Advice on finding a good Agency!!

[Emma Jay]

I am looking at Agencies for my 4 year old daughter to join. When she was a baby i joined her up with Models Direct which cost me a fortune and i never heard anything from them. So i am a little weary now as to where to take her to. Every agency says yes when i send her pics but that just makes me more cautious as how can they be a good agency if they say yes to every applicant! So i never persue it! Although she is only 4, time is passing by and i dont want to spend any more time umming and ahhhhing over what to do and i dont want to waste her talent. Please help!!! Thanks x

[riverdancefan]

Oh dear !!
Models direct ! Very bad choice so no wonder you are weary, there are plenty of agencies that are reputable , it may be that as she is only 4, they are happy to take from photos
Scallywags and bizzikidz are well known and popular agencies for example and may be happy with photos. kitsch kids and chillikids often go by photos, doesn't mean they are not trustworthy. Grace and Galor, kids LOndon will take from photos as well.
Have a look at a few more threads and contact some of those.
Models Direct are well known scammers

Good luck let us know how it goes !!

[Emma Jay]

Thanks for that, i have had a look and little research and i have just sent off to Scallywags! Thanks again Emma x

[sophiesocks]

My dc are with daisy and dukes, we are very happy and the children have taken part in lots of fun projects, and they are a lot cheaper to join than scallywags, they are having a workshop soon I think, good luck whatever you decide

[wissymo]

Alphabet kids might be a good one to look at as well.
They do both modelling and acting.
Would also say Bonny and Betty for both modelling and acting but their books are closed until August.
Maybe Urban Angels...not sure if their books are open though and Bruce and Brown? worth a check xx

[benb]

I was interested to talk to someone at scallywags. They said it wasn't essential to pay the fee in order to be part of the agency. However if you didn't pay to be on the website they would not consider putting your DC through for auditions until they had considered everyone else.(so it would be unlikely that any auditions would be given). They also said that it was the norm to have to pay a fee to be part of a kids agency as well as the commission on work they get.
Having read through the various threads here it seemed to me that this should not be the case. Any comments?

[Jade]

We are with Bonny and Betty and they are great!

[pg]

They also said that it was the norm to have to pay a fee to be part of a kids agency as well as the commission on work they get.

I have often heard this view expressed, but I honestly don't think there is any legislation to support it

The problem is that the existing legislation is very rarely enforced. However, if you wanted to ask the questions of the agency, I admit I would be very interested to hear the answers!

As far as I am aware, there is no special case made for agents who represent children. I do understand, entirely, that an agency representing children has a particularly heavy workload and probably generally lower commission (because pay tends to be lower). However, I cannot see anything in legislation that "allows" a children's agency to charge an up-front fee. A modelling/photographic/extras agent IS allowed to charge a "reasonable" book fee. But the publication has to exist (and you have the right to see it), and these days a "book" is not usually produced. They can make a charge for a "virtual" book of course, but again, as far as I understand it, the charge has to reflect the cost of putting it together and I would definitely dispute the charges made by many agencies for putting together a website and protected database! If a child is in Spotlight, I would dispute the needto have a separate website/database anyway. In any case, according to the legislation, again as I understand it, any charge is supposed to be taken out of wages and not charged up front. An agency can make charges for "services", like photographs, but an actor should be able to choose to pay for these services independently.

Here's a link to some information about the legislation: (it's probably not the ideal link, but I can't find a better one at the moment).
http://www.business.scotland.gov.uk/bdo ... =RESOURCES

All in all, I would still say it is much better to seek an agent that makes no up front charge of any sort. The reasons are obvious really: if the agent only earns if you work, they have much more incentive to work hard on your behalf. Getting money just for your putting your details on a website seems like a much easier way to make a living!

[Flosmom]

Star Now sent this link to their help pages about agents

http://www.starnow.com/help/85-Help

Hope it's helpful

Deb x

[pg]

I think this is a good overview, Deb, thanks for posting it.

Mind you I take issue with:

They usually focus on screen work (e.g. films, TV dramas, and TV commercials) but they can help with theatre roles, and can sometimes specialise in voice work.

...especially for adult actors.

I think Starnow focuses on screen. I don't think that's reflected in the UK acting industry and I think some of what they write could be a little bit unhelpful/misleading.

<Climbs creakily on to high horse and pontificates:>

"Can help with theatre roles?" that's rather dismissive! Theatre can be the backbone of an actor's and an agent's work and I do know a lot of actors (and therefore agents) who make their living (sort of!) in theatre. It depends on the agent and the client list. There's no doubt that agents will welcome the commission from commercials, but commission from a decently paid theatre tour or a season at Pitlochry or Keswick or working with a theatre ensemble like the RSC or a part in a long-running West End musical? It's likely to be pretty highly valued by an agent.

I don't agree with their assessment of "mid-career actors" either. Agencies for mid-career actors - people who make their living as actors. They take people breaking out of featured extra roles, who are showing potential to do guest leads, and try to represent top-end actors too. .

This suggests that agents take on people who have appeared on screen as extras because they've had a couple of lines in something. Of course, if the actor has managed to put together a showreel showing several featured extras roles, that might interest an agent, but I honestly don't think this is the usual route to get an agent. Most people I know get an agent first and then get screen work - not the other way round. More commonly, agents have taken someone on either because they have seen them in a play or because they have seen them in a showcase or because they have seen them in a showreel or perhaps at a short film festival. This (I think) is quite likely to be because it's hard to get TV or Film work that shows off your acting skills well before you get an agent. I think an agent is likely to want to see a bit more than: "It's up the stairs to your left, sir" before taking someone on. I'm also a bit about "try to represent top end actors too". An actor isn't born/doesn't graduate "top end", they become "top end" because of the work they do. What I think agents definitely do is try to spot actors they think will become "top end" and hang on to them if they fulfill the promise the agent has seen - that's a bit different, isn't it?

Pontificates a bit more:
I think the focus on screen work is a common and inaccurate public perception of the industry as a whole. There are so many jobs done by actors to make a living that are nothing to do with appearing on a TV or cinema screen - they're not all particularly glamorous or noticeable, but they do put food on the table and many of them do far more to advance a career than appearing in a one off commercial or a guest appearance in a soap (useful, interesting and financially rewarding though these experiences may be).

OOf. <Climbs creakily down again>.

I