Ok ... there's a number of active threads right now lamenting the poor economics of our profession. There's also not a lot of suggestions being offered to improve that situation. While we can't do much to change the global economics of our profession, we can do a lot on a daily basis if we learn to negotiate better fees. Let's discuss that topic a while, please.
I'll start:
Rule #1: Adopt the strong attitude that “I really don’t need this project all that badly” … be willing to walk away if the deal doesn’t make economic sense. If you want higher fees, this is the single most important rule.
Rule #2: Assess the client objectively. Make sure he (or she) really understands what you do and is willing to have an open, communicative relationship. Can you live with the client’s value system? Is there a solid feeling of mutual trust? Is your client willing to listen to what you have to say on both project and contract matters. If you’re getting bad vibes during the courting stage, it probably won’t get any better once you’re under contract. If that's the case, implement Rule #1.
Rule #3: Assess the project objectively. Take enough time to really understand the precise package of services your client wants to buy. Calculate carefully how much it will cost you to provide those services – don’t guess. Build in a contingency. Write a tight proposal, defining precisely what you offering to do and what those services cost to provide. Deliver the proposal in person and walk the client through the entire thing.
Rule #4: Reread Rule #1 - out loud.
Rule #5: When your client says “that’s too much”, ask him / her “what parts of our service proposal do you want to eliminate in order to reduce the cost of the project?” Don’t just cut your fee without cutting your service obligations. If the client asks you to eliminate services that you feel are necessary to the success of the project, explain why those services are necessary. If the client balks again, implement Rule #1.
Rule #6: Don’t start work until you have something in writing, with your client's signature, defining clearly what you’ve been hired to do, what you’ll be paid for that work, and when you will be paid. Once you start work, you’ve lost all negotiating leverage.
Rule #7: If the client won’t cooperate on Rule #6, implement Rule #1.
Rule #8: Commit Rule #1 to memory and recite it twice each morning as you’re getting dressed for work.
I typed a long response, and it crashed on me. It probably wasn't worth posting anyways. But the gist of it was that architects need to sell products alongside services. You can't make money by selling services, you make money by selling a product at a huge mark-up after the buyer has decided they just have to have it. Does this mean selling stock plans? Being a dealer of the products we spec? Buying and selling buildings?
#8 is a little korny, quizz. I will forever picture you doing this.
You can't sell services? Are you kidding? What do doctors, lawyers, tech support specialists, engineers, and prostitutes do every single day?
That's not to say that you can't sell products, or that there isn't value there. But what we as architects are offering is service and expertise, just like those other two professions we always end up comparing ourselves to. We know things the client or even that design/build contractor don't know. We make their buildings safe, beautiful, and functional. We save them money by designing buildings that are sustainable, have lower operating and maintenance costs, and that go through the permitting process more smoothly than without our guidance. At least, those are the types of things we *should* be selling, or considering, to position ourselves as a vital part of the building process.
Expertise. Service. Intellectual property. Those are the core of what we have to offer, and if we devalue it to focus on stock plans or that lovely armoire they just *must* have for their foyer, I don't think people will see the need to employ us in the long run.
dont charge a % of the construction budget and then spend 1/2 your time trying to save your client $$$ on the construction budget...you are just screwing yourself
Honestly I don't think the rules are so out of line, not black and white but good as an outline, Basically all that' being said is that establish some principle and stick to them, we break the rules all the time but we know when, where and how those rules get broken and are very specific about the consequences, ie small reno to a larger clients personal home leading to a larger commercial project is a classic scenario, sure there's risk in it not coming through but business is risk, just manage the risk, ie have a balance of projects, every project need not be risky particualrly at the same time.
... in my view, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the idea of selling products in conjunction with our services, other than the probability that most of us won't be much good at it. but hey, whatever works, go for it.
however, I will not retreat from the idea that selling a highly professional service can be a highly profitable endeavor. most architects don't seem to know how to put together the total package of a) marketing, b) appropriate fee setting; and c) efficient project delivery. however, I know a number of firms that have worked hard at all three of those skills -- those firms are enormously successful.
our own mid-sized firm routinely makes 30% profit margins on net fees (more from setting our fees high and sticking to our guns than from anything else we do) -- and we win our fair share of design awards and get published regularly. and, just so you won't think we do this on the backs of poor, abused professional labor, we pay attention to our staff, help them grow, deliver competitive wages, provide strong benefits and regularly pay year-end bonuses.
admittedly, I don't really do Rule #8 myself -- but, I don't have to anymore because I've learned that "no" is the most useful word in my client-communication vocabulary.
aspect: could you maybe illuminate on your comment above -- I'm a reasonably intelligent guy, but I really don't take your point.
if product A can be produced by a,b,c,d.....z in town, why would the client choose a more expensive a instead of b... u need to find the bargaining power before u can bargain... firstly your product has to be unique in the market, otherwise, the client would not listen to our bullshit.
ah ... the "commodity theory" of professional services ... yes, your clarification is very useful ... thanks for bringing the idea of "service differentiation" into the discussion ... a necessary ingredient for obtaining higher fees.
