEs. I can't count how many stamps I've put on SASEs that have never come back. I hope the agent at least peeled the stamps off and reused them.
Sheila Lamb says
Respond. Even with an auto-response. It's common courtesy and it's a business.
Agree 100% with Geekamicus: "On the other hand, I think that the world has lost a little something if the common courtesy of a response to a direct question is considered too much work."
Krista V. says
When I'm querying, agents' response policies absolutely play a role in when – and if – I query them. While I understand how difficult it must be to stay on top of so many e-mails, quite a few agents still manage to do it, and that's definitely a point in their favor.
And like several others have mentioned, those who decide to use a no-response-means-no policy MUST have an auto-responder of some kind. There's already too much guesswork involved in querying. Trying to decide whether or not your query actually arrived in an agent's inbox shouldn't be something you have to guess about.
But don't even get me started on agents who've decided to go with the no-response-means-no policy with regards to requested material…
Fadzlishah Johanabas says
I have a feeling if agents read this, they'll put my name in the blacklist section…
When I was stationed at the clinic, I saw between 20 to 70 patients a day (depending on how many of my colleagues helped out). That's between three to five hours straight of talking to one patient after another, advising them, checking up on their progress, arranging for surgery date or imaging studies, referring to peripheral hospitals for follow-ups, and the worst of all, breaking bad news.
My discipline of Medicine gets depressing, sometimes.
Anyway, an agent's no-means-no policy is like me not explaining to patients their diagnoses, the prognosis, the outcome. It's like me just telling them "You have so-and-so condition." That's it.
Writers are by and large a sensitive, anxious lot. We send out our works to publishers/agents and we wait. We worry. We wait. We spam the refresh button on our email accounts, all of them.
An agent gets paid to read queries, answer queries, read manuscripts, sell manuscripts (I think). It's part of their job scope. So by not answering a query, they aren't doing their job to the fullest.
What's wrong with hitting the 'send template' button? At least writers will know in black and white the agent is not interested, and move on to the next one.
Remember: when you are sick, you want to know everything about what you're going through. Most people, anyway. Doctors hold the power of such information.
Agents hold the power of informing writers if a query is interesting to them or not.
Again, what's the hassle with sending a template rejection? I like submitting my works to venues with a quick response time, even if it's a rejection every time. I believe an agent will build a good reputation by giving a quick response, even if it's a form one.
Kat Sheridan says
I'm going to agree with Authoress 100%. In what other business is it polite or professional to ignore a request for business? I think too often both agents and authors forget that it is the AUTHOR who hires the agent. If your work is accepted, you—as the author—will be paying the agent, as you would any other employee. It's only good business for a prospective employee to do whatever it takes to make a favorable first impression on a potential client.
Loralie Hall says
It depends for me…if I'm on the fence about an agent, maybe something on their site doesn't quite sit right with me anyway, but most of it looks good, a 'No response means no' policy will keep me from querying.
But if I've decided I want a shot with that agent, their response policy doesn't change that opinion.
Lorraine Devon Wilke says
I remember back in the day hearing that Sherry Lansing, then head of Paramount Pictures, made it her policy to return every single phone call (pre smart phones and email!) within a 24 hour period. Whether she actually did, I don't know, but the fact that she said it and I remembered it all these years later speaks volumes (and it inspired me to follow suit!).
Obviously it's got to be tough when bombarded with piles of unsolicited queries to respond to them all, but just as we writers must accept certain aspects of this industry because "it's just part of the process for writers," so, too, do agents have to accept that bombardment! And like others on here, I DO feel an uptick in respect and good will when an agent takes the time to respond. Would I love a less generic, less formulaic respond? Certainly. I already know how subjective and tough it is out there! 🙂 But the fact that someone at least took the time is deeply respectful… something we can always use a little more of in this industry!
Natalie Whipple says
When I first started querying, I didn't like the "no response means no" policy at all. I wanted replies in a bad way.
