Last month, agent Rachelle Gardner posted about supposed fear among literary agents. The title: Are agents running scared?
No doubt the publisher industry is changing quickly. While the pace of e-book change may be slowing, self-publishing is continuing its ascent and the role of agents is ever-evolving.
So are agents going away? Should they be worried?
In her post, Rachelle concluded that even if the specific roles of agents change, the ones who are flexible will adapt right along with the industry. I’ve elsewhere argued that agents are far more than just gatekeepers and will negotiate with whomever is left to still negotiate with even when the gates are down.
But maybe the change will be more drastic than that. Could agents disappear entirely, or at least morph into an unrecognizable form? Are their days numbered?
What do you think?
Art: Self-portrait – Pieter van Laer
Nathan said: "The idea that agents are working for publishers' interests is propaganda."
Seriously? So a literary agency could decide to take on only wonderfully written novels and refuse to take on any inferior commercial writing because their hands aren't tied in any way by the demands of the big publishing houses? The literary agencies tell the publishers what they will and will not submit to them, what will and won't be marketed to readers? Or, honestly, isn't it the other way around? I'm not sure how you can say it's propaganda to express the viewpoint that literary agencies are paid by the publishing houses and therefore are beholding to them. For years, agents have been telling many writers that their books are wonderfully written, but won't sell enough copies, meaning enough copies to satisfy the big publishing houses' requirements. Many of those same authors went on to self-publish those same books and made plenty of money. I guess you could rephrase "agents are working for publishers' interests" with "agents are working for those writers who will satisfy publishers' interests" if it makes you feel better, but calling the first statement propaganda doesn't make it untrue. It seems to me that, in today's political climate, whenever someone labels something "propaganda," it's just a code word for turning off the discussion, bringing it down to the level of, "Is not…Is, too…Nunh Uhhh." For years now, special interests have been saying that global warming is also "propaganda," but the Earth just keeps getting warmer anyway. Calling global warming "propaganda" doesn't make it untrue.
TYPO: meant "beholden," not "beholding."
-Anon at 9:22 PM
I think their role will be more limited.
mira-
I know you're familiar with psychology, so you are also probably familiar with confirmation bias, which is the tendency to seek out information that confirms your pre-existing beliefs and discarding anything that is contrary to that. I would ask you to examine your confirmation bias because I feel that you discount the things I'm saying on this subject.
I've been on every side of this business – I've been an author querying and getting rejected, I've been a literary agent, now I'm out of the business, I've been traditionally published and I'm probably going to self-publish someday. I have plenty, plenty of frustrations with traditional publishing, but I also don't let those frustrations blind me to the fact that the industry is made up of very smart people working for the love of books (it's certainly not for the pay) and doing what they think is best for the future of the business.
Is there some truth to what anti-traditional publishing zealots are saying? Absolutely! I've never argued otherwise.
Yes, the industry needs to get with the times. Yes, there are clauses in contacts that are onerous. Yes, 25% net is too low for a digital royalty. Yes, the industry sometimes treats authors like pests. Yes, it's frustrating to send a query and have it go unanswered. All true.
Where I get frustrated is when those valid points become religion for some people and leads them to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Traditional publishing is not a bed of roses, but it's not a den of thieves either.
When anti-traditional publishing becomes a religion, no amount of "I hear you, you have some valid points, here's where I think we agree, here's where I think we disagree" is going to persuade people. It's not rational at that point. And that's where I think a lot of people have ended up, not because of personal experiences with many of the things they're angry about, but because people have let their frustration with the querying and traditional publication process cloud their perspective.
There are some things self-publishing is better for. There are some things traditional publishing is better for. There really can be peace in our time.
Peter-
But even look at your own phrasing – you're saying "Big Publishing" as a pejorative. If someone from traditional publishing started calling self-publishers "The Unwashed" or even "Little Publishing" can you imagine the resulting umbrage? The entire country might catch fire.
I don't actually think most of the conditions people are frustrated with have much to do with "Big Publishing" at all, but with the funnel. And that funnel exists because up until now there were a finite number of books that could physically exist in a bookstore. Life in the funnel completely sucks. There are too many good books for too few slots, and that influences everything else – there are more agented books than can be bought by publishers, and there are way, way, way more unagented books than can be repped by agents. So there's a whole lot of rejection at every stage of the process, and by its very nature it's frustrating.
