We usually look at the world through the eyes of authors \u2013 and quite right too \u2013 but I recently saw an interesting article by literary agent Kristin Nelson, which evaluated the changes she\u2019s seen over twenty odd years on Planet Agent.<\/p>\n
The gist of the article was that agenting has become a tougher business than it was. I\u2019m going to look at her fourteen reasons why \u2026 but first:<\/p>\n
Oh ye people.<\/em><\/p>\n Last week, I told you that the Summer Festival of Writing is, from now on, going to be free to Jericho members. This week, I tell you that we\u2019ve also tossed in an extra event, for free. October sees the launch of our Build Your Book<\/strong> month (<\/em>info here<\/em><\/a>). We\u2019ve got twelve events aiming to help you turn your book into a masterpiece. In effect, it\u2019s the self-editing complement to our super-successful Getting Published<\/strong> and Self-Publishing<\/strong> months, which take place in spring.<\/em><\/p>\n All this stuff is, and will remain, completely free to Jericho members. If you\u2019re not a member yet, we\u2019d absolutely love to have you (<\/em>how to join<\/em><\/a>). You also get full access to all our 1000+ literary agent profiles on AgentMatch. You also get access to our 400+ films and masterclasses (<\/em>info<\/em><\/a>). You also get access to our amazing (and expanding) range of video courses (<\/em>info<\/em><\/a>). You also get free weekly events throughout the year (<\/em>info<\/em><\/a>). We\u2019ve also got further yumminess coming up, but I can\u2019t tell you about that now, because I\u2019m bound by the terrifying code of Jerich-o-merta \u2026<\/em><\/p>\n Okiedoke. Back to Planet Agent. Here are Nelson\u2019s fourteen reasons why agenting has got tougher:<\/p>\n 1. More agents<\/strong><\/p>\n Nelson reckons there are more literary agents around now than there used to be. I can\u2019t quantify the degree to which that\u2019s true, but certainly there don\u2019t seem to be fewer agents, even though most publishers have cut the size of their frontlists.<\/p>\n Verdict: she\u2019s got a (smallish) point here.<\/em><\/p>\n 2. Agents as editors<\/strong><\/p>\n Back in the day, agents used to be able to hawk a manuscript that had clear potential \u2013 and clear editorial needs. These days, with the competition as it is, it would be a dumb agent and a dumb author who took that approach. Instead, agents have tended to get involved in editorial work prior to submissions.<\/p>\n (And if you think that because your agent has given you editorial feedback, you won\u2019t need an extensive editorial process with the publisher \u2013 well, think again. Everyone gets to give their thoughts; you get to do the work. The good news: books usually get better as a result.)<\/p>\n Verdict: She\u2019s right<\/em><\/p>\n 3. Less agent visibility<\/strong><\/p>\n Nelson comments that, years back, it was quite easy for an agent to be noticed via your blog or Twitter feed, just because so few agents did anything like that. Well, that may be the case, but you don\u2019t find many agents complaining about a shortage of submissions \u2013 and I know plenty of successful agents who don\u2019t spend any real time on social media.<\/p>\n Verdict: Hmm.<\/em><\/p>\n 4. Agent as publicist<\/strong><\/p>\n Nelson writes, \u2018In today\u2019s publishing landscape, agents have to do so much more marketing\/publicity management to optimize client success.\u2019<\/p>\n Really? Aren\u2019t publishers doing that? And how many agents are actually pro publicists? And if they are, why are they selling manuscripts for a living? I think most agents do take on real editorial work. I think the good ones do a lot to manage a career and guide the author\/publisher relationship. But honestly, most agents don\u2019t do a ton of marketing work and they probably shouldn\u2019t. It\u2019s not their skillset.<\/p>\n Verdict: Hmm.<\/em><\/p>\n 5. Email mountains<\/strong><\/p>\n Nelson comments that \u2018three hundred emails is a light day\u2019. Jeepers. There\u2019s no question that email volumes have vastly increased \u2013 and it can\u2019t actually be healthy or make for efficient business that any one person has 300 emails to deal with in a day. (Before they\u2019ve actually read a word of their clients\u2019 work, or anything from the new submissions pile.)<\/p>\n Verdict: I\u2019m very sympathetic.<\/em><\/p>\n 6. Indie Publishing<\/strong><\/p>\n When I started writing, traditional publishing was the only meaningful route to making money and finding a relationship. That\u2019s no longer true and that also means agents are aware that their clients can scarper sideways into a game that\u2019s fertile for the writer and arid for the agent.<\/p>\n Nelson writes, intelligently, \u2018I\u2019m hugely supportive of authors and indie publishing, but the loss of talent to the indie sphere does impact an agency\u2019s bottom line.\u2019<\/p>\n Verdict: She\u2019s right, of course. Not a big problem for authors, though \ud83d\ude42<\/em><\/p>\n 7. Publisher payments<\/strong><\/p>\n Back in the day, advances were split into two or three chunks \u2013 typically, on signature, on hardback publication, and on paperback publication. These days, some publishers insist on four or five instalments, and have pushed some payments back to well after publication. (So they\u2019re not advances any more \u2013 perhaps \u2018late payments\u2019 would be a better term.)<\/p>\n Nelson notes that this practice makes life harder for agents, which is true. I also note that it\u2019s effectively a way for billion-dollar companies to boost their cash flow at the expense of authors, which doesn\u2019t seem very graceful to me.