Which is better?

Publisher vs. agent

Hi,

I faced the same decisions when I was getting ready to start sending out queries for my nonfiction book.

The issue is discussed pretty extensively in the written and on-line resources about how to get published. Often (for nonfiction) it's framed as deciding between trying to find an agent (who will try to place your book with a major commericial publisher) and deciding to approach university presses (where the norm has been to approach directly--though this has started to change.)

The one thing I wouldn't do is start out querying small/independent presses--unless you are absolutely convinced that you have no chance with one of the larger publishers. And the only way you can know that is by querying agents, who provide the only real access to them, and see if you generate interest.

My book is sort of an off-beat memoir (not the stuff of bestsellers that does concern a subject of possible interest to university presses. So the advice I was given was to start out by querying a handful of agents and a couple of university presses to test the waters. I got interest from both camps (and an offer I declined, from an agent who seemed "iffy") so I decided to focus on getting an agent, which I eventually did.

The thing is, an agent can always end up submitting to university presses and smaller presses, if it turns out that's the most likely option for your book. (And it may turn out to be that way for me.) But you will have had the option of a bigger range of choices, plus the guidance and support of an agent, for your current and (hopefully) future books.

The tough question, I think, is how long you persist in querying agents before you decide that route isn't productive, and decide to focus on places where you can submit yourself.

Hope this helps--and good luck!

Susan

I think you're better off if you have a firm offer from a publisher, then let agents know, "Hey! I have a firm offer from a publisher," rather than just a publisher is considering it. After all, how many agents request fulls and then only offer representation to a very small percentage? I think that a publisher is "considering" is not nearly as attractive to an agent as a publisher has "offered," since then, they know they are definitely going to make money on the deal.

Best of luck!

Pardon my ignorance

I've never used an agent.

If you've received an offer from a publisher in response to your submission, then you will receive all of the money. If you receive an offer via an agent, you will receive money, minus the agents fee. (What is traditional? ___%)

It seems like 100% is better than something less. Unless, of course, the agent can get you a significantly higher price. (At least enough to pay his fee.)

Am I missing something?

Codger said:

I've never used an agent.

If you've received an offer from a publisher in response to your submission, then you will receive all of the money. If you receive an offer via an agent, you will receive money, minus the agents fee. (What is traditional? ___%)

It seems like 100% is better than something less. Unless, of course, the agent can get you a significantly higher price. (At least enough to pay his fee.)

Am I missing something?

Click to expand...

I'm glad things work out well, Codger, but that may be a function of you having far more base knowledge and industry contacts than the average writer. You may not be missing anything by foregoing an agent. But I sure would be.

If you're dealing with small press, academic press, e-publisher, etc., non-agented can certainly be the way to go. There's just not as much latitude with the budget. But with larger commercial publishers, there's much bigger disparity in the kinds of deals that are cut with agented and unagented writers.

If you're well-versed in literary contract law, negotiating advances and royalties, knowing which clauses to strike, which rights to retain and how to sell them separately, that disparity can be narrowed considerably. If you have all the industry contacts to whom you can sell merchandising rights, first serial rights, audio book rights, library, book club, etc., and overseas contacts for foreign rights, then certainly the necessity of an agent diminishes.

I sure didn't/don't have that kind of knowledge.
When I was sending out my first book, I queried agents and publishers simultaneously. I received an offer from a publisher while two agents were still considering the manuscript. So my first inclination was to think yippee! I don't have to fork over 15%. The agent (that I signed with) kindly explained the facts of life. With one phone call, without even starting negotiations, the deal would sweeten, just on the basis of the publisher's knowledge I was repped. The pro se newbie author contract would go back in the drawer and the starting point for negotiations on the advance would be considerably higher for a pre-empt. Or she could shop it. The royalty scale would be bumped up. Plus all the subsidiary sale stuff, which I wouldn't have had a clue about.

Even if I did have the knowledge and contacts to do all that, imagine the time it would take. And then there's the whole business of having to do your own cage-rattling and reminding and nudging and arbitrating during the editing/publication process. An agent's practiced eye on the royalty statements are invaluable too.

I'm just skeptical I guess

Thanks for the information KCH.

I can see where an agent could be helpful to an author in many ways. I tend to be distrustful by nature and always wonder if the agent is really negotiating with your best interests in mind. They have relationships with editors and publishers that will continue to be fruitful to them long after they've forgotten your name. So are they truly representing YOU?

In another career I was often represented by brokers, and it was clear that the broker considered me (and my contemporaries) to be "inventory" to sell to his narrow range of customers. I was not represented. After the work was completed, the broker said "so long" and that was it. (He walked away with 30% of my money.) Basically I was paying for him to use his rollodex on my behalf.

So I've always dealt directly with the one who signs the checks, minus the middle man (middle person?).

Why would the publishing business be any different?

I completely agree with KCH.

An agent (a good one, anyway) has your best interests at heart because your interests are aligned with hers. If she gets you more money (advance, royalties, foreign, etc) the amount she gets for her 15% increases.

