Managers vs. Agents

By Maria Mondavi

Over the past two years the industry has watched the role of the manager change. There was a time in Hollywood when the personal manager seemed like an actor's indulgence. Today not only do actors find managers essential to their careers but many writers and directors are represented solely by managers. It is becoming a common occurrence, so much so that there are managers who consider themselves 'literary managers'. Many agree that managers are thought to be essential for success in this ever changing, competitive industry. However, the increased presence of managers affects the client/agent relationship, as well as impacting the individual careers of talent and changing the way movies and television are produced.

Taking in to consideration the recently established management companies such as Steve Golin's Anonymous Content Management and Michael Ovitz's AMG, more than half a dozen agents have quit, taking their clients with them, to become personal managers. While some of their clients have continued alliances with their agency and their personal manager, how much do they really need both? It is debatable, especially in view of the service a large management company like AMG can offer. And more importantly, will agents continue to be as powerful as they were in the 80's and 90's?

The legal differences between managers and agents are still obvious. Agents are licensed by the state they work in (New York or California) and earn their money by negotiating contracts for their clients. They are regulated in agreement with industry labor unions, such as SAG, the WGA and DGA. Through those agreements, the commissions that agents charge their clients are bound by law to a maximum of 10%. Agents also may not produce film or television. On the other hand, managers are not regulated and can charge clients 15% and up. But the primary difference is that managers can produce. While managers may not solicit work for clients, (as to whether they do or not is another issue to be addressed at another time) they may and should advise their client on anything and everything and participate in negotiations with the client's agent and or lawyer.

Then there is the less obvious differences between agents and managers. Management is thought to be more lucrative. Not only are managers' commissions higher than agents (15% vs.10%) but many managers are making additional money by attaching themselves to their clients' projects as producers. For example, Bernie Brillstein and Brad Grey, of Brillstein-Grey, represent David Spade. They are also executive producers on Spade's television show 'JUST SHOOT ME'. The producing fees are absorbed by either the producing studio or network, thereby costing the client (David Spade) nothing. Some agents are infuriated by the managers who attach themselves as producers and argue that these "managers" are not legitimate producers and are driving up production costs. (Although what does it take to be a producer? Legally speaking, producers are just like managers. There is no formal training and they are not licensed. If you can call yourself a producer you may call yourself a manager, and vice versa). Managers argue back that it is no different than when an agency packages a television show, where agencies can earn hefty commissions into the millions.

In an effort to counteract the influx of Managers, Agents have put pressure on the industry guilds by lobbying to either deregulate agents or regulate managers. The agents' stance is that they agreed to the restrictions set by the guilds' in return for the exclusive right to represent their members. This is no longer their sole right. With a few major players doing away with their agents entirely, agents feel the need to protect their rights and urge the guilds and the state to implement regulations on managers. However, since the unfolding of AMG in 1998 the fear that was once felt has subsided due to the lack of any drastic change in agency power. CAA's roster still reads like the academy award invite list. If anything, managers acting as producers have had the most affect on the industry. While no resolution has exactly been reached on regulating managers, SAG did crack down on talent managers for soliciting work. There is definitely a greater awareness now for managers of all types to be careful in regards to the law.

MANAGERS	AGENTS
Anyone can hang a sign in their window and call themselves a manager	An agent is licensed by the state they work in.
Managers can and should advise clients in regards to deal offers. However, managers can not solicit work on behalf of their clients -- meaning they should not be able to negotiate or make deals. (Keep in mind managers do this anyway.)	An agents job is to solicit work for their clients, as well as make deals and negotiate on their behalf.
Since managers are not licensed or regulated they can and do produce.	Agents are legally forbidden to produce
Managers take 15% and up.	Agents take 10%
For a talent that only has a manager they will also need a lawyer to sign off on contracts.	Agents have their own in house lawyers so a talent wouldn't necessarily need a lawyer. However, most industry professionals recommend having your own lawyer review your contracts and deals.
Managers will typically have far fewer clients. Therefore they are thought to be able to provide their client with more "personal" attention.	Agents, unlike managers, will most likely represent many talents, including some in competition with one another. This means agents provide less personal attention and may even put you in competition with their other clients.

A much less important difference between agents and managers but still a factor is the glamour element. Agents can never win an Emmy or an Academy but a manager can certainly find himself in the spotlight on awards night if he has attached himself as a producer to a clients' project. Managers essentially get to have their names in lights, i.e. receive screen credit. Not only are agents angry about this but "legit" producers (producers who are not managers) are resentful. They suggest some managers are demanding producing credits just for providing access to their clients. For the managers who have behaved in such a "cling-on" fashion it has caused the industry to cry, "Managers producing is a conflict-of-interest." Some of us might remember the Gary Shandling versus Brad Grey lawsuit. Shandling alleged Grey failed to protect Shandlings' interests while furthering his own. This has become the largest concern around why managers should not produce.

In speaking with agents and managers the consensus was: when the agent and manager are able to work together the client will benefit from having both representatives. It's hard to get a job in Hollywood, especially for a young, new talent. Any extra assistance and guidance may help and it's no secret that managers have fewer clients than agents, so managers can provide clients with more personal attention. Nor is it a secret that studios, producers and networks still rely heavily on agencies. It makes sense that a talent would find a manager/agent team to be most effective.

Since AMG has not shaken things up as much as once anticipated, agents are less inclined to preach the eradication of the personal manager altogether, but there is no denying that we have seen big changes in the representation business as a result. Perhaps the most significant phenomena are: One: agents becoming managers. And two: talent desiring a team of advisors rather than relying on one or the other.