When you look at the funding models for Publishing and TV, (which, trust me, is not something I wake up wanting to do), it is hard to imagine a more polarised situation. Yet last week at CMC in Sheffield they were the two prevalent industries coming together and looking to the future. The shaded area where their two circles of interest cross is New Media... or more specifically e-books (ie 'electronic' or perhaps lately 'enhanced') and apps. (I reckon if I'd written 'Apps' on a Post-it and stuck it to my back a queue would have formed of TV and Publishing execs asking how I made it...)
'Why?' I asked myself, not particularly enthusiastically but the question wouldn't go away... so I 'noodled' it a bit. Apparently that's Amercian slang for 'thinking.... Is it.... typical U.S. They have something perfectly good and have to change it... but don;t get me started...
Anyway... Publishing appears to employ a 'toe in the water' approach. It usually releases one of a title and, if it gains sufficient traction/interest/sales or whatever jargon means 'works', releases another. If it really 'works' there might be a sequel with a teeny beany plush, audio version and christmas special - but even all of that is barely getting wet above the ankles. The process is measured and careful, the production costs relatively low, and it all appears well managed from a risk point of view, quite comfy slippers and cocoa really. (Obviously there are the cases of two three and four book deals with big advances and much trumpeting, but if a title bombs the sequels will never see the light of day)
TV on the other hand talks big and brash and dives straight in with 52 episodes, budgets in the millions and high expectations of reach, retail sales and brand lifespan. It is a high risk, arse twitching strategy that leaves most folk in the business so stressed a sudden cough might cause them to shatter into a million pieces (TV people are secretly held together by gaffer tape under their Gilly Hicks shirts) - and it requires everyone around the boardroom to simultaneously nod vigorously so no-one can be held responsible individually for making a bad call.
So creatively are publishers in the best situation? They can certainly get a wider variety of titles to the audience, and there certainly seems to be much more love, care and creative freedom. But their problem is the returns/profile just doesn't compare to TV - and they begrudge the idea that they can do all the work to raise a book's profile, only for TV to sweep in, buy the rights and grab all the glory. I imagine that's why they've started to try and roll the TV rights into their publishing deals (Not really fair chaps...) and some have made rather bold strides towards becoming some form of production company in their own right.
I keep wondering how we ended up at such an impractical funding model for Kids TV. It wasn't always the case that 52 eps needed to be made from the get go... there were days, not so long ago, when it was much more normal to have 13 eps - or even 6 or 7. What seems to have happened is that the cut in broadcaster funding has inadvertently upped the ante. I reckon the cycle went like this;
Broadcasters reduce license fee paid - forcing producers to fill the financing gap from distribution/toy companies.
Distribution/Toy companies say 13 eps is not enough to drive licensing - so increase requirement to 26 eps.
Financing gap left even bigger as broadcasters can't afford to commission and majority fund so many episodes from each series they take. So percentage of budget paid as a license fee drops even further.
Distribution/Toy companies say larger investment required needs even more confidence in potential success, therefore need to be sure all channels will give high profile to shows, so make 52 eps - which becomes accepted as a norm. (This is a micro version of the Hollywood $200million blockbusters being the only ones that recoup)
Industry settles at a base level of 52 eps and roughly 3-4million pounds budget to raise. Which means it takes about 5 years from concept through commission to production being delivered - 7 years to income coming back. Everyone loses the will to live and seriously discusses opening cake shop.
What interests me (OK... 'interests' might be a bit strong...) What occurs to me about the New Meeja isn't enhancing a book or interacting with a TV show (unless, as I've blahh'ed before, the enhancements are about story and character, not just making characters somersault and flowers appear) but rather the fact that it can give back to programme makers the chance to test things out, let them evolve, beautify and streamline them in front of an audience, and potentially get the audience to pay them to do so.
If TV can begin to develop and release new formats and characters using apps in a way that properly presents character and story, they might find they can free themselves up from the shrinking broadcast market which is reducing not only in the number of commissions, but also the level of adventurousness. The unknown is whether making this route to an audience successful will attract a broadcast slot, or ultimately make it unnecessary....
Tuesday, 12 July 2011
Tuesday, 5 July 2011
'I'm your agent - not your Mother!' 'I'm your client - not your property!'
