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?
Anonymous says
I agree with everyone, that agents don't 'owe' the courtesy to respond with a yes or no, but it would sure be nice to put a closure to a particular query. My other concern is that I'm reading more and more that agents and editors want to know if the query to them is 'exclusive'. If it is, than an author supposedly gets served first. That's hard to know if you have a query that hasn't been responded to.
I like the professionalism of a response. It shows integrity and its part of the job just like following the submission guidelines is part of the author's job.
JM Leotti says
I'm a fan of auto-respond to queries. What agents do after that is up to them. At least I know it got there, and I agree with Natalie Whipple–too many 'no's' can be rough on the ego.
On full requests, I think they should respond with a personal letter.
I'm sure you all saw BookEnds' blog about the author that fought with the auto-responder, but in case you didn't, hop over there. Hysterical! (And a bit sad!) Bookends Link: https://bookendslitagency.blogspot.com/2011/09/lol.html
Sanna says
Try turning the roles around: If a writer decides to say "no" to an agent, is s/he obliged to respond? Or is it OK to let the agent twist in the wind? Agents need writers just as writers need agents, and the simple courtesies help keep the gears of the relationship greased.
An auto response is fine for an unsolicited ms. Auto responses are fast for the agent, and they give the writer closure. When an agent passes on a partial or full, a little more feedback is in order because both parties are invested in the outcome.
Janet Reid is an exceptionally nice, generous person. The goodwill she earns for the rest of the agent community guarantees her spot in heaven. She makes the discussion of what an agent "owes" writers irrelevant.
Anonymous says
Nathan,
When I finished my book, you were the first agent I queried. More fool me. I think you responded within 17 minutes with a canned rejection that mentioned not only me but also my manuscript by name. Did it hurt? Sure. Did I learn something? A lot. One: My query sucked. Two: I wasn't really ready to query. After I recovered from my hurt feelings (one bourbon, one Scotch and one beer) I was grateful to you for at least answering me and for letting me learn something in the process.
That said, as far as the "no response means no" debate goes — if your job is too big for you to handle, maybe you're not big enough for your job.
Tres Buffalo says
Nathan responded to my query and I could tell that the submission had actually been read. That is probably the reason I still follow this blog.
Kimberly says
It depends, does that agent expect a response from the author if they would like an opportunity to work with them. Let's say the author already signed with someone, would they like a a quick email explaining the situation, or silence?
Response is simply common decency.
bekindrewrite says
I like to print out all my rejections and stick them to my wall. I can't do that when they don't respond.
Laura says
If I may be truly blunt, I think it's downright rude of agents not to respond in some way. I'm not asking for anything but a form reply, but SOMETHING to acknowledge receipt would be nice, and just plain courteous.
After all, I've taken the time (sometimes weeks!) to research the agent and personalize this letter to their specifications. The least and agent can do is acknowledge they've received it.
And I'm sorry, if you can't take 2 seconds to send a form back, you either need an assistant, or you need to be closed to submissions.
Anonymous says
For many years I read articles claiming that it was unseemly for writers to send multiple queries. The rationale seemed to be that it was discourteous of the writer to allow the agent to waste her time evaluating a manuscript that had already been accepted by another agent.
It seems to me that a policy of "no response means no" is inconsistent with a policy that demands serial submissions.
Any agent who maintains both policies at the same time shouldn't be in business.
Pam Calvert says
Well, if the agent expects us to get back to them and allow them "in" on representing us when we have other offers, the least they can do is answer a query.
If not, they shouldn't be surprised if we leave them out of the loop.
Adam Heine says
Janet makes really good points, and if I were an agent, I'd probably follow her advice.
But as a writer, all I want to know is if the agent received it (I've had a couple of queries get lost in the ether only to get requests when I followed up) and whether they want to see more.
All that requires is an auto-response and guidelines that say "After X weeks, assume it's a no" (that guideline could even be put IN the auto-response).
A form rejection is effectively the same thing, but it hurts a little more (getting any e-mail from an agent raises a tiny, misguided hope, even when we know most of them are rejections) and–no matter how well we know not to read into a form rejection–we still try to convince ourselves that "opinions vary considerably" means something more than "no."