<\/p>\n Verdict: She\u2019s right again<\/em><\/p>\n 8. The Great Contract Swamp<\/strong><\/p>\n Publishers have always been slow in negotiating contracts, which is pitiful when you consider that the vast majority of contracts deal mostly in boilerplate. But they\u2019ve got slower.<\/p>\n I\u2019ve known authors with roots in more businesslike professions write to me concerned when they haven\u2019t seen a contract within two or three weeks. What\u2019s going on, they ask, is there a problem?<\/p>\n And the answer is no, there isn\u2019t a problem, except that publishers understaff their contracts department and deliver too little authority to editors to sort out issues. I once wrote an entire book in between agreeing the deal (orally and by email) and the publisher actually delivering the contract. And which do you think ought to take longer: writing a 100,000 word book, every word of it original, or writing a contract of about a dozen pages, with almost every word of it boilerplate?<\/p>\n Verdict: I\u2019m with Team Nelson here. And I think the publishing industry should do a lot, lot better.<\/em><\/p>\n 9. Then there was one<\/strong><\/p>\n Publishers keep eating each other. First Penguin and Random House married. Now they\u2019re going all menage a trois with Simon & Schuster. Meantime, Hachette is currently gobbling Workman, its sixth US acquisition in eight years. And so it goes.<\/p>\n The fewer big publishers there are, the less the competition for authors. And yes: there are some terrific micro-publishers and they do a great job. But if you want cash in your pocket, you need one of the big guys. And there aren\u2019t as many as there used to be.<\/p>\n Verdict: Team Nelson all the way<\/em><\/p>\n 10. The Great Flood<\/strong><\/p>\n Editors see a lot of submissions. They say no to a hell of a lot. And because they see a lot, and say no a lot, it takes longer for editors to get back to agents.<\/p>\n That makes it harder for an agent to mount an effective auction and means a lot more chasing to get anywhere at all. Nelson comments that that\u2019s made life harder for agents and, since trad authors have their fortune yoked to Planet Agent, that means it\u2019s worse for writers too.<\/p>\n Verdict: Yep, right again<\/em><\/p>\n 11. The death of the editor<\/strong><\/p>\n Yea, verily, back in the time when the flood waters receded from the earth, editors were allowed to choose books because they liked them. These days, editors are second-guessed by acquisitions committees and marketing folk who sit on those committees, with the result that the whole process has become more tangled, more bureaucratic and (I bet) no more effective.<\/p>\n I\u2019d like to say that Nelson is right about this, but remember marketing people and other execs were deeply involved in acquisitions even twenty years back. So if she is right, she has a longer memory than I do.<\/p>\n Verdict: Hmm.<\/em><\/p>\n 12. Blockbuster or bust<\/strong><\/p>\n Back in the day, there were authors like Ian Rankin whose first books didn\u2019t sell especially well and weren\u2019t perfectly formed. But they grew into their careers and became serial bestsellers.<\/p>\n These days, publishers lack the patience to grow an author in that way. If an author\u2019s debut two-book deal doesn\u2019t pretty much earn out, there\u2019s every chance that author will simply be discarded. That\u2019s nuts.<\/p>\n Verdict: I\u2019m Nelsonian \u2013 one-eyed and one-armed.<\/em><\/p>\n 13. The Death of the Mass Market Format<\/strong><\/p>\n Nelson writes, \u2018Back in the day, so many agents got their start representing authors in romance, mystery, and urban fantasy\u2014all genres traditionally launched in the mass-market format. Fantastic glory days were when I would sell in a debut romance author for six figures.\u2019 These days, she says, mass market editions have subsided in favour of e-books, which haven\u2019t given publishers anything like the same income.<\/p>\n That\u2019s all true \u2013 but also a misdiagnosis.<\/p>\n The reason e-books haven\u2019t given trad publishers a huge payday, compared with the mass market editions of the past, is that the areas concerned \u2013 romance, genre mystery, YA paranormal, SF, and much else \u2013 have been very largely colonised by indie authors, who have made a killing.<\/p>\n So, on this topic, the impact for authors has been highly positive \u2013 so long as they\u2019ve gone indie.<\/p>\n Verdict: I know what she\u2019s saying, but \u2026<\/em><\/p>\n 14. The Change that Wasn\u2019t<\/strong><\/p>\n Oh Jeepers. Nelson also says this: \u2018Publishers, despite emphasis on social change in the last couple of years, have not expanded their readership outreach or marketing to reflect the current cultural landscape. This continues to mean fewer opportunities for agents and authors of Color. This should be the one area where it\u2019s better for the agents of today, and it\u2019s not.\u2019<\/p>\n This is real head-in-hands stuff. If not now, then when? As it happens, I think a change that has been very long overdue really is beginning to happen \u2013 but it probably won\u2019t finally bed in until the mid- to senior ranks of publishing start to resemble the cities that house them: the highly multicultural London and New York.<\/p>\n I\u2019ve been publishing work for more than twenty years. I\u2019ve had more editors, publicists, marketing people and others involved in my books than I can easily count. But, from memory, only one of them \u2013 ONE! \u2013 was a person of colour. Ye Gods. It really is changing though. It really is.<\/p>\n Verdict: She\u2019s horribly right.<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Don\u2019t forget to check out our Build your Book\u00a0<\/a>month. And n’oubliez pas\u00a0<\/em>that the Summer Festival is now free to Jericho members. Interested in joining us maybe? Course you are<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n