This is were I think things like parametrics and BIM can play a role. Work smarter not harder, jah?

I'm TOTALLY with you on working smarter, not harder/more. But as I like to say with BIM, the priority is on getting better deliverables in the same time rather than the same deliverables faster.

And what architects have not been able to do is justify higher fees for better deliverables. This is key. Or what is going to end up happening is, we're going to try to increase our compensation with quantity, not quality. Hence the increase in # of projects without increase in compensation, and the decrease in value of our services.

BIM for architects have to be less about information and more about intelligence. And we need to justify the value of our services (yes, even overtime). Can you imagine the increase in employee satisfaction in our field, not even increasing the hourly pay, but actually paying for all the over-time hours?

To bring it back somewhat to topic, I think its really a case of the grass being greener on the other side of the fence. I know of lawyers that don't take home the kind of paychecks you may think they are. Or general practitioner doctors that struggle and losing ground to specialists. And contractors losing a lot of money on construction. You only hear of those (and remember) lawyer grads coming straight out of school with 6 figure starting salaries with signing bonuses. Just like others might hear of those (and remember) internationally famous architects that travel all over the world doing art museums.

But I think there is certainly potential to make that perception closer to reality (OK, not the art museum part), if we become better businesspeople and justify our services better.

at it's most basic level, isn't this really a "branding" issue?

people will pay more for a branded item than they will for a generic. But, they have to see the value inherent in the brand -- is it confidence, is it cache, is it durability? however, if they don't discern true value in the brand that's important to them, they'll go straight for the low-cost commodity.

as a profession, we don't do a very good job describing what true value we deliver (or need to deliver) to our customers ... imho, this is because we too often approach the project from our own point-of-view -- not the customer's point of view.

strong brands always look first at the needs / wants / desires of the customer and then design their product or service to respond to, and reinforce, those needs / wants / desires. we tend to design our projects to respond first to our own egos and what we think our peers will think of us.

if the brand is strong enough, the customer really doesn't have to know the details about how the product or service was produced -- they're only interested in the outcome.

we keep looking to the AIA to solve this "branding" issue for us -- we want AIA to convince the general public that architecture is cool and architects are to be valued. to me, that's like asking the Milk Council to roll out a "got Milk" campaign -- it might be a great campaign, but at the end of the day, milk's stlll a commodity.

if we want to not be a commodity, we have to create meaningful and responsive brand identities that convey to the consumer why a decent fee really is a bargain for them. that's no easy task.

I think it goes something like this,

Picasso was sitting at a cafe when a woman noticed him and immediately ran up to him and proclaimed,

"Oh my god, you're Pablo Picasso. Please, you have to sketch my portrait."

Picasso smiled, obliged and in five minutes had a sketch of the lady. The lady saw it and excitedly spoke,

"I love it. How much? "to which Picasso replied,

"$5,000." The lady was taken aback by the large amount and told him,
" but it only took you five minutes." to which Picasso replied,

"No, my dear, it took me my whole life."

I'm staring to think that the public perception that architects do 'lots of math' is just another way of saying that architecture requires intellect. Yes, I do 'math' all the time : 1 foot plus 2 inches = 14 inches and maybe multiplication to find the area. This isn't rocket science, so how is this scary? Math like that is the easiest thing I do in the office.

The problem is that defining 'good' architecture is difficult - and the public doesn't like to engage in thinking about difficult issues. So it is a mater of defining the value you bring to a project, one person/job at a time. Otherwise, we're just a commodity and that is a loosing spot to be in.

Speak for yourself on this one, comb, because that's the exact opposite of my design process.

Of course, your sentence is exactly what the public perception of architects is. Which is the crux of the problem. The AIA has been trying to address this in their ad campaigns for years: proposing that working with an architect will help your project fulfill your needs, function properly, add value to your property etc. Then some prima donna - or better yet, a glaring mistake on the part of a high-profile prima donna - comes along and reinforces the misperception that we architects only care about our own egos.

Its important to note the most lawyers fresh out of school and making $100k also work 80+ hours a week.

We like to think that doctor's don't work as hard as architects, but i doubt it. I would not want to work most dr's hours, or work as hard as they do in school.

I'm giving my kids three choices: dentist, optometrist, or architect.

Its important to note the most lawyers fresh out of school and making $100k also work 80+ hours a week.

We like to think that doctor's don't work as hard as architects, but i doubt it. I would not want to work most dr's hours, or work as hard as they do in school.

I'm giving my kids three choices: dentist, optometrist, or architect.

comb - yes, this is 100% a branding issue. That's the fundamental problem with this profession - everyone is equal. In any other creative field, the better/best get paid exponentially more (and most other professions, too). This is because people charge for talent and client's pay for talent.

In architecture, everyone is "equal" and must struggle for the same job, thereby lowering the pay further and further.

Granted, there are a few minor exceptions, and, thankfully, the stararchitects have created 'brands' and, presumably, can charge more for their time. Their 'brand' is worth money.


The AIA will continue to make all architect's worth the same, as they have to to keep everyone paying dues. But I think there will be more and more breakouts that 'brand' themselves as something special, something unique, and, if they truly are, they will be compensated more.

At least that's what I hope we keep seeing. With this economy, who knows where it'll all land (optimistically, I hope we see an emergence of young stars that got canned and got together to start new, progressive firms with fresh ideas).

lb -- touché -- obviously, I was using the royal "we"

I've been crafting a blog post about this for the past three weeks and every time i tried to write something I ended up with a history paper.

