I sent her an author's inquiry, she requested the Proposal, I sent the Proposal, she asked me questions about why I don't already have an agent, I told her that an agent who was interested balked when I requested that the contract say that the publisher would pay him and me with two separate checks (85% to me and 15% to the agent) instead of paying 100% to the agent who would then pay me. Goering now balked as well, and asked why I preferred to be paid directly by a publisher, instead of indirectly through the agent. I told her that a friend had been stiffed when that person's agent went bankrupt, and that I saw no reason why my future financial security should depend upon not only the publisher (typically a large and stable company) but also upon the agent (which is typically neither), thus making me subject to the financial stability of an unnecessarily large number of entities (namely two), including of one entity (Goering herself) who is just a one-person operation. She responded acknowledging that what I said was true, and she also acknowledged that no sane author would prefer such an arrangement. That was her last communication to me. Evidently, she wants that 100%, and she won't even consider doing business with a sane author.
Agents and Income Splits
- Thread starter cettel
- Start date
- Status
I think most agents would baulk at altering their standard terms of business and you are unwise to insist on it. You are selling in a buyers' market and asking for non-standard treatment.
Re: "you are unwise to insist on it."
I didn't "insist on it." I merely indicated a preference, that's all. I didn't even request it to be included in the contract; I requested that, if the publisher would not object to writing two separate checks (one to the author, and the other to the agent), then the publishing contract be written that way.
I used to be an agent myself, and that's the way I handled it, and no publisher ever objected. I thought that any writer deserves at least this fundamental respect and consideration from any agent. For me, it was a matter of integrity, and a basic respect for the writer's rights. I still receive my 15%, and still the authors receive their 85% directly from the publishers. Why should an author have to worry about being the last in a line of creditors, if the agent has a medical emergency, or a foreclosure, or etc.? Only a fool would want that, and I don't see how anyone who is decent would want to be in the agency business on any other basis.
I didn't "insist on it." I merely indicated a preference, that's all. I didn't even request it to be included in the contract; I requested that, if the publisher would not object to writing two separate checks (one to the author, and the other to the agent), then the publishing contract be written that way.
I used to be an agent myself, and that's the way I handled it, and no publisher ever objected. I thought that any writer deserves at least this fundamental respect and consideration from any agent. For me, it was a matter of integrity, and a basic respect for the writer's rights. I still receive my 15%, and still the authors receive their 85% directly from the publishers. Why should an author have to worry about being the last in a line of creditors, if the agent has a medical emergency, or a foreclosure, or etc.? Only a fool would want that, and I don't see how anyone who is decent would want to be in the agency business on any other basis.
Okay, so maybe you didn't insist on it. But anyone who lets an agent pay them their royalties is a fool? C'mon, now. Personally, if royalty payments are late, I'd have to think it's to your advantage to have an agent calling them on your behalf rather than having to call them yourself. In fact, some may argue that only a fool would want to have to deal directly with a large publishing house.
My guess is you may have come across to Ms. Goering as someone who may be a little difficult to work with.
I'm also interested as to why you, a former agent, chose to approach Ms Goering, rather than a well-established major agency.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 6,704
- Reaction score
- 1,315
- Location
- Far from the madding crowd
- Website
- www.victoriastrauss.com
Handling the writer's income (and following up if there's a problem) is an important part of an agent's job. It's harder to do that if income is split. Plus, asking a publisher to split income doubles the chances for error and delay. It's hard enough to get money out of publishers anyway.
I can appreciate that someone who'd had problems might be gun-shy, but really, such problems aren't frequent enough that they should be a major concern (plus, you're a lot more likely to encounter them if you hook up with an inexperienced, track-recordless agent). If you insist on splitting income, the agent may feel you're questioning his or her honesty. That is not likely to go over well.
Looking at it another way--since splitting income is not standard agent and publisher practice, encountering an agent who offers this arrangement is at least something of a red flag. Perhaps the agent has financial problems in his past, or some other reason he isn't competent to handle money. Perhaps the agent is too inexperienced to know what's customary, or is a part-timer who wants to offload a portion of her responsibility. Bottom line: if you do find an agent who is willing to split income, you may be short-changing yourself as a writer.
- Victoria
I can appreciate that someone who'd had problems might be gun-shy, but really, such problems aren't frequent enough that they should be a major concern (plus, you're a lot more likely to encounter them if you hook up with an inexperienced, track-recordless agent). If you insist on splitting income, the agent may feel you're questioning his or her honesty. That is not likely to go over well.