After about a year querying? I actually LOVED the "no response" policy. I was so tired of seeing NO that I preferred to query agents that would give me a yes if they wanted and nothing if not. It meant I had less tangible rejections in my inbox to look at:)
At that point I felt like I understood how hard it was to keep saying no to people—because it was certainly hard to keep hearing no. Where I used to think it was rude, I began to think it was merciful.
Maia says
I think that an auto-response saying something like, "If you don't hear from me within six weeks, I am not interested" is much better than nothing at all. Writers take the extra time to adhere to agents' specific instructions (often told that our queries will be thrown out if we don't), and I do think it's rude to make us wait for nothing. I've received replies to queries six months after I've sent them, so it's hard to tell if silence is a definite "no".
Julie Butcher-Fedynich says
When I was querying, the numbers were important for me to tell if my query was working but I didn't mind a no response as long as there was an email stating that the query was recieved. I did mind wondering if it was lost somewhere in cyber-space.
I'll have to admit that after you get your agent, the no-response makes your now immediate response to emails PURE JOY.
Melinda says
I think these days it's very easy to send a form rejection letter and it's only polite business practice to do so. Yes, I think agents owe a response to any legitimate query. The author went to all the trouble of following the agent's guidelines to the letter, often painstaking guidelines. For that effort, the author deserves a response.
If an agent wants a friendly working relationship with someone, then they should start out that way. I mean, how do they like it when they want something and the person on the other end simply refuses to acknowledge they exist? I'm sure they walk away grumbling, taking their money with them. In this case, the author walks away grumbling, taking their product with them. AND most likely all future products. And most likely, if it continues, their money that they would have spent on other projects the agent has going.
I don't expect a long treatise on the reason for the rejection. A simple "Thanks, but no thanks" would suffice. I also think as a business practice an auto-reply indicating you actually GOT the email is in order. With spam filters being what they are, I always wonder if my query got there or if it flittered away in the ether. And that takes no time from the agent whatsoever.
Prity says
From an Agent's POV, I can try to understand the work load and pressure but think about it from a writer's POV.
The moment we click on the Send button, we start the countdown and keep thinking, has he read it, what must she be thinking, did it go to her spam, when will get a response… I know it sounds crazy!
A polite rejection helps us to close old doors and head towards a newer one. One towards growth, maybe lot of editing and some more new Agents.
But would this policy change my mind, I don't think so. I'd still query!
Anonymous says
No. They shouldn't. No answer means not interested. It's life in publishing.
Don't call us, we'll call you, is life in show biz.
And it's also a way to break the newbies in so they learn not to expect too much when editors and publishers ignore them…even when they are bestselling authors. Because it's not just newbies who experience this sort of thing. It's every author in publishing.
Leigh Ann says
The only *real* issue to me – and it's only *really* an issue for the agent – is that queries get stuck in spam boxes or cyberspace all the time. A simple autorespond would do the trick to let us know our query arrived in the agent's inbox.
Combined with a "one month with no news means no" policy like Jill Corcoran has, the author can be one hundred percent certain that her query was received and rejected after a month's time.
Shaun Hutchinson says
I think it's only fair for agents to respond to all queries. Like Janet said in her response, the responses can be streamlined to the point where it literally takes a couple of seconds per email. There's simply no reason not to.
From the writer side of things, how would an agent feel if they sent out an offer of representation and a writer had a "no response means no" policy? I think agents would be (rightfully) miffed and would likely not want to work with that writer in the future.
Writers jump through a lot of hoops for agents, editors, readers. They spend countless hours researching how to write the perfect query, searching through all the different agents to find the right one to query. Yes, I think the agent can spare them 3 seconds of their time to paste in a rejection.
M. G. King says
The auto response which states a query has been received seems like a basic courtesy, with pretty minimal effort. At least I know the query arrived at its intended destination, regardless of the outcome.
I understand the reasons agents have for not responding (gah! can't imagine how jaded I'd become if I had to say no a million times a day). But personally I would prefer a little more closure. It's the "slow jilt" vs. the breakup.
