Comments on Wylie-Merrick Literary Agency: Ad-Based Publishing--The Debate Goes On

I get the feeling that he simply isn't getting it....

2009-09-25T23:36:00.240-07:00

I get the feeling that he simply isn't getting it. Go and read his arguments against Scott's ideas. Not just in this post but in the ones proceeding it. I have a few times over now. They're now verging on being almost circular and repetitive.

muskel

Robert, What are you talking about? This post he...

2009-08-01T21:31:20.572-07:00

Robert,

What are you talking about? This post here is the latest one. I don't call your hall monitor "Caution: No Mud" to be really part of this discussion at all. A comment on the discussion but not part of it. So this is the latest comment section on the latest relevant blog post.

Oh, and lose the attitude. When you use it and make inaccurate statements as you have, it makes you look even more the fool. Better yet, how about reading the blog post "Caution: No Mud".

A Fellow Pen, I'll tell you the same thing I said...

2009-08-01T21:15:08.553-07:00

A Fellow Pen,

I'll tell you the same thing I said to Friendly Speaking Frank.

Please more ahead where more discussion is taking place. Your still dealing with comments that don't mean much unless you can link them back to what's actually begin debated. Move ahead and read both sides to this complex issue--then voice you opinion. Sounds like you are only hearing the song and not the melody. Listening to both makes music. What can I say except that your comments don't follow what's been expressed from BOTH sides of the issue. You're still back here when the discussion has moved two pages ahead. Please read both sides, man. and then comment, okay. Robert

Okay Frankly speaking Frank, From what I see and...

2009-08-01T21:08:19.514-07:00

Okay Frankly speaking Frank,

From what I see and the fact that you're posting on this page, which was posted and the comments therein three days ago, apparently you haven't been keeping up with the posts. To enlighten, there is a post further ahead in which Robert identifies himself as ROBERT and Scott identifies himself as SCOTT.

Most of the comments here are posted by Robert and he needs no identification. If smoke rolls out of them, you immediately know they are Robert's comments. If they're posted by anyone else, they are identified as such. Now to the meat of your comment: Please go a couple of posts ahead of this one and you'll see that Robert addresses all of the concerns you have posted in your comment here. To find out what he has to say, you have to read his comments instead of just Scott's as this is a two-way debate. Also it is much easier to to answer your questions if you post them on the page where your questions originate. It doesn't matter that what you agree or disagree with is stated here. The debate has moved on, apparently without you. Join up, Big Guy, you might learn something. Robert

Robert, First, I wish you and Sharene would indic...

2009-08-01T20:28:29.613-07:00

Robert,

First, I wish you and Sharene would indicate which one of you is posting a comment or blog post. Like "Robert at Wylie Merrick Agency" and "Sharene at Wylie Merrick Agency". That way we know which of you is speaking and we can then properly address our replies to the right person. Also, we get an idea where each of you stands and not wonder about which of you are saying/believing what.

Second, I read your last reply to A Fellow Pen (the one that starts with "Do you want to...") and I think you're FAR off on what Scott is advocating. No wonder you're reacting the way you're reacting to him, but you're wrong about him and his plans. Time to get a cup of coffee and read this whole discussion from the start again.

Third, I completely understand why Scott isn't posting any comment in this comment section. I know I wouldn't given all what you guys are talking about. Not that I don't find your discussion very interesting. Disappointing now that I know you, Robert, are off-base on Scott's plans (see my second point above), but interesting in how other posters here are talking about Scott, his plans, and their desire for W-M to represent him.

Fourth, that last part above needs a spotlight on it. My read of most comments here is that the posters -- contrary to what you might think, Robert -- like W-M. If they didn't, why would they be here? My read is that they think you guys are great agents and they're hoping you'll help Scott. And you say Scott's a friend of yours so prove it. Help the dude out. That's what friends do for friends.

