Agent commission - do they ALL take something for every job?

Location > Networking > Forum > Agent commission - do they ALL take something for every job?

	Topic: Agent commission - do they ALL take something for every job?
Posted : 27/12/09 / Views : 846 / Replies : 4 /
anonymous	I have been working without an agent for three years but now have online representation and one other agent. I have had work through the online agency (awaiting payment) but am confused as to whether every agent you are registered with can claim commission or just the one the work was booked through? I am sending out CVs etc to more high profile agents, but wonder how this will effect earnings? Unless i get a REALLY high profile agent (unlikely!!) the more agents, the more work, I guess???

[add comments | all topics]

	Reply #1
Posted : 23/12/09
leeravitz 1543 posts last on: 19 hours send private reply	I think that only a highly unscrupulous agency would charge you commission on a piece of work that had been generated by ANOTHER AGENCY! It is certainly true that many reputable agents do charge commission on work you get for yourself - but this is something different, and tends to be felt of as agents' prerogative. It isn't popular with a lot of actors, though, and many negotiate agreements with their agents personally about what sort of 'earning level' needs to be attained before a commission should have to be paid out on work that has been sourced personally. From an agents' point of view, any work you do that is personally negotiated and takes up substantial time and pays significant money is, in effect, money and time that you are taking away from them, and they will often charge commission on principle. From the actor's point of view, the agent is paid commission for the act of negotiation, and work that the actor sources for themself should not be work that the agent has a claim on. So it goes. Most small fees will not be considered worthwhile taking a commission on by a reputable agent, and some agents actually make it a point of pride NOT to charge clients for work they did not negotiate - naturally, if you have just secured a lucrative contract paying say £20,000 for a days work via your own efforts, your agent may show sudden interest in negotiating the details further! Much is decided on a case by case basis, unless there are contractual obligations in place that state specific obligations. The issue with having multiple representations is different. As far as the industry as a whole is concerned, very few significant agents are ever going to allow you to have multiple representation if you sign onto their books - they will demand sole representation for the sake of their own revenues. It is true that some actors are signed to different representatives if they have specific skills that need catering for by a secondary agent (voice over work etc.) and probably also true that some actors use the resources of more than one agency at a time but keep the fact quiet from the other agencies they are signed to - but, on the face of it, most agents demand sole representation - and the industry has a way of making it necessary to be quite upfront about who represents you - if you were juggling the demands of two agencies simultaneously, and both keep tabs on you, it is quite difficult to decide what you would mention on your Spotlight profile without arousing suspicion, for instance. Some agencies, particularly those at the lowest end of the industry, may allow you to have other representatives, but this is generally a bad reflection on their services - it is just a recognition that they cannot get you any substantial work, and have taken you on in the hope that you will make the agency more money than, perhaps, it will make you. Sole representation may seem limiting, but is really the agents way of stating that they want to have first refusal on your time and earning power because they are determined to get you work (many can't then actually guarantee the auditions - but that is another issue that has more to do with the numbers game and the high competition for every role). Online agencies will not tend to limit you in this respect one way or another, and you may well end up with multiple signups to online agencies (where you are technically 'on the books' for multiple agencies) or you may find a small agent willing to waive the fact that you are also signed to an online agency for the sake of 'fill in' work, who doesn't consider this a significant infringement of their interest in selling you for 'serious' purposes. Most high level reps would probably be suspicious of any online involvement, and would ask you to cut off the association if you told them about it. I will not knock an online site that has actually generated work for you, and I appreciate that we all need to generate work in whatever way we can, but it is well worth reminding yourself that such a site is really only an 'agent' in the loosest sense - if the representation only exists 'virtually', then you are, in effect, part of a downloadable trade directory rather than part of an agency (whatever the page chooses to call itself). There is no human agent who is serving as a go-between (and perhaps most importantly selling you specifically to interested brokers because of the strength of your performances); rather, your details are available in a database that can be viewed by consumers. In of itself, there is nothing wrong in this - because most agencies also (basically) function this way - they promote clients in their database to interested buyers - but where you suffer a disadvantage is in the fact that the online site holds no remit to promote you yourself and look after your interests in terms of negotiation of fees, availability etc. Many online sites demand payment to be part of the directory in the first place, and the fact that you haven't been paid yet sounds a bit ominous - they should certainly be treated with great caution, as the majority have been set up as attempts to make their owners sizeable profits whilst behaving as absentee agents - they cream off the revenue whilst avoiding any commitment to an agents normal duties towards you as a client, which include such basic things as promoting you regularly for jobs on a day by day basis, and helping you look after your financial situation. An actor - agent relationship should be mutually beneficial, otherwise it is not worth having the agent. I still don't believe that any agency should have the right to charge you for work that has been generated by another agency. As I say, most agents (who are not e.g. online organisations) would not allow the situation to arise, as they would be frankly more surprised to discover that you were represented by another agency in the first place, and probably put an immediate stop to it! This would not apply, of course, in the case of walk - on agencies etc. where it is accepted that more than one representation is normal practice, and I don't think online agencies have any claims to your sole representation either. If there is a development in which one agency attempts to chase you for the commission owing on work for another agency, I would get onto Equity about it and drop the agency as soon as possible. But do make sure you have checked all the small print in any contracts you may have signed first - it is probably illegal, but certain get out clauses may have subtly inserted. If, on the other hand, there are no contractual obligations, then, frankly, no agency has any hold over you at all.

