I mean, I understand the value of lobbying and networking, I use it quite a bit in my own life, but is it really so hard for writers to connect to employers, that they need to pay someone to do it?
From the studio POV, an agented writer is likely to be at least reasonably competent. From the writer POV, an agent is likely to be at least a reasonably competent negotiator and have direct industry contacts.
The idea is that the studio gets people who can do the job without having to read thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of terrible scripts from wannabes. Agents try to talk up writer fees and include standard extras because writers have no clue what their services are worth to a studio, and many don't understand the finer points of studio contract law.
When the system works, everyone benefits. Of course it doesn't always work, and writers get screwed in all kinds of creative ways. But agenting means that on balance they still do better than they would going up against Gigantic Media MegaCorp Studio on their own.
Now, streaming has created an explosion in TV programming, and some agents are setting themselves up as production houses rather than as talent managers.
This changes the balance of power and makes agents more like an employer with a vested interest in cutting a deal than a representative with an interest in cutting a good deal for their client.
Hence the (off-screen) drama.
So agents are a filter, like tech recruiters, essentially.
Interesting concept. In the tech industry, I'd be much more okay paying an agent or agency directly to represent me than being in a union, since I'd be able to vote with my feet (by switching agencies) and my money if I feel a particular agency is not properly representing my interests.
Unfortunately, here the writers are being represented by both an agency and a union and are therefore being double-billed, so to speak.
Looks like there’s an opportunity for the Writer’s Guild, with the help of a few technologists, to create an internal peer-review system. (Ideally, where reviewers are blind to the writer’s identity.)
From the outside looking in, it seems that one of Y Combinator's core innovations (contributions) is normalizing that stuff, giving everyone the same deal. Reduces friction, increases certainty. Thereby improving the market.
Broadly speaking, writers are freelancers who enter into short-term high-value contracts for work-for-hire. Agents negotiate the contract on the writer's behalf, with the agents compensation depending on the writer's (this, in fact, is what the current dispute is about, as this has become less and less true). This ensures that the writer gets a good deal, ideally the best deal possible. Talented writers aren't necessarily talented negotiators or networks, so this division of labor works well.
Seems to me everything I just said also applies to freelance Tech Workers. But instead of Agents we get marketplaces like oDesk or TopTal where freelancers are competing against each other, often in a race to the bottom.
Rates are lower than independent consulting, but still very lucrative.
Good recruiters are rare, but they're out there.
To answer this, it's because as a group, agents have a tendency of screwing up the people they represent.
This is also the reason there are very few successful restaurant or hotel guides.
I think this is the root of the problem. Say you're a studio making a movie and you want to hire, say, 5 writers, 25 actors, 10 special effects editors, 3 stuntmen, etc. You'd prefer to get them as a package because it's easier for you and you have a better chance of them working well together.
The agencies stepped in and provided that service, but now they have an obvious conflict of interest. If they get $10 million for all of those combined it's now up to them to decide how much each of their individual clients get and, therefore, how much of that $10 million the agency keeps. They have a clear incentive to get the clients to accept less.
I don't know how much of an impact it really has. The superstar writers that can actually use an agent probably aren't being packaged. The interchangeable cogs that don't really need an agent end up with an agency that's more like a staffing firm. I think the only ones really getting screwed are those that straddle the line between superstar and cog. Their agents have an incentive to keep them in the packages while it would be better for the writer to be in the superstar category.
This is called a production company and it has existed as a concept for a long time. Amblin is Spielberg's production company, Bad Robot is JJ Abrams', Syncopy is Chris Nolan's, etc.
It's just another layer of abstraction... ok now the production company has given the studio a nice package of talent to sign a contract with, but how did the production company create that package? By signing talent, which means there's still a role for talent agency. They're just negotiating with the production company instead of a studio.
What big talent agencies tried to do was collapse those two layers--production company and talent agency--into one. They wanted to do this because production is lucrative, especially when you don't have to negotiate with talent! Because you supposedly "represent" them.
> The interchangeable cogs that don't really need an agent end up with an agency that's more like a staffing firm.
I mean, I'm sure this maps to how the big companies think about staffing, but I doubt you'd find many people in the film industry who think of themselves as "interchangeable cogs". This fundamental disagreement about value is why contract negotiations happen in the first place.
