This was very interesting. I've been querying for 9 months with a lot of good responses. 10% of my queries have led to manuscript requests, which is twice the usual average according to Query Tracker. The process has involved two rounds of revisions, which is why it's so long, and I'm still waiting on responses. But what I wanted to say is that I think your estimate of queries coming in is likely too high. Most agents I've heard talk about it are somewhere in the 1500-5000 range. And on Query Tracker if you pay for premium you can see exactly how many queries an agent has gotten in the last year. Now for agents who take queries by email or a combination of email and QT, the stats are much less reliable. But for agents who use QT exclusively, the data is all there. And I haven't seen a single agent who's getting 11K a year. I'm sure some are, but if I, in a completely unscientific way, were to guess I'd say the average is closer to 3-4K.
Thanks, Daniela! My estimate of 11k a year comes from the agents that I quoted. I have no way of corroborating or challenging their experience. I suspect you're right that the average agent probably receives far fewer than these two extremely reputable and sought-after agents. But I don't think that QT provides more reliable data. According to QT, Scott Hoffman (one of the agents quoted here) has received 527 queries ever; Susan Golomb (the other agent quoted) has received 1864. I'm 100% confident that this doesn't come close to what either of them receive in a year, let alone All Time. But your comments gets at the difficulty of this work! It's so hard to get reliable information. And that's by design.
Do both of those agents receive queries by email and QT, or strictly by email? Then the data is definitely less reliable, because it depends on writers manually adding their query/response/submission/response dates.
But for agents who exclusively use QT to receive queries, the data is completely reliable because it's all logged automatically. What I'm suggesting is that if we check agents who are only receiving QT queries, we can trust the numbers and I've never personally seen numbers as high as 11K (again I'm not doubting for a second more well known agents get that many).
I'm also taking into account interviews I've read, for instance with Joanna Swainson of Hardman and Swainson in London, who said she gets an average of 1500 a year. So I'd be hesitant to use Hoffman and Golomb as a baseline and then multiply their average by the total number of agents. 16 million queries a year seems quite high.
It may not be complete for QM queries since there’s a point where it asks you to sign in to a QT account, but it’s not required so non-QT users will not be included in the stats.
For agents who only receive QT queries, every query is tracked because they don't receive queries any other way. If you want to query a QT-only agent you have to make a QT account.
The author is doing some guessing here and for sure so am I, based on the QT-only agents for whom we do have solid data. And 11K seems way too high to use as an average for all agents in the English-speaking market.
The quotes and figures are from 2011 and 2014, they're a long way out of date. The publishing industry has changed enormously in the last decade, as has the number of active agents. Whatever figures you're seeing today would be correct, even if it's not the whole market using that tool, you're using it consistently as a barometer, so it's giving you a decent and valid insight to what's happening in the market.
Query Tracker is, sorry for stating the obvious, the writer side of Query Manager. I'd be shocked if Query Manager doesn't have stats on queries by genre because in QT I can see how many queries are coming in every day for an agent and what the genres are. I can also see precisely how many agents are working in each genre.
Clearly there are agents who don't use QM but the vast majority do. It's extremely rare for me to come across an agent on MSWL or Blusky that isn't on QM. And all of the big agencies list all of their agents.
I’ve found that the majority of writers I’ve queried over the last year are NOT on QM. I’m guessing it might vary based on genre. I’ve also noticed that a couple agents have moved from email to QM in that time.
What I have noticed is that when I was querying my first novel about a decade ago, there were a handful of agents who only took mail queries. I’ve not seen any this time around.
So both of us are talking about anecdotal evidence. I don't know what percentage of writers are on QT. I do know that I've only ever searched for two agents that weren't. And if you go house by house, you'll find all the big agencies are on there, most representing a wide range of genres. You can compare the agents listed for each house to the agents listed on their websites (which I've done) and see the lists are the same.
But again, based on the agents who only take QT queries, and interviews where agents stated their numbers, 11K seems too high to be considered the average.
Super interesting findings. As seen with the Chelsea Curto deal, more and more romance authors getting agents are already self-publishing bestsellers. I'd be curious to know what percentage of agent representation is the indie-to-trad pipeline.