Reply #1

Posted : 23/12/09

leeravitz
1543 posts
last on: 19 hours
send private reply

I think that only a highly unscrupulous agency would charge you commission on a piece of work that had been generated by ANOTHER AGENCY! It is certainly true that many reputable agents do charge commission on work you get for yourself - but this is something different, and tends to be felt of as agents' prerogative. It isn't popular with a lot of actors, though, and many negotiate agreements with their agents personally about what sort of 'earning level' needs to be attained before a commission should have to be paid out on work that has been sourced personally. From an agents' point of view, any work you do that is personally negotiated and takes up substantial time and pays significant money is, in effect, money and time that you are taking *away* from them, and they will often charge commission on principle. From the actor's point of view, the agent is paid commission for the act of negotiation, and work that the actor sources for themself should not be work that the agent has a claim on. So it goes. Most small fees will not be considered worthwhile taking a commission on by a reputable agent, and some agents actually make it a point of pride NOT to charge clients for work they did not negotiate - naturally, if you have just secured a lucrative contract paying say £20,000 for a days work via your own efforts, your agent may show sudden interest in negotiating the details further! Much is decided on a case by case basis, unless there are contractual obligations in place that state specific obligations.

The issue with having multiple representations is different. As far as the industry as a whole is concerned, very few significant agents are ever going to allow you to have multiple representation if you sign onto their books - they will demand sole representation for the sake of their own revenues. It is true that some actors are signed to different representatives if they have specific skills that need catering for by a secondary agent (voice over work etc.) and probably also true that some actors use the resources of more than one agency at a time but keep the fact quiet from the other agencies they are signed to - but, on the face of it, most agents demand sole representation - and the industry has a way of making it necessary to be quite upfront about who represents you - if you were juggling the demands of two agencies simultaneously, and both keep tabs on you, it is quite difficult to decide what you would mention on your Spotlight profile without arousing suspicion, for instance.

Some agencies, particularly those at the lowest end of the industry, may allow you to have other representatives, but this is generally a bad reflection on their services - it is just a recognition that they cannot get you any substantial work, and have taken you on in the hope that you will make the agency more money than, perhaps, it will make you. Sole representation may seem limiting, but is really the agents way of stating that they want to have first refusal on your time and earning power because they are determined to get you work (many can't then actually guarantee the auditions - but that is another issue that has more to do with the numbers game and the high competition for every role). Online agencies will not tend to limit you in this respect one way or another, and you may well end up with multiple signups to online agencies (where you are technically 'on the books' for multiple agencies) or you may find a small agent willing to waive the fact that you are also signed to an online agency for the sake of 'fill in' work, who doesn't consider this a significant infringement of their interest in selling you for 'serious' purposes. Most high level reps would probably be suspicious of any online involvement, and would ask you to cut off the association if you told them about it.