Fifth, how I think W-M can help Scott out is by representing his sci fi novel to ad firms. If Scott does it himself, he's just some Joe off the street. If W-M does the contacting, he'll be taken seriously. Now if you're lazy, over-worked, swamped, or just don't think you have the marketing ability, what I suggest is turn over the initial contact work to Scott. He's a marketer, right? I bet he can do the email inquiries in his sleep. Just let him use an email W-M email address. It shouldn't be under his name or that would defeat the purpose. I'd suggest making up a fake W-M "junior" agent name for him to use. Have him bcc all the email work he does to one or both of you so you can keep tabs on what he's doing (and possibly learn some good marketing lessons in the process) and then if some ad firm or big-time advertiser says they're interested, you can take it from there. Or let Scott continue to do the work as long as it continues by email until it needs a voice on the phone or face at a meeting whereupon one of you takes over and does the representation. How about that???

WMLA, I do not see what Scott is advocating as be...

2009-08-01T19:13:58.104-07:00

WMLA,

I do not see what Scott is advocating as being something that will be bad for writers or agents. I think you should really read what Scott is suggesting. He's not talking about not getting paid for writing (or agenting), but merely switching who pays.

Where has he said that writers and agents will not get paid for their work? I have just re-read all of his posts and replies in the comment sections of all posts in this discussion. Not once did I see where he said writers and agents won't get paid.

That you think he has been advocating this can explain why you are so resistant to what he's talking about. You're reading what's not there. Re-read his posts and comments.

As for myself, I am already published. I have quite a few titles to my name actually. Enough to do write full-time. But I see where publishing is presently heading and it isn't a bright future. My current agent is like you and not willing to explore alternatives. He will ride the current system to the ground and only change when he's forced to change. I do not think that is wise and thus why I'm reading the blogs of other agents. I believe in experimenting. Testing new things. Challenging old assumptions and finding out which are still valid, which are wrong, and which are decaying fast. Our industry has to change. I want to be part of that change. I think Scott's ideas are good ones and worth given a chance. I and/or Sharene can see that and assist him in his efforts.

Wow, there are some nasty commenters here. What's ...

2009-08-01T15:39:46.989-07:00

Wow, there are some nasty commenters here. What's that about?

Okay, call me an elitist (which is pretty funny, but hey, go ahead). I too would prefer to read ad-free books. I mean, I don't mind a few ads in the back in paper editions promoting other offerings from the publisher, and I don't mind a teaser chapter for an upcoming work. That's just fine. But I can't even go to the beach without being involuntarily assaulted by advertising (planes with banners being the most offensive, IMO).

Scott's model may very well work, so I wouldn't rule it out (and it may be a model that could exist in parallel with more traditional publishing practices). But I think there are other structural issues with the publishing industry that could and should be tackled first before moving to something like this.

I also agree that although the system is far from perfect, the main problem with ePubs and self-pubs is the lack of a quality filter. There are good ones out there, but how do you find them?

Large publishing houses already base a great deal of their decision-making about what to publish on marketing considerations. Where is the quality filter in a totally ad-based model? Are the people who decide where to place their ads people who care about books and writing? How do they make their decisions?

Professionalism in all kinds of fields is much derided at times, but there's something to be said for it. I don't think it's overly elitist to want some aspect of the publishing decision-making process to be made by people who, you know, have some understanding of books and writing.

Forgive me if I've greatly oversimplified the positions here; I'm new to the debate.

Dear Fellow Pen Pal, Do you want to see publishin...

2009-08-01T10:47:42.145-07:00

Dear Fellow Pen Pal,

Do you want to see publishing as we know it destroyed? I ask this because I'm assuming you write and hope one day to be published. Please let me know if this is an incorrect assumption.

If do you write, do you consider yourself a part of the writing community and if you do, don't you think your fellow writers, those who are published would disagree with you vehemently about cheering on the destruction of their industry?