So JK has left Christopher Little and they are talking of sueing... why? Surely the millions are enough - why give it to the lawyers? Traditionally actors and writers are never happy with their agents - because the agents don't pay them enough attention to make them feel 'special' - and of course the agents are frustrated with their clients because they behave like needy, selfish over grown children - but can they ever meet in the middle?
As an actor I could never leave things to my agent. The idea of sitting waiting for the phone to ring was totally alien to me, I just couldn't trust my career to someone trying to manage a list of actors that was too many to be realistic. I was proved right. All of my work, bar a commercial, a couple of training videos and a presenting job, came from my own endeavours. My first agent took this as an affront to their ability - but as their ability didn't stretch to getting me many auditions I didn't lose any sleep over it. In the end we parted company because i just wasn't getting enough jobs in the West End Musicals he was putting me up for. Really. Check my face for surprise. If he'd taken five minutes to think where my casting strengths might lie he would never have sent me up for any of them. It was lazy and dismissive - everything that is bad about agenting.
My second agent was totally different - he took time, he talked to me, he gave advice on photos, audition technique and welcomed my own efforts to get work - stepping in at the right time to negotiate on my behalf. It was teamwork and worked brilliantly. Better than that, when I met producers they all said they liked working with him - something that is hugely important in this business - which I didn't realise until much later.
There is often an unrealistic expectation of what an agent is to an actor. Firstly the idea that you are their primary concern (You're not, get over it.) Secondly that the agent spends as much time thinking about your potential as you do (If you're an actor NOBODY thinks about you as much as you do...) - and thirdly that you have the right to screw up an audition, but they don't have the right to miss an opportunity for you. Its a business arrangement, if they have taken the time to put you out there the least you can do is try not to f*ck it up. It is staggering the amount of turns who arrive at auditions without anything prepared and knowing NOTHING about what they are auditioning for. Grow up. Agents get you opportunities, they are not there to show you how to pay your bills by direct debit, tell you what colour you should paint your front door or advise whether you should wipe your bum front to back or back to front. In short, they are not your parents.
As a producer I saw a totally different side. Casting is hard. I'm sad to say the number of folk doing the rounds who just aren't good enough is a lot higher than Equity would like you to think. (Good actors take solace from this - there are fewer of you than the stats ever lead you to believe!) producing is the least appreciated of the roles. A producer spots, pitches, finances and takes responsibility for a show. People court you to get a job, then moan about it when they get it.
A good agent never sends you people who aren't suitable. A bad agent is just grateful you're seeing somebody off their lists. After a few castings where an agency repeatedly sent unsuitable actors we just stopped using them. No reflection on the actors. (I was once rushed a script for a West End Comedy - travelled down from Nottingham where I was working to audition with six others. We all lined up... I am 6'1", they were all 5'0... the part was for a jockey. The agent hadn't read beyond 'Actor required, Liverpudlian...')
When negotiating I was staggered how many agents (and Union reps) just didn't know the commercial realities of the business we are in. Making grand assumptions about the income from programmes and naive guesses about 'What people in Telly make' If an agent doesn't know what deals are being done how is the actor going to trust the deal they get? It worked in reverse too, with Unions and agents assuming we would always pay as little as possible. (Once Equity called our office, angry, threatening blacklisting us, and INSISTING we paid all the actors equity minimum in one of our live shows. This would have meant halving their wages...)
Worst of all is the agent who tries to use unreasonable leverage, threatening to close down filming, organising cartels with the actors and being offensive and rude to staff. We once told an actor we would no longer employ him if his agent didn't change their tactics. He brushed us off, saying that was their job. So we stopped using him. We had an easier life, he got an overdraft. Unless an actor is the name, the money, unfortunately the commercial truth is they are dispensable.
Its a business, nurture it.
So what has it been like as a writer? Many of the same rules apply regarding the easily bruised creative ego and the overly busy agent who is so busy being busy and tweeting about how busy they are that they haven't actually got time to be an agent. One agent completely screwed up by sending out the wrong version of a manuscript and tainting anyone's chances of reading it afresh again. They also apparently sent two other manuscripts out to 16 publishers all of whom just said 'No'. Via a different agent two of those same publishers said yes, very quickly. Now I'm not saying the first one never sent anything out at all but...
