Posted by Victoria Strauss for Writer Beware
Yesterday, PW reported on the launch of AgentInbox, a new service from collaborative writing website WEbook (I've blogged about WEbook before).
"AgentInbox is a service that connects publication-ready authors with reputable, vetted literary agents," says the service's FAQ for writers. Writers enter their book's "vital stats," including title, genre, query letter, and all or part of the manuscript (there are several tutorials to help with the polishing process). They can then check AgentInbox's roster of participating agents and choose which ones they'd like their submission to go to. WEbook staff pre-screens submissions, then forwards them on to the agents chosen.
According to PW,
AgentInbox will focus in particular on query letters while also ensuring the manuscripts adhere to basic editorial standards and readiness, said Ardy Khazaei, president of WEbook.
WEbook’s team of in-house and freelance publishing professionals will review pitch letters, make sure that the letters match the actual manuscript and that the manuscript is properly formatted, but the company will not make any recommendations about the quality of the content.
How does it work for agents? According to AgentInbox's FAQ for agents, agents create a profile listing their interests and submission preferences. They can then check their submissions online, sort them by various categories including genre, and "[r]eject unsuitable submissions with a single click, and contact the gems directly."
At present, AgentInbox is free for writers, though in future, premium services may be subject to a fee.
AgentInbox reminds me a lot of Creative Byline (about which I have also blogged), an automated submission service targeted to publishers. Creative Byline provides not just screening, but actual editorial feedback on writers' materials--but otherwise the setup seems quite similar.
Both AgentInbox and Creative Byline are a riff on the manuscript display site, or electronic slush pile, which aims to attract agents and publishers by moving the acquisition process online, and to serve writers by promoting their work direct to publishing professionals, without the need for sending multiple queries. There are many iterations of this basic idea, from the static display site where writers' submissions hang like banners in hopes someone will come along and view them (example: BooksandManuscripts.com), to supposedly more selective display sites where submissions are pre-screened for quality before being made available to registered agents and publishers (example: OnlyOneChapter), to crowd-sourced display sites where reader rankings drive submissions to the top for consideration by participating agents and editors (example: Authonomy).
The display site idea first surfaced in the late 1990's. Despite innovations in concept and advances in technology, electronic slush piles have so far failed to establish themselves as a genuine alternative path to representation or publication (for writers), or as an alternative method of manuscript acquisition (for agents and publishers).
Will AgentInbox--which already has signed up an impressive roster of participating agents, one of whom, according to PW, has already found a client via the service--be the tipping point? Only time will tell. Worth noting, however: Creative Byline, which has been in business for more than a year and a half, continues to have difficulty expanding its publisher list (currently, only six publishers are signed up), and has reported no sales as a result of writers' use of the service. Simply because agents can be more flexible in their acquisition guidelines than publishers, I'd expect a greater success rate for AgentInbox, at least initially. But I would also guess that unless AgentInbox staff do a bit more than just make sure that manuscripts are properly formatted, agents will lose enthusiasm for the service.
(Writers take note: whether or not it improves access to agents, AgentInbox won't help with those most common of writerly gripes, form rejection letters and nonresponse. For agents, one of the advertised perks of the system is that they can "delete [submissions] or send automated rejections with a few clicks.")
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
If agents have become de facto gatekeepers for publishers, does this service aim to become a gatekeeper for agents? It's easy to find agents lamenting the blast submissions some writers send; is this much different?
In the long run, I see this as a bad thing for those who are serious about getting published if it catches on. Why take the time to try to find the right agent who covers not just your genre, but has a track record for your type of book within that genre, when you can just send it in and they'll broadcast it? The amount of noise that has to be navigated is already too great; this may only make it worse.
Unless I'm missing something. (It wouldn't be the first time.)
Interesting post. Premise sounds good but again, there are no shortcuts to publication. No magic wand either.
Actually, display sites date to the early nineties. The first one I recall was in '91 or '92 on GEnie.
Like later iterations of the idea, that one foundered on the question of what would make editors and agents want to go there, when their inboxes were already filled with manuscripts and queries that were addressed to them personally and delivered by a uniformed government employee.
The best that can be said for display sites is that authors who use them never get a rejection letter. If avoiding rejection is your goal, they're great.
Technology has thrown the various relationships involved in manuscript publication into a state of flux. Once the brouhaha settles, a middle ground will emerge, with something for everyone.
Or, you could just send a query letter. I don't see how this is an improvement.
I think people get too hung up on query letters. Just follow the directions given by the agent. It's not that hard.
