Beta version


Deadline Article this week

By Catherine Considine
Deadline Article this week

Dear Members,
From emails and discussions, I know many of you saw Deadline’s coverage regarding an agency whose membership was revoked this week. I want to briefly address some common concerns.

It is PMA policy to deal with all complaints against agents with utmost discretion. We would not have chosen to play this out in a public way. Given the choice we would never have endorsed the headline, “PMA Kicks Agency out …” The following quote is the only part of the coverage that came from the PMA:

“The welfare of the artist is at the heart of the approved PMA code of conduct. Honesty and integrity are the cornerstones of the agent-artist relationship. It damages us all when that trust is broken. [the agency’s] membership of the PMA is no longer tenable in light of recent allegations.”

The reason for our care and discretion is this – bad practice does not just affect the agent concerned. It affects clients and employees. It reflects poorly on the not-well-understood role of agents. It damages us all.

This is a clunky segue to reminding you all of the tenants of The PMA Code of Practice which enshrines: good business practice; compliance with the law and with our regulators (Employment Agencies Regulators); fair practice between PMA members; and sanctions for breaches of the code. The Code states that “the overriding consideration must be a conscientious regard for the professional welfare of the client.”

Being a PMA member is active. The article I would like to see would praise the many, many agents who work tirelessly, above and beyond to maintain high standards in our industry and to protect the interests and rights of their clients. If the PMA stands for anything, it is that.

Thank you.

Kind regards,