In the end, I don't think it matters which method agents choose. The agents I query first are the ones I've heard of. And the only agents I'm hesitant about querying are those who offer no response, no cut-off point, AND no confirmation they received my query.
And anyway, I still query them.
Kevin Lynn Helmick says
I agree that agents can set what ever policy they want and writers can submitt based on those policies or not.
To me it come down to manners, plain and simple. With all the work that goes into crafting different queries for different agents based on what each one specificly wants, I think it deserves a response. Getting to many queries to respond to? Then you shouldn't be open for submissions. And Nathan is not the only agent that claimed to answer every query, and didn't. I keep pretty close track of who responds and in what manner.
No response doesn't bother me, but will but that agency will move way down and probably off my list of prospects. Unless I really want that agent. And the bigger the name, agency, the more likley you'll get some kind of response. So I rate their proffesionalism that way.
AM Riley says
All I ever wished was that someone would let me know they'd received the ms. Ages ago, when submissions were always in print and mailed through a post office, I submitted something and never heard back. A couple of years later I met one of the editors who told me she'd only received a few submissions and mine had not been one of them. Apparently there was a glitch in the information and everyone was submitting to a bad address.
Now that many queries are via email, and one gets an automated 'got it' I'm happy. If they can post in their submissions guidelines how long I should wait before submitting elsewhere, I am very grateful. I don't need a personal email telling me 'no'. And I don't think less of someone who doesn't send me a note.
Louisa says
Totally agree with Janet Reid! Agents forget we are customers of their clients and sources of income to both parties. Readers read their client's books, not only to research the agents taste but to read in the genre. And the reason the agents are still in business IS US! So I think a response is warranted and deserved.
And here here Laura! I've spent hours to days researching they types of books agents represent, agents clients, listening or reading to interviews of agents, then to get form rejection which isn't even 5 minutes of their time. Doesn't seem fair.
Livia says
We recruit for fMRI experiments over e-mail, and often get a lot of responses. We usually have the no response means no policy, but in one case, I did respond to an e-mail and got cussed out as a result. I must say that experience gave me much more empathy with agents who adopt a no response means no policy in order to avoid further interaction.
And I do agree with you that agents don't owe authors any kind of response. They're not getting compensated in any way for reading queries. Authors who don't like the policy don't have to query that agent.
Nephalite says
Agents should send a reply or not have a no unsolicited policy. How rude to open a shop and then ignore your customers. Only the arrogance that comes with power would convince a person otherwise. Janet is one of the best secular agents in the business and politely responds. Rachelle does not and she is a Christian agent. Is it unfair to say that Janet is the one following the "golden rule?"
Gregory K. says
Livia – agents aren't getting compensated for reading queries? It's part of the job. Any compensation they get covers that, doesn't it? The issue is that agents always need to be finding more talented folks as 1) clients leave 2) businesses change and 3) other. If they don't want to read queries, that's their choice and then this issue goes away. So… who's the first agent who's going to close their doors to queries? Then, and only then, would I say it's not part of what they get compensated for.
Jaden Terrell says
When I was querying, I had a list of agents. (Yes, Nathan, you were at the top, and I appreciated your quick response, even though it was a rejection.) I told myself I would never query an agent with a no-response policy. While I don't require a personalized response, an automatic response verifying receipt of the submission (and an explanation of the timing of the no-response policy) is the very least anyone should expect. It's the only way an author can know if his or her work has even been received. Any agent who can't figure out how to do this (or find someone to do it for him or her) isn't someone I want to trust with my career.
I did break my rule once and query an agent with a no-response policy because she was someone I thought I would very much want to work with. As soon as I sent it off, I forgot about it. Into the ether it went, and had I gotten an offer the next day, it would never have occurred to me to let her know the book was off the market. She ended up meaning exactly as much to me as we submitting authors obviously meant to her.
Matt Larkin says
I would look more favorably on agents who always respond. Even a form letter fired back at least tells me they acknowledge I sent them something. It would make me more likely to try them first. And I was much more likely to try those that accepted email submissions.