I just posted something today, which I think summarizes the main two main problems we as a profession face in public perception.

First, we are not accessible to the public, very few people actually hire architects in their life. Sure they work in buildings designed by use, but hardly any directly deal with us as professionals. This makes us a mystery, and as such people are left to think of all architects as Frank Gehrys, Frank Lloyd Wrights, or characters from movies. We don't command the respect that doctors and lawyers do because we are not considered necessary.

Second, we as an industry only have a large fee long term billing model. We don't offer quick small fee services, and as such unlike doctors and lawyers, people can't "try out" a new architect before giving us a big contract. The few small fee services that architects provide could be provided by any other building profession and not a licensed architect and since the public has no idea why we charge so much they rightfully go with other professionals to perform these small jobs.

"people will pay more for a branded item than they will for a generic. But, they have to see the value inherent in the brand -- is it confidence, is it cache, is it durability? however, if they don't discern true value in the brand that's important to them, they'll go straight for the low-cost commodity." - Comb


I think thats the classic example but look whats happening with ebay and outlet stores. People want the brand at lowest cost. This eventualy will destroy the brand as well.

I have no idea where this is leading. I see people in the gehtto carrying $500 purses to the bus. Ive had clients drive to my office in their Rang Rover, tell me the business has no money to pay me and want an extension and discount, then tell me they are off with the wife to Cancun ( see thats personal money not business money. Only MBAs get to do this). What the Hell happened to this country? We used to be the brand everyone wanted. Now it's just cheap.

s.selophane, i am very interested in your second point. i think that could be a great model for standardized fee structure for architects and would break the ice between public and the profession. AIA can work on the existing contract documents to spread this relationship further. concurrently, building department requirements need to be further streamlined and we have to put not only engineers but also architects on the other side of the building department plan check counters.

yes true, you also build up creativity, artistic, and other values to set your fees differently as you wish. i am not talking about standardizing those.

many projects can benefit from an architect's brief consultation and if %20 of the building public start to consult architects in smaller shorter fee based manner, it could be a complete turn around for the profession and public's consumption of it. for small practitioner (a large percetage of architects) to survive, this has to become a part of the culture.

we have a highly regulated, expertise and responsibility based profession without the financial returns and widely understood public value of it.
it wouldn't hurt if municipalities start to require a wider architect's review for projects. for this again we must request action in all levels.
nobody is going to do it for us if we don't fight for it.
i said this before;
"when was the last time you have seen few thousand architects protesting or raising their voice in front of a municipal building or in front of the capitol buildings, if ever?"

something like that would get a lot of attention to the problem. we can't fight for decent wages discussing it in corporate meeting rooms with the elite.

of course we have to clearly identify what we want as a group and unite as the members of the profession. AIA is clearly inadequate and does not have the political positioning for this, even though it has the most sophisticated infrastructure for the large group of architect members, associates and students.

Sure they can -- it's called either a) free sketches, or b) a design competition.

What I find REALLY interesting about debates like this is the following. For most people, the purchase of professional services is what's known as a "blind purchase" -- the consumer really doesn't know how to assess for himself the quality of the service before he makes the purchase.

In most "blind purchase" situations -- such as, say, the acquisition of a really nice diamond -- the consumer will rely on the reputation of the distribution channel (i.e. Tiffany & Co.) as an assurance of quality, but once they enter the store, they'll tend to use price as a surrogate for quality. If they trust the distribution channel, they'll assume a $100k diamond is automatically better than a $75k diamond of the same weight. Then, they'll just buy the "best" their budget will allow.

I've always found it interesting that, in our profession, the reverse seems to be the case. If we quote a high fee, we give the owner a heart attack and he immediatly goes looking for somebody else to do the work.

I think it's really about price discipline. If the client threatens to go somewhere else to get a better price, we always seem to cave. "Sure thing, Mr. Owner --- let me reduce that price by another 15%."

I'm reasonably certain Tiffany & Co. didn't get where they are by that sort of behavior.

That is true, there is a lot of 'perceived' value with certain brand recognition. There is also respect in that value, as in 'you charge a lot, so therefore you must really know what you are doing if people are paying you that'.

This is a double edged sword, of course, if you don't get people to pay then you are screwed out of everything.

i just heard a story on NPR about Wal-Mart's holiday marketing scheme: 'even if you don't shop at Wal-Mart, you save money thanks to us'.

basically they mean that even if you make a purchase somewhere else, Wal-Mart has helped bring median prices down everywhere. they followed with the point that while this may be true, ultimately this type of business model brings down and keeps wages low.

this economic culture/consumer behavior is also true of the architecture profession. perceived value.

comb - There is a big difference between a quick sketch drawn up at a consultation and the trial period most patients give their new doctors. Plus, how many middle class homeowners have the resources to host a competition let alone how many architects would enter it?

The issue is not that there is no way for clients to get to know us at all, its that there is no way for them to get to know how comfortable they are with us in a client service relationship without taking a giant plunge.

It's axiomatic that people generally do business with people they know and trust. If the first time you meet a prospective client is at a formal interview, you're screwed - especially if one of the other competitors has been playing golf with the client for two years.

You have to invest the time in developing relationships. Young professionals complain about the time Principals spend socialing, but there's a legitimate reason to do so. This is where trust originates. This is where clients can 'sample' what the working relationship will be like.