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?
Tricia Clasen says
I prefer it, and I will query those who respond first, in part because I like a definitive answer. However, I do understand why agents adopt a no response policy.
I would really appreciate a response on requested material however. Lack of response there is somewhat more problematic for me.
Anonymous says
I don't query agents who have a no response policy any more than I frequent any other business if someone was rude to me. Most of the reasons that I have heard from agents as to why they don't respond seem silly to me. Most make it sound like they are the only ones in the world who have kids or busy jobs. I have kids, a full time and part time job (and a cell phone that I use to reply to email) and I still managed to write a book and send in a query.
This is a very large part of why I gave up on agents and just went to the publisher when I had my book published.
Darley says
I would be fine with an agent indicating on their website (or blog) that if an author doesn't hear from them within X amount of time then the answer is no thanks. Otherwise an author has no idea whether to cross them off their list.
Richard Mabry says
The only course that makes some degree of sense is an auto-response that says in effect, "We got it. If you don't hear from us in X weeks, we're not interested." More than that can start a dialogue. No notification of receipt leaves most of us suspicious that our precious query is snagged on a bramble beside the information highway.
Kate says
Well, I didn't get a response every time I applied for a job when I first moved to NYC. Like agents, employers receive hundreds of applications for one opening. I've even gone in for plenty of interviews where I never heard from the company again. I thought it was ok if I didn't hear back after submitting an application, but if I went in for an interview I thought it was better to at least get an email.
So I'm not offended if I don't hear back from an agent after sending a query. I equate it with that first job application. After a partial or full request, though, I'd prefer a polite "no thanks" over radio silence. And if the agent says their policy is to respond, then they definitely should. Otherwise the conscientious, guidelines-following author will think their query was not received.
Karen Stivali says
As someone who has sent out many a query letter I have to say the whole "no reply means no" thing has never sat well with me.
Yes, I respect that agents are busy, but agents have to respect the fact that writers need to at least know that their work was received. Email is not 100% reliable. There were many times when I checked in with agents and it turned out they'd never received the email in question. At the very least agents who insist on the "no reply" policy should have an autoresponse that notifies the writer that their query was received. They still won't know for sure that it was ever read, but at least they won't be wondering if it was a "no" or if it never really made it to its destination.
There's so much waiting and not knowing in this business, and it takes so long for writers to research agents and personalize every single query, it doesn't seem like too much to ask that they get the courtesy of at least an auto reply, if not the 5 seconds of time it takes to hit auto reject.
I queried plenty of agents with "no reply" policies, but it didn't leave a favorable impression of them and, for those I never heard from, I can't say if I'd ever query them with a future project. There is a perceived lack of respect for the writer. This is worsened by agents with supposed "no reply" policies who do reply to SOME queries (and writers know this because they memorize query tracker stats). When you're left knowing that you didn't get a response, but three people who queried the same day as you did, that's NOT a positive thing for the agent. Janet Reid is right, writers are readers and a writer's next submission might be the one to make an agent a whole lot of money. Seems worth the few seconds to send a pre-written, non-personalized reply, IMO.
And Nathan, I don't know a writer anywhere who queried you (and we all know thousands upon thousands did) who wasn't extremely thankful for your timely response to every single query. It was no accident that you were the most queried agent (according to query tracker), your respect for writers won them over.
Derek says
I think a no-response policy for agents suggests that submitting writers are in some way a barrier to doing the job, rather than the means by which the job is possible at all.
It isn't difficult to set up a means to ping out an automated response after an appropriate timespan, whether the work has been reviewed or not.
Incidentally, 12 weeks plus for a response, in our digital age, seems like excessive!
Just Another Day in Paradise says
Treat people the way you want to be treated. Writers are people too. There is no excuse for bad behavior.
mshatch says
yes; it's the polite thing to do, imho.
D.G. Hudson says
I like Janet Reid's approach. There is usually a way, with the tech today, to be courteous.
Comments are better, but a response keeps us moving our work to the next agent.
You're right, and so is Janet Reid, those agents doing a little extra would get first shot with my work. Why not? It's good policy in business to treat prospective clients as possible future customers. (a little effort goes a long way)
I would most certainly check what the response method is for the agent, but if I wanted that agent, the method of response might not make a difference.
Matthew MacNish says
As an idealist, I would love to think that were I an agent, I would respond to everyone.