That's thankfully changing with self-publishing, but as long as traditional publisher publish only a finite amount of books, welcome to the funnel. It's not fun.
anon@9:22-
Agents take on books they think they can sell to publishers. That is their job. It's a business. Agents make more money if they get better deals for the authors, e.g. if they're willing to get a publisher to pay more, which is at the publisher's expense.
They're not beholden to publishers, they're beholden to their clients. The better deal the client gets the more money the agent makes. Their interests are aligned.
Nathan, unfortunately I can't respond from my work computer because it will send to spam. Typing on my little I phone won't work for me to adequately address your comment. So I'll respond this evening. I didn't want you to think I was ignoring you!
"But even look at your own phrasing – you're saying "Big Publishing" as a pejorative."
That was intentional.
The point in using it that way (in the specific places I did) was to invoke the emotion while trying to illustrate how the Zealots feel. (Zealot itself is a loaded term. So… Hey, Mom, Nathan started it!)
That is, when I say Big Publishing, it's a shorthand that invokes all the bad aspects of the publishing industry that the Zealots don't like. The problem is not with the pejorative use but with the fact that it makes no distinction between the good and the bad. It does make distinction between the big and the not-big, however.
Which is exactly how I feel any time a friend of mine gets all up in my facebook about Big Banks. They don't hate "banking," they just hate "Big Banks." Which includes me, even though I personally am as far removed from the bad done by Big Banks as can possibly be.
The fact that there are Zealots who lump the good in with the bad and then get loud about it does not change the fact that there's bad. If there was no bad, there would be no zealots. Which was my original point. And which you have stated time and again, both in posts and comments. So actually we agree.
The subtle difference is that Zealots tend to be most angry about and target those they think have the most power and influence and elitism. Because that's where the biggest bad is. I think the Zealots don't hate "traditional publishing," they hate "Big Publishing."
For my own personal part, I agree with you. My frustration (until recently) was with the funnel. Self-publishing eliminated the funnel, and my frustration went away. As you've pointed out, we all need to understand our own motivations and do what is right for us individually. My motivations are served beautifully by self publishing.
More recently, though, I've become frustrated with the ongoing turf war between traditional publishing and Amazon. Here, "traditional publishing" means something different. It includes publishers, agents, and independent booksellers. Almost anyone who isn't Amazon or a self-published author, as a matter of fact. And there are a lot of anti-Amazon Zealots out there…
Peter-
Yeah, definitely agree that some of the hostility to Amazon in some traditional publishing bastions is extreme. You know what Yoda said about fear…
Also agree that the "bigness" and power makes publishing an easy target.
Okay we pretty much agree.
Nathan said: "But even look at your own phrasing – you're saying "Big Publishing" as a pejorative. If someone from traditional publishing started calling self-publishers "The Unwashed" or even "Little Publishing" can you imagine the resulting umbrage? The entire country might catch fire."
You've seriously got to be kidding me. Nathan, to use a term you directed at Mira, I would say that you have a huge confirmation bias. It has become very clear to me that you do not even remotely understand most of the arguments against big publishing or even where the term comes from. Big publishing companies are labeled "big" because they are huge conglomerates. When you suggest that "The Unwashed" could be an equivalent term for self-publishing companies, your bias shines through. "The Unwashed" is the same type of prejudicial term often used against minorities, calling them "unwashed," "dirty," "diseased," etc. "Big" means "extremely wealthy;" "unwashed" puts people in their place. And you know what? The country hasn't started on fire. Who cares what you suggest as a pejorative term for self-publishers? Who cares? The point that many self-published authors have tried to make, but it falls on deaf ears, is that authors often do much better after leaving traditional publishing for self-publishing and it makes them kind of angry that they wasted so many years believing the myths they were told by big publishing. If you do plan on self-publishing some day, you might want to keep in mind that alienating self-published authors isn't a great way to introduce yourself to that community. The fact that you treat the big publishing houses' side of the DOJ lawsuit with much more respect than you treat self-publishing as a whole speaks volumes about how little respect you have for self-published authors as a community. You always tread very carefully when talking about traditional publishers, but you treat self-publishing the way that prejudiced people treat any minority, your opinion is shaped by negative examples in that group. Not all self-published authors are angry or loud. Many are happy – quite happy, actually, because the publishing path they've chosen is a lot of fun.
anon-
I think it was clear I wasn't actually calling anyone anything. But that's a lot of umbrage for what was posed as a hypothetical. I think you proved my point.
