"Tiered" agents/agencies

Each writer is going to have a different idea of the ideal agent. Some are looking for more of a friendly relationship, others a business partner. Others need an agent who has a broad range of genre interests, others look for agents solely focused on kid-lit. There are authors who prefer the intimate feel of a small, boutique agency and others who prefer to have a esteemed, larger agency behind them. What places them in someone's top tier is really what that author needs in the agent/author relationship and how well the agent fits into that need, imo.

There are definitely agents and agencies that represent "bigger" clients, who have lots of bestsellers and award-winners. But what really matters is how you and your agent's styles and goals line up (after proper vetting of said agent, of course) I was represented by a smaller boutique agency when I started out and it was great. I'm represented by a bigger agency now and that's great, too.

Yes, the tiers are not as clear for agents, and that's partly due to which factors the individual author considers more important.

For example: My agent is a former Big 5 editor and offers notes on my manuscripts after I complete the first draft. (They are optional. I apply what I agree with and we may go back and forth a few times until he is confident he has the best version to shop to editors.) But another author on this forum is upfront about the fact they expect their agent to submit a manuscript as it is given to them with no editorial notes. So for that author, and editorial agent (no matter how much they had sold for their clients) would not be "top tier". In fact, that author would likely not query an editorial agent.

So, while size of agency, number of clients, number of sales, etc do figure into the general formulation of who is in a more sought after "tier" is a part of the equation, there are also things like editorial/not editorial, communication style, whether they represent single books or sign authors for a length of time or for all work until one or the other parties decide to part ways, etc.

QueryTracker.net has agent listings and for many of them has links to authors repped by said agents so you can get an idea of what has been sold and to whom, as well as how many authors they represent.

When I do my Writer Beware talk at conventions, I tier agents into four levels:

Established Agents
New Agents
Well-meaning, but unprepared Agents
Scam Agents

In a thumbnail, here's how I separate the agents into these tiers:

Established Agents - agents who've been around for quite a while, have an established track record of selling to advance providing publishers, interact with other agents, have personal relationships with editors at publishers, and in general, have been doing this long enough for you to see they have the skills.

New Agents - agents who're just getting started but have industry experience (either as a junior agent at a firm, a former editor at a major publisher, or something equivalent), they have connections within the industry, they sell their clients books to advance providing publishers, and while they haven't been doing this for a long time still have experience.

Well-meaning but unprepared agents - these are people who've decided to become an agent with no experience. They have no, or minimal, connections within the industry, they don't know what houses are looking for what, they tend to submit their clients' work to inappropriate venues, and generally, although they mean well, they waste their clients time or worse, hook them up with a BAD publisher.

Scam Agents -- well, let's just say, their job is to make money OFF of their clients instead of for them. You can find plenty of examples of people like this at the Writer Beware site on SFWA.org.

I'm sure others here might have different definitions, but this seems to cover the multitude of agents I've observed in the ten years I've worked with Writer Beware.

How does a writer know how to tier the agents they're looking at? Research. Never submit to an agent you haven't researched thoroughly.

It'd be nice if there was some comprehensive list somewhere, but no.

I tier my own agent list. I rank on a scale from 0-5 (5 being dream agent).

My ranking system is rather arbitrary, but in general, I look at their website and their client list. If they make it through this first pass, I check them against the Bewares. (If there's something sketchy, I just mark them 0 and move on to the next.)

4s and 5s are established, reputable, and represent authors I'm familiar with. There's not much difference between these ranks, other than gut feeling.

3s are solid, but have smaller client lists.

2s are okay but there's just something in my gut that keeps them from being a 3.

1s are agents who are either brand new or I can't find much information on OR they are currently closed to submissions.

0s are disreputable.

I use a spreadsheet with my ranking in the first column, and the second column are notes about my ranking. I periodically recheck the agents that are closed to submissions and reevaluate.

When I've submitted to a particular agent, I color the line yellow. If I get a partial or full request, I color the line green. If I get a rejection, or no response after 6 months, I color it red and change my ranking to R.

Aggy B. said:

So for that author, and editorial agent (no matter how much they had sold for their clients) would not be "top tier". In fact, that author would likely not query an editorial agent.

Click to expand...

Aggy B.

You seem to clearly distinguish between editorial and non-editorial agents, but how is a writer to know ahead of time? I'm just starting the querying stage on my first novel, so I'm hunting for appropriate agents. If their website covers my genre, and it says something like: 'welcomes debut authors', then they go to the top of my list. But what about hunting for an editorial agent (a strong plus for me)? I've seen phrases like: 'will work closely with the author...' Are these the kind of code phrases that i should have been paying more attention to, or do you have any more concrete hunting techniques?

Thanks in advance,

Techs

Best way of finding more is to google for interviews with the agent or with their clients

As waylander says, most agents are pretty upfront about whether they are editorial or not. Often, they will use that very phrasing in interviews.

Thanks waylander and Thedrellum,

Interviews - i hadn't thought of that.

Techs

Agents who don't edit their clients' works will often have an editor available to them, to make sure the books are as strong as they can be before they go out on submission, so don't get too worried about only submitting to agents who edit their clients' works.

Techs Walker said:

Aggy B.

You seem to clearly distinguish between editorial and non-editorial agents, but how is a writer to know ahead of time? I'm just starting the querying stage on my first novel, so I'm hunting for appropriate agents. If their website covers my genre, and it says something like: 'welcomes debut authors', then they go to the top of my list. But what about hunting for an editorial agent (a strong plus for me)? I've seen phrases like: 'will work closely with the author...' Are these the kind of code phrases that i should have been paying more attention to, or do you have any more concrete hunting techniques?

Thanks in advance,

Techs

Click to expand...

As other folks have said, you can usually find the phrase in interviews - either with the agent or their clients. "Work closely with the author" is, as you suspected, also a phrase that can indicate they will help you with revision notes, etc. In my case, my agent is a former Big 5 editor, so there was an expectation there that he probably offered revision notes and editorial advice prior to submission.

Personally, I think more agents are editorial than not, but how an agent offers that insight is important. That's why when you get to the stage where you talk to an agent you need to ask if they are going to want revisions made to the current MS and what they are, and also if they typically provide that sort of input on every MS. Listen carefully to what they say, and how they say it.

I'm totally okay with suggestions that make a book stronger. But, I did a revise and resubmit for an agent while querying and by the end I knew she and I would have been a terrible fit. Not just because I disagreed with one thing she wanted to change, but the way she expressed her input on the rest (things I was willing to change and agreed would make for a stronger book) was terrible. She did have negative notes ("You're doing this wrong," and she expressed it just like that - in a way that made me feel terrible about my writing - rather than in a way that showed me where the problem was but encouraged me at the same time. "I think you can do this better." Or "I love this part here, can we add some of that elsewhere for more consistency?") something I've never seen from my agent - even when he and I disagree on how to fix something.

But look at interviews - both with agents and their authors - and be prepared to ask questions when you get to a stage where you are talking about the MS with an agent.

Aggy B.,

Thanks for your insight and detailed answer.

Also, a tip of the cowboy hat to Old Hack, for cautioning that editorial yes/no is not black/white.

Techs