Rule #9: STOP WORK if payment is late. This means no drawings, no phone calls, no meetings to renegotiate payment terms. Don't be afraid to hold drawings and other deliverables hostage. If payment is not current, I will not submit a project for permit until it is, even if the drawings are complete and collecting dust. If I can't get my oil changed without paying in a timely manner, why should I desing a building on any other terms? We don't operate banks and we certainly don't run charities. Even if the client is a friend, clear limits need to be drawn or payment will continue to be late or nonexistent.
don't chase after 'commidity' projects where the determining factor is the lowest fee - lowest construction costs. just walk away from all tilt-slab warehouses, strip malls, tract housing projects or other cheapest possible method. except if you can sell a product - ie design-build, or have stock plans that are quickly and cheaply modified - then volume is the name of the game for making a profit off these projects types.
I'd rather chase after unique one-off high expertise projects, Q's firm seems to be doing it right- 30% profit is sweet!
yes ... the "professionals actually get paid for their work" theory also surfaces ... thanks, pvbeeber, for this useful contribution. negotiating good fees isn't really all that valuable if you can't convert those fees into actual money-in-the-bank.
Aspect, commodity projects are only useful if you've nailed these projects down 6 ways to sunday and know it will take X hours - not X+1 or X+n - but X hours. But, even with that, you still have to follow rule #1. Unless you are burning your parents money, we are not a profession of charity cases. But I'll be happy to let you take all the crappy, no pay jobs where the client doesn't respect you because you lowballed him and thus can't afford to do a decent job, further proving to the client that architects aren't worth what little he's he's paying you. Plus now you have no hope of breaking even, let alone making a profit. I just feel bad that you are going to ruin the reputation of all architects to those clients in the process.
#1a - If you really really want this project, let someone else in the office negotiate the fee.
why negotiate fees when they are billing rates/etc...
i'm getting ready to do my marketing package and might include my contract rates for some of the firms/houses......just so they know what i charge prior to the phone call....
if you stand your ground, you will get respect in the end and possible more work...
if the client just needs some cheap bullshit down... then refer them to someone else and see if you can get a referral fee...(possible)
i have been burned over the years and now i dont let people walk over me....i have enough things in other areas to work on so a small b.s. project for a model might not be worth my time...... but if they only want to spend 4gs then i will give you a 4g model....... but dont expect a 8g model......
so i guess it's not about cutting the fee/rate but the services.....
if they dont want to pay for x-service when it's in the package then they wont...but if they come back later and need x-service then you can possibly charge a different rate depending on time/schedualing now...
Interesting... If we don't push the added value our services highly enough, then how will clients catch on? Anectodally, I've heard the more that (successful) architects charge, the more prospective clients clamor for their services, and the more likely you will have a authoritative role in the client - professional relationship. If we want to get paid like professionals, we have to start acting like high value professionals.
I'd add also that the upfront design concept work architects do is one of, if not the most valuable service we offer. No other construction professional can create the architectural vision, and what did we go through years of university and get licensed for? We should charge a hefty fee for this initial service and not dilute its value by doing a concept "for free" just to get a job.
Rule #1 - I like it, but what about that firm that has nothing on the table, but a staff and overhead expenses to pay? When things get tight people get desperate, and desperate people don't walk away.
I've been at a firm that took on a major project at "break even" prices just to keep the employees working and the rent paid. It was a gap fill project, but a huge 400,000 sf high school, not a little 4,000 sf infill project.
So, put yourself in this principal's shoes. Either take this project at 5% or start laying off a staff of over 50, because you've got nothing. What do you do? Also remember that if you turn down this client they will go to another firm and get the same price.
I hate to say it, but I don't see any real broad sweeping changes without gov't involvement. For one, requiring an architect's stamp on all buildings would be a start, but even then architect's are more than willing to whore themselves out. Sorry for being cynical, but I think gov't regulation of architect's fees is the only way to really change it. A federally mandated minimum fee for architectural services. Hmm, the airlines sure seemed to do better under that system.
I realize that higher fees = more money for architects, but what about those people who don't find the fees justified at all?
This question is prompted by a conversation I had at a family function with a distant cousin who was asking me about what I had been up to. I told him I was an architecture student and he replied that he and his wife were seriously considering buying a piece of land to build a house. They are early 40's, one kid, currently living in a typical middle/upper class neighborhood. Not rich - not poor just normal but obviously financially stable enough to seriously consider building their home within the next few years. He said they had found a piece of land they wanted to buy but, "weren't going to hire an architect to design their home because it was too expensive."
I realized I had no reply to this that wouldn't sound like I was accusing them of having bad taste in design and didn't have enough time to formulate something else before he had to leave. I'm sure part of negotiating higher fees also includes justifying why you are charging more. So, has anyone formulated an eloquent answer to this problem?