Peter and Nathan, do you realize that the discussion has now fallen to the level at which nothing of substance is being discussed? By focusing on one term, the term "big publishing," the discussion has narrowed down to whether or not that's a pejorative term. Fox News does this brilliantly, by the way. A linguist once pointed out that by controlling language, Fox News completely takes the focus off the real issues. I'm just waiting for self-publishing to be labeled "socialist," than we'll have the kind of discussion we're used to.
anon-
I feel like you're trolling at this point – if you wish to continue this discussion I'm happy to do so but only if you're non-anonymous.
I wasn't trolling, but I can see where you might think so. I'm going to opt out of the rest of the discussion, as it has become a bit one-sided.
I think they will, but there's going to be a painful period of adjustment. The self-pub model, once it gains critical mass with traditionally published writers (which may take a while, since I assume many of them are chained to contracts which would necessarily limit their ability to adapt as quickly as novice authors) start publishing, that will accelerate more quickly.
I was not a fan of the whole self-pub thing (how else to describe), until I went back and looked at my contracts, and read That Guy's Blog. Stripped of the rancor towards traditional publishing, what he says makes sense: the archaic royalty periods, the gross financial exploitation of writers who aren't front list (mid-list, you're essentially self-publishing, at this point) and the countless other ways authors are being taken for a ride, the 30/70 split is clear, pays in a timely fashion, and well… what else?
The digital / device element is simply too large to ignore at this point, and unless they have some magical way to control it, that genie isn't going back into the bottle. So they have a while for literary fiction. Genre fiction, it's already gone: people don't seem to care about imprints, or houses, or any of that.
This question is a good one, and one I've given thought to, but I can't help but question if it works as a one size fits all. Prestige authors (or those with that perceived cachet) are supported by houses' less glamorous lines: what happens when lady's fiction, for example, has completely migrated to digital, and whatever subsidiary of Random House that drew upon that revenue stream, no longer can? Do agents then become hyper-hyper-hyper selective, only repping prize winners? In which case, how do they prevent their client lists from atrophying?
Peter and Nathan, do you realize that the discussion has now fallen to the level at which nothing of substance is being discussed?
must… not… take.. the bait…
I am anon 4:44 & would add … people don't tend to think about this, but sometimes an agent's slowless (to read a mss, submit it, return notes), works in the writer's favor, forcing or provoking revisions that this fever for instant publishing (and crashing down those gatekeepers' walls) circumvents. For people like Amanda Hocking who thrive in the world of series, producing as much possible makes sense – the writing isn't (sorry, not to be a hater, but she as much admits this herself) as good, but her as a business needs more attention than a slower, or less "productive" writer would. And though I'm sure her agent has a game plan, it's probably a different one than a literary novelist in the deep south who one the National Book Award.
another question for Nathan: given the money that authors can make digitally, yet the attachment to prestige of MSM pub, do you foresee a world in which one can have both? perhaps using pseudonyms? and did you read the NYMagazine interview with Barry Dillers in which he retorted that new technologies (he was speaking about tv antennaes that suck off MSM broadcast signals) don't replace but grow up alongside existing technologies? Is that co-existing model valid for publishing, or would you say TV is apples to oranges? (And back to the original query, if they can coexist, how do you foresee agent/agencies fitting into that sort of blended future?)
I am anony 4:44 & 4:53: whoever is disrupting this convo, please stop. this question is too important to some of us to wade through off topic posts. Thank you for being considerate of others.
anon-
I think there will be blurring all over the place, at least if the author keeps an open mind to opportunity. There will be (and already are) authors who go with traditional publishers for some books and self-publish others, there will be authors who start out self-published and move entirely to traditional and vice versa, there will be authors who self-publish their e-books and work with a traditional publisher for print books…. there's basically an infinite number of combinations.
I'm not sure I still quite see how agents will fit into the self-publishing process, unless they're able to cultivate a relationship with distributors to lend their books preferred promotional status. But short of that, I think the value add as an overarching consultant is somewhat murky. It's only going to get easier to self-publish and I think it will be tricky for an agent to add value in a way that scales.
