30 ms·

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

by 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.
- snowwrestler 7y ago
  > 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. 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.
  - treis 7y ago
    >This is called a production company and it has existed as a concept for a long time 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.
    - lobf 7y ago
      A production company is essentially a staffing firm.

by FfejL 7y ago

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.

snowwrestler 7y ago
> 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. 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.
- treis 7y ago
  >This is called a production company and it has existed as a concept for a long time 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.
  - lobf 7y ago
    A production company is essentially a staffing firm.