Imnop15,
There are many reasons that your would engage a more expensive architect to design your project! If you can gauge whether your distant relative is interested in having an architecturally designed home, then your fee structure or scope doesn't have to match that of a draftsperson down the road. Why not offer concept design or CD/DD phases only? A well designed architectural house will have a perceived greater value at completion, and they'd probably command a premium price if they decide to sell in the future. You could also say that an architect would approach a project in a unique way, tailoring a house to a client's specific needs. That level of service and design is not something they would necessarily get from a draftsperson.
Architects are able to offer the ability to interpret a client's dreams and desires into a buildable project. When the parameters for design are very defined and the client will not be convinced otherwise e.g. I want this house I saw in a magazine but with a different kitchen, then they should probably go to a drafting service.
What if the client's specific needs are to maximize space, a la, McMansion?
I don't disagree with your response theantipodean, but been there, done that. It's extremely hard to convince a middle class client an architect's fee is justified when they are entering the conversation with a preconceived notion of what they want from the already built examples of developer scholck.
Catch 22. I can completely understand the need to "feed the beast" so to speak, aquapura. Plenty of big (and not so big) firms need to take on work just to survive. Surely there must be a way of doing this without losing out dignity?
A change in perception by the general public e.g the middle class client, doesn't come quickly or easily. My views on taking a tough stance on fees has been drummed into me while working in a smallish up and coming firm doing very nice residential work, and moving into commercial projects. Perhaps when I was there, the large amount of work available and the lack of architects to go round meant being able to pick and choose. Make hay while the construction sun shines, and when times are leaner, the strategy would have to change...
I am often confronted with the situation where I have to tel people that they can get the work done cheaper by firm x ( it tends to be work that I don't want to work on ) but its reasonable for people not to want an architect and when it gets fucked up all I say is "that you get what you pay for". its so true. But if a potential client can't appreciate the extra level in the design quality that an architect would hopefully bring to the project then its not going in to that arguement. I often relate it to a car. If someone can appreciate the 18 coats of hand rubbed paint on hte finish of a ferrari then they note the difference tire pressures, gearing, aerodynamic etc etc. but if they just want to get from A to B then a ford pinto will work just fine. Same goes for Architecture and design, if it matters to you that evey reveal in the house is exactly 1/4" in every room, vertical and horizontal then you'll pay more for the design, if you don't then you'll find some other rate more appropriate to your specific needs.
I find that in qualifying your clients be what their appreciation for the fine details will tell you a lot about what they might expect to be paying. The real issue is the conflict with caviar tastes and beer budget crowd.
What does low balling your services get you? More clients who expect you to low ball your services. Why? Because ideally you will do a good job for this client like you would for any client you have. Right? They in turn will go out and tell their friends and their friend's friends that you do great work for not a lot of money. This why Rule #1 is so important.
the discussion above about whether a firm should take on low-fee work simply because they need the work is interesting. i certainly understand the notion and the motivation. however, i tend to go back to what quizzical wrote above. running a firm well and successfully is about maintaining a consistent balance among ongoing marketing efforts, solid fee negotiations and effective project delivery.
in my experience, too many firms forget totally about marketing when they're somewhat busy and don't think about the next job until this one is almost played out. then, they're desparate to generate some fees to keep their staff occupied. that's how you find yourself forced into taking a project you otherwise would not want at a fee you can't afford. it's an ugly, destructive cycle because this crap work takes a lot of time, doesn't earn much (if any) profit and demoralizes the staff.
we can control, and improve, our own destinies, but not if we don't wake up and understand the broad ramifications of running a business properly. whether you like it or not, if you want to do good work and make some decent money, you've got to be able to do more than just deisgn good buildings - you've also got to learn something about practice management.
A lot of new clients also come through referrals from past clients...word of mouth is the best form of marketing...
By having a good referral, generally the new client would have an expectation of the level of service and quality an architect would offer. Therefore, its easier to negotiate a good fee because the client expects that and know what they'll get for that fee, without the architect having to do the big song and dance about it.
Of course, you have to do kick ass work in the first place to earn that reputation :D
referrals are a good first stage to a successful negotiation ... but, many of the people who are referred to our firm still come to the table with unrealistic expectations of what we do and what our services should cost - we still must morph into an educational role and negotiate like hell to get the fees we need (and deserve) to meet their expectations - it's hard, hard work, but it pays off more often than you might expect.
at our firm, we do embrace quizzical's Rule #1 a lot -- if the deal just doesn't make economic sense, we're quite prepared to walk away. it was really, really hard to develop that discipline, but today we're really happy we did. after a little practice (and a tremendous gut-check) it's not all that hard to do.
Additional rule:
Whenever possible, get a retainer to start. I've never been denied a retainer when I've asked. Mind you, I only ask in certain instances (particularly smaller, hourly jobs where scope of work and outcomes are less certain).
Lawyers won't start without retainers, many of my clients just assume that's standard in our industry.
Jul 27, 07 12:01 pm ·
·
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.
Negotiating higher fees ...
Ok ... there's a number of active threads right