The publishers use the literary agents as a clearing house - a filtering system to stop them being inundated. This is fine - but puts the pressure on busy agencies to filter the mass of unsolicited manuscripts. It also takes the direct option away from authors, giving the agents more power in the equation, but also inappropriately turning them into first stop editors too.
The biggest difference I have found is the impression of ownership. Now, this might be agency specific, but my belief is that when a writer writes a book and an agent sells it, the only rights that pass over, and which the agent enjoys a percentage of, are those named in the deal. Being represented does not mean being owned. Every idea I have is owned by me until a deal is signed - and that goes for all rights associated with it. The BBC do this in their contracts, they specify that all your IP created whilst in their employ is theirs (a totally immoral stance if you ask me) This is why I won't sign a contract with an agent. Get the deal and enjoy the benefits, have me under contract and you will get lazy. (This is of course assuming I still deliver the goods too!)
This is about realistic expectations. As a writer what I need from an agent is an honest and constructive dialogue about what I'm writing, where it might be placed and, frankly, if its good enough. As an actor I need to know about my ideal casting, what the people I'm auditioning for are like, and approaches for the audition. As a producer I need suitable actors suggested, who arrive prepped for the audition. As an agent I need writers who keep delivering, because it is about the book and not the author, and actors who prepare properly. But then if everyone did all that it would make for a pretty boring industry...
As an actor I could never leave things to my agent. The idea of sitting waiting for the phone to ring was totally alien to me, I just couldn't trust my career to someone trying to manage a list of actors that was too many to be realistic. I was proved right. All of my work, bar a commercial, a couple of training videos and a presenting job, came from my own endeavours. My first agent took this as an affront to their ability - but as their ability didn't stretch to getting me many auditions I didn't lose any sleep over it. In the end we parted company because i just wasn't getting enough jobs in the West End Musicals he was putting me up for. Really. Check my face for surprise. If he'd taken five minutes to think where my casting strengths might lie he would never have sent me up for any of them. It was lazy and dismissive - everything that is bad about agenting.
My second agent was totally different - he took time, he talked to me, he gave advice on photos, audition technique and welcomed my own efforts to get work - stepping in at the right time to negotiate on my behalf. It was teamwork and worked brilliantly. Better than that, when I met producers they all said they liked working with him - something that is hugely important in this business - which I didn't realise until much later.
There is often an unrealistic expectation of what an agent is to an actor. Firstly the idea that you are their primary concern (You're not, get over it.) Secondly that the agent spends as much time thinking about your potential as you do (If you're an actor NOBODY thinks about you as much as you do...) - and thirdly that you have the right to screw up an audition, but they don't have the right to miss an opportunity for you. Its a business arrangement, if they have taken the time to put you out there the least you can do is try not to f*ck it up. It is staggering the amount of turns who arrive at auditions without anything prepared and knowing NOTHING about what they are auditioning for. Grow up. Agents get you opportunities, they are not there to show you how to pay your bills by direct debit, tell you what colour you should paint your front door or advise whether you should wipe your bum front to back or back to front. In short, they are not your parents.
As a producer I saw a totally different side. Casting is hard. I'm sad to say the number of folk doing the rounds who just aren't good enough is a lot higher than Equity would like you to think. (Good actors take solace from this - there are fewer of you than the stats ever lead you to believe!) producing is the least appreciated of the roles. A producer spots, pitches, finances and takes responsibility for a show. People court you to get a job, then moan about it when they get it.
A good agent never sends you people who aren't suitable. A bad agent is just grateful you're seeing somebody off their lists. After a few castings where an agency repeatedly sent unsuitable actors we just stopped using them. No reflection on the actors. (I was once rushed a script for a West End Comedy - travelled down from Nottingham where I was working to audition with six others. We all lined up... I am 6'1", they were all 5'0... the part was for a jockey. The agent hadn't read beyond 'Actor required, Liverpudlian...')
When negotiating I was staggered how many agents (and Union reps) just didn't know the commercial realities of the business we are in. Making grand assumptions about the income from programmes and naive guesses about 'What people in Telly make' If an agent doesn't know what deals are being done how is the actor going to trust the deal they get? It worked in reverse too, with Unions and agents assuming we would always pay as little as possible. (Once Equity called our office, angry, threatening blacklisting us, and INSISTING we paid all the actors equity minimum in one of our live shows. This would have meant halving their wages...)
