- Joined
- Aug 13, 2018
- Messages
- 74
- Reaction score
- 5
Question: Causation or Correlation? What is the truth behind the relationship between agent experience and client success?
Something that has been nagging me since the beginning of my querying journey is the logic behind the way that the majority of the community views agents who are in the early stages of their careers. Leading agents have higher averages of success. This is an indisputable fact; however, the cause behind this fact is unclear. We can believe that seasoned agents have learned secret tricks to acquire six figure deals for all of their clients, but there is also the reality that writers are bias towards leading agents in the querying process.
1. We're more likely to query them earlier.
2. We're more likely to sign with them if they offer.
3. Leading agents have the most financial freedom to be the most selective when adding to their lists.
Initially, I believed that I would only add agents to my query list if they had signed at least one deal with the publishers that I am hoping to sign with. This creates a logical problem because the fact that "Ms. Jane Doe signed her first major deal with Scholastic in 2014" illustrates that major publishers are not pushing aside submissions from new agents. All agents were up-and-coming at some point. Each of them had never signed a major deal before signing their first major deal. Obviously, I am not advocating for the rejection of experience when ranking agents, but, especially as an up-and-coming writer in my twenties, I am challenging myself to find evidence to support the assumptions that I have accepted about up-and-coming agents.
Disclaimer: This is all in reference to agents at legitimate agencies.
Something that has been nagging me since the beginning of my querying journey is the logic behind the way that the majority of the community views agents who are in the early stages of their careers. Leading agents have higher averages of success. This is an indisputable fact; however, the cause behind this fact is unclear. We can believe that seasoned agents have learned secret tricks to acquire six figure deals for all of their clients, but there is also the reality that writers are bias towards leading agents in the querying process.
1. We're more likely to query them earlier.
2. We're more likely to sign with them if they offer.
3. Leading agents have the most financial freedom to be the most selective when adding to their lists.
Initially, I believed that I would only add agents to my query list if they had signed at least one deal with the publishers that I am hoping to sign with. This creates a logical problem because the fact that "Ms. Jane Doe signed her first major deal with Scholastic in 2014" illustrates that major publishers are not pushing aside submissions from new agents. All agents were up-and-coming at some point. Each of them had never signed a major deal before signing their first major deal. Obviously, I am not advocating for the rejection of experience when ranking agents, but, especially as an up-and-coming writer in my twenties, I am challenging myself to find evidence to support the assumptions that I have accepted about up-and-coming agents.
Disclaimer: This is all in reference to agents at legitimate agencies.