Forget about me, I'm only a small part of the whole process, but how about those who have published books coming out? Do you think they want them not to be published, their contracts rejected, a source of income cut off? What about readers, have you even considered them? I agree that some things about publishing need to be changed, but I don't advocate destroying an institution to fix it.

Helen, If you address your question to Scott, Sco...

2009-08-01T10:28:49.648-07:00

Helen,

If you address your question to Scott, Scott will answer your question, if he has time. If the question is an open one, then either of us might answer it. However, since I moderate and post comments, I'm more likely to answer open questions because I'm already here.

Am I the only one that feels it is odd asking Scot...

2009-08-01T09:13:48.227-07:00

Am I the only one that feels it is odd asking Scott a question with this new format of give-and-take between Scott and Robert? I feel any question asked is one that Robert will feel a need to answer and not Scott. Look at who has been responding. Only Robert.

Sure, I got more questions. How about all those I...

2009-07-31T22:21:46.267-07:00

Sure, I got more questions. How about all those I asked in my second paragraph?

WMLA, Yes, if what Scott predicts happens, it wil...

2009-07-31T22:09:30.921-07:00

WMLA,

Yes, if what Scott predicts happens, it will destroy publishing as you know it. In fact, if he's right, it will destroy publishing period. But what he has NOT said is that it will destroy agenting. Just the opposite. Read Scott's Part 3. It was ALL about how agenting can and will continue on. And he has said so elsewhere later in this discussion as well. Thus it is you who apparently hasn't been reading his posts and comments.

In the last paragraph of Part 3, he even talks about looking forward to the day that he can turn over pitching ad firms to an agent. Obviously, he sees a role for agents like you two. How about you, Robert and Sharene, find out what that role can be? What you can do. How agents like you can be part of the future he's predicting. It is clear that he has some ideas about this. Ask him. Publicly here in a post or privately.

And "The Underground" comment was a call-to-arms meant for you two. I'm disappointed you dismissed it in the way you did.

Because I'm not an established lit agent and you a...

2009-07-31T21:39:48.760-07:00

Because I'm not an established lit agent and you are. DUH!

Bryngreenwood, You think you're making a good com...

2009-07-31T21:38:03.981-07:00

Bryngreenwood,

You think you're making a good comeback but, by your own words, you're just proving me correct. And it is sad that you don't understand how the marketplace works and how it has helped the poor. But then again, you think capitalism is an evil so how could you? Do you still have your Obama sticker on your car's bumper?

Do yourself a favor and don't reply. You'll only prove me more right if you do.

I swear, I'm almost flattered to be called both an...

2009-07-31T13:33:06.339-07:00

I swear, I'm almost flattered to be called both an "elitist" AND "pretentious." I'm much more accustomed to being called an ignorant redneck, but I suppose it's more convenient to assume I'm some Ivy League type. That said, at what point have advertisers become the kindly friends of poor people? When television broadcasters sell advertising, they're not selling time. The viewers are the commodity being sold. I don't like advertising, because I don't like being a commodity.

As for the masses, libraries have been doing just fine getting books into our hands. Just like PBS has been doing a pretty good job getting decent kids' programs to poor kids.

Robert and Sharene, keep a cool head. Don't snap ...

2009-07-31T12:09:37.103-07:00

Robert and Sharene, keep a cool head. Don't snap back at posters here. Scott isn't. Let them have their say. You don't have to reply to attacks directed at you or anyone here. Snapping back will only prevent people from speaking their minds, can cause some posters to leave, and cause other posters to start a flame war. Chill. You're doing fine. Stay above the fray.

I totally agree that it takes time to digest a pos...

2009-07-31T12:05:20.180-07:00

I totally agree that it takes time to digest a post like this. And to do it right, you have to go back and read previous posts and then look in the comment sections of each of them for when Scott, Robert, or Sharene reply. I think all future posts should start off with links to all the posts in the order they appeared, say when we should also look into a post's comment section, and the first post in that link order should be Robert's "Demise of Print Publishing" post. Then after that linkage preface, they present their latest post.