Worst of all is the agent who tries to use unreasonable leverage, threatening to close down filming, organising cartels with the actors and being offensive and rude to staff. We once told an actor we would no longer employ him if his agent didn't change their tactics. He brushed us off, saying that was their job. So we stopped using him. We had an easier life, he got an overdraft. Unless an actor is the name, the money, unfortunately the commercial truth is they are dispensable.
Its a business, nurture it.
So what has it been like as a writer? Many of the same rules apply regarding the easily bruised creative ego and the overly busy agent who is so busy being busy and tweeting about how busy they are that they haven't actually got time to be an agent. One agent completely screwed up by sending out the wrong version of a manuscript and tainting anyone's chances of reading it afresh again. They also apparently sent two other manuscripts out to 16 publishers all of whom just said 'No'. Via a different agent two of those same publishers said yes, very quickly. Now I'm not saying the first one never sent anything out at all but...
The publishers use the literary agents as a clearing house - a filtering system to stop them being inundated. This is fine - but puts the pressure on busy agencies to filter the mass of unsolicited manuscripts. It also takes the direct option away from authors, giving the agents more power in the equation, but also inappropriately turning them into first stop editors too.
The biggest difference I have found is the impression of ownership. Now, this might be agency specific, but my belief is that when a writer writes a book and an agent sells it, the only rights that pass over, and which the agent enjoys a percentage of, are those named in the deal. Being represented does not mean being owned. Every idea I have is owned by me until a deal is signed - and that goes for all rights associated with it. The BBC do this in their contracts, they specify that all your IP created whilst in their employ is theirs (a totally immoral stance if you ask me) This is why I won't sign a contract with an agent. Get the deal and enjoy the benefits, have me under contract and you will get lazy. (This is of course assuming I still deliver the goods too!)
This is about realistic expectations. As a writer what I need from an agent is an honest and constructive dialogue about what I'm writing, where it might be placed and, frankly, if its good enough. As an actor I need to know about my ideal casting, what the people I'm auditioning for are like, and approaches for the audition. As a producer I need suitable actors suggested, who arrive prepped for the audition. As an agent I need writers who keep delivering, because it is about the book and not the author, and actors who prepare properly. But then if everyone did all that it would make for a pretty boring industry...
Sunday, 26 June 2011
Be Honest... E-Books are Sh*te
The fever around apps and 'enhanced' e-books is becoming unbearable, but most of all unrealistic. No-one has yet really worked out what an app is - a Game? A gimmick? An e-book? A TV show? Of course it isn't any of these. Similarly confusing is an e-book (or 'enhanced' book) - are they simply picture books with moveable elements? Or reading aides (because we all want to be very educational don't we...) It's a little like watching the early TV shows, which comprised of simply putting a camera in front of a theatrical presentation, because that's all anyone knew. Currently we are simply electronically presenting a book - with a couple of whistles and a small bell.
E-Books are sh*te. (sorry to get all Charlie Brooker) Some of them have slightly more pleasing gimmicks than others, but generally they are appalling. Why? Because the euphoria around being able to make a haystack jump in the air or touch a table and hear the word 'table' being read out has completely masked the fundamental job any type of book is meant to achieve... tell a story...
Books are a one on one absorbing experience where a readers imagination takes them right into the story they are being told. (Blah Blah Blah - we've all heard that being spouted... but then again... its true) The effects and world readers imagine are unaffordable in TV and film. Yet Reading takes more effort and commitment to the task of finishing a whole book. TV and Film on the other hand offer spectacular effects to every popcorn guzzling lard-arse who can manage to put a blue-ray disc in and press 'play' - it is also over usually within a couple of hours (unless you are James Cameron who, in my humble opinion, should keep his turgid, over-long, over rated epics to himself)
So... where does that leave the e-book? At the moment, nowhere. I'm sorry for all you courageous folk out there (and here... cos I'm trying too) but no-one has nailed it yet - because we are all chasing rainbows. The ultimate app/electronic 'book' will not be an enhanced book or an interactive animation.. it will be something else that needs to evolve. But its evolution will still need the fundamental of all our media. Character and story. I haven't seen ANY e-books or apps that retain this. I'm sorry Nosey Crow - but your 3 Pigs has no character work and only repetitive touch screen gimmicks all of which are counter to the flow of the story. What it does has is a lovely trick with the 3D environment, but not much beyond. Even the latest Oliver Jeffers app (with such high credentials) has only succeeded in totally annihilating the flow of the story by peppering each screen with needless, time wasting interactive elements.
