Top Talent Agency

[coniger]

would really be interested in people's honest opinions of this agency and if you did sign with them and you didn't take classes at their stage school do they put you forward for castings or do they only concentrate on their own stage school pupils????

thanks in advance

Con

[Flosmom]

My younger DD is represented by Top Talent. She doesn't attend their school, which doesn't seem to affect the casting she gets sent for.

Hope this helps

Deb x

[coniger]

thanks Deb

[triple threat]

It may be good, but I thought it was illegal to charge upfront money on the client with agencies. Also, they take quite a large chunk of the money you earn! Seems like easy money to me

[riverdancefan]

It may be good, but I thought it was illegal to charge upfront money on the client with agencies. Also, they take quite a large chunk of the money you earn! Seems like easy money to me

Perhaps be a little careful with what you are saying triple threat , you seem to be new to dealing with agencies
It's not illegal to make a charge which is very usual in the case of large and respected agencies that represent children. Most of them will make some sort of charge either for website inclusion or set up fees.
You always have to pay at least 20-25% (sometimes more) of what you earn to your agent, that's their fee for,finding you the job, organising your licence and negotiating behind the scenes on your behalf, they are not going to do it for free...they are a business.
Top Talent are a great agency as are Bonnie and Betty who represent my son, both charge set-up fees, we may not like or agree with it, but it's common and expected and not illegal.
You are going to find it pretty difficult to find a children's agency who don't make some sort of charge, there are a few that I think charge way too much, but generally it's not a huge amount of money.

[triple threat]

Ooops !
I didn't realise you could charge fees. I suppose that it depends what type of fee it is...
Sorry, I take my previous comment back then. Although you can find agencies that don't charge you upfront money
Thanks napm

[Flosmom]

All we paid was photos and Spotlight. Top Talent set up a photoshoot but there was no pressure to have photos done there. And the commissions are consistent with other agencies as far as I'm aware.

Other DD is with a different agency and the Ts and Cs are very comparable. So I don't feel ripped off. As for easy money - I don't think any of the agents would agree. They only get paid if the kids work, yet they have to put a lot of time and energy in up front and at risk before they get a sniff of a commission. We're all very aware of how competitive the industry is, especially for kids, so it must be even harder for agents to thrive.

Of course, if you think it's easy money, perhaps the sensible thing to do would be to set up an agency yourself? Just a thought...

Hope this helps

Deb

[riverdancefan]

Ooops !
I didn't realise you could charge fees. I suppose that it depends what type of fee it is...
Sorry, I take my previous comment back then. Although you can find agencies that don't charge you upfront money
Thanks napm

No worries,

I don't agree with any type of fee, but many do charge for whatever it is they say they are charging for IYSWIM
And it is VERY common, don't discount all the agencies who charge a fee of some sort.
Some are well known for being VERY expensive and are very good at making Mums feel terribly guilty of they don't buy the latest package all singing all dancing!! For a huge price. Making parents feel their children are disadvantaged if they don't join and pay for everything they offer.

[pg]

Here's some information on up front fees:

https://www.gov.uk/agency-workers-your- ... g-agencies

You can see that the fee has to be for including your information on a website or in a publication. This is supposed to represent the actual cost involved. If it's for a publication, they have to show you the publication - in other words, it has to exist! Personally, I think that most fees charged for including details on a website are way over the top - especially as Spotlight charges are in addition to this. You can also see from the link that you should have 30 days before payment.

I do not know of any reputable adult acting agency that makes a charge for uploading details to its own website. I know that extras agencies do make a charge: I don't know how many of them still produce a "book". I would regard an agent's website as part of the agency's costs for running their business - like rent/electricity/postage - I don't see why the actor has to pay for it!

I know that it is very common for children's agencies to charge fees. I still think many of them are flouting the regulations by charging more than it costs them to publish the details. I also think that if you have to pay an agent anything then the agent may be tempted to take people on to their books who are not so likely to get work. Even if the "website fee" is modest it is likely to bring in a profit for the agency. That is my main concern. It could be argued that the agents don't need a website with all the children's details on it if they are in Spotlight. There are some quite well established agents that don't have client details on their site, though I think that's becoming rarer.