As a realist, I realize there are just too many writers.
Addley C. Fannin says
In the digital age, there's just no excuse for having no form rejection, I think. Like Ms. Reid said, you can rig your e-mail carrier to drop a form rejection and hit send in two seconds. It's not even like the old days, where you had to print a whole stack of form rejections every week. To not respond when it would be so easy to is just unprofessional and rude.
Margo Lerwill says
How many other business people are expected to respond to 20,000 or 30,000 pieces of business mail each year? Not their agency, the individual agent.
And for every person complaining about the no-reply policy, there's another author who sends profane emails back to the agent for the form rejection and another who emails to say, "Don't waste *my* time with a form rejection. Just don't respond."
Three words: big girl panties.
Cassandra says
I love both Gardner and Reid, but I'm wholly with Janet on this question–if, as she and several commentors indicate, it's really possible to send an automated rejection message in a few seconds. No person is obliged to respond to an unsolicited email, but an agent who is open to queries HAS solicited contact. The extremely minimal time required to respond is part of doing business. If the agent is so swamped with queries that s/he can't manage five seconds each, s/he should close to queries, periodically if necessary, until caught up.
Several commentors here and elsewhere have pointed out the financial ramifications. One person (I think on Rachelle's blog) noted that a response from the agent is necessary to prove to the IRS that the author is pursuing writing as a business, not a hobby. Sending a hard-copy of even a partial plus return postage costs real money.
Other factors pertain as well. RWA, for example, requires proof of response from an agent or editor to admit the author to "PRO" status, which confers benefits not open to the general membership.
Most unpublished writers cannot afford to say they'd never query a NR=R agent; but If someone requested my full manuscript and then didn't bother to respond, I would certainly never approach that agent again.
Lastly, as to how long you wait to hear back–don't wait at all. As Ms Reid says, query widely, and never give an exclusive.
Steph Sinkhorn says
As someone going through this process know, I will fully admit that it makes *me* feel better when agents respond, since I'm putting a lot of emotion and effort into researching everyone and perfecting my letter and blah blah blah.
But, realistically and professionally, I know that it's not an agent's job to make me feel better. Unless I'm their client. So, while I wish they could always respond, I completely understand why it's not the best option for everyone.
Reagan Philips says
The no response policy is something I look at, sure, but it's not a deal breaker.
I've had some very nice "no's" and one I wish was just a no response. But I think if you have a no response policy and a time frame, that's fine too.
I mean a no is going to sting whether you read it or not.
jjdebenedictis says
I agree with you–the agents can do whatever they like.
But it's a fact that I do query the agents whose submission stipulations are convenient to me ahead of those whose stipulations aren't.
I'm glad to hear many agents take that into account. As writers, our fear is no one paying any attention at all.
Vinyl and Mono says
I sent Janet Reid a fan message when I read that post. There is no excuse for not automating the process so that authors know their work has been RECEIVED, at least. I've had the experience of an intern misplacing a query (when it was found months later, it led to a full request). Then same intern lost the full! It is torture not knowing if your work has even been received, and some agents make a big deal on Twitter and blogs about how unprofessional and uncouth it is to pester them by following up, so you're afraid to. I have been an editor for over 25 years and every place I've worked has had a policy that receipt is ALWAYS acknowledged with a form response, and rejections get at least a one-line canned message, even if the submission was insane drivel. It's not hard to automate. And at least a sentence or two on a full rejection would be nice.
Karen Rivers says
I wish I'd thought more carefully about how the 'no response' policy would feel when I sent out my submissions. But I didn't. Mostly because I didn't go into it anticipating 'no', I suppose.
I'd liken it to working up your courage and asking someone to dance. Then, instead of simply saying, "No thank you," the person just stands there and stares right through you as though you don't exist. You aren't sure if they are ABOUT to answer, or thinking about their answer, and in the silence that ensues, you begin to think, "Oh, maybe they really want to dance, they are just waiting for a better song." You allow yourself to hope. You wait. You hope some more. You wait. And it's hard to know when to move on to the next partner, it's hard to accept that this person is really just going to blank you forever, you are that unimportant to them.
I tried to sub to only four or five people at a time in batches, out of respect for their time. If you sub to EVERY agent in the world, I guess the 'no response' wouldn't sting so much, but nor are you really giving your preferences/best likely matches the chance to answer first. To go back to the dance metaphor, it would be like going up to the microphone and saying, "I'll dance with anyone, I'm not fussy, I don't care about finding a good match, I'll take anyone. Any takers?"
