5 ms·

It’s probably because I know very little about how Hollywood works, and I’m definitely coloured by how much of HR departments we seem to be able to automate and

• hjk05 7y ago
  > Why does anyone really need an agent in 2019? 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.
• Waterluvian 7y ago
  I think it's because more than anywhere else showbiz is about connections. And an agent is your API to "connections". 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.
  • mysterydip 7y ago
    Tinder for talent?
    • mLuby 7y ago
      Yeah if you can find a way to visually signal screenwriting ability in a way someone can parse in microseconds (like we do attractiveness).
      • joejerryronnie 7y ago
        Swipe right for correct use of pronouns?
• robertAngst 7y ago
  At any scale bigger than 1 person, we see specialization of labor. 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?
  • Waterluvian 7y ago
    I imagine when you're so well known and talented and famous that your brand sells itself.
    • robertAngst 7y ago
      I think this is a fantasy for 99% of people. And even the 1% need someone to 'vet' the BS.
    • Stunting 7y ago
      This has been and is currently happening thanks to social media. I imagine it’s part of what has emboldened the WGA to make this move now. 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.
    • TheCoelacanth 7y ago
      When you are that well-known, it's even more useful to have someone specialized in managing that brand. By your argument, Coca-Cola should fire their marketing department because they don't need it anymore.
• DeusExMachina 7y ago
  > is it really so hard for writers to connect to employers, that they need to pay someone to do it? 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.
• TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  It's not hard for writers to connect to employers. It's hard for studios to connect to competent writers without wading through a tidal wave of utter dross. 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.
  • mooreds 7y ago
    > It's not hard for writers to connect to employers. It's hard for studios to connect to competent writers without wading through a tidal wave of utter dross. So agents are a filter, like tech recruiters, essentially.
    • SEJeff 7y ago
      This is pretty much spot on, but they also represent your name / brand on an ongoing basis.
  • ThrowawayR2 7y ago
    > 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. 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.
• FfejL 7y ago
  I think you have the question backwards. I wonder why more people, especially in tech, don't have agents. 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.
  • greggyb 7y ago
    Meet yourself some good recruiters. I get well-paying contracts aligned with my interests in just a couple weeks if not days. Rates are lower than independent consulting, but still very lucrative. Good recruiters are rare, but they're out there.
    • mooreds 7y ago
      Asktheheadhunter.com has lots of good information about how to tell good recruiters from bad, how to help them help you, and more. Not affiliated, just spent a lot of time reading and used to subscribe to his newsletter.
  • marcosdumay 7y ago
    > I wonder why more people, especially in tech, don't have agents. 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.
  • treis 7y ago
    >writers are freelancers 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.
• UweSchmidt 7y ago
  A large percentage of the worlds GDP goes to middlemen of all kinds. Hollywood agents, recruiters, real estate agents... the internet has kinda promised to do away with that, to connected people directly, do create efficient market places but has not yet fulfilled this promise. Ecommerce has closed many retail gold mines, but I wonder why VCs haven't identified services as something to sytematically disrupt.
• nsedlet 7y ago
  I’m no expert but I think it’s a combination of: - 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.
• tomelders 7y ago
  Well that is a question many writers are asking themselves. What agents can offer is contacts, introductions, sage advice and the benefit of experience, to both writers and to studios, show runners etc. But eventually, agencies will always start to consolidate power, and start to act more like cartels, controlling the studios access to writers, and the writers access to studios. 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.
• blihp 7y ago
  My guess would be that the studios view the agents more as talent aggregators[1] and are probably very difficult to deal with unless one has one. Similar to how in tech as a contractor you can't deal with many companies without going through a contracting firm. (i.e. larger companies often won't deal with independent contractors directly) In both cases, the talent is viewed as a commodity and the middlemen both deal with some of the 'people' headaches and decrease the individual negotiating power of the talent unless/until they manage to break out as a singular talent. So in many ways, agents these days appear to really be contracting firms with (historically) a bit more transparency as to what their cut is. [1] Note that the 'packaging deals' referenced in the article seems to confirm this notion.
• walshemj 7y ago
  Showbiz (in its widest sense) is very much who you know.