I hate writing query letters. I hate the idea that the query is more important than your book. I'm looking forward to new models where the agent and the publisher become obsolete. I know it's still some way off, but it will come sooner or later. And when I see an agent on the sidewalk with his hand out, I'll tell him that I'll only help him out if he can provide a creative query telling me why I should, and that he should accompany it with a more detailed description in 30 pages of double spaced typing. Then I'll tell him to go to hell.
Interesting... I was expecting a more 'damning' critique. ;) As an author, the concern I would have is which agents would have access to my contact info. Unless the agents are screened, it seems like a great way for some less-than-savory types to prey on hopeful authors. But maybe I'm just too paranoid.
I think it's a great idea. I don't know about you, but I spend great quantities of time crafting my work, pouring my heart and soul into it, making sure it's polished and perfect, and then I have to spend an hour or so on EACH agent's site trying to figure out what they're good for and how to send a query letter? I mean, if WE could use form letters, that'd be nice, but no two agents want the exact same process. It's like we're living in a thousand different countries, some of which will fine us if we walk on the grass, and some will fine us if we DON'T walk on the grass.
I really don't have the time to learn what amounts to a thousand dialects of the same language after I spent God-knows how many man-years of my life creating a compelling story.
So anything that takes some of the ridiculous burden imposed on the process by self-important gatekeepers who want to feel needed is a great idea. Simplification is great.
From the agent's point of view, I can't see how it's bad either. Your inbox is no longer flooded, and you only work (find new customers) when YOU feel like it, not when it feels like coming to you. (Well, assuming you're allowed to browse the projects up for grabs.)
Although it may seem the burden is always on the writer, the crafter, the blood-sweat-and-tears artist, the burden is shared throughout the publishing process. The lion's share does fall to the writer but that is to be expected. It is our responsibility as professionals to ensure that our product is publishing worthy.
The sad part comes in that regrettably, "publishing worthy" is subjective. "What might sell" to one agent is a "never in a million years" to another. And the process is repeated at the publishing house.
Now, these sites come along and offer what the writer supposedly wants to hear: a simplified way of getting published. They are also offering to the agents what they want to hear: no more queries for material you don't want to see. My guess is that they will accomplish some of each goal and there will be satisfied clients at both ends of the spectrum. But my gut feeling is that for most people, this will just be one more step separating the writer from the publisher.
Professional writers have become so accustomed to understanding their odds at the slushpile are exponentially lower than at an agent that any writer with understanding will move their manuscript in that direction. Now, the frustration level has increased since now the critical mass of query slushpiles has reached the agents.
So, the logical thing to do is to add another layer that doesn't mind mindless backlog of manuscripts? Don't count on me.
It's interesting to see the hostility toward agents in some of the comments. I've opined before on why that kind of hostility seems to be so prevalent, but it's interesting to see it aimed at a service that supposedly is designed to make agents more accessible.
I agree with those who feel that it doesn't make a lot of sense to add another layer of gatekeeping to the agent-hunting process. I think that for both agents and writers, it makes targeting less precise--which may actually increase the odds against getting an offer/finding a client.
But I think that the main issue with Agent Inbox--as with all electronic slush piles--will be the service's screening procedure. Given agents' already-existing slush piles, I don't see that there's a lot of incentive for them to use a service like this unless it really screens out the dross. Will it do that? Not based on the info I've seen. But again, time will tell.
Hello there, from WEbook…
Thanks everyone for the the discussion around AgentInbox, our new service.
We’ve been seeing that the article may have left readers with a few incorrect impressions that we’d like to clarify:
- Writers do pick which agent they send their work to — the choice is completely up to them. We simply show writers the list of agents who are currently accepting submission in the genre(s) of the particular manuscript. A leading agent at Writers House has already signed on one of the writers from the community who used the service.
- We do in fact screen agents before they gain access to AgentInbox. (Some requests have been turned down.)
- WEbook also screens submissions for agents with two goals in mind 1) Agents receive higher quality submissions overall, 2) If the WEbook staff determines that the submission is not agent-ready, we return the query to the author with corrections and suggestions for resubmission.
- Writers receive rejection letters through the service, but directly from the agent. Just like an email/snail mail submission, it is completely up to the agent how much time he/she puts into the letter. We provide the web platform to make the process more straightforward and faster, but the letter comes from the agent.
AgentInbox was developed in consultation with leading agents and aspiring authors. The goal (and the challenge) was to develop an application that benefits both group – and we continue to take feedback. If you use the service (as an agent or as a writer) please let us know your thoughts.
Post a Comment