And that's just not the same.
For the record, I submitted to fifteen agents altogether, got two offers, five 'maybes', three "no thanks" (including you!), and five no responses, And some of those "no responses" actually had policies that stated that they responded to ALL QUERIES within x amount of time. Still haven't heard from those people (quite well-known agents, by the way) and it's been a couple of years.
Sierra McConnell says
I look at it like a help desk. I send in a ticket for help. I get an auto response. Whether the response is to my liking is a whole other matter, but it's nice to get a response to know what the next step is.
Not getting a response leaves a person feeling confused, unwanted, and just plain upset. It makes them feel like they aren't worth your time. Sure, it's supposed to build backbone, but in essence, it just makes valuable writers say, "Screw it, traditional publishing, you think I'm not worthy of a few words? Hello, self-publishing."
And here's where we are now. Bookstores closing, traditional publishing houses wondering why people don't want to use them, and people actually wanting to self-publish as a /first/ option.
All because you couldn't hit one button that says, "We're sorry, you're just not a good fit for us."
Wow.
Katherine Hyde says
I can understand agents needing a no-response policy. But I do think they should (a) state a time frame in which they will respond if they're going to, and stick to it; and (b) always respond to requested material within a reasonable time. I also really appreciate if they have an auto-responder so I at least know my query reached them.
Anonymous says
I was on the fence about this but after reading Janet Reid's blog I am with her. I like to know where I stand.
Gina says
I can understand agents not wanting to respond to every single query, but I do think if this is their policy, they need to have an auto-response in place to let writer's know the e-mail was received.
I recently queried an agent and when I didn't hear back, I followed up and she hadn't received my e-mail. When I re-sent the query, she requested my full ms – a request I would have missed out on if I assumed no answer meant no.
On the other hand, agents make it clear that they want us to do our homework on them before querying, and even go as far as to flatter them in the letter. But why go through such trouble and not get the courtesy of a response? I have to wonder if agents would appreciate the no-response policy if it applied to editors receiving the manuscripts they send out for submission?
R K Gold says
Is the Janet Reid link broken… or is it just me?
Anyway- I second the opinion of someone who said that it would be nice to have a response to let you know it has actually got to the other person's inbox.
My word verification was "pretend"… is this cyperspace telling me what to do as a writer?
Ulysses says
I have no problem with "no response," provided the following is true:
1) A time frame is mentioned: "No response within 90 days should be considered a no." Otherwise, I'll spend eternity wondering if they didn't like it, or if they just haven't gotten around to it.
2) They commit to considering everything sent to them within the time period they mention. I just want to be sure that I've gotten my moment in the spotlight before the trapdoor opened in the stage.
Stephanie says
I understand the reasoning for not replying….but it is so hard for us authors…wondering if the query got lost or was just rejected.
BP says
It is true that we have a choice, but I think the reason writers look more favorably on agents who DO reply is because A, It's shows endurance and B, if they don't have enough time to send an auto-reply, what makes us think they can manage time well enough for us as a client? Some agents take the liberty to assume that most writers cannot or simply do not take the time to sympathize with the enormous amounts of work agents have facing them daily, which is very true. But that's no reason to counter with a no response means no policy; although I'd certainly submit to an agent with a no-means-no policy, I completely understand the plight of those who chose to submit elsewhere (and the agent better be a hack of a dern famous to register such a demand, and seeing as Nathan Bransford and Janet Reid don't/didn't have the policy, I'm really wondering how the heck of a much busier agent could one be????).
CPatLarge says
I'm with Janet Reid and the majority of comments on this one. It's only common courtesy to send a quick 'no, thank you,' even if it's automated.
As professional writers, we go through the trouble of customizing our queries, following all the agent's guidelines (we all do, don't we?!), they least they can do is show us the same respect. It's not 'owing,' it's as others have said: treat others as you wish to be treated.
Anonymous says
The sense of entitlement people have nowadays fascinates me. I'm not sure, but I think Oprah may have started all this.
Nathan Bransford says
Thanks RK, should be fixed now.
Kerry Gans says
While I would prefer all agents answer every query (as others have said, I think it's a sign of respect, not a matter of being "owed"), I also know their policy is beyond my control.
