Blogger: Wendy Lawton
Location: Old New Castle, Delaware
Broken things drive me crazy. Just call me the Fix-it Fairy. If something is broken–be it an object, a person, or a system–I have trouble accepting the state of brokenness. I want it fixed. This week I’ve chosen five things we writers, agents, and publishers encounter– five things that feel broken at this point.
Today I want to vent about the query system we use to screen potential clients. Here’s a news flash: the system is broken.
Let me tell you why.
Query Spammers. Writers’ queries to agents have increased exponentially. Remember the days of Louisa May Alcott when she gathered her handwritten manuscript, tied it with ribbon and delivered it to a publisher? Or in the last century when a writer laboriously typed each manuscript, perhaps making one onionskin copy? Those writers invested significant time and effort to prepare for each submission. With the advent of the computer, word processing and email, a writer can blanket the entire market with queries in a matter of hours. And, believe me, they do. The reality of this shotgun approach is that the overwhelming percentage of the queries we receive are entirely unsuitable. It becomes patently obvious that the writer never even took the time to read our website to see what we represent. These query spammers ruin it for the serious writers by eating agent time and energy.
Writers often complain about receiving blanket rejections. If only you could see the blanket queries we receive.
You’ve probably heard about one particular query spammer who sends the same daily query to every agent in the industry. He didn’t start numbering his early queries but he added a numbering system about a year ago and is up over 300 numerically. Ridiculous.
Because it takes so long to process the tsunami of queries, agents despair and begin to analyze the value of reading queries. Looking at queries is only a tiny fraction of our workload–the least profitable fraction. I haven’t kept a tally of the number of queries received last year but another agent, Rachelle Gardner of WordServe Literary, did. Their agency processed about 10,000 queries in 2010. I’m guessing that’s not too far off for any of us. Out of all those queries she was not able to sign one new client. You can read more about it here.
Queries are not necessarily representative. Some of the finest writers are some of the worst query writers and vice versa. We’re making seat-of-the-pants decisions on a bit of promotional-type writing.
Scarcity of Slots. Truth be told, most established agents have very full client lists. That’s not to say that we wouldn’t take on a new client if we fell in love with the book or the writer, but few agents are finding new clients through the query system. We often wonder if it is counter-productive. So how do we find clients? Each agent is different but I tend to find clients two different ways: through referrals from editors, clients or published authors; and through meeting writers in person at a conference.
So. . . can the system be fixed?
I’m not sure it can be fixed. In a dream world I would say that the tsunami needs to be stemmed but no matter how many times we stress research and matching the project to the agent we can’t make a dent because the query spammers never assume it applies to them. The only writers who would take heed are the very writers we most like to represent– writers who invest their time in research and follow all the guidelines.
Do we need more agents? Maybe, but remember there’s a finite number of publishing spots. If we doubled the number of literary agents yet publishers kept publishing the same number of titles, agents would statistically sell only half as many books. And their clients would have their chances of getting a book contract cut in half. The reality of the current market is ever-shrinking publisher lists.
Can a writer get around the broken system?
Yes. If you are reading agent blogs you are the kind of due-diligence writer agents like to represent. The query spammers don’t spend time researching the industry by reading blogs, so the competition is much smaller for you to do an end run around the query system. Connect with other writers. Once you get to know published writers you may get the offer of an introduction. Or cut out the middle man and meet your target agent(s) at a writer’s conference.
Also remember that you stand a better chance with a newer agent, an agent just developing his/her client list.
Your turn: You can tell I didn’t come up with many solutions to the broken system.Got any suggestions for fixing the system? Would you like to point out the unfairness of it all? Is there something I’m not seeing?
Thanks Wendy. This is one of those things as a fairly new published writer that I wonder about all the time. It seems that the query system is a general catch all for everyone and I’ve wondered how to set myself apart from the rest. I met my first agent at Glorieta and now am in the position of having to secure a new agent/writer relationship. Based on what you’ve written here it seems like the best thing to do is still query because that’s the system in place,whether it’s broken or not, but what about utilizing social media like Facebook or Twitter? Are those viable options to connect with a potential agent? And I agree, meeting someone in person is my first choice hands down, but if a person can’t afford to travel right now would you still recommend querying? And if so, maybe limit it to a Top 5 list?
Allison, you are right. It IS the system we have now and I have found clients through the query system. But you ask about social media. Yes, it’s a great place to build relationships. We get to know writers whose name we see repeatedly. It’s another way to be distinctive in a way-too-crowded market.
One method that cuts down on some of the queries is to only accept snailmail.
A trick to help on the electronic side is requiring some sort of upfront registration (like a user ID) or filled-out form to accompany the query. As a hiring manager, I weed most applicants by requiring they submit a filled-out application with their resume; this cuts resumes from 500 to 50 because only the serious candidates are willing to do the work.