Regan Leigh says
In total selfishness as a writer, I'd have to say YES! 😀 Seriously. I can imagine it's a real pain to respond to everyone, but writers really do put their heart into the writing. And queries are such an ugly beast! Remind us that — even though you may say no — our hard work was not unrecognized. 😉
sobriquet says
I second (or third…or maybe hundredth) the Everybody-Wins Solution of having an auto-response note of receipt, then NRMN to your hearts content.
*NRMN=no response means no
Anonymous says
Why is a query letter any different than a resume?
At the end of the day, a writer is just looking for a job, and their query letter is pretty much their resume.
I don't understand why writers expect to receive a form rejection letter. Most HR departments at corporations rarely send out rejection letters for all the resumes they receive.
Anthony J. Langford says
It's just plain rude not to reply. How hard is it to email a form rejection letter? Put in a bunch of addresses at once in BCC and fire off the one. It should be factored into the job requirements.
Sending out queries takes time away from our families too, and our writing, but it's part of the business. This should be the same for agents.
It's called professionalism.
J.C. Martin says
I think even a form rejection (which take seconds to send) would be preferable to never hearing back from agents. If we'd spent hours on a manuscript and cover letter, I feel it's just common courtesy to acknowledge receipt and to let us know we don't need to keep waiting on said agent.
Michelle Levy says
But if I don't get the rejection letters, how will I finish decorating my office? Wallpaper is expensive and I have a theme going now.
Istvan Szabo, Ifj. says
Yes, they should. It's called; basic courtesy. If writers spend days, even weeks to write a query, it's rude that some of them are not even willing to answer, just says, if I don't respond within two weeks, you know the answer. These people should get down from the high horse as this is highly unprofessional, especially as usually they work for the writer and not the other way around.
I don't mind personalized auto-forms, even if it's only few lines. But at least I do know the agent opened the letter one way or another. I honestly don't care about the usual excuse what some agents said; I'm toooooo busy to response. Here is the newsflash; I'm also busy, so I don't care about fabricated excuses, especially if it's your job. Reading hundred of query and responding none a day is a quantity work. Reading fifty and responding fifty is quality. That's what many agent can't see in their endless snobbism and ego. These people should take an example from former agent Nathan Bransford, or Janet Reid, Jennifer Jackson and few other top agent who still do know how to work.
Em-Musing says
With all the technology out there, surely there could be a way to respond to e-submissions with one key stroke of their finger.
Kelly Bryson says
I get that it's a pain to respond to hundreds of emails- I think I'd shoot myself. But why don't more agents have an auto-response "We received your email?" That takes the question on if it even got there out of the author's mind. And if an agent can update on Twitter what day they've made it through, even better. (I think Ginger Clark does that.)
It just doesn't feel good to be in the dark, and knowing that my query was received makes me more likely to query an agent with my next project. Not sur eif that's good or bad for the agents involved;)
kronides says
As long as I know the recipient has received the document, I understand if they don't return a reply. The silence speaks for itself. I wouldn't bother waiting to hear from them before going on with my business and submitting to others anyway. That really is a waste of time.
Ann M says
I agree that each agent should be able to decide his or her own terms. And, I also agree that each writer is then able to decide which agent he or she queries.
I don't think, as an author, you should seek out an agent based only on their response/response time, because there are *so* many other factors that should be considered when looking for that (hopefully) happy, successful relationship.
Of course, that said, when I was querying I really appreciated quick response times, (and, indeed, a response). While I know that detailed responses aren't likely, it was nice to know that I would at least receive a form letter yes/no at some point (especially when some agents take many months to reply). During those initial queries when you're already biting your nails, it was nice not to have to worry over lost mail and the "to resend, or not resend" issue.
And, I think you're right, too, that if an agent has a quick response time, authors are more likely to come to them first (provided their a good match otherwise). As an author, your responses Nathan, and response time, was always so incredibly appreciated 🙂
Anonymous says
If agents don't have the time to say "No Thanks," I don't query them. Frankly, I believe there's a special place in hell reserved for agents who don't reply.
Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot and publishers decided not to respond unless it was a yes. I bet every agent would have a lot to say about that. Why? Because it's a terrible way to do business.
Agents could stream line the submission/rejection/acceptance process with a submission manager. Many magazines use them, more everyday.
The other thing that irritates the crap out of me is their refusal to accept attachments. (I'm not convinced that they're at any more risk than a magazine or publishing house.)In general, for all their talk about the future of publishing, their business practices are often outdated. Not responding to writers is a prime example of taking a step backward, instead of forward.
Khanada says
What Anonymous on 9/12 at 10:15 said! When I was sending out resumes, the only responses I received were for interview requests (or partial/full requests in the writing world). Has this changed? It has been awhile for me, so if companies (especially small ones as lit agencies are pretty small, too) are now responding, that might change my mind.
Sure, it's nice to get a response, and even better to get a personalized response. But that's all it is – a nice extra. A lot of us here seem to really just be saying "I will only do business with nice/polite people," and I think that's great. But "nice" and "polite" are subjective. Some people just aren't that bothered by no-response policies. I want to do business with nice/polite people as well, but I just don't take the no-response as mean and impolite. I guess I just think of it as these agents are spending more time on their clients.
That being said, I'm HUGELY in favor of the auto-responder! Helps me a lot!!
And Megg Jensen – IMO, that agent you were dealing with was WAY out of line. I don't see it as a problem with the policy in and of itself, but she seems to have chosen the wrong policy for her style. She was probably frustrated because you were far from the only one whose good work she missed!
Daniel McNeet says
Nathan,
I admire your approach. It is considerate of the hard work and long hours authors put in to produce their works.
G W Wright says
My problem is not whether or not I receive a reply, but agents that simply won't read a single chapter of my work – based on the fact that they 'have a roster (that) we are happy with' –
If agencies continue to close their doors to potential new talent simply because they have a comfortable level of proven authors on their books, it will soon reach a point where getting one's break simply becomes impossible.
I am based in Oslo, but write in English and I've actually been refused to submit a MS to a uk agent because I was not based 'near to their office'.
Trish says
Like thousands of other writers, I got tired of the 'no reply' policy from some agents and went and self published. I don't regret it and have even managed to get my children's books into some bricks and motor books shops as well as the online ones.
(Nathan, you always sent lovely rejection letters, and that was so appreciated.)
Though I'm still looking for an agent, I'm more picky now.
Sara says
YES. Agents should always respond. Good manners and common courtesy never go out of style and are always appreciated.
Having just honored the 10th anniversary of Sept. 11th, the most major thing I'm taking away is that in today's world we should all be gentle and good.
David Tieck says
Massive pet hate of mine – agents who say on their websites to not send copy and paste queries and then reply with a copy and paste form rejection.
Maya says
"and if an authors doesn't agree with it they are more than welcome to query someone whose policy they prefer."
Yes, of course agents are free to make their own submissions policy. We authors know that. But I definitely *do* place those agents lower on my query list than agents who respond. We the slushpile have no idea if our query was even reviewed or ended up in the ether/spam filter/lost snail mail. I don't mind form rejections, I just want to know whether I was in fact rejected.
Anonymous says
So many writers, so many stories. Too few agents.
But, a one word "Sorry" isn't a bad exchange for 50,000 words.
Trish says
Just thought I'd share some news with my fellow writers. Some publishers are now taking unsolicited submissions from self-published authors. 🙂
John says
To well-seasoned query vets, agents build a brand name for themselves in the eyes of writers.
Before I realized that I could sell tons of books without needing an agent or traditional publisher, I queried about once a year on different novels. I had many agents who would request a full and never get back to me. I can't tell you how unprofessional that is.
Queries are one thing, but fulls are entirely another.
I still have agents that I like simply because of how they treated me during the querying process. I still visit their blogs. I still click through to their clients. I still buy their clients' books.
Some agents say they're too busy because they need to help their clients. Guess what? The way you treat queriers will reflect right back on your clients. Because, as Janet said, writers are readers too.