Looking at it another way--since splitting income is not standard agent and publisher practice, encountering an agent who offers this arrangement is at least something of a red flag. Perhaps the agent has financial problems in his past, or some other reason he isn't competent to handle money. Perhaps the agent is too inexperienced to know what's customary, or is a part-timer who wants to offload a portion of her responsibility. Bottom line: if you do find an agent who is willing to split income, you may be short-changing yourself as a writer.
- Victoria
Re: Victoria Strauss: "Looking at it another way--since splitting income is not standard agent and publisher practice, encountering an agent who offers this arrangement is at least something of a red flag."
The assumption there that anything which "is not standard agent and publisher practice" is therefore "at least something of a red flag" is authoritarian, because it assumes that "standard agent and publisher practice" is necessarily in the best interests of the writer.
I can understand why agents and publishers might feel that their standard operating procedures are correct (for them), but not why a writer would simply assume that those SOPs are necessarily correct for the writer.
The typical literary agent is a small business, often only one person, and a medical crisis or other misfortune might cause the agent to be in a position where the clients, the writers, are at the end of a very bad line.
An agent is not a mommy or a daddy, but a business-person. A writer is well advised to recognize the difference. The likelihood of a Simon & Schuster going bankrupt is miniscule, but the likelihood of an agent going bankrupt is not.
It's in the interest of agents to receive all the money and to pay clients, but it very definitely is not in the interest of writers, whose income is safest when it comes from the publisher directly.
The assumption there that anything which "is not standard agent and publisher practice" is therefore "at least something of a red flag" is authoritarian, because it assumes that "standard agent and publisher practice" is necessarily in the best interests of the writer.
I can understand why agents and publishers might feel that their standard operating procedures are correct (for them), but not why a writer would simply assume that those SOPs are necessarily correct for the writer.
The typical literary agent is a small business, often only one person, and a medical crisis or other misfortune might cause the agent to be in a position where the clients, the writers, are at the end of a very bad line.
An agent is not a mommy or a daddy, but a business-person. A writer is well advised to recognize the difference. The likelihood of a Simon & Schuster going bankrupt is miniscule, but the likelihood of an agent going bankrupt is not.
It's in the interest of agents to receive all the money and to pay clients, but it very definitely is not in the interest of writers, whose income is safest when it comes from the publisher directly.
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2007
- Messages
- 6,449
- Reaction score
- 1,321
Why? Whether or not I turn out to be lucky is irrelevant. Maybe I'll get an agent who won't insist upon making my financial future depend upon the vicissitudes of the agent's financial condition; maybe not. Do you run a Dun & Bradstreet on an agent you're considering? Maybe you should. But then your costs will run still higher.
Understand the racket here: The major publishers have been shedding editors, to cut their costs. The slush pile is no longer a part of the publishers' work-loads and costs. Instead, agents are supposed to do that, and those laid-off editors have become literary agents. Publishers don't pay those people anymore; authors do, 15%.
And now we're supposed to place our financial futures not only 15% down, but at additional financial risk, as well?
Obviously, it's better to find a publisher yourself, if you can, rather than to do that. However, if I can find an honest literary agent, who doesn't insist upon making me financially dependent upon him or her, then I will.
The worst that can happen is that the population of agents who don't insist upon receiving all the money might be too small, and so I might pitch this book myself. There still are a few major publishers who haven't shedded the slushpile function. Maybe it's better that I approach those publishers, and leave all the others for if and when none of them bites. Then, at that point, if and when I find that the only way to proceed further is to place myself down 15% and at higher financial risk by getting an agent, I'll do what I have to do. But that's not my first choice.
First, I try to find a decent agent, who won't insist upon an arrangement that's unfair to authors. Second, I pitch the book myself to decent publishers, which aren't shoving their costs off onto authors. And third and last, I seek out an agent--any agent--and rely on trust and faith and hope, and I'll hope that I'll not have bad luck.
Understand the racket here: The major publishers have been shedding editors, to cut their costs. The slush pile is no longer a part of the publishers' work-loads and costs. Instead, agents are supposed to do that, and those laid-off editors have become literary agents. Publishers don't pay those people anymore; authors do, 15%.
And now we're supposed to place our financial futures not only 15% down, but at additional financial risk, as well?
Obviously, it's better to find a publisher yourself, if you can, rather than to do that. However, if I can find an honest literary agent, who doesn't insist upon making me financially dependent upon him or her, then I will.
The worst that can happen is that the population of agents who don't insist upon receiving all the money might be too small, and so I might pitch this book myself. There still are a few major publishers who haven't shedded the slushpile function. Maybe it's better that I approach those publishers, and leave all the others for if and when none of them bites. Then, at that point, if and when I find that the only way to proceed further is to place myself down 15% and at higher financial risk by getting an agent, I'll do what I have to do. But that's not my first choice.