This may make me sound heartless, but here’s my suggestion.
Could you make the same system — Internet correspondence– work for you that now works against you?
One way is to vet queries with an opt-in page where the submitter would have to check and fill in boxes, such as: 1) I have read the query submission requirements 2) My query is in the proper physical format for submission 3) My book is in the following genre and is similar to the following published Christian books (leave a blank) and 4 and further questions) Other elements Books and Such would consider essential precursors to a good query.
Once the submitter had filled this out completely and “agreed to terms,” (like those for iTunes) then they would receive by email a link to submit. The link would include the admonition that if they spam you or send completely inappropriate submissions, you will block any emails/submissions from their IP address. Stress professionalism and the idea of “only one shot” at making an impression.
The second part– work with your Internet professional to create a filter for all those who abuse the system, so that their emails are rejected.
Maybe I’m just dreaming, but could this be done?
Wendy, It’s been difficult for me to find a new agent who is taking on writers at this point. I find many websites for agents shut down when I do my searches. It’s a sad state of affairs. But it does stress the importance of going to conferences and joining writer’s groups. Getting connected may be the key to overcoming this problem.
Wow, Lance and Latayne, what intriguing ideas! We need to talk about this further. It might work. A question about why the writer sees the particular agent as a good fit could help as well.
Many thanks for the outside-of-the-box brainstorming.
Allison, the first responder, wondered how we can set ourselves apart when we send a query. I wonder if we put “I followed your rules!” in the Subject line, whether it might gain attention? It is frustrating to hear that our hours and hours of hard work are diluted by time-wasters (spammers).
Carrie, the problem is far more than following rules. Some of those who query get way too caught up in rules. We don’t care so much about format, etc. (that can be a power thing). We are looking for writers and books who fit our agency. You should see some of the queries we get. Books that reportedly disprove the existence of God, erotic novels, children’s picture books regularly show up in our inbox. If the writer even glanced at our website he would know we don’t represent those kinds of books.
But you are on the right track– we need a way to help writers pre-qualify themselves. I’m still chewing on Latayne’s suggestion. Exciting ideas.
Wendy, thank you for the insight. I have learned that it takes time not only to learn the ropes but to also build relationships. I recently joined ACFW and honestly I don’t know what I ever did without them. Making connections and being open to learning and adjusting to the way the system works can only improve a writer’s odds.
I think that for those who continue to query when they have not gotten a response or the response they wanted, only prove to annoy the agent and therefore will never be signed by them. I personally wouldn’t want to be known as that “annoyance”.
Hi Wendy. Gotta say I really like Lance’s ideas–they definitely need consideration.
Just thought I’d throw in my personal experience (with you). Several years ago, I planned to attend the OCW summer conference and one of the things I hoped to accomplish was to get some face time with agents.
I researched the ones who would be attending the conference. You were one of them. I thought my work and personality would be a good fit. So . . . I had a book idea prepared and I went to the conference determined to meet you. You might say, I hunted you down. I was already a published author so that was probably a help. But we did click and my idea (which you loved) was the beginning of our professional and friendly relationship.
I realize this note has no tips for your dilemma about your deluge of inquiries, but I thought I’d include a success story for those looking for an agent–I did my research and I was prepared with a pitch.
I’ve loved working with you.
Grace and peace to you.
This was really a fascinating post – to get the flip side perspective of querying. I like when agents request additional material with the query (like the first chapter), but I know that also increases the time load for agents.
Personally I like the conference meetings best and the networking done there. It’s nice to have some connection (face to face or referral) before sending stuff.
Thanks for the great post, Wendy! It was enlightening. It’s a Publishing- World of Joshua-and-Caleb-sized challenges today. I am continually reminding myself not to be put off by the Giant issues in all areas of writing. There are many things we cannot control, and that can be very discouraging, but if we give up and never finish our stories, we’ll never know what might have happened. To have done our best and failed is so much better than giving up. (There were some terrific ideas in the Comments! Maybe, someday….)
Thanks, Wendy, for blogging about this.
It is frustrating for writers who have done the agent research to know that agents receive hundreds of queries each week, that many of the receipts may not even be in a genre you represent, and that they are taking up time that could be devoted to serious, well-thought out queries.
I like the suggestion of asking why the writer thinks that your agency would be a good fit for their writing. Perhaps that would be one of the first things to look at to determine how well they’ve researched your agency.
Just a thought.
The importance of research can’t be stated often enough, so I am glad you tackled this subject today. I had one publisher in mind when I submitted Little Shepherd. I reviewed several of their books, corresponded with some of their authors, and chatted with the publisher during two separate online writers conferences. Bottom line: after a few suggested edits, my manuscript was accepted. I knew what they were looking for and I write my book in a way that it would fit in with what they offer.