But I think agents will continue to still exist for the biggest authors who have many different types of deals to negotiate, from traditional print deals to foreign rights to subrights. The biggest authors will always have room for negotiation, and an agent can add a lot of value there.
But who knows – things keep right on changing.
okay, how would you have that conversation (not you, per se, but a generic "you") about self-pub/trad pub tracks with your agent? in a way that wasn't threatening, and didn't upend the author/agency agreement which (assuming they're standardized) is an agreement for the agent to rep literary work the author produces? and if the 2.99-3.99 is the price most people are willing to pay for digital books, is the 15% commission appropriate? (and how does Amazon's inevitable collection of taxes affect that equation?) … please, please speak to some of the dollar elements of this: I feel like this convo's been limited by "feelings" and tho I respect everyone's, I'm focused on finances
you've spoken/written before about big authors, & their need for contracts but what about an agent & foreign rights/ translations? it's one thing to upload to the domestic market, but other than English language countries (amazon uk), how would one even begin to navigate the global market?
I wanted to add something about an agent's value: they're schooled in thinking tactically/strategically in a way that, cleaver as I am, am not. I've noticed, too, that my agent consults with the other agents, and I wonder if people know you don't get just one agent, but benefit of experienced people you may never meet or speak to.
I haven't listened to this, but the paper (imagine that) version of Wasserman's piece in this weeks, "The Nation" (supplement with two others), is very interesting and worth a read.
https://www.thenation.com/audio/168196/steve-wasserman-amazoncoms-takeover
What I think is happening is the same that happened with trading stocks, you know have the capacity to do it yourself without a stock broker. If you think of an agent as a stock broker making a transaction for you, then think of it as a premium of service. While stock brokers still exist today, we need less of them.
For now, I'm leaning toward "morphing" into something else. I also think Agents may have to rethink where there clients may be coming from. They may have to rely on more than the inbox or the slush pile to find their next author.
I also think there needs to be an alternative to writers conferences. Writers who live in the vicinity of the conference or writers who can afford to fly to a conference make up a limiting pool. Many, many writers will never get the opportunity to impress anyone in person.
Last, agents will have to take their blinders off. That narrow focus they use to choose their next project may have to include good writing – not just flavor of the month.
In today's world, authors have got more resources on their hands. A lot of authors take to the internet, build their own websites and start establishing online platforms where they can promote their works themselves, works that they might have self-published or published the traditional way. I believe the role of the agent after its boom in the last two decades is shrinking back again to how it used to be. Soon, publishers will start to get more contactable as a consequence to the influx of self-published books. When this happens agents will become optional to short-on-time authors, and a luxury to the more established ones.
Nathan,
I believe agents will survive and prosper if they can develop some empathy and compassion for writers whom are hard working people. To consider submitting a query to an agent whom says in advance, "I will respond if I am interested" I do not think so. For they must come to realize that they would not be in business if it were not for writers. You were always courteous and responded promptly when you were an agent.
@Daniel, not to be obnoxious, but what exactly is wrong with, "I will respond if I'm interested"? A no is still a no. I'm consistently amazed by the unspoken sense of entitlement underlying the believe, "they must come to realize … were it not for writers." True, but 15% of nothing is still nothing. People's expectations of what they "feel" agents should do blows my mind.
So, I took my questions down….
Nathan, honestly, I feel like I'm stuck in an argument with you I keep trying to end.
However, I am going to continue because I always cut you off when we debate, which I think is unfair. So, here I go. You can decide to respond or not, but knowing myself, I'll probably consider deleting this comment tomorrow, unless it becomes part of a conversation, because I dont' really have perspective on it. Besides, I don't care if this comment is made public or not. I'm talking to you, Nathan.
So, I probably should start by reflecting your above statements back to you, but I think that would just annoy you at this point, so I'm going to go right to my perspective.
This is why I speak out. I believe that strong pressure needs to be put on publishers so they will change their practices towards writers. I don't believe that they will change these practices out of their own initiative. To put it in very clear terms, I think that labor needs to stand up for itself in order for management to change.