Not really. A production company actually makes the movies/show. What I am talking about is more akin to a staffing firm.
>It's just another layer of abstraction.
It's specialization, not abstraction. Agencies can be good at acquiring talent while studios can be good at producing movies.
>I mean, I'm sure this maps to how the big companies think about staffing, but I doubt you'd find many people in the film industry who think of themselves as "interchangeable cogs"
You think they would have figured it out after their last strike.
My experience is that, in many, if not all fields, people are experts at their particular skill only.
Writers are good only at writing, developers are good only at developing, and so on. Making connections and finding work is a different set of skills that many don't have.
Do they need to pay someone to do it? Well, in theory, they don't need to.
But that means learning a skill they probably don't like. Many developers are introverts who don't want to spend time talking to people. My guess is that writers too prefer to work on their own.
I generally do share the same skepticism. Does it really have to work that way? Can't just have a talent database where you can query for certain characteristics and within seconds see profiles with photos and videos of example work?
I imagine a lot of agents are retained for, "I'm a nobody who has done 2 Colgate commercials. Go campaign for me among your connections and get me to the next rung of the ladder." I appreciate that we are talking writers, not actors. But the same concepts apply.
- gatekeeping. Agents help studios/producers make sure they’re only talking to people suited for projects. Every project has super specific needs in terms of actors and writers. Agents stake their reputations on putting good choices in front of the decision-makers. Hollywood has tons of ambitious people vying for opportunities. Entry-level folks have an especially tough time breaking in, without having an agent vouch for them
- gig-like nature of Hollywood. Writing a movie or a TV season only takes a few months. Writers and actors are always hustling for the next gig. Agents help bear some of the workload so that writers can focus on writing, not scheduling meetings, negotiating contracts, searching for the niche opportunities that suit them, etc.
- bespoke nature of the contracts. The split depends on a lot of factors: how famous the actors are, how accomplished the writers are, etc. That means every project requires negotiation, and it’s nice to have someone in your corner who’s a pro at that.
- difficulty of closing a deal and the low close rate. Even for accomplished writers, it’s a long road to getting something actually made, punctuated by periods of waiting. It means that there are lots of business-related decision points where agents can be helpful, and it means that writers try to keep multiple irons in the fire -contributing to more work on the business side.
- relatively large amounts of money involved. Obviously there’s a lot of money in Hollywood for talent, relatively to most industries, so there’s room for agents to carve out livings
I also wonder if a preference for secrecy plays a role? e.g. as a writer, you need information about projects to make decisions, to craft a pitch, etc., and agents help mediate the flow of information.
Because being good in a field means your time spend in that field is valuable. Running around having meetings with people and trying to set up future work, negotiating pay ect. is time not spend in your field. It’s not that agents have some secret knowledge that artists simply cannot learn, it’s just that the time effort and network of an agent is entirely orthogonal to the art itself.
In the past, this has led to individual agents breaking away from an agency, and using their contacts on both sides to start something new, and more mutually beneficial. I believe Endeavour started out like this in a round about fashion. But over time, Endeavour has grown, consolidated power and has become the same poison it was once the antidote to.
The WGA's new staffing system may well make the current agency model obsolete. And if that happens, agents themselves will have to go back to their roots and rediscover what their actual value is.
[1] Note that the 'packaging deals' referenced in the article seems to confirm this notion.
It only makes sense a ~0.5M dollar brand/person has a 'marketing/legal' department.
The weird part is that Hollywood has this ingrained in their culture. Could someone participate without spending the cost of an agent?
It use to be you needed an agent to vouch for you to an executive high up in studios. Together they would hash out if your content would be wildly received by a large enough group of people to turn a profit.
Now you have digital equity in the form of followers to show that you personally already have entertainment equity. The old guard isn’t willing to put their money fully into this new entertainment Avenue, in part because of how entrenched they are in the profits of the current machine. Studios can make money for selling a script, premiering the movie, product placement in the movie, printing the dvds, offer subscriptions to their streaming services, running advertisements on all of that as well, and distribution of the physical dvds.
But it’s changing and I would estimate it’s about 1.5 more generations away from the younger guard upending the system completely.