If I am interested in an agent, I have to abide by their policy, and there's no sense in getting up in arms about it.
I do check their policy before I query, but only so I can note whether I should be looking for an answer or not.
jesse says
As an author, it doesn't seem like a big deal for agents to send a quick no thank you. As an agent, it seems like a waste of my already limited time. I suppose every agent has to consIder if the time investment is worthwhile, and every author has to decide exactly what that decision implies before resubmitting to that agent.
Donna K. Weaver says
Querying involves finding out about the agents. If agents aren't going to respond to every query, they just need to make it easy to find that out.
TeresaR says
I think everyone else already said it better than I would, but just wanted to mention that I like Josin's idea of an automated response to when a query is received. After that, an agent can follow the method of "if you don't hear back from me in ___ weeks, then it's a no" and the writer would know that it truly is a no, rather than a "eaten by cyber-gremlins" scenario.
The Editor Devil says
No, agents don't "have to" respond. I also don't have to thank my barista or be kind to my neighbor. It's a choice of respecting others and their energy and presence. It's about being gracious in this world and grateful. After all, it's that band of authors that keeps agents in business. So I think better of agents who reply, less of those who don't. There is a system, like the others have said, for auto replying. To me, it's just part of the business.
Thank you, Nathan, for being someone who cared enough to reply. That was kind and gracious!
Hiroko says
I feel like an agent's job is to represent an author, and this does not necessarily required for them to deny your request–they don't HAVE to answer you with a "no" if they don't want to, really.
However, it is a lot nicer to see an agent who goes out of their way to reply, even if the answer is no. Even if the message is a generic document, they still took the time to answer.
Gregory K. says
I think there's another question to ask here: if you're in a business and can't respond to all your inquiries, perhaps there's a better way to do your business?
Instead of focusing on this response/no response policy, I see it as a symptom of changes in our business and a failure, somewhere/somehow of us all to keep pace with the change. Until we deal with that, I don't think the rest matters much (though put me in the "you should respond" category for many reasons).
Mira says
I liked they way Rachelle wrote her article, since this is a tricky topic, but I think Janet Reid was absolutely on target.
Her point about customer relations and not alienating writers, in terms of:
a. Possible readers for her books and,
b. Potential clients for another project
are both absolutely on point.
But she left out something important. Which is that:
* In June, adult paperback sales declined 64%, while e-books increased 161% (from your Sat. re-tweet of Livia's link)
Agents are likely to become an increasingly optional part of the publishing process. Given that, any agent who doesn't do everything they can to endear themselves to the general writing population is not only shooting themselves in the foot, they are hastening the probable demise of their profession. They are, not to put too fine a point on it, NUTS.
And that's what I think. Busy or not, send a nice response letter.
Keith Mansfield says
As a publisher I'm inundated by queries, many of which are hopeless where I really don't want to enter a dialogue. The more time I spend on these the less I can give to my authors. I try to respond to everyone, but know full well I don't succeed. Reading this post I may try to instigate an official policy of "If you've not heard within six weeks…"
As an author, when querying agents I was amazed that every single agent I ever approached responded promptly (a couple of days to four weeks max), almost always personally. Given what they must have to deal with in terms of numbers of submissions, I can't sing their praises highly enough. Bad submissions can just be the equivalent of spam so I disagree with comments here saying everyone should be replied to. If you have 100-300 emails a day and have to do a lot of other things beyond your email, even a form rejection can take too much time.
The harsh truth of publishing is that if someone's interested in your book they will respond quickly and prioritize it above others they're less enthusiastic about. If you haven't heard within six weeks don't expect to. But to make that rule work, you need to query several agents at once (but of course you make all your approaches *very* personal to the agency or you don't deserve a response).
[Angela A's right that if someone asks for a full read they should at least give you a couple of lines saying why they're turning it down.]
John says
I'm with the majority: they don't owe me a response, but it is polite.
That said, I queried seven agents before deciding my novel needed more work. Five of those emails never got through the internet (fortuitous, I would think). Emails get lost.
Setting up an auto-reply is the least they could do. It shows they respect me enough to figure out a small piece of technology.
So my policy is to re-query agents that have a "No response equals no" policy and no auto-reply to show receipt. If I haven't heard from them in x weeks, I have to assume they a) didn't get my query or b) said no. If it's a), I have everything to gain be re-querying. If it's b), I have nothing to lose.
