In picking clients, we first must consider the direction of the marketplace. If the marketplace is only doing CG feature films then what would be the point of signing someone who only directs, writes or creates traditional animation? We also have to consider whether we have had much success in recent history procuring employment for artists with similar talents and status in the entertainment industry. Many people ask why, when shown two similar people with like credits, would we pick one over the other? The answer is we follow our instincts. After all is said and done, we have to follow what our hearts say. The most important part of selling a client is believing in that client. We need to believe 100% in what we are saying, and the only way we can do that is when we truly, instinctually believe in our clients.

There is only one thing in animation that is ever for sure, and that is that nothing is ever for sure. Before we sign a client we always think about whether that person's particular talents are in line with what the marketplace is currently after. Unfortunately, what buyers look for can change overnight, solely based upon one unexpected hit feature or series, or conversely a feature or series that does not measure up to the expectations of studio or network executives.

In deciding whom we should sign, we review the potential clients' previous credits, what their demo reel consists of, and what their goals are for the future. Then after meeting with them we decide if there is a personality fit between us and the prospective client. We do not take on too many new clients only for the reason that we do not like to have multiple clients with very similar skills, credits and goals/ambitions. We look at their sense of originality and style in the work they have done and assess how that work has faired in the marketplace and try to make a judgment as to how their work will be received in the future. Particularly exciting is a new client that is not only very enthusiastic about their work, but they have a reputation in the community as a team player. We love people that know how to play nice in the sandbox.

Entertainment attorney Richard Sigler explains the difference between lawyers, agents and managers.

Richard Sigler, Entertainment Attorney
Richard Sigler has been an entertainment attorney for more than 30 years, specializing in animation. He has been general manager of Hanna-Barbera, sr vp of Marvel Productions and New World Animation. For the last 10 years he has been in private practice representing production companies and individuals whom executive produce, create or direct animated projects.

It helps to understand the different roles attorneys play from agents and managers. Agents generally work for 10% of the income they obtain for their clients; they don't expect to be paid up front, if they do not obtain work or a deal. They are regulated by the state as to certain matters. Managers legally may not act as agents (that is, obtain work or sales for their clients), but are supposed to manage their clients' careers in a more general sense. They are unregulated by the state and charge more than 10% of the client's income (typically 20% or more). Attorneys tend to work on an hourly basis, regardless of the results obtained, and they frequently require new clients to pay a retainer up front to assure that they receive their fees. Some attorneys will shop material, and a very few will work on a percentage basis (usually 5%) but the successful ones do so only to make more money, not less money, than their hourly rate. Attorneys generally do not work "on spec" like the agent and manager do.

In my experience, talent in the animation area are "second class citizens" to their live-action brethren, in part because they do not utilize unions, agents, managers, and attorneys like live action talent does. Historically, animation projects cost more and made less than live action projects, so the old economics contributed to this status. Now, however, animation is not more expensive to produce and makes just as much money as live action. Unfortunately, the talent has not caught up to the product and still acts like second class citizens, much to the pleasure of the studios.

The attorney and client (with agent/manager) are a team devoted to helping the client succeed. An attorney wants to work with clients who appreciate and value what the attorney does, are honorable and fun to work with, and who can help further the attorney's reputation, such as by being involved in high profile projects, making good press, referring colleagues, etc. Attorneys, like everyone else, are running a business, so clients should, of course, be able to pay the attorney's retainer and fees, and the most likely ones to do that have work or deals already in place.

In deciding on whom to represent, I have to consider several factors. (1) The first decision is whether the attorney has a conflict of interest with the new client. Attorneys are constrained by conflict of interest and confidentiality rules that do not apply to agents and managers, so a client has to be free of those problems (for example, the attorney cannot work on a deal where one client is opposed to another client). (2) The client has to be "real," that is, have real legal work to be done, and not just want the attorney to act as an agent by finding work or a buyer for the client's property. (3) The client has to be able to pay the attorney's fees, and requiring a retainer payment up front not only helps assure the attorney of his fee, but helps cut out the poseurs from the client list. Of course, not all who have talent and opportunities can afford to make the payments, and the attorney has a judgment call to make about whether to risk the attorney's time in hopes of being paid later. Generally this time is lost to the attorney. 4) Will the client be fun to work with and help the attorney build the quality of his practice? The attorney wants clients who might recommend the attorney to other clients and who think the attorney's work is good. An attorney does not want to have a client who views him as a "necessary evil," an adversary, a money pit, someone he has to be "all business" around, etc.