But here's the thing - I am not a luddite or 'Flat Earth' exponent. I LOVE ipads and the potential they have. I'm really struggling with the current thinking in the products we put on them. The problem seems to come from the camps of Gaming, TV and Publishing not really being able to think outside of their own boxes... A book that moves, has a voice over and music is 'enhanced' a TV product that offers some touch screen fun is 'Interactive' and a story that allows the reader to kill the wolf or sail the boat has 'Gaming Elements' - but lets be honest... none of this really works... The 'Whoooo' button app is more fun, and much more honest.
In my experience part of the limiter here is the legalese. If an enhanced book does too much it becomes an animation - which means it strays into other definitions of rights... we need a new name (which is why suddenly publishers and TV folk are talking about the 'app' version of something... neither side can claim ownership, so ownership needs to be established afresh)
If a pig wants to build a house out of straw because it is quicker - that is because of WHO HE IS - a good story will communicate that - and an enhanced book should communicate that even better... If a visit from the Cat in the Hat encourages anarchy then a good book will communicate that and an enhanced e-book should communicate that even better. We need to stop looking at the elements around the story to enhance, and enhance the key ingredients of the story and characters themselves... then we might start making progress and making something wonderful because right now the technology is way ahead of the creative minds using it.
E-Books are sh*te. (sorry to get all Charlie Brooker) Some of them have slightly more pleasing gimmicks than others, but generally they are appalling. Why? Because the euphoria around being able to make a haystack jump in the air or touch a table and hear the word 'table' being read out has completely masked the fundamental job any type of book is meant to achieve... tell a story...
Books are a one on one absorbing experience where a readers imagination takes them right into the story they are being told. (Blah Blah Blah - we've all heard that being spouted... but then again... its true) The effects and world readers imagine are unaffordable in TV and film. Yet Reading takes more effort and commitment to the task of finishing a whole book. TV and Film on the other hand offer spectacular effects to every popcorn guzzling lard-arse who can manage to put a blue-ray disc in and press 'play' - it is also over usually within a couple of hours (unless you are James Cameron who, in my humble opinion, should keep his turgid, over-long, over rated epics to himself)
So... where does that leave the e-book? At the moment, nowhere. I'm sorry for all you courageous folk out there (and here... cos I'm trying too) but no-one has nailed it yet - because we are all chasing rainbows. The ultimate app/electronic 'book' will not be an enhanced book or an interactive animation.. it will be something else that needs to evolve. But its evolution will still need the fundamental of all our media. Character and story. I haven't seen ANY e-books or apps that retain this. I'm sorry Nosey Crow - but your 3 Pigs has no character work and only repetitive touch screen gimmicks all of which are counter to the flow of the story. What it does has is a lovely trick with the 3D environment, but not much beyond. Even the latest Oliver Jeffers app (with such high credentials) has only succeeded in totally annihilating the flow of the story by peppering each screen with needless, time wasting interactive elements.
But here's the thing - I am not a luddite or 'Flat Earth' exponent. I LOVE ipads and the potential they have. I'm really struggling with the current thinking in the products we put on them. The problem seems to come from the camps of Gaming, TV and Publishing not really being able to think outside of their own boxes... A book that moves, has a voice over and music is 'enhanced' a TV product that offers some touch screen fun is 'Interactive' and a story that allows the reader to kill the wolf or sail the boat has 'Gaming Elements' - but lets be honest... none of this really works... The 'Whoooo' button app is more fun, and much more honest.
In my experience part of the limiter here is the legalese. If an enhanced book does too much it becomes an animation - which means it strays into other definitions of rights... we need a new name (which is why suddenly publishers and TV folk are talking about the 'app' version of something... neither side can claim ownership, so ownership needs to be established afresh)
If a pig wants to build a house out of straw because it is quicker - that is because of WHO HE IS - a good story will communicate that - and an enhanced book should communicate that even better... If a visit from the Cat in the Hat encourages anarchy then a good book will communicate that and an enhanced e-book should communicate that even better. We need to stop looking at the elements around the story to enhance, and enhance the key ingredients of the story and characters themselves... then we might start making progress and making something wonderful because right now the technology is way ahead of the creative minds using it.