I will not knock an online site that has actually generated work for you, and I appreciate that we all need to generate work in whatever way we can, but it is well worth reminding yourself that such a site is really only an 'agent' in the loosest sense - if the representation only exists 'virtually', then you are, in effect, part of a downloadable trade directory rather than part of an agency (whatever the page chooses to call itself). There is no human agent who is serving as a go-between (and perhaps most importantly selling *you* specifically to interested brokers because of the strength of your performances); rather, your details are available in a database that can be viewed by consumers. In of itself, there is nothing wrong in this - because most agencies also (basically) function this way - they promote clients in their database to interested buyers - but where you suffer a disadvantage is in the fact that the online site holds no remit to promote you yourself and look after your interests in terms of negotiation of fees, availability etc.

Many online sites demand payment to be part of the directory in the first place, and the fact that you haven't been paid yet sounds a bit ominous - they should certainly be treated with great caution, as the majority have been set up as attempts to make their owners sizeable profits whilst behaving as absentee agents - they cream off the revenue whilst avoiding any commitment to an agents normal duties towards you as a client, which include such basic things as promoting you regularly for jobs on a day by day basis, and helping you look after your financial situation. An actor - agent relationship should be mutually beneficial, otherwise it is not worth having the agent.

I still don't believe that any agency should have the right to charge you for work that has been generated by another agency. As I say, most agents (who are not e.g. online organisations) would not allow the situation to arise, as they would be frankly more surprised to discover that you were represented by another agency in the first place, and probably put an immediate stop to it! This would not apply, of course, in the case of walk - on agencies etc. where it is accepted that more than one representation is normal practice, and I don't think online agencies have any claims to your sole representation either. If there is a development in which one agency attempts to chase you for the commission owing on work for another agency, I would get onto Equity about it and drop the agency as soon as possible. But do make sure you have checked all the small print in any contracts you may have signed first - it is probably illegal, but certain get out clauses may have subtly inserted. If, on the other hand, there are no contractual obligations, then, frankly, no agency has any hold over you at all.

	Reply #2
Posted : 23/12/09
clairedodin 425 posts last on: 2 hours send private reply	It really depends on your contract. If you haven't signed a contract, then you only owe commission to the agent you got the job through. Even if your contract says that you need to give commission on everything, pick up the phone and talk to them. I would be very surprised if they asked for commission for a job secured through a different agency. But they may ask you to drop the other agent. in short: talk to your agents, honesty is always the best policy. If you feel that you can't talk to your agent, then you need to change agent. good luck!

Reply #2

Posted : 23/12/09

clairedodin
425 posts
last on: 2 hours
send private reply

It really depends on your contract.

If you haven't signed a contract, then you only owe commission to the agent you got the job through.

Even if your contract says that you need to give commission on everything, pick up the phone and talk to them. I would be very surprised if they asked for commission for a job secured through a different agency. But they may ask you to drop the other agent.

in short: talk to your agents, honesty is always the best policy.

If you feel that you can't talk to your agent, then you need to change agent.

good luck!

	Reply #3
Posted : 27/12/09
BlakeJ 1437 posts last on: 3 hours send private reply	If you are under a sole representation contract and you get another agency, then you are obligated to give them commission. If you contract allows you to have more than one agent (which doesnt look good in the industry unless the other agency is a modeling or voice over agency)then they cant both demand commission.

