PitchWars Round-Up: Data-Driven Edition
In the middle of PitchWars I began filing data into an Excel spreadsheet to give myself something to do in between bouts of hitting REFRESH to see if any more comments had appeared on my entry. In pretty short order, I realized that I’d better pay a little more attention than simply treating this as “something to do” because the agents who were passing on my pitch and first 250 were not likely to be wowed by a query letter follow up. I could be wrong on this. I could be playing this too conservatively. However, and this is the rationale where I finally came down, seventeen agents signed up for PitchWars (and an additional six began to participate during the course of the two days). There are plenty of other agents out there and there’s no reason for me to hit up ones who’ve already passed on the hopes that they just haven’t seen enough to fall in love with my manuscript yet.
I’d rather try and be professional about querying than off-putting.
Warning: This is a long post with less concrete data than lots of ideas for interpretation. I’ve put forward my thoughts and nearly every one has a big ol’ caveat that goes along with it.
The columns in my spreadsheet, from left to right, read Entry Number, Coach, Target Age (of ms), Setting, Genre, followed by individual agent names (at the end of the post there’s a link if you want to download it). I pulled the first seventeen agents from Brenda’s website and added the following six over the course of the 23-24th. You’ll notice that what’s not on this list are author names and titles and here’s why. As I thought more about this information, in addition to wanting to know whom not to bother, I wanted to see what specific agents’ preferences were and if there were any useful tea leaves to be read. Author names and titles are too unique and too idiosyncratic. From all I’ve read, any ms that’s picked up and sold will not end up with its author-chosen title anyway. The most that does is give some additional insight into the author, and that’s too ethereal for me to make sense of. Likewise, our names are irrelevant until we’re clients.
Setting and Genre were a bit tricky at times. I used the categories that we selected with our coaches, but in terms of clean categorization? Ha. A fair amount of massaging went into this. I also did not make any distinction in the kinds of requests. That is, I treated all ms requests as “fulls,” even though there were very many requests for 50 pages or for 3, 4, or 5 chapters. In other words, you can go a great deal farther into this than I did. Feel free to take that ol’ XLSX file and have your way with it.
The top-requested book was listed YA Fantasy (though with time travel, maybe more sci-fi?) with 8 requests.
Three books received 7 requests, all YA: historical fantasy, steampunk, and contemporary.
One book received 6: YA psychological thriller.
Four books received 5: YA Contemporary and YA Sci-Fi; and Adult Foodie Thriller and Adult Urban Fantasy
Four books received 4: YA Sci-Fi; and three Adult, Post-apocalyptic Horror, Romantic Suspense, and Paranormal Romance
Six books received 3: one Adult Fantasy Retelling; four YA with Paranormal, Paranormal Romance, Magical Realism/Literary, and Supernatural Thriller; and the first MG, Fantasy
Thirteen received 2: three Adult with Historical, Contemporary Romance, and Women’s Fiction; eight YA with Contemporary Romance, Fantasy, two Paranormals, Horror, two Contemporaries, and Historical Fantasy; and two MG with Steampunk and Contemporary.
Twenty-six received 1: four Adult with two Women’s, one Historical Women’s, and one Contemporary Thriller; seventeen YA with three Contemporary, two Horror, five Fantasy (one Epic in here), one Retelling, four Romances (Historical, Sci-Fi, Contemporary, and Thriller), one Sci-Fi, and one Speculative Thriller.
In the “primary” section, six received no requests: two Adult Thriller (Contemporary and Speculative), three YA with Fantasy, Sci-Fi, and Contemporary, and one MG Paranormal.
What’s It Mean?
Maybe nothing in the grand scheme. This is a small group and anyone with real statistics chops (of whom I am not one) will certainly say that this is too small a group from which to derive lots of details. General ones? Different story. This group of agents skewed very heavily toward YA. MG was a distant third. However, the Alternate section of Adult books generated a great deal of interest (8 of 15 titles got requests). If you were an alternate, did it matter what section you were in? 4 of 12 MG titles got requests. K Section had 6 of 12; M had 3 of 11; B had 9 of 12. Luck of the draw? Does Brenda skew more strongly as the host of the whole enterprise (I mean, we know she’s great, but how much influence does she actually have? Spooky!)
My suspicion is that this kind of thing is less useful for trying to get a big picture overview than it is for ciphering out information about a particular agent and how she works, but there are still difficulties. For example, Jennifer Mishler only requested one manuscript, an Adult Contemporary Urban Fantasy. Does this mean that she’s very selective about what she requests or that she’s very selective right now because she’s got a lot on her plate at the moment? Compare this selection to her stated preferences for historical romances, strong female characters, and YA (link here). It’s not like some of these weren’t on offer. The problem is that there’s simply not enough information from which to gather information. Contrast this to Louise Fury, who requested 37 full and partial manuscripts (this is where my data falls down, as I made no distinction). Her website shows wide-ranging interest (here) with a couple of specifics (“a sexy steam/cyberpunk romance”) but broadly generalizes with write well with a distinctive voice. She’s currently closed to queries – was that because she knew she was going to be doing PitchWars or because of what she requested at PitchWars? (If you’re a stalker, maybe you know this? I don’t.) My guess is that she has a good sense of how much time she needs with a manuscript, which is why she asked for a variety of lengths from authors, ranging from the very promising (send me a full) to the interest-piquing (send me three chapters). I would take this analysis as: make sure my first chapter kicks ass; make sure my second chapter complicates or raises the stakes; make sure my third chapter jumps into the deep end.
Which, if you think about it, is probably what most books should be doing anyway (even in a literary or non-thriller kind of way).
I suspect that this PitchWars data is mostly good for use right now and not for much longer as it probably also reflects things that don’t and can’t show up. Maybe Jordy Albert knows that a particular acquisitions editor is looking for a YA Paranormal, so that’s high on her radar at the moment. I can’t even imagine the number of other factors that might come into play. I would guess that comparing an agent’s website to her current request pattern (and paying particular attention to any “closed to queries” notes) might help tailor a query letter right this very minute. The downside, of course, is that many of them have filled up between PitchWars and #PitMad.
Which might make this information more relevant for non-PitchWarriors?
Another aspect that is longer term that I’d be curious about. How many offers of representation come out of PitchWars? (Tell Brenda!) Agents who post data about their queries and offers frequently note that in a year they only take on one to two new clients at most. 109 writers had work up with Brenda’s contest. If even one of us were to receive an offer of representation, that beats the average for any random set of 109 writers. If there were two? Or three? Here’s where I’m going with this thought. Brenda had over 1700 applicants to take part in this contest. If results are positive, she’ll be encouraged to do this again and agents will be encouraged to take part because she’s got a good track record and more authors will be encouraged to submit and pretty soon there could be 2000-3000 applicants. Admittedly, this is a logical extension, but an easy to imagine one.
(How many times have I demonstrated I’m not a numbers guy so much as a throw-stuff-at-the-wall guy?)
That’s it. I’m going to try and link the XLSX doc here for downloading, otherwise you can trawl through the various sites and re-create your own version, or take mine and make it better (won’t be hard).
Final PitchWars thoughts on Thursday.
Pitchwars Rough (This link takes you to a separate page from which you can download the file – I’ve checked its functionality on Chrome and Safari only.)