Lack of transparency with agents

[LilyWrites]

I am querying agents at present and wonder what you guys would make of this agent? They are listed on query manager, but no client list; their website is really odd, (very old, nothing about current authors - basically useless) A recent comment on QM from a writer said that they couldn't find any recent deals from any agent at this company on Publishers Marketplace. On Twitter, although they are very active posting writerly things, I can't see any posts from this agent celebrating their authors' release days or signings. But plenty of posts publicising slots they're doing at upcoming conferences, where people pay to pitch them. So is this agent basically scamming and making a good bit of regular money from being paid to look at queries? Or could I be wrong about this - I don't know anything about publishers markeplace, maybe not everyone uses it to announce deals? Maybe agents don't always make client lists available or talk about them on Twitter? But in any other area of life, if I wanted to do business with someone, I'd expect to be able to see something, somewhere, about what work they actually do!?

I don't think that's a lack of transparency. It seems to be very much what you suspect: someone without a recent record of getting deals, making money on some writers' gullibility/desperation.

Hmm, thanks. Good to know I'm not being overly paranoid. Doing these pitch events/conferences must be a good earner - I guess the organisers aren't looking in to people's professional records as agents, which is a bit worrying too. Not something I'm planning on doing anytime soon, paying to pitch, anyway

I always find that if they don’t show a list of their clients they’re either incredibly successful/represent top-tier talent, or the opposite

Good point!

Though normally a successful agent has a footprint. Interviews with published authors often mention their agent so even the incredible few publicity-shy agents whose firm don't have a list of clients with forthcoming publications will have visiibility.

I'm unfamiliar with the US except the overall appearance is that agents are more publicity seeking and profile hungry than the UK. In the UK, most good agencies (Curtis Brown, Higham, and all the way down) have websites with agents' details, clients and successful publications and active social media. If an agent leaves to set up on their own then they usuaally put even more effort into establshing what looks like a serious footprint, even if they're running out of a bedroom (nothing wrong with that).

Hadn't heard of pay to pitch in the UK but am incredibly sceptical of that innovation. I think the UK has regulations concerning paying for agents' representation, beyond the paying for photographs relating to models and actors agents and the like? Might need to check as I'm unfamiliar with the law. I know pay to pitch is different but it seems a suspect revenue model to me.