For anyone maybe looking for a tiny ray of hope- I got my agent from a slushpile and went on to have a very successful debut. She's told me how uncommon this is and I guess I was surprised because MOST good things I've gotten in my life were via slushpiles. Here's the thing, it's fine to be in the slushpile if you're more talented than average. It's just that most people have a hard time telling if they are average or not. I don't think credentials mean anything (for fiction) and while having published short stories got me some agent attention, none of those agents signed me. Just write a good book. Then another one, then another one.
Really fascinating data and analysis, Laura. The slush pile to published book trajectory has always had the feel of a winning lottery ticket situation — insane odds, and yet, there's always a winner. I imagine most aspiring writers may start in the slush pile, but over time, learn how to tilt the odds more in their favor in how they navigate the process. Or at least that's the hope. This post serves as a strong motivator for learning how to move past the slush pile entry point.
This is very interesting - just wanted to add my perspective when l read this. I got my MFA twenty years ago (and I'd be interested to know how much things have changed since then) but as students we were taught to write what we wanted to write - that was the point. Much more info should have been given on the publishing side of things in my program, I'm sure, absolutely, but on the other hand, do people want to publish a book just to say or feel "I've published a book?" l remember Stuart Dybek saying to me at some party - writers can only write what they can write. He said - "you can't write young adult or commercial fiction unless that's the kind of writer you are." I'm just curious because just reading this one post, l get the feeling that writers might look at it and l think - oh l could aim to write one of those books agents are looking for. And to me that doesn't compute.
I'm writing the book l want to write because it means something to me and I'm endlessly compelled by the characters and it says something l want to say. I'll do everything l can to get it published via traditional means and then see what happens. But what I'm not doing is sitting down to write a novel l think "agents will want." Sure, I'm very aware of plot and length and a hook etc, but it's still my book, and l guess l don't totally understand the point of posts like this, but I may have missed the point entirely, or l suppose many writers would see this differently than l do.
Hi Constance, thanks for this comment! I certainly wouldn't tell a writer what they should write, or suggest that anyone write for the market. This is a recipe for failure— or, at least, for inauthenticity. But I do think that more information is a good thing; as a professional, a writer should know as much as possible about the industry, but information like this is too hidden or unknown. An information vacuum only helps those people who hold the power, not aspiring writers.
Yes, true enough! That makes good sense. The publishing business should be vastly more transparent than it is, and l do support writers understanding how it works.
Thank you very much for this data and insights. I am an aspirating YA novelist and found you via Jane Friedman. I appreciate the time and effort you put into this post, and also believe that information is a valuable tool for writers in this crazy market! Thanks!
To offer some anecdata from my own experience, the top-line number is number of queries, not the number of novels. Even a single agency may get multiple queries for the same novel.
This is all fascinating! I will say that I think age has little to do with what categories or genres an agent wants to represent. I disagree that younger agents are more inclined to YA or that middle age agents are more inclined to Women’s Fiction. Regardless of agent’s age, those are just two perennially popular genres with lots of editors acquiring books in them. Agents have a decent shot of getting repeat business in those genres, hands down.
And re slush data, have you talked to Patric McDonald at Query Tracker? I wonder what anonymized data he’d share with you. He’s very nice.
I agree, really appreciate the author putting time into this piece, but if you account for writers submitting multiple queries, then the # of manuscripts should be orders of magnitude below 16M. QueryTracker stats say that the average is above 40, though that stat has some caveats.
I remember looking at the queries received data on QueryTracker for the agents I was interested in, and the number of YA fantasy novels they received were HUGE compared to other genres/categories. This is one of the factors that convinced me to jump to adult mystery novels, where the number of queries received seemed to be much, much smaller.
Would love to see a similar “agent interest” chart for nonfiction.
Great idea! Will file away.