I entirely agree that it is very difficult for agents to make money and that the work they do is not at all easy. I think it is getting more and more difficult as wages are driven down and more people are willing to work for nothing - even for big commercial companies. I think that children's agencies probably have a harder job than adults' acting agencies and pay for child performers is often lower. For this reason, I think a higher commission is understandable.

Just make sure you go in to it all with your eyes open - that's the important thing.

[Flosmom]

Just for the record, Top Talent didn't charge me any up front fees. I was asked to pay for a spotlight entry and provide photos, for which they set up an optional photoshoot with a photographer they recommended. The cost of the photoshoot wasn't particularly expensive. There is no fee for inclusion on their website.

So, while the debate about upfront fees etc is everso helpful, I think it's important that visitors to this forum understand that, as far as I am aware, Top Talent are not guilty of the bad practices that are explained here.

Warren works very hard for his clients. If anyone is thinking of joining Top Talent I'm happy to share my experience in more detail via PM, but in general I would recommend them, especially if you are interested in castings for commercials and TV.

Hope this is helpful

Deb x

[pg]

Thanks Deb

I do think that's helpful, because it would be easy for the information here to be misunderstood and I think I've probably contributed to any possible misunderstanding .

Sometimes people get confused between Spotlight fees (that go to Spotlight) and "website fees" or "book fees" that go to the agent (which are the ones I am dubious about in most cases). It is also very common (and completely above board) for agencies to recommend photographers and sometimes they set up photography sessions which will normally mean the prices are lower than if you went direct.

A good photograph is essential to enable the agency to promote the client and taking an agent's advice about photos is usually sensible. Where the scam starts is where they insist that you need new photos and then won't let you choose the photographer.

It sounds as though Top Talent is one of the good guys!

[triple threat]

now i see, that we also have to take in mind that some agencies who only take a few clients so that they can give their time to them, won't get as much money as the ones who take on hundreds of clients! so possibly the only other way of earning a living is charging fees for: photos, show-reels, web pages etc.
This only just came accross to me!

[pg]

I'm not sure that's necessarily true, Triple threat - unless I have misunderstood what you are saying. I agree that unscrupulous agents can make money by charging for lots of "extras" but I don't think that an agent will necessarily be more successful as an agent with hundreds of clients rather than scores of clients. The best agents are very particular about who they taken on and then nurture that talent. The best agents have clients who get well-paid jobs and/or regular work and therefore get regular or good commission. An agent that takes on hundreds won't be very attractive to the best talent (because the talent knows it won't get the attention it needs). An agent that charges for extras will be avoided by any actor with any kind of industry knowledge. Therefore the agent with hundreds of clients will probably be fairly swiftly deserted (or avoided in the first place) by a successful actor.

Actors do have to pay for their own marketing materials, but they shouldn't have to pay the agent for these - they should be free to choose who they buy from.

Top agents don't charge their clients for extras, don't have hundreds on their books but are still top agents - representing prestigious clients. Top agents do often have big client lists but they also have several agents so the agent to client ratio is often similar to the smaller agencies.

[triple threat]

I'm not sure that's necessarily true, Triple threat - unless I have misunderstood what you are saying. I agree that unscrupulous agents can make money by charging for lots of "extras" but I don't think that an agent will necessarily be more successful as an agent with hundreds of clients rather than scores of clients. The best agents are very particular about who they taken on and then nurture that talent. The best agents have clients who get well-paid jobs and/or regular work and therefore get regular or good commission. An agent that takes on hundreds won't be very attractive to the best talent (because the talent knows it won't get the attention it needs). An agent that charges for extras will be avoided by any actor with any kind of industry knowledge. Therefore the agent with hundreds of clients will probably be fairly swiftly deserted (or avoided in the first place) by a successful actor.

Actors do have to pay for their own marketing materials, but they shouldn't have to pay the agent for these - they should be free to choose who they buy from.

Top agents don't charge their clients for extras, don't have hundreds on their books but are still top agents - representing prestigious clients. Top agents do often have big client lists but they also have several agents so the agent to client ratio is often similar to the smaller agencies.

Yes i suppose that is true, but if they do have allot of clients that are successful; which as you say is not very common, then they may gain more money from the percentages.
I by no means think it is good to charge extras either though! I am quite against it i was just putting myself in the position of an agent.

[coniger]

I see that Top Talent Agency have their own directory. Does that mean they don't put the kids in spotlight?

Con x