3 ms·

Agents getting paid a percentage of what their clients get isn't the concern here, and is generally considered good in the sense that the more they get for you

Agents getting paid a percentage of what their clients get isn't the concern here, and is generally considered good in the sense that the more they get for you (their client) the more they take home. The issue here is that the agents are taking a (fairly large) cut of the shows being produced as an alternative to getting paid by their clients. In the real estate analogy, it's as though your agent could decide to get paid a percentage of the buyer's income less expenses rather than a chunk of the sale price. In that scenario you would expect your agent to bring you lots of wealthy buyers who then produce low-ball offers, and so has it been in the writers guild experience.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> Agents getting paid a percentage of what their clients get isn't the concern here, and is generally considered good in the sense that the more they get for you (their client) the more they take home. That's the theory, but then it turns out to be a lot more profitable to get commissions for selling five houses for $400K each than to spend the same amount of time to sell one house for $550K. Cue statistics about real estate agents selling their own homes for substantially more than they get for their clients.
- debatem1 8y ago
  Sure; the point of paying them a percentage is to get their incentives to roughly align with yours. Short of giving them 100% you should expect that at some point that breaks down and they will figure the next optimization isn't worth it when it would be to you with your larger share. But that's very different from this situation described here, where the agent serves a different and in fact diametrically opposed master.
- nathanvanfleet 8y ago
  I think the statistics were also that real-estate agents houses also stay on the market longer than other houses. Which also agrees with what you're saying. Essentially they can maybe make 6% of 20-50k more but it would require weeks more work on their part so it's not nearly as big a deal to the agent as it is to the owner.
yeahitslikethat 8y ago
It's called a buyers agent and they are quite common in real estate.
- debatem1 8y ago
  Buyers agents owe a fiduciary duty to the buyer, not to the seller.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago

> Agents getting paid a percentage of what their clients get isn't the concern here, and is generally considered good in the sense that the more they get for you (their client) the more they take home. That's the theory, but then it turns out to be a lot more profitable to get commissions for selling five houses for $400K each than to spend the same amount of time to sell one house for $550K. Cue statistics about real estate agents selling their own homes for substantially more than they get for their clients.

debatem1 8y ago
Sure; the point of paying them a percentage is to get their incentives to roughly align with yours. Short of giving them 100% you should expect that at some point that breaks down and they will figure the next optimization isn't worth it when it would be to you with your larger share. But that's very different from this situation described here, where the agent serves a different and in fact diametrically opposed master.
nathanvanfleet 8y ago
I think the statistics were also that real-estate agents houses also stay on the market longer than other houses. Which also agrees with what you're saying. Essentially they can maybe make 6% of 20-50k more but it would require weeks more work on their part so it's not nearly as big a deal to the agent as it is to the owner.

yeahitslikethat 8y ago

It's called a buyers agent and they are quite common in real estate.

debatem1 8y ago
Buyers agents owe a fiduciary duty to the buyer, not to the seller.