Good agents also want to develop long term relationships with their authors, so they are not just interested in your one book, but your subsequent ones, as well. Again, this makes them want to do a good job for you, so they can be there in the long haul.

A good agent is one who gets your project sold.

Prevostprincess said:

I completely agree with KCH.

An agent (a good one, anyway) has your best interests at heart because your interests are aligned with hers. If she gets you more money (advance, royalties, foreign, etc) the amount she gets for her 15% increases.

Good agents also want to develop long term relationships with their authors, so they are not just interested in your one book, but your subsequent ones, as well. Again, this makes them want to do a good job for you, so they can be there in the long haul.

Click to expand...

And I contend that in general, the agent's long term interests are better served by ingratiating himself to publishers and editors. There are far more sellers (writers) than buyers (editors/publishers). Hence, the time and energy of the agent is best spent schmoozing with the editors and publishers. The authors and their books are merely inventory. Of course they need something of perceived interest and value to sell.

Kinda cold, but that's the way I see it.

Codger,

I don't see where schmoozing with editors and publishers is at all in conflict with what's in the best interests of an author. Agenting is a relationship business. They must have their fingers on the pulse of trends, markets, individual editors' tastes, quirks, business style, etc. The only way to do that is to get to know them. Plus, as you say, there are more sellers than buyers, and whatever works to make that imbalance less detrimental for me, hey, I'm taking it. If an editor takes my agent's calls ahead of everyone else's, that's a good thing.

You're absolutely correct that a good agent is one who gets your project sold...but it's more. A good agent gets your project sold for the most money and the best terms. He/she is your advocate and counselor as well, having your career in mind, not just that one book. I did not have to peddle my next books. They were practically assigned after a "schmoozing" session where editor told agent, "This is what I'm looking for. Got anything?" And agent says, no, but I have the perfect author for it."

Being skeptical is a good thing. That's just good business. But that doesn't mean it has to be carried to the extent of cynicism, and I'm sorry you've had experiences that make you so wary. But there are plenty of tools with which to discover the competence, success, and integrity of an agent--this forum being just one. That said, we each have to go with what works for us, and if you're more comfortable flying solo, then that's the way you should go. Just so long as you know it's not merely a question of 15% commission.

I guess the only thing I'd add is that no editor is going to buy a project just because they were schmoozed. They might agree to read it due to schmoozing, but that's not a bad thing. Agents need to get to know editors, so that they can pitch them projects that the editors are interested in. If an agent pitches innappropriate projects to a certain editor, that editor is going to give less credence to that agent's future projects, and may even not want to take that agent's pitches anymore.

An agent is valuable to a publisher because he brings in authors that make money for the house.

An agent is valuable to an author because he will generally negotiate a better deal than an author can do alone.

The agent earns a fee from the author's income. So it's in his interest to maximize that number. The agent's loyalty is primarily to his authors, not a publishing house.

I agree with most of the above, and i wanted to add something since I am in the process of querying agents for a non-fiction proposal after months of research on agentquery, misssnark, preditors and editors, and this board, to name a few (I just finally joined here, however).

Only you know the potential for your book, and hopefully you will not sell yourself short when considering what houses will look at it, but there is one thing I did not see mentioned above (sorry if I just missed it).

When you consider whether to query publishers or agents first, remember that many agents will consider your manuscript "shopped" if you have already sent it to publishers (as I understand it). I know at least one of my queries has reached an agent that directly asks if any publisher has received it, because they refuse to look at it after it has been sent out.

Most of the nf agents I have seen, however, just want to know the scope of your "shopping." If you have already sent your proposal to a number of publishers and then query an agent, you may find them less likely to accept because you already "burned" the imprint by a reject in the slush pile. This is gleened from different agent blogs, and I am interested to hear if I misunderstand this, but I believe this advice was to represent "most" agents.

Also, I recall one post on missnark saying an agent moves you closer to the top for consideration if you already have a publisher offering a contract (but they still have to want it). As the others said, there is still a lot to do after the contract is signed, and before it is signed they can prove invaluable. If you do get an offer, I would strongly suggest at least doing more research before signing without an agent.

Just my impression after tireless research, and I hope to be on the agented side soon, sweating it out as my work is sent to publishers then...

Best of luck to you...

Since I feel an agent is invaluable, I would let the agent know you have an offer (when/if you do) from a publisher. That would certainly speed up the agent's reading of your work. Is there a reason you're only querying one agent?

And, good luck!

I would NOT write more until it's sold. I think your time is better spent rewriting the proposal based on the various agents' comments. It's possible that, (just like with the proposal) the agent who signs you or the editor who buys the book may want a different slant/tone/whatever than what you're writing. (That's what happened with my first book, which sold on proposal and so I was very glad I hadn't written any more.) Writing the rest of the book now also defeats the purpose of writing a proposal, which is to have an editor just buy it on a minimum of work on your part, rather than putting in the time on an entire book.

Once you've rewrtten the proposal as much as you can based on the agents' comments, then I think your time is better spent coming up with book #2, while you continue to research which agents to query for book #1 and possibly beefing up your "platform" (if applicable) for your current proposal.