	Reply #4
Posted : 27/12/09
leeravitz 1543 posts last on: 19 hours send private reply	Blake sums it all up admirably - but this is assuming that you have joined with agencies that have formally contracted you on such and such a basis. I think the issue of what a contract with an 'online agency' (which, in my experience, equates to 'virtual representation' only) constitutes is a different question, and the problem may be arising because your 'normative' agent is entirely separate from your 'online' representation. I would assume, from the tone of question, that the 'main' agent is not aware of the other 'online' commitment - or is the implication that you belong to more than one 'online' agency simultaneously? Blake (and Claire) have been right to say that any major agent that agrees a sole representational contract with you will stipulate (by default) that you do not take up any alternate offers of representation without forfeiting your representation with them - thus, the problem of dealing with income revenue from another source of representation should never arise. If the organisation is not stringent enough to impose a sole representational limit, however, then the position may be different, and you would have to vet contractual obligations to see whether you are required to pay commission on ANY job. My personal opinion is that if e.g. an 'online' site demanded this of you, it is taking real liberties (given that it only 'represents' you in the most cursory sense) - but as the majority of online sites have been crafted with profit making foremost in mind, this type of loophole will not be unheard of. If it is a 'main' agent asking for commission on work gained 'online', there are two issues to be addressed: one, as Blake says, is whether or not you should entirely trust an agent who allows you to use another agency's resources to generate work - this is certainly not a great reflection on their own working (and not to be confused with an agent encouraging you to find work through your own channels indepedent of agency commitment - this is something most agents encourage). The second is that, if the sums being gained from the work are small, many decent agents have in place 'gentleman's agreements' or are willing to negotiate over whether or not commission should be taken on minor earnings - most actually don't feel it is worth the hassle of going through the paperwork to subtract 12% from a gig that paid £150, let's say - they will let this kind of separate earning slide. An agent that charges you regularly on very low earnings that they have not negotiated on your behalf tends to be a grasping and desperate agent. As I said before, if you stand to earn £20,000 in a day, and the agent is failing to see a cut, it may be a different question! I don't actually think things are quite as clear cut as Blake makes them sound, because all agents work differently...but the basic points stand!

Reply #4

Posted : 27/12/09

leeravitz
1543 posts
last on: 19 hours
send private reply

Blake sums it all up admirably - but this is assuming that you have joined with agencies that have formally contracted you on such and such a basis. I think the issue of what a contract with an 'online agency' (which, in my experience, equates to 'virtual representation' only) constitutes is a different question, and the problem may be arising because your 'normative' agent is entirely separate from your 'online' representation. I would assume, from the tone of question, that the 'main' agent is not aware of the other 'online' commitment - or is the implication that you belong to more than one 'online' agency simultaneously?

Blake (and Claire) have been right to say that any major agent that agrees a sole representational contract with you will stipulate (by default) that you do not take up any alternate offers of representation without forfeiting your representation with them - thus, the problem of dealing with income revenue from another source of representation should never arise.

If the organisation is not stringent enough to impose a sole representational limit, however, then the position may be different, and you would have to vet contractual obligations to see whether you are required to pay commission on ANY job. My personal opinion is that if e.g. an 'online' site demanded this of you, it is taking real liberties (given that it only 'represents' you in the most cursory sense) - but as the majority of online sites have been crafted with profit making foremost in mind, this type of loophole will not be unheard of. If it is a 'main' agent asking for commission on work gained 'online', there are two issues to be addressed: one, as Blake says, is whether or not you should entirely trust an agent who allows you to use another agency's resources to generate work - this is certainly not a great reflection on their own working (and not to be confused with an agent encouraging you to find work through your own channels indepedent of agency commitment - this is something most agents encourage). The second is that, if the sums being gained from the work are small, many decent agents have in place 'gentleman's agreements' or are willing to negotiate over whether or not commission should be taken on minor earnings - most actually don't feel it is worth the hassle of going through the paperwork to subtract 12% from a gig that paid £150, let's say - they will let this kind of separate earning slide. An agent that charges you regularly on very low earnings that they have not negotiated on your behalf tends to be a grasping and desperate agent. As I said before, if you stand to earn £20,000 in a day, and the agent is failing to see a cut, it may be a different question!

I don't actually think things are quite as clear cut as Blake makes them sound, because all agents work differently...but the basic points stand!

[add comments | all topics]

Please note: Messages written in the forum do not represent the views of Casting Call Pro, nor have they been vetted by Casting Call Pro staff. If you read something which you believe to be offensive or defamatory, please contact us and we will take the appropriate action.