I have no issue with those who work INSIDE publishing. I'm sure they are wonderful people. I have an issue with those who work at the TOP of publishing. The people who are very rich and powerful and probably want to keep it that way.
To give an even better example, I have serious problems with oil companies, but I'm sure there are wonderful people who work in them.
I also have no issue with writers who want to work in traditional publishing. If they think it's best for them, that's great.
In terms of reform, I'm fine if publishers adapt and survive, if they do so while offering better terms to writers. But I'm not attached to that solution.
So, I know that you don't agree the system is exploitive and needs pressure to change, Nathan, but I wish you would understand that I do. I'm sorry if that makes you feel I'm discounting your opinion. That's not my intention, I just see it differently, Nathan.
I will say that I had already decided, this weekend, to stop saying anti-traditional publishing statements on your blog. I've decided it's rude. It would be like going to a vegetarian's website and talking ad infinitum about the barbeque last week. I'm sorry if my statements here have put pressure on you. I guess there is a part of me that wants to change your mind. But I think it's time to let go of that.
So, that's my response to your post above. I will respond if you want to continue, I won't cut off the debate. And if you don't, that's okay, whatever works best for you.
Oh, I guess saying I feel stuck in an argument I keep trying to end is really unfair given how provocative I am.
That is unfair. I'm sorry. I just hate feeling as though we are at odds, so whenever you respond, I just want to say "let's agree to disagree." Maybe that's trying to dodge accountability. Sorry.
Good for you, Peter, answering in a way that is non-reactive and witty. Always admire you, Nathan, for keeping a calm head in any debate. A debate is always about issues and shouldn't become about the debators. Not everyone is good at expressing their opinions, but everyone has the right to express his/her opinion without being insulted for having that opinion. Disagreeing with the opinion without finding fault with the one expressing it is always a win-win – in my opinion. 😉
Kudos to you, Mira. I feel exactly the same as you. There's nothing wrong with questioning the questionable practices of very rich and powerful people at the top of huge multinational conglomerates. The DOJ has done the same in regard to most of the huge publishing houses, and kudos to them as well. Like you said, that has nothing to do with all the wonderful people who work for and with those corporations, most of them being paid only a small pittance compared to the huge profits made by those at the top. No one should feel guilty or apologetic for the type of stand you're taking.
But are the biggest publishers operating on huge profit margins? Are they 'greedy corporations' with profits going mainly to Board members while being ruthlessly stingy with their authors? Do any of us know this for a fact or is it heresay? I've always had the impression that the book biz operated on a slim profit margin with only the occasional best sellers keeping most companies going. Wasn't it Houghton and Mifflin the latest publishing company to file for bankruptcy? Publishers are going under, financially, all the time.
It is a very competitive and risky business, perhaps now more than ever.
*Houghton Mifflin* I meant – sorry.
Wendy – Houghton Mifflin Harcourt has been owned by and merged with a number of different companies. For example, in 2001, under the name Houghton Mifflin, it was acquired by the French media giant Vivendi for $2.2 billion. In 2003, Vivendi sold Houghton Mifflin to the private equity investment groups Thomas H. Lee and Bain Capital for $1.28 billion. Recently, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt filed for bankruptcy in order to receive help in dealing with billions of dollars of debt that was about to come due and worked out a plan to have $3 billion of its debt reduced to zero. Here's information on it: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Files For Bankruptcy, Claims $3 Billion In Debt. Now, does this sound like the kinds of financial dealings agents or editors or other workers farther down the food chain deal with in their daily lives? I don't think so. And that's just a very tiny mention of all the mergers and acquisitions and financial dealings in which Houghton Mifflin Harcourt has been involved.
Thanks for that info, Anon. Very interesting, actually. Sorry if I'm splitting hairs, but according to Wikipedia this company is not strictly a publishing company but has – over the years – owned a diverse number of companies including MP3.com, Canal+ Technologies, Vinci Construction, Univeral Studies, etc. And also according to Wiki, in 2002 Viveldi was fighting to stave off bankruptcy, itself. I think your point is, though, that Viveldi considered that H.M. was worth purchasing at 2.2b so there must be quite some money to be made by this publishing company. However, maybe their assumption wasn't totally correct, because as you noted they sold it again, fairly quickly, for almost half of what they paid for it. But 1.6b is still a lot of money though.
