What would be even better than a collaborative agreed-upon hike from 15% to 20% would be where different agents charged different fees for different services. Some might try to make it at 12% and others would charge 25%. Writers could decide what they were willing to pay.

In a situation like this what would probably happen is that some agents would focus on diving into the slush pile in hopes of pulling out a few stars. These would probably charge a high percentage, 20 or more, at least for first novels. Meanwhile others who wanted to acquire already published novelists would compete to offer less. I would imagine that even 10% of Stephenie Meyer’s business would be well worth competing for.

Agents could even say they would charge a very high percentage on a first sale, and then reduce their fee for second and future sales if the author promised to stay with them. Any of these and other possible models seem like they could make it more worthwhile to wallow through slush without ripping off desperate and unpublished authors.

Writers, the ones making the product, who already earn little need to take a 5% pay cut so an agent can make more? Do that really make any sense?

These agents complaining about having to do more work are actually doing the work publishers used to do, so they have no reason to look at writers for more money.

Maybe that’s the real problem. In our chosen field of fiction, and agent is just about mandatory. Of all the publishers of SF/Fantasy out there, how many actually will allow you to send in a complete manuscript without an agent? Two.

Agents have a monopoly and they know it. Related to this is the “no simultaneous submissions” rule. If the publishers, and agents, actually had to compete with each other because they knew that if they didn’t act someone else might, things would be better all around, and probably also allow for more money in the long run.

A lawyer’s client can to some extent control billable hours by not seeking legal assistance on matters where the client feels it’s not necessary–(and not getting into whether this is wise or foolish in any situation)–but an agency contract prevents a writer from negotiating on his/her own behalf even if offered terms are acceptable. And agents may choose to engage in activities that the agent believes will benefit clients, without the client’s express permission–for example, if an agent chooses to attend a book fair, should that expense to the agent be billed to clients? And if so, how distributed? If the agent attends a movie premier of a movie made from a client’s book, are those hours charged to the client…was that actually a service to the client, or a promotion of the agent?

Authors, in general, are not overpaid either…and cannot budget if they cannot calculate how much their agent will cost them. At least, with a straight commission on sales, the writer knows what the agent’s cut will be. If the agent is billing hours on activities the writer did not request (even if the agent thinks them worth doing) then the writer is not only shorter of money but unable to predict what this month’s billable hours will come to.

Continued commission hikes (since there’s no reason to expect agents to stop at 20% if they decide they’re still underpaid and want more) will eventually make agents unprofitable for nearly all writers (for the same reason uncontrolled billable hours might) unless agents markedly increase writers’ incomes. I know that my agent has in fact increased my income more than enough to cover the increased commission…but I also know that’s not true of all clients, or (very definitely) all agents. At some price point (which I can’t define, even for myself, let alone other writers) any agent may become unprofitable for a writer–at some higher point, having an agent will itself become unprofitable. (The same is true in reverse, of course: a writer may become permanently unprofitable for an agent, at which point agents have in fact dropped writers.)

Larger commissions or hourly billing bear most heavily on writers who are earning less, often exactly that new talent that agents want to find and bring to publication, and which has the potential to produce large income later. These writers can least afford continued cuts in their writing income and least afford uncertainty. Granted that early-career development of a writer does very likely take more time-per-unit of income than one more advanced in a career, that’s a necessary investment if the writer is to reach full earning potential for the agent.

It may be (as hinted at in the article) that there are simply too many agents at the moment, and the available pie is sliced into too many pieces, with many agents having a sliver too small to live on (just like writers…) I don’t know–I do know that some agents are doing very well through their choice of clients…which has been the traditional way for agents to succeed. I suspect that many people let go from publishing houses think setting up as an agent is the obvious thing to do–they have the contacts with old colleagues, they know the business. But regardless of their ability, if the market is saturated many will not meet their own expectations. Whether those who feel themselves underpaid are actually underpaid–in terms of their value to their clients–is something for agent and client to consider together.

Along the same line of logic, I find it is less frustrating if you stop thinking of the agent as “taking away” a percentage of your earning, but rather that the publisher is paying both you and your agent with one big lump check and the agent is helpfully separating out your portion.