Ted Fox says
I agree that I'd prefer to receive a response, but I can't fault anyone who doesn't have time to do it. What did you say one time, Nathan–that you got like 20,000 unsolicited submissions per year? Answering that much e-mail, even with a form response, boggles my mind. Meanwhile, getting an auto-reply "Thanks for the submission" isn't exactly something to write home about.
Totally different story when the agent follows up and asks for a full or partial. Then I think common courtesy really does need to kick in.
Karen Doniere says
I'm torn about this issue. While I was in query mode and sending numerous queries I often wondered if the agents were even receiving my documents. It meant a lot to me in terms of respect when I received a response to my query. But on the other hand, do agents really have the necessary time to respond to each query? Would an auto responder stating that the query has been received be enough for the author? It would suffice for me.
Melinda Williams says
I think you said it perfectly here!
Thanks, Nathan!
Ramona Dark says
I completely agree with Janet Reid. It's just plain rude to ignore queries. I wonder if agent's would like if their submissions to publishers were simply ignored if they weren't interested? It seems like poor business practice, and I try at all costs not to query agents with no-response policies.
Ms. NotQuerying says
A query is not a resume, in that a query must be personalized to the agent you are sending it to. Authors are told over and over again to do the research, personalize the query, make it plain why *this agent* is best suited to represent *this work.*
A form rejection is painful enough, but totally understandable. But no response at all? When an auto-reply would take two seconds? Totally hypocritical, and very bad business sense. (But I can understand Rachel Gardner's policy. Didn't she also say that out of the thousands of author queries she received last year, she signed with…zero?)
Reena Jacobs says
It's not a matter of whether an agent should or shouldn't respond. They don't have to do anything. But from an author's perspective, it's nice to have a response, even if it is a rejection. Even a simple "thanks, but no thanks" or "not for me" is better than nothing.
Here's why. Sending out queries can be quite an emotional experience. Authors put their hopes and dreams in those queries. They're waiting and trying to be patient, but it's difficult to move on if you never know. Does the agent still have my query? Do I still have a chance? He hasn't said yes… perhaps just this time. It's a false hope which can be an energy drain. It can sap motivation, and frankly it's real a real downer to hope and wait indefinitely.
In terms of it being bad karma to send out a rejection? I would think giving the cold shoulder to be equally so. It's a lot easier on the writer to just know for sure, so he/she can move on to the next agent, publisher, project.
For those who take the "no response is a no" policy, it'd be nice if agents post clearly on their website a time limit. Still, it's nice to know right away an agent isn't interested rather than spend a week, two weeks, a month, or indefinitely being anxious about a "no response" rejection.
Mrs. G.I. Joe says
I think its very kind when agents do respond, especially if its fairly quick. Case in point…today, like 5 hours ago I just got my first ever rejection. I have spent years on various book projects and finally one came out of me that I have utmost passion to pursue. I sent it to an agent for the first time less than a week ago. Her policy and her agency's policy is basically "we only respond if its a yes" I was shocked to find a rejection email but now I'm free to pick up again quickly and get down to finding an agent/agency that fits for me and my work. I am so grateful for that. I could have spent the next 4-6 weeks wondering.
Certain negative responses can also be super beneficial because at times you can get an encouraging "Just because this doesn't fit here doesn't mean it isn't good. Don't give up" type answer.
There is a lot of good that comes from agents who respond all the time no matter what. But by no means do I think they are obligated to do this. They are hired by agency to bring in authors who fit with their program. If they are bombarded (which many are) with requests they *have to* respond to they won't always have time to do the job they are paid to do and I 100% respect that.
Anthony J. Langford says
It's your first rejection Mrs GI Joe. Give it time.
Let's see if your opinion is the same , after you've sent out 100 queries and only half responded.
Jan Morrill says
When I was querying, I didn't expect a response for every submission. I did appreciate even the automated responses that the query had been received, however. Now that I have an agent, I would hate to think that time she might be spending finding a publisher for my book, was instead spent answering every query.