As for WMLA being a backwater little league lit agency, so what? Seriously. So what? What does it matter that Scott posted here and not at one of the major lit agencies? Would one of the major lit agencies even let Scott's ideas appear on their blogs? Be thankful that a lit agency is even having this public discussion. Now why did Scott pick WMLA over all the other lit agency blogs? I haven't a clue. Only Scott can answer that. Maybe Robert or Sharene know.

All I do know is that this is a GREAT discussion. Keep it going!

The Underground, Why don't you become an agent an...

2009-07-31T12:01:59.254-07:00

The Underground,

Why don't you become an agent and ask Scott if you can represent him?

The Word, Yes, we are a small agency and yes we a...

2009-07-31T12:00:30.598-07:00

The Word,

Yes, we are a small agency and yes we are not in NYC--so? Alexander Bell invented the telephone. I don't remember who invented the fax, and Al Gore says he invented the internet--whatever. I do know that information travels at the speed of light through most of these conduits and so as soon as I speak or send someone a message, for all practical purposes, I'm in NYC. No, I can't do lunch every other day, but I also don't have to pay thousands of dollars for office space. I'm about 2.5 hours from NYC on any given day, about the amount of time it takes to get from The Burroughs to Manhattan. I don't feel isolated; in fact, I feel pretty good about our location at the present time because it might just allow us to survive this current mess intact. Just because we don't represent someone on the NYT bestseller list doesn't mean that it won't happen the next six months. Any other questions?

Suzy, Warming up as we speak. It takes time to re...

2009-07-31T11:42:35.844-07:00

Suzy,

Warming up as we speak. It takes time to read and digest what's in a post of this length--don't you think?

Sam Black, We tried that already and if you'll go...

2009-07-31T11:41:11.740-07:00

Sam Black,

We tried that already and if you'll go back and read past posts and their comments, you'll see that many wanted in posted this way to see both sides of the issue on one page. We are just having a discussion here so it's hard to please everyone.

A fellow Pen Pal, Scott and I have been friends f...

2009-07-31T11:38:26.864-07:00

A fellow Pen Pal,

Scott and I have been friends for quite some time. He is not a client because he doesn't require representation to major publishers. What he's writing about here doesn't require representation; in fact, if it were to come to fruition, in his own words, it would destroy publishing as we know it. Did you read any of this? I wonder.

I think you should post Scott's replies separately...

2009-07-31T10:15:15.166-07:00

I think you should post Scott's replies separately and as a whole. THEN post your reply with you breaking his post apart so you can address his points one at at time. This new style doesn't give Scott's reply a chance to flow. It is like you're interrupting a speaker at a conference and not letting him make his case without you picking it apart as he presents it.

Other than the above, this is a terrific debate. Keep it up.

Only three comments? Wow. This discussion has go...

2009-07-31T10:06:26.625-07:00

Only three comments? Wow. This discussion has gone from hot to cold in the blink of an eye.

I find this discussion both interesting and humoro...

2009-07-31T02:40:46.926-07:00

I find this discussion both interesting and humorous.

Interesting in the ideas that Mr. Jensen is presenting. Made even more interesting by the fact that he is going to actually do them.

Humorous by some of the objections I see here to Scott's ideas. For example, Heather Sharfeddin and bryngreenwood are hilarious. They remind me of pretentious art majors at universities.

As for Robert, I get the feeling that he simply isn't getting it. Go and read his arguments against Scott's ideas. Not just in this post but in the ones proceeding it. I have a few times over now. They're now verging on being almost circular and repetitive. I would absolutely hate this discussion to end in the lame "we'll have to agree to disagree" way so many discussions like these end. Scott is onto something here. I get the feeling that Sharene gets that. I don't know if Robert can get it. I really hope Sharene starts to speak up.