Thursday, 19 August 2010
POTENTIAL IS NOT A PRODUCT
I've had probably the most complimentary set of rejections one could hope for. I've been called 'Pullmanesque' and that I am '..clearly a writer if immense talent..' but still no agent. Weirdly I don't mind. OK thats a lie - there are times I mind a lot and think the whole industry is populated by idiots... but most of the time it's OK.
The picture books are progressing, going through the growing pains of re-writes (another blog post to come on that!) but they are progressing. The big book isn't going - despite the compliments it is getting, and I am trying to be a grown up and figure out why. I have a couple of theories...
I wrote it as part of a genre, almost an exercise, not because there was a story I wanted to tell. I guess I was second guessing the market - and of course the market moves so quickly it has moved on before I can get there.
It doesn't have the one-line grab concept... these of course do not a book make - but they help readers/agents/publishers know what they are dealing with. A School for Wizards... a Kid brought up by ghosts in a graveyard... The diary of a 14 year old demon... Romeo and Juliet set amongst two tribes of garden gnomes... all of these tell you what you have in your hand.. the rest is in the writing.
So what can I draw from it? Upside - I am generally being seen as a good/very good writer. Well that's got to be part of the battle!
I need to hone the concepts so I can sum them up - and they still sound original... but there is an important proviso here...
I must write stories I want to read - not others. The stories must excite and delight me and me only... at first. This may sound self destructive - but second guessing is a form of people pleasing, and one thing guaranteed about people pleasing is that ultimately people end up not being pleased.
I also wondered why, if I'm such a good writer, I haven't been taken on - but I suppose - and far be it from me to give the 20%ters a break - you can't sell potential... you can only sell a product, a book. Once one, two or three good ones have been written and published successfully then perhaps you can sell reputation... but potential is much much harder.
Thats why I guess agents have to start representing the book and not the writer, and if the writer continues to deliver, then they can represent the writer and his future books...
Monday, 21 June 2010
WHEN AN AGENT BUNGLES....
So... the search for representation goes on. After a couple of polite knock backs - which I took too hard - a couple of very positive reactions followed. Its a bit of a roller coaster taking these things as they come in... somehow you have to keep confident - and find the enthusiasm to move on to the next project.
But then today I found out my old agent had in fact sent out a MSS, without my knowledge, and not only that she had sent out the wrong one, an old one, that I was in the process of re-writing. They even had the new opening chapters - but still sent out the old MSS. It leaves me in a quandary - those publishers who have seen and rejected it now need to be re-approached with a new draft. New agents that I might be talking to also have to be prepared to work with this false start in the marketplace. I am furious. Two and a half years of work on this book could well have been thrown away by this stupid, incompetent and unprofessional screw-up...
I guess all I can do is e-mail the publishers it was sent to and point out the mistake - but I am also asking my old agency to e-mail the publishers too... taking bets... do you reckon they will?
Wednesday, 9 June 2010
Searching for that Agent
So the letters and samples have all gone out to about 15 agents and the waiting begins.
One thing is already clear to me going down this path. This is not about you as a writer and your all round wonderful potential. It is only about the book you send. Because that is what the agent will have to send to publishers. Saying 'They're a lovely person and will do well down the line' doesn't mean anything. It's all about the book. The most useful rejection will always be the one that tells you why the book itself wasn't sellable. It's not about you!
However, the way an agent handles the submissions/auditioning process is a window to both the way they will treat their clients and the way the industry is likely to view them - and ultimately you need an agent that people in the industry like. Having worked as an actor, and now working as a producer and looking for writing representation I have experienced this from both sides... Don't be afraid to form your own opinion - even when it feels impossible that an agent will ever take you on.
Few things to bear in mind...
Trust me.. if the agent is unreasonable, abrasive, rude, people will (and we have) stopped using their clients - life is too short to have agents being rude or aggressive down the phone.
An agent who doesn't understand the commercial models of the producer/publisher - and therefore WHY certain offers are being made in the way they are - won't last long either. It becomes pointless trying to do reasoned negotiation. Agents who understand the commercial models are in a much better position to prevent being ripped off and losing out.
