“Agent shall continue to act on behalf of Author in connection with any literary work sold prior to termination of this Agreement. Agent shall receive full commission for the disposition of any rights to the literary work sold after such termination takes effect.”

The first sentence appears harmless, until I noticed “literary work” not “literary right.” And the second line made no sense.
I asked outright to be clear, “So, if you sold paper and e-rights, then 2 years after termination I sell movie rights, you’d expect 15% of the movie rights?” “Well, yes, that’s an industry standard.” (nope!)

I still couldn’t believe so I asked the scenario that happened to a friend: “If you sold the Polish translation rights, and nothing else. Then two years after termination I sold the paper-English rights?”
The exact response: “No, I’m afraid that if we sold English print rights, and we parted ways, we would still be responsible for selling the unsold rights to the literary work.”

FOREVER! Doesn’t even expire with the underlying publishing contract! So, if I left them, I’d owe them 15% of every right on any book they’d sold any right to and I’d owe my new agent 15%… Forever! YOIKS! (and people sign this!) This is not a small agency. They have a good reputation, I didn’t find any bad buzz on over a dozen blogs that I checked. And if an experienced agent at a reputable agency thinks that’s an industry standard… would I really want them negotiating my publishing contract? What else would they think was industry standard? And once I realized that, I asked the next question, why would I ever risk a lesser agent who would know even less?!?

When “the deal” comes, I heading for a lawyer.

I know that makes me sound like an old man spouting stories of ” Back in my day…” but I think it’s true. I think a lot of the problems that we have with agents and, even a lot of the professional courtesy problems that Kris mentions on her blog, come from this type of mindset. I can’t tell you how many servers I’ve worked with have that have been rude to tables and been shocked that they got a bad tip. Seriously? And I think there is a definite corallary with agents. Also, I think that this relates to what Michael Stackpole is saying on his blog. I think too many people want to have things handed to them and don’t want to work. They see writing like winning the lottery. I used to work in a music club where we booked national acts and you’d see the same mentally with a lot of the local bands. They think that it’s the freakin’ lottery not hard work.

I speak for anyone else but I like it when I’ve worked my arse off and I accomplish something. I feel like Tom Hanks in that scene from Castaway, “Look at me, I’ve made fire!” It could be a fairly simple thing but when it’s something important to me, I feel like the smartest man alive when I accomplish a goal.

Anyway, I know this is a bit of a heavy rant from the guy who usually makes jokes about angry cows but what Jeremy said touched a nerve.

Cheers,

Steve

I have conversations all the time about tipping of restaurant workers. I am in the “good tip for good service” camp.

My wife, having spent many years in the restaurant business, feels guilty if she doesn’t leave a substantial tip, unless the server commits some egregious offense. She feels that if people don’t tip well, then the servers can’t afford to live. That’s true, but I don’t feel bad about that at all because it’s a natural and intended consequence of the tip system.

I tell her that if everyone who felt they got bad service from a particular server left a bad tip, over time that server would see the writing on the wall and either improve his service or find another job in another field.

Kind of the same as the writer-agent model. As long as writers keep feeding the bad agents, not only will they keep working in the same way, but more and more people will flock to that group because it is easier work. If writers insist on hiring agents for what they are intended and expecting them to perform that work and nothing more or less, the bad agents would either have to improve or go by the wayside.

But most people aren’t aware of this simple dynamic, and choose to ignore it or assert that it isn’t true when presented with that logical argument.

But it does get kind of head-shaking when you come at the writer/agent relationship from any kind of logical real-world business perspective. In a number of places that are discussing this, people are saying I have an advantage because of my three years of law school. I find that kind of funny because in essence they are saying “Dean has an advantage because he knows good business practice and I don’t have to know that.” All I am saying is that writers need to know business. I have no desire to change the agent system, I just want writers to take responsibility for their decisions. And make informed decisions when it comes to hiring someone to deal with money and careers.

Informed decisions. If writers would just do that when hiring agents, most of these problems would just vanish. And so would a lot of the scam and slush-reading agents, and publishers would be forced to find another door to hold out the slush. But it is the writers that have to say to a perspective agent, “Tell me something about yourself and your business.” Before they hire them.

In other words, use that list of questions and just interview your future employee.

The firm could receive payments, deposit into appropriate accounts (do publishers ever pay by direct deposit?), and inform of address changes. If I think about it, I can come up with many other tasks to be performed by that firm.

Then all those things would be managed by someone who’s actually set up to manage them, rather than an agent, who shouldn’t be.

I’m sure there are authors who do such a thing, just like there are athletes and actors that do the same thing (of course, many of those hire bad ones).

And given that agents want to read the slush, demand rewrites, give career advice, assign writing projects, and handle financial management, I’m surprised that none of them want to prepare tax returns as well. Though I wouldn’t put it past them.

But I think that might be where all (I hope) writers would draw the line. “Why in the hell would I pay an agent to do my taxes when I can hire an accountant?”

“Bingo, Writer boy. Bingo. So why in the hell would you hire one to manage your money and distribute funds to you?”

Actually, now that I’m on this, it brings me to a great point. Having the agent be paid first and then having them distribute the writer’s funds to him has a direct, ridiculous equivalent.

A business opens its doors and begins to manufacture products. It also hires some employees to handle certain tasks within the company. The business then sells the manufactured products to the market, but it does not demand or accept payment directly from its customers. Rather, it has the customers pay its EMPLOYEES all the reƿenues first. Then the employees deduct their salary and pay the remainder to the company.

I think we can all agree that’s the most ridiculous business proposal ever created. And yet it’s how the bulk of the publishing industry is designed. That’s just asinine.

That is a REALLY interesting suggestion. And what’s equally interesting to me: This NEVER ONCE OCCURRED TO ME.

The idea that money flows to the agent FIRST– or, at most, that it flows simultaneously to the writer and the agent, in a split-payments arrangement–is so established and ingrained… that the idea that the money could flow FIRST to the writer, who would then pay the agent… has never once occurred to me. Even though that is EXACTLY how I pay my lawyer! (She works, she bills me, and then I write her a check.)

I would be SO interested to see writers start introducing this concept in their interviews and negotiations with prospective agents.

I also think that the vast majority of writers will NEVER introduce this concept. The vast majority of writers want to hire an agent, not to overturn the way the agenting business model has (at least within living memory) always worked.

I also think that, from a practical perspective that I mentioned earlier, a lot of writers wouldn’t actually WANT the money coming to them first. If a writer’s income comes, over the course of 10 years, from 3 different US publishers and 20 different foreign publishers, then most writers just want to deal with ONE business (their agent) rather than logging mail and payments twice a year from 23 different businesses, all of whom pay on different schedules (and sometimes in different currencies). Keeping track of collecting, logging, and dividing all those payments is a good example of a task that almost all writers would prefer their agent simply do for them. Similarly, most writers don’t want to have to notify ALL those different businesses if they change addresses, or if they’re at a summer home for part of every year, or if they’re traveling, or in hospital for 4 weeks, etc. They find it less headache to let an agent deal with all that, so that they, in turn, just have to deal with an agent.

Meanwhile, I don’t think there are enough hours in the day for me to list all the ways I imagine that agents would object to the writer being paid first and then paying the agent… but the mind boggles! (g)