This was very interesting. I've been querying for 9 months with a lot of good responses. 10% of my queries have led to manuscript requests, which is twice the usual average according to Query Tracker. The process has involved two rounds of revisions, which is why it's so long, and I'm still waiting on responses. But what I wanted to say is that I think your estimate of queries coming in is likely too high. Most agents I've heard talk about it are somewhere in the 1500-5000 range. And on Query Tracker if you pay for premium you can see exactly how many queries an agent has gotten in the last year. Now for agents who take queries by email or a combination of email and QT, the stats are much less reliable. But for agents who use QT exclusively, the data is all there. And I haven't seen a single agent who's getting 11K a year. I'm sure some are, but if I, in a completely unscientific way, were to guess I'd say the average is closer to 3-4K.
Thanks, Daniela! My estimate of 11k a year comes from the agents that I quoted. I have no way of corroborating or challenging their experience. I suspect you're right that the average agent probably receives far fewer than these two extremely reputable and sought-after agents. But I don't think that QT provides more reliable data. According to QT, Scott Hoffman (one of the agents quoted here) has received 527 queries ever; Susan Golomb (the other agent quoted) has received 1864. I'm 100% confident that this doesn't come close to what either of them receive in a year, let alone All Time. But your comments gets at the difficulty of this work! It's so hard to get reliable information. And that's by design.
Do both of those agents receive queries by email and QT, or strictly by email? Then the data is definitely less reliable, because it depends on writers manually adding their query/response/submission/response dates.
But for agents who exclusively use QT to receive queries, the data is completely reliable because it's all logged automatically. What I'm suggesting is that if we check agents who are only receiving QT queries, we can trust the numbers and I've never personally seen numbers as high as 11K (again I'm not doubting for a second more well known agents get that many).
I'm also taking into account interviews I've read, for instance with Joanna Swainson of Hardman and Swainson in London, who said she gets an average of 1500 a year. So I'd be hesitant to use Hoffman and Golomb as a baseline and then multiply their average by the total number of agents. 16 million queries a year seems quite high.
It may not be complete for QM queries since there’s a point where it asks you to sign in to a QT account, but it’s not required so non-QT users will not be included in the stats.
For agents who only receive QT queries, every query is tracked because they don't receive queries any other way. If you want to query a QT-only agent you have to make a QT account.
The author is doing some guessing here and for sure so am I, based on the QT-only agents for whom we do have solid data. And 11K seems way too high to use as an average for all agents in the English-speaking market.
The quotes and figures are from 2011 and 2014, they're a long way out of date. The publishing industry has changed enormously in the last decade, as has the number of active agents. Whatever figures you're seeing today would be correct, even if it's not the whole market using that tool, you're using it consistently as a barometer, so it's giving you a decent and valid insight to what's happening in the market.
Query Tracker is, sorry for stating the obvious, the writer side of Query Manager. I'd be shocked if Query Manager doesn't have stats on queries by genre because in QT I can see how many queries are coming in every day for an agent and what the genres are. I can also see precisely how many agents are working in each genre.
Clearly there are agents who don't use QM but the vast majority do. It's extremely rare for me to come across an agent on MSWL or Blusky that isn't on QM. And all of the big agencies list all of their agents.
I’ve found that the majority of writers I’ve queried over the last year are NOT on QM. I’m guessing it might vary based on genre. I’ve also noticed that a couple agents have moved from email to QM in that time.
What I have noticed is that when I was querying my first novel about a decade ago, there were a handful of agents who only took mail queries. I’ve not seen any this time around.
So both of us are talking about anecdotal evidence. I don't know what percentage of writers are on QT. I do know that I've only ever searched for two agents that weren't. And if you go house by house, you'll find all the big agencies are on there, most representing a wide range of genres. You can compare the agents listed for each house to the agents listed on their websites (which I've done) and see the lists are the same.
But again, based on the agents who only take QT queries, and interviews where agents stated their numbers, 11K seems too high to be considered the average.
Super interesting findings. As seen with the Chelsea Curto deal, more and more romance authors getting agents are already self-publishing bestsellers. I'd be curious to know what percentage of agent representation is the indie-to-trad pipeline.
