Just wondering, as an unpublished writer, what percentage of people who get an agent do you think get published? I'm thinking mainstream thrillers here. Is getting an agent more of the battle than getting a publisher?

I don't have figures - I'd be interested if anyone had, though I've no idea how anyone would know for sure - but I'm certain the attrition rate between first submission and securing an agent is far higher than that between getting an agent and finding a publisher.

Agents get sent a huge amount of completely unpublishable material - but I think no agent takes on an author unless they believe they have a good chance of selling the work. However, it doesn't mean they are right every time, or even most of the time: having an agent is absolutely no guarantee of getting published. But it's a big step forward - and some measure of the fact that your work is in the ballpark. After that, it's all pretty much fluke, I reckon.

Rosy

Is getting an agent more of the battle than getting a publisher?

Yes, in that once you've got an agent the odds of getting a publisher are really very good (tho' never a dead cert). If you're comparing the odds of getting an agent with the odds of getting a publisher un-agented (for adult fiction, anyway) then no - it's incredibly hard to do the latter.

I'm really guessing, but I think an experienced agent who the editors take seriously would be looking at a 85% success rate in first books submitted? 95% success rate in authors who do manage to get a deal in the end?

Though I know my agent says, 'I'm not often wrong, but I'm not right straight away,' and I imagine that's fairly typical. Meaning that she's doesn't often take on an author who never sells, but that she does sometimes take one on who doesn't sell their first book or two, or it takes two years to sell the first book - as was true of one of her more interesting clients: Mark Haddon.

Emma

There's an interesting experiment in which they used chimps to pick stocks at random against City fund managers. The chimps came out on top.
The chimps got paid peanuts, naturally.
I suspect the same is true of agents versus say, a washing machine on spin cycle.

Best
Sion

I've a friend who works for an investment bank, setting up investment funds and doing high-powered computations to work out what is more likely to go up or down.

I asked her where she would invest money, and she said 'Index trackers.' (ie investing in the stock market as a whole, rather than specific companies).

And she has a PhD in this ...

'Tis true that on average - ON AVERAGE - managed funds underperform the market. (Whereas trackers track it.)

Not sure what this has to do with lit agents, though. Just 'cos equity fund managers are sh*te doesn't mean other professionals have to be. And what is the publishing world's equivalent of the tracker fund? Self-publishing, perhaps? And agencies that charge a fee up front to authors are those blokes in raincoats who sell you tips in the car park at Newmarket. And vanity presses are intrenet casinos.

Sorry, been drinking, even though it's early. (Cheers!)

Rosy

Just 'cos equity fund managers are sh*te doesn't mean other professionals have to be. And what is the publishing world's equivalent of the tracker fund? Self-publishing, perhaps? And agencies that charge a fee up front to authors are those blokes in raincoats who sell you tips in the car park at Newmarket. And vanity presses are intrenet casinos.

Glad it's not just me who can't see the connection, sober or - ah - not!

Emma