Maybe I spend too much time online, but as I plow through the Web- based part of the agent-research process, I am finding that lame-o, underdeveloped, freshman-remedial-looking Web sites are giving me bad joo-joos about that agency.
The Web-indifferent half of my brain says this: "Who cares? They're word people, not Web people! It's charming and traditional to be clueless about modern technology, so a site that looks homemade is a sign of high literary standards -- in the same way frayed tweeds and
dusty brogans go with blue blood dating back to the Plantagenets."
Yet, the digitally-infected half of my brain says, "Is this agency even functioning in the 21st century? Sure, maybe they sold some stuff, but how of-the-moment can they be with an online presence that looks like it was designed by someone's third-grader?"
I know, I know. I shouldn't even be thinking about this kind of thing. But, yanno. Us scribes, we obssess.
Props to you and KY, always and forever.
I hear ya. But don't obsess yourself out of a good agent. Cause what I'm NOT doing is learning html and tinkering with my website. What I am doing is selling your work. I'm one person and lots of agents are also on their own. If someone leaped out of the sky and said "here I'll gussy up your site for free" it would STILL be a PITA cause I'd have to look at stuff, make decisions, write new text...yadda yaddo yabba dabba doo.
The only thing you should consider about an agent is whether they are effective and whether you can work with them. Ignore their address, web or otherwise, and look at what counts.
And publishing is not filled with people who are up to the moment on much of anything. Publishing is filled with people whose idea of a rollicking good time is to read a book. How very ...well...Edwardian.