In the arts and entertainment world, there’s a distinction that’s often misunderstood as semantic, when it’s actually driven by law: the difference between a manager and an agent. In film, touring performing arts, theater, publishing, and other realms of creative expression, both agents and managers work to advance their clients’ work. The difference is that agents can procure work for their clients and require a license to do so. Managers can promote their clients, but cannot make the deal.
The reason for the distinction relates to the perils and pitfalls of ”agency,” where one person is doing business on behalf of another. There are reams of research on the challenges that the principal-agent relationship can foster — among them an imbalance of expertise and knowledge between the principal and the agent (the realtor often knows more about the value of a house and the terms of a contract, but may not always have a monetary incentive to share that knowledge), and the challenge of knowing exactly whose interests an agent represents between the buyer and seller.
In arts and entertainment, the distinction is commonly known and frequently blurred. And that distinction was the subject of a recent California Supreme Court case. If you are an artist, or contract with artists, it would be worth understanding the difference.
And even more confusing on the heels of the Arts Presenters Conference when one sees agents, managers, artist reps, the elusive XYZ Artist Management that is essentially an agency. Some clear definitions would be nice.