Huntress says
If the only response I get to a query is "I received your query" auto-reply that is good enough for me.
Just lemme know that you got it, Mr. or Ms Agent that is all I'm asking. I've spent hours researching your profile, agency, clients, preferences, and submission guidelines. An auto-response is better than crickets chirping. Do you owe me anything? Nope. I chose to query; you chose this profession. Somewhere along the line, good manners must come into play.
Anonymous says
As someone who recently had to leave one agent and is now looking for a new agent, I have to say that what is important to me now goes way deeper than the agent's submission policy.
Communication and a track record of sales in the genre where I'm submitting matters more than whether I have to wait 8-10 weeks for a yes or a no. Their answer or lack of answer doesn't stop me from continuing my search.
I'm an author, so I, of course, did a little cheer when I read Janet Reid's blog. But the agent who is right for me is the one who loves my work enough to champion it AND has the contacts it takes to sell that work and sell it well.
Dave Clark says
How's this: As an agent, you may see an "almost" query, so responding with a reason for an "almost-but-no" may turn into a re-query both parties will welcome. For the kind of query that just isn't lighting the fire, either a polite form rejection or no rejection would work with me, so long as that's mentioned up-front on the agent's website. As an agent gets many queries in a week, an author should query many agents, so politeness with someone you've made multiple correspondence with is always in order, for both parties. Still, it's a dating bar for both …except maybe the agents are dressed sharper.
BuffySquirrel says
As much as I would love all agents to respond to all queries, I suspect it's an unrealistic expectation. I have seen agents who set a definite deadline–if you haven't heard within so many weeks, it's no. I think that's a reasonable compromise, as it doesn't leave the querier wondering for months whether there'll be a reply.
I also suspect that should those who complain about 'no response means no' secure an agent, they will then want the agent to attend to their book(s), not to queriers! So I think a lot depends which side of the gate you're on.
Laura says
I keep a very detailed query response sheet, and yes, I will prioritize future queries according to how or if an agent responded.
That being said, some agents (like Kathleen Ortiz) have solved this whole problem by posting a "Query Update" ticker at the top of their blog or website. It says, "All queries have been read as of *date/time* If you haven't received a response, I'm sorry to say your project isn't for me."
And that works just fine for me, too. As an author, I just want to be able to update my query spreadsheet and know who to contact should I be offered representation.
abc says
It's nice, but no way should it be expected. I feel they have every right to do as they are able or as they see fit. And no, I wouldn't check to see if an agent responds before I submitted. I might check after awhile, if I hadn't heard anything.
People are too hard on agents sometimes!
Rick Daley says
I think it's a professional courtesy for agents to communicate their response policy. It's not that hard to do, just post it on the submission guidelines on the agency website or a professional blog. If the agency has no online presence, that's not the agency for me, anyway.
Setting an expectation is the best way to effectively manage the next step / follow-through.
Megg Jensen says
Here's one reason no response can be a bad policy:
– I queried an agent who does not promise a response.
– She never responded; I moved on.
– A full year later, I got an email from her: "I was cleaning out my spam folder and saw your query. I'd love to see more."
– At that point, it was far too late. I had moved on and had to explain that to her.
– Guess what? She was frustrated with me and said I should have sent her a heads-up six months ago.
– Isn't the rule that you never send a heads-up to an agent with a no-response policy? Color me confused.
That's when a no response policy doesn't work. Personally, I'd rather receive a form rejection than no response at all. But, as you say, if it's in their policy and someone decides to query anyway, that's the chance they take.
Megg
Shawn Lamb says
If an author takes the time, effort and energy to follow all the set forth rules of protocol in submitting to agents then yes! agents should take the courtesy to respond.
I don't buy an agent's excuse of being overwhelmed. This is the system the powers that be – agents & publishers – have set up, forcing authors must query first. Letting everyone within the system make their own sub-rules is disingenuous to the hopeful authors.