I like Lance’s and Latayne’s ideas. Would love to see them implemented, not only to help you, but to help writers who took the time to perform their research first.
Thanks for starting my week off with a great discussion.
I’m going to agree with the consensus and endorse Lance and Latayne’s ideas. Genius! While having to answer some of those point-blank questions up front might be scary for a new author, the brutal truth is that if they are too timid to answer those questions yet, they may need a little more time to build confidence (i.e. grow a thicker skin, work on their craft, prepare for the rejection this industry always provides) before they’re ready to jump into the professional side of writing. Two years ago, I wasn’t quite ready. One year ago, I was. I needed to immerse myself in the industry via blogs, writers’ conferences, craft books, etc. to build to confidence to say, “I think I have something to offer this agent or this publisher. Time to work.” Ultimately this benefits both author and agent. The author doesn’t hurt her chances by submitting before she’s ready, and (theoretically) the agent has more serious queries to read. Win-win.
Looking forward to the rest of the posts this week, Wendy!
Twenty years ago, it was time-consuming and took a lot of work to query an agent or editor. A writer needed to either purchase or borrow a Writer’s Market and study which agents to send her work to. I’m guessing there were fewer queries back then.
Latayne’s suggestion from above makes sense. Serious writers who have done their research will have no problem filling out a quick e-form before submitting. I think it would cut down the spammers. Books & Such Literary’s online presence is very respectful to writers. Any extra steps an author has to take will be well worth it.
I’ve seen agent sites that tell those submitting a query exactly what needs to appear in the subject line of the e-mail. They don’t quite bury the information, but you do have to read how to submit in order to find it. That would give you an instant way of knowing if someone read your submissions page or not . . .
LOVED the tech ideas. If you can’t beat the technology, join it!
Wendy,
Today’s blog is a Thanksgiving meal! You gave us a full plate.
Please forgive me of my ignorance. If the information is not listed on the agency’s website, how does a writer know if an established agent is closed to new clients or unpublished authors?
Can agents charge a “handling” fee to read queries? If so, that would cut down on the inundation. If that is against their code of ethics, perhaps that should be changed to fix the broken system…
Although I was aware that the query system doesn’t work well, putting a number of 10,000 queries a year drives the point home in a powerful way.
In my “day job” I receive spam press releases. Unless I know the sender or the subject line is compelling, it receives about 2 seconds of consideration before I press delete.
Occasionally one gets deleted that I shouldn’t be, but if I took time to read all of them, I’d never accomplish my other work!
As a new writer who is currently sending out queries, this post is a bit disheartening. However, I am a firm believer in God’s hand on my life and I have to believe that somehow my submission will bubble up to the top of the right person’s inbox. I am also a firm believer in the due diligence concept, so I plug away . . . research, research, research!
I had no idea one could spam a query letter…learn something new all the time! Your task appears daunting, and yet you press on…thank goodness for authors who have researched and meet the criteria of your agency.
Would an agent or agency be more likely to at least look at a query letter received in the mail? (I have visions of Elle’s resume in Legally Blonde..pink perfumed paper)
Is it possible to meet an agent other than at conferences? Are there “Meet An Agent” events separate from conferences? Would it be too overwhelming? Sometimes the conferences are distant and many months apart.
Thank you for a great discussion.
Along the same line of thought as Sarah’s suggestion about the subject line, bury the correct e-mail address somewhere in the middle of the instructions (no bright blue link). You have to do something–10,000 queries is too much! (Can I make it 10,001? I promise to follow the instructions!)
I agree with those who have said that this news is a little disheartening. But, again, it does support the benefits and need of connecting with other writers and agents at conferences. And by connecting, I don’t just mean for the possible publishing “connections,” but also for opportunities for growth and building friendships!
I’m also interested in seeing if something like Latayne’s suggestion would work. Those of us with the diligence and perseverance wouldn’t mind filling out such an e-form. If it would help you all, it ends up helping us and publishers, too!
This is such a great discussion. Thanks to Wendy and all who are participating! Some of these ideas are terrific. I especially like the idea of ‘hiding’ the email link among text of the same font to induce actual reading of instructions. What a concept. If only all of us husbands would read instructions, life would be so much easier, true?
Wendy, coincidently,just yesterday I followed your guidelines and emailed a query to you. Although, I followed your instructions, does that mean it will never be read?
It is a shame that the work of serious authors have to be among the rotten apples in the barrel.
One would think that queries by email would simplify the selection of worthy material.
Many thanks for this post, Wendy. It’s disappointing to realize that even after doing thorough research before submitting a query, it may go unread or that the chances of receiving a rejection are very high. I have no other insights on how to fix this. I joined ACFW and plan to attend one additional conference this year. Already I’m enjoying the benefit of making new friends. The posts here keep me current on the publishing industry, and I come back frequently.