This guy has commercials on at least 5 cable stations, including HGTV.
He
apparently is a former builder/developer that found himself in
bankruptcy court, and has now decided to provide financial advice; all
while indirectly implying he's an Architect.
(1:35) in the video "They're Architects; they build your retirement. I won't build a house without an Architect, I'm not building my retirement without an Architect."
Oct 5, 20 8:59 pm ·
·
x-jla
*this service is not for actual architects. Actual architects cannot retire. They work until they die in debt. (Need to add that disclaimer at the end and should be good to go)
What ‘lay people’ don’t understand is that “Architect” is a protected and defined term. It’s important that “architect” be preserved for its specific meaning.
This is a good article that explains why other non-‘architect’ trades use the term:
^ That's a clear, succinct commentary on this perennial pickle.
In practical terms, I always want to ask, "Is this offender competing with me for work by using that title?" If not, who really cares? If yes, l'll just go and get my ball peen hammer....
Here's the problem I have: When you go to a computer store to get your mac fixed by someone who calls themselves the "computer doctor", the subtext there is kind of tongue-in-cheek. Like everyone knows "Okay this guy isn't a doctor, he's using the term as a hyperbolic analogy; obviously he doesn't have the same training as a doctor."
But with things like "systems architects" or "software architects" or whatever, that subtext isn't there, because the field itself is called "systems architectURE", and the actual designated working title for those people has "architect" in the name (whereas like "computer doctor" is just something that a company thought would be fun to call themselves). There's an implication that, "No we don't design buildings, but we have similar training, qualifications, and we do similar work to that of an architect." And that seems like a serious problem to me.
I saw this commercial last night. It hawks a "retirement blueprint"--a large-format graphic document, rather than ordinary pages with all those pesky words and numbers. It's a clever pitch underscoring the whole architect(ure) metaphor.
Meet the "Retirement Architect"
Not only is there Software Architecture but apparently this is new, hip, field known as "Retirement Architecture."
https://www.retirementarchitec... & https://www.getfreeblueprint.c...
This guy has commercials on at least 5 cable stations, including HGTV. He apparently is a former builder/developer that found himself in bankruptcy court, and has now decided to provide financial advice; all while indirectly implying he's an Architect.
https://www.retirementarchitec...
https://www.plainsite.org/dock...
This is misleading at a minimum and probably illegal. I wonder what the
qualifications are required for becoming a 'Retirement Architect.'
(1:35) in the video "They're Architects; they build your retirement. I won't build a house without an Architect, I'm not building my retirement without an Architect."
*this service is not for actual architects. Actual architects cannot retire. They work until they die in debt. (Need to add that disclaimer at the end and should be good to go)
x-Kia: Why would you say that? I’m an Architect and I retired 8 years ago, without debt, at age 63 ... and I’m not a trust-fund baby.
"x-jla" ... sorry ... damned autocorrect.
Just a joke...
Frank, a fresh arrival to 1st year studio in Retirement Architecture School, can't wait for the Revit instructor to start class.
"What the hell are we paying that 40-year-old punk for?" he wonders.
I'm interested to know how Frank's first day of class went?
Great, but tiring. He, Mona and Sadie there had to pull an all-nighter to finish. They didn't get to bed 'til almost 9:30pm.
What ‘lay people’ don’t understand is that “Architect” is a protected and defined term. It’s important that “architect” be preserved for its specific meaning.
This is a good article that explains why other non-‘architect’ trades use the term:
https://aiapgh.org/become-a-member/members/defining-architect/
#rickitect
^ That's a clear, succinct commentary on this perennial pickle.
In practical terms, I always want to ask, "Is this offender competing with me for work by using that title?" If not, who really cares? If yes, l'll just go and get my ball peen hammer....
Here's the problem I have: When you go to a computer store to get your mac fixed by someone who calls themselves the "computer doctor", the subtext there is kind of tongue-in-cheek. Like everyone knows "Okay this guy isn't a doctor, he's using the term as a hyperbolic analogy; obviously he doesn't have the same training as a doctor."
But with things like "systems architects" or "software architects" or whatever, that subtext isn't there, because the field itself is called "systems architectURE", and the actual designated working title for those people has "architect" in the name (whereas like "computer doctor" is just something that a company thought would be fun to call themselves). There's an implication that, "No we don't design buildings, but we have similar training, qualifications, and we do similar work to that of an architect." And that seems like a serious problem to me.
Can I hire one of these guys and treat him just like people treat us?
"I plan to retire at 55, I can put $5/month into savings - make it happen!"
Ha ha please do!
I saw this commercial last night. It hawks a "retirement blueprint"--a large-format graphic document, rather than ordinary pages with all those pesky words and numbers. It's a clever pitch underscoring the whole architect(ure) metaphor.
A quietly hilarious alternative are the mockumentary commercials about the therapist helping new homeowners to avoid becoming their parents: Dr. Rick.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.