First, I try to find a decent agent, who won't insist upon an arrangement that's unfair to authors. Second, I pitch the book myself to decent publishers, which aren't shoving their costs off onto authors. And third and last, I seek out an agent--any agent--and rely on trust and faith and hope, and I'll hope that I'll not have bad luck.
I admit I'm not familiar with bankruptcy law, but even if the agent did go bankrupt, why would that prevent you from getting paid? The money still comes from the publisher. The agent isn't going to steal your share of the money and if they did, it would be easy enough to prove.
Just ask yourself: If an agent won't even consider the possibility of the author's being paid directly by the publisher, why does the agent insist upon receiving 100% of the funds, and upon making you financially dependent upon him or her, and not ONLY upon the publisher (which is necessary and correct to depend upon, not so financially risky as the typical agent is)?
If an agent is so determined to make all of its authors financial dependents, doesn't this raise questions in your mind as to the person's priorities and motivations?
Furthermore, any agent who would be turned off to just so much as an author's QUESTION on this matter is not really very eager to represent your work. I don't want such an agent, because the best salesperson is one who is really excited about the thing he or she is selling. If the agent is turned off merely by this question, then the author will probably do better just to peddle the work him/herself. If you have the enthusiasm for your work, that might stand you in better stead with a publisher than an agent who doesn't.
If an agent is so determined to make all of its authors financial dependents, doesn't this raise questions in your mind as to the person's priorities and motivations?
Furthermore, any agent who would be turned off to just so much as an author's QUESTION on this matter is not really very eager to represent your work. I don't want such an agent, because the best salesperson is one who is really excited about the thing he or she is selling. If the agent is turned off merely by this question, then the author will probably do better just to peddle the work him/herself. If you have the enthusiasm for your work, that might stand you in better stead with a publisher than an agent who doesn't.
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2007
- Messages
- 6,449
- Reaction score
- 1,321
Actually, no. When my stockbroker sells stocks on my behalf, I don't get a check directly from the buyer, either.
I'm quite comfortable with having financial agents acting on my behalf in a number of arenas. Obviously, you're going to do whatever feels right for you, but that doesn't make those of us who have financial agents in the literary or any other realm "fools".
So, as I said, let us know how this works out for you. The proof is in the pudding, as the saying goes.
The analogy with stockbrokers is false, for several reasons:
1) The typical stockbrokerage firm is far more sound as a creditor than is the typical literary agent. Are you saying that if your stockbroker gets cancer, you are placed financially at risk by that? Are you saying that if your literary agent gets cancer, you are not?
2) By law, you cannot trade stocks on an exchange yourself, because you don't have a license for that. But any author can sell rights to his or her own work. To become a stockbroker requires extensive training and formal tests, which must be passed; none of that's the case with a literary agent. You are comparing apples not with oranges, but with computers, or with automobiles, or etc. -- things totally alien.
3) A stockbrokerage firm is required BY LAW to meet periodic audits to prove its creditworthiness so as to maintain the licenses it MUST HAVE in order to be able to operate. A literary agent is NOT.
4) A stockbrokerage firm has no asset more valuable than its reputation for honesty and fair dealing. If, perchance, the firm gets into financial difficulty, another company will quickly buy it up and continue the value of that asset. However, for an individual literary agent to go out of business is no big deal, and to sell his or her book-of-business to some other agent is no such sure thing, because literary properties are very different from corporate stocks.
5) If the literary agent does go bankrupt, that person's clients are not necessarily going to be the holders of the first claims upon his or her assets (such as royalties from publishers). Other creditors will come first. But if a stockbrokerage firm runs into financial difficulties, the legal situation is entirely different.
I could go on and on about this, but to sum up: Your assertions are irrelevant to the issues here.
1) The typical stockbrokerage firm is far more sound as a creditor than is the typical literary agent. Are you saying that if your stockbroker gets cancer, you are placed financially at risk by that? Are you saying that if your literary agent gets cancer, you are not?
2) By law, you cannot trade stocks on an exchange yourself, because you don't have a license for that. But any author can sell rights to his or her own work. To become a stockbroker requires extensive training and formal tests, which must be passed; none of that's the case with a literary agent. You are comparing apples not with oranges, but with computers, or with automobiles, or etc. -- things totally alien.
3) A stockbrokerage firm is required BY LAW to meet periodic audits to prove its creditworthiness so as to maintain the licenses it MUST HAVE in order to be able to operate. A literary agent is NOT.
4) A stockbrokerage firm has no asset more valuable than its reputation for honesty and fair dealing. If, perchance, the firm gets into financial difficulty, another company will quickly buy it up and continue the value of that asset. However, for an individual literary agent to go out of business is no big deal, and to sell his or her book-of-business to some other agent is no such sure thing, because literary properties are very different from corporate stocks.