Am I wasting their time? Maybe, but they don't mind wasting mine and could fix it with a little courtesy.
Seabrooke says
Like many others, I would just find it polite to know that my query was received and passed on, even if it was simply a form letter.
Maybe agents need their own email client, with an extra reply option that inserts a pre-written text file, like a signature: "Reply", "Reply All", and "Reply with Form Rejection".
David says
Each agent is different, so any expectation that every agent should reply to every query sounds ridiculous. Everyone has their own preferences, their own pace, their own style.
There is an inherent ambiguity in the 'no response means no' pattern: it could mean 'no', but it could also mean 'I have not read it yet'. There's no feedback to the author, letting him/her know it's time to let go of this particular submission.
That said, personally I like it better when I get a response, as there is no lingering doubt where I stand. I won't hold it against an agent if not replying, as long as they have made their 'no response = no' policy very clear on the web and in their submission guidelines. I need to know up front that I may never hear back about this again.
Anonymous says
When I first started querying, I was under the impression from what I read on-line that I should wait for a response before querying someone else. After 18 months and 9 or 10 agents/publishers I gave up and self published through one of the supported publishing services.
It seems to me that if it will take more than 3 or 4 weeks to look at a query, perhaps the agent should close queries for awhile.
I appreciate and remember the agents who replied and even gave a reason.
janesadek says
Agents should have a policy, they should make it known and they should follow it. The nature of their policy is up to them, but what benefit is to anyone for writers to wonder what is going on with the query they sent.
This is the age of the internet. Any agent can make their policy known with little to no effort.
"No response means no" is fine and if the agent decides they want to respond anyway, the stars will not fall from the sky. If the agent wants to offer responses, then I agree that it seems a little more professional and polite, but it does set them up for a lot of work. But if their stated policy is to answer, then they should.
In this technically driven world, one erroneous letter or digit could send your query into never-never land. If you've done your homework on an agent,then you really want them to represent you and a no answer from someone with a stated "will answer" policy leaves the querying writer in a quandary.
So agents, have it your way! Just let us know what that way is.
Lexi says
Agents should remember that their livelihood depends on writers – and that even if they are okay with rudeness towards those they think are no use to them, they don't always get it right.
Who else in business doesn't bother to answer emails? I can't think of anyone.
Anonymous says
I pass over agents who I have heard don't have the courtesy to respond to submissions they are not interested in. Their reasons may be good from their point of view – but it is still rude and potentially wastes my time and messes with my head. So I won't consider them .
Scott Springer says
First, I don't think it's too much to read an email query, smirk, hit reply and paste in Thanks, but I'll pass.
But I suppose if an agent is afraid of getting carpal tunnel from that extra clicking I understand.
However, to agents that don't repond I figure I owe them nothing. I send it and forget it.
No big deal right now, but maybe someday I will actually send a query that's interesting to more than one . . .
Kristin Laughtin says
I know when I start querying I will prefer agents who at least send a form rejection, but I can see both sides of the issue though I side more with Janet. (Seriously, I have to do something similar in my day job sometimes. It kinda sucks but is over quickly and makes people happier in the long run.) At the very least, I'd appreciate if agents use an auto-response that at least indicates something like "If we are interested, we will respond in X days…" if they don't already.
DearHelenHartman says
No response means 'n'o is okay IF that's made clear in the agent's material. Even a auto reply is acceptable, if the information is available about how the agent works.
When I was agent shopping my opinion dropped greatly of agents who asked for material then never responded again and yep, more than half of them did this. I do not believe that they were so overwhelmed by requested material they couldn't have a ready made note saying – not for me, good luck.
Again, to me, this goes back to the old world of publishing when agents were a big freakin' deal and publishers held the cards and writers were to come before them like Dorothy before the Wizard – now we know what's behind the curtain and the guy you turn away may be the next ebook phenom, why not treat writers like, you know, people?
Stephanie {Luxe Boulevard} says
I honestly can't imagine how time consuming it must be, and overall exhausting. One agent who I follow always mentions how she does her best to keep up, always getting back within two weeks if possible. I remember her posting on Twitter that she responded to someone's within a couple days and he wrote back, thanking her for not bothering to thoroughly read his query since she had responded so quickly, she was no longer of interest to him. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Golly!
I would like to say I wouldn't take offense if no one responded, but I'm sure it would sting a little. Essentially, no answer is a no.