(We once had Equity sit down with us and try and negotiate a huge TV deal... based on things they had read in 'The Sun.' That's why we don't use Equity contracts. Before you snort and write us off as a dodgy company, we once did a live show without Equity contracts and Equity phoned us telling us they would blacklist the company unless we paid Equity minimum. We gently pointed out that would mean halfing the pay of most of the cast.)
One agent doesn't even give a name to send submissions to - just 'Submissions' - sorry - but to me that is an agency a little too full of their own importance, and too assured in their own arrogance that they are effectively saying 'send your stuff, no-one in particular will look at it because we're just so busy....' Make a name up! At least pretend that you are dealing with human beings here! If you deal with potential clients like that - how do you treat the people you are supposedly seeking work from? Bad sign if you ask me.
Don't play power games. I have heard of agents firing back e-mails saying 'What's the best book title you can think of' and basing a decision on the answer. Tell agents like that to grow up! This isn't about them getting people dancing to their tune - and it isn't a creative writing course for teenagers. It is a commercial agreement. That exercise was simply the agent proving (either to the client or themselves - who knows) that they are the most important person in the equation, they are the ones who get to pass judgement. If that happens to you, and you have the courage to - tell them to bugger off!
That's all the negative stuff i guess!
There are some gems. People with ideas, energy, passion for the business. People who give some supporting answers for why a project doesn't fit, the good points and bad. People who just take a little time.
I have had some lovely rejection letters! From people who have clearly read the work, formed an opinion and taken the time to put one or two things on paper - it doesn't make the rejection easier to get initially, but it does help when you take the time to take on board what is said. I have had phone calls from people offering advice, people thanking me for thinking of them and generally treating the process as a collaboration, a shared experience. Even when that collaboration isn't going any further they have been able to recognise the time and effort that goes in to finishing a book and getting it out there.
These people are probably worth persevering with (not pestering!) and when you have a book which might suit better I would resend. They are usually, also, the people that are well thought of throughout any industry.
It isn't just a question of getting a 'yes' - it has much longer term ramifications - trust your instinct. I was told by one large agency they couldn't place my work and had indeed sent it out to sixteen people - a smaller energetic agency took it on and had it placed within two months...
Wednesday, 26 May 2010
TRANSPARENCY - RIGHTS
Strikes me there is little point in blogging without anything to say. What might people find useful? What do I find useful? Shared experience. Simple really.
Now, there is always the possibility of pissing off the folk in the industry who pay our wages so discretion is always recommended.. so here's the nub... I will write this blog, honestly, openly, about getting work made or published and written as openly as I can, whilst also respecting where justifiable, other peoples concerns... (Please ask me questions... I will answer.. honestly.. don't be offended!)
SO... rights. I'm, currently involved in a deal negotiation for two picture books with a major, and very good, publisher. Let me be clear. I like them, I like the people I'm talking to and the prospect of being published by them - very very exciting... BUT... They have sent a standard contract through. BEWARE!!!!! Standard means catch all... in other words... we'll give you X (the up front for a book) BUT we'll take (and therefore control) all rights... digital, film, TV, stage, Merchandising etc...
Now... my Mum, Doreen, was amazing because she could always see both sides. Often I realise I have inherited this from her. Blessing and curse - but more often a blessing - Thanks Dof.
The author/illustrator is only selling the book rights. The advance is based on book rights. Wrapping in other rights into that deal is sneaky and should not be agreed...BUT...
If I were a publisher and was risking my money to take a concept, character or format to the market I might like to benefit from other exploitation in more ways than simple uplift. After all, the interest is there because of the audience created by the book.
I think there is a healthy middle ground here that, in this current age of many forms of exploitation, benefits everyone. Give the publishers a kick back on other rights (ie a % of purchase prices etc) and the opportunity to source deals (ie bring film, merch deals to the table) That way everyone benefits from the continued exploitation of a great idea... it isn't rocket science.
Authors, Artists... kick back, ask, hold on... but be reasonable. Publishers... don't ask for it all because that leaves a bad taste. Propose a fair deal. Authors/Artists should accept a fair deal. Then we're all happy.
Most of all lets stop making the lawyers rich. Lets stop wasting time. Propose fair deals straight away. No-one is stupid... save us the time of arguing... I will create a template if people feel it will be useful...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