5) If the literary agent does go bankrupt, that person's clients are not necessarily going to be the holders of the first claims upon his or her assets (such as royalties from publishers). Other creditors will come first. But if a stockbrokerage firm runs into financial difficulties, the legal situation is entirely different.
I could go on and on about this, but to sum up: Your assertions are irrelevant to the issues here.
That question which Abbey raised is also irrelevant to the issues here. Furthermore, unlike the previous question, my answering a personal question like this won't provide any information that's relevant to the issues here. I answered the previous questions because they raised matters which relate to the issues, regardless of whether a person's objection was itself relevant. That's not the case here.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2005
- Messages
- 2,995
- Reaction score
- 606
- Location
- Central Maryland
- Website
- www.richardcwhite.com
Actually, most of this thread probably should be split off into its own thread. We've gone way beyond the typical questions about the specific agency that were asked by the OP.
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2007
- Messages
- 6,449
- Reaction score
- 1,321
You don't say!
Yes, fine, whatever. Sure, I can sell my own books. I can sell my own stocks, too, if I wanted to use a bulk service like E*Trade. I can sell my own house if I want to. I can file and argue my own court cases pro se.
But I don't, because I feel that I benefit strongly from others' expertise in these areas. I do due diligence before securing the services of a financial agent, and then I monitor my financial agents' performance.
You may choose to do things differently. It's a free country.
Also, you are the one who is using your "personal experience" as an argument for why you should be believed. If you don't want to share what that experience is, then the folks who disagree with you aren't going to take your assertions of experience seriously.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 6,704
- Reaction score
- 1,315
- Location
- Far from the madding crowd
- Website
- www.victoriastrauss.com
Good suggestion, Richard. The posts abouve about income splitting--formerly a part of the Krista Goering Literary Agency thread in Bewares & Background Check--have been moved to Ask the Agent.
- Victoria
- Victoria
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 6,704
- Reaction score
- 1,315
- Location
- Far from the madding crowd
- Website
- www.victoriastrauss.com
By indicating that you'd previously worked as a literary agent, and thus implying that your opinions about how authors should be paid were based on professional experience, you opened the door to this question.
I don't agree that it's irrelevant. It would tell us the kind of experience you're using as a basis for your conclusions. Given that you're expressing an opinion that most agents--and indeed, most writers--don't share, knowing that you'd worked for a successful literary agency or that you'd been successful yourself would add some weight to your statements.
- Victoria
Hi Cettel,
The problem with taking this approach and attitude is that it probably won't appeal to most of the well-established and legitimate agencies. Therefore, you're defaulting yourself to work with some of the more desperate/unreputable agents out there....which makes the above scenario far more relevant. From what I've heard so far, I'd simply advise you to either deal with well-established agencies or self-publish. No agent at all may be better than the one you're describing.
Rob
The problem with taking this approach and attitude is that it probably won't appeal to most of the well-established and legitimate agencies. Therefore, you're defaulting yourself to work with some of the more desperate/unreputable agents out there....which makes the above scenario far more relevant. From what I've heard so far, I'd simply advise you to either deal with well-established agencies or self-publish. No agent at all may be better than the one you're describing.
Rob
Victoria, I am not arguing upon the basis of "personal experience," or of "authority" of any kind. My statements about such things as the distinction between a person's literary agent getting cancer, and a person's stockbroker getting cancer, are not based upon any such thing. I intend my assertions to be read on their own merits, irrespective of myself, so that authors (who, to judge by the reactions here, haven't thought about these issues before) will ask themselves these questions, as I have done, and as I have found useful and constructive to have done in my own personal case -- which concerns me alone, even if these issues concern the financial welfare of every writer, as I strongly believe they do.
Re. rwam's "No agent at all may be better than the one you're describing."
How interesting that an author thinks that a literary agent who places the interests of clients first and foremost is to be avoided, rather than to be sought out.
How interesting that an author thinks that a literary agent who places the interests of clients first and foremost is to be avoided, rather than to be sought out.
Actually, I meant the hypothetical agent in the 1-agent-office who has cancer and can't make the royalty payment. Sorry about the confusion.
Re. rwam's comment:
Rwam's comment assumes that I am seeking out a lone agent who has cancer and who is paying her medical bills instead of her authors.
That's the exact opposite of the truth, which is: I am seeking to avoid having such an agent. You, rwam, I presume, are not?
Rwam's comment assumes that I am seeking out a lone agent who has cancer and who is paying her medical bills instead of her authors.
That's the exact opposite of the truth, which is: I am seeking to avoid having such an agent. You, rwam, I presume, are not?
- Status