For anyone maybe looking for a tiny ray of hope- I got my agent from a slushpile and went on to have a very successful debut. She's told me how uncommon this is and I guess I was surprised because MOST good things I've gotten in my life were via slushpiles. Here's the thing, it's fine to be in the slushpile if you're more talented than average. It's just that most people have a hard time telling if they are average or not. I don't think credentials mean anything (for fiction) and while having published short stories got me some agent attention, none of those agents signed me. Just write a good book. Then another one, then another one.
Congratulations!!
Really fascinating data and analysis, Laura. The slush pile to published book trajectory has always had the feel of a winning lottery ticket situation — insane odds, and yet, there's always a winner. I imagine most aspiring writers may start in the slush pile, but over time, learn how to tilt the odds more in their favor in how they navigate the process. Or at least that's the hope. This post serves as a strong motivator for learning how to move past the slush pile entry point.
For what it’s worth, I enjoy both Donna Tartt and Friday Night Lights.
This is very interesting - just wanted to add my perspective when l read this. I got my MFA twenty years ago (and I'd be interested to know how much things have changed since then) but as students we were taught to write what we wanted to write - that was the point. Much more info should have been given on the publishing side of things in my program, I'm sure, absolutely, but on the other hand, do people want to publish a book just to say or feel "I've published a book?" l remember Stuart Dybek saying to me at some party - writers can only write what they can write. He said - "you can't write young adult or commercial fiction unless that's the kind of writer you are." I'm just curious because just reading this one post, l get the feeling that writers might look at it and l think - oh l could aim to write one of those books agents are looking for. And to me that doesn't compute.
I'm writing the book l want to write because it means something to me and I'm endlessly compelled by the characters and it says something l want to say. I'll do everything l can to get it published via traditional means and then see what happens. But what I'm not doing is sitting down to write a novel l think "agents will want." Sure, I'm very aware of plot and length and a hook etc, but it's still my book, and l guess l don't totally understand the point of posts like this, but I may have missed the point entirely, or l suppose many writers would see this differently than l do.
Hi Constance, thanks for this comment! I certainly wouldn't tell a writer what they should write, or suggest that anyone write for the market. This is a recipe for failure— or, at least, for inauthenticity. But I do think that more information is a good thing; as a professional, a writer should know as much as possible about the industry, but information like this is too hidden or unknown. An information vacuum only helps those people who hold the power, not aspiring writers.
Yes, true enough! That makes good sense. The publishing business should be vastly more transparent than it is, and l do support writers understanding how it works.
Thank you very much for this data and insights. I am an aspirating YA novelist and found you via Jane Friedman. I appreciate the time and effort you put into this post, and also believe that information is a valuable tool for writers in this crazy market! Thanks!
To offer some anecdata from my own experience, the top-line number is number of queries, not the number of novels. Even a single agency may get multiple queries for the same novel.
This is all fascinating! I will say that I think age has little to do with what categories or genres an agent wants to represent. I disagree that younger agents are more inclined to YA or that middle age agents are more inclined to Women’s Fiction. Regardless of agent’s age, those are just two perennially popular genres with lots of editors acquiring books in them. Agents have a decent shot of getting repeat business in those genres, hands down.
And re slush data, have you talked to Patric McDonald at Query Tracker? I wonder what anonymized data he’d share with you. He’s very nice.
I think the 16,500,000 manuscript submissions number needs a bit more discovery.
1. It seems incredibly high because it is.
2. That cannot be unique manuscripts. Many in that number are simultaneous submissions.
3. I feel tons better about my own submissions record.
I agree, really appreciate the author putting time into this piece, but if you account for writers submitting multiple queries, then the # of manuscripts should be orders of magnitude below 16M. QueryTracker stats say that the average is above 40, though that stat has some caveats.
I remember looking at the queries received data on QueryTracker for the agents I was interested in, and the number of YA fantasy novels they received were HUGE compared to other genres/categories. This is one of the factors that convinced me to jump to adult mystery novels, where the number of queries received seemed to be much, much smaller.
Should I bring up International Slushpile Bonfire Day? https://substack.com/home/post/p-148434706?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Well, that’s depressing. None of my genre connections are particularly popular with any agents. Ah well, that’s why I selfpub.
Thanks for sharing this