Actually, in support of your view, Anon, I came across this article about Penguin Books U.K:
'Penguin UK had its best ever year in 2010 as parent company Pearson reported a profits increase of 21% to £857m.
For the year ending 31st December, sales at Pearson were £5.66bn, up 10% on 2009. Sales at Penguin were £1.05bn, up 6% on the previous year. Adjusted operating profit was up 26% to £106m. Pearson attributed this to an "outstanding" US performance, driven by a record number of bestsellers, increased market share and expansion in emerging digital platforms and formats.'
Apparently in 2011 there was a slight dip in profits, but in 2012 there was a big leap in ebook profits, worldwide for this publisher:
'E-book sales represented 12% of all Penguin revenue worldwide in 2011; in the U.S., e-book sales accounted for more than 20% of Penguin’s revenue. While overall revenues at the company were up 1%, profits were up 8%, according to a statement from the company, suggesting that e-book sales deliver a higher profit margin.'
It seems Penguin are doing alright, then *g* I chose Penguin because it's the most well-known and successful publishing co. here in Australia. If the figures for this company are anything to go by, then the publishing biz isn't going too badly.
I'm just tossing ideas around trying to fathom things out. I really appreciate your reply, Anon. Thank you.
Wendy – Fascinating information. Thanks. When people working away in the lower levels of these huge conglomerates get laid off, they're just being used to boost overall profit for those at the top. What I don't understand is when the struggling workers defend the conglomerate as though it's feeling the same kind of struggle rather than just experiencing a pause in steep incline of huge profit.
Anon 11:37. Thank you! I'm glad we agree. It was really nice to read your supportive comments. 🙂
Just to clarify, I'm not apologizing for my beliefs, but more for trying to bash Nathan over the head with them.
Part of the problem is that one way to put pressure on the people at the top is by putting pressure on the people inside by confronting practices. I'm still learning when and how it's best to do that!
Mira – so glad you contributed to the discussion!
Don't think so.
There still has to be someone to help authors (who are pretty busy writing) deal with some questions, like books promotion, selling rights, etc
I do not think agents are going away…but I think there will be less of them in the future. And I agree, much like the rest of the industry, agents will need to maintain flexibility to adjust to the marketplace. There are many paths to publication, with the same results- the public reading and enjoying an author's work.
A couple of weeks ago you opined that there is no "us versus them" in publishing. I think the number of people unwilling to put their names on their comments shows otherwise.
By the way, anyone know why a bunch of 5-star Amazon reviews would mysteriously, simultaneously disappear? (The users who wrote the reviews did not delete them.) That happened to me late last week. Amazon has been no help. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I might start commenting here anonymously…
I think that the agent will probably be around in some form or another, but I also think the whole publishing industry needs to take another look at what consumjers are reading. I find too many agents wanting books that they personally like, and refuse to open their eyes to what the consumer likes. People buy/read what's available to them and I think that's why self-publishing is taking off so well. If an author's work doesn't fit in the 'box' that the agent has predetermined is what they'll represent,up until recently that said author remains unpublished. Unfortunately the 'box' concept leaves the truly unique style/genre/message author hanging in limbo. Consumers want something different, not just something that fits well on the shelf. A lot of authors find it hard to sell to agents, but their book sells well with the consumer. To add to that, I recently went to a conference and noticed that agents and publishers don't always agree on what they'd like to see published. Where does that leave the author if there's a publisher out there that would like your work but the agent won't bring it to them? Just some things that I think the publishing industry needs to reconsider. Ultimately, the success of books is determined by the consumer, not the agent, not the publisher. I think the whole of Indie is proving that.
Mira: Just wanted to say thanks as always for your thoughtful, intelligent, well-worded and (I believe) very fair comments. As always, I feel that your contributions both contributed to and elevated the conversation.
Also, I think I'm an unbiased party. I see the pros and cons of traditional and indie publishing and honestly don't know which I'd go with if I ever had the chance to choose between them. And as an unbiased person, I really think that you made a huge effort to hear and honor both sides of the discussion and I absolutely disagree that you spoke with any bias of any kind.
I have always been a huge fan of yours Nathan, but from reading this thread carefully and exhaustively, I don't think you heard what Mira was trying to say. Just my two cents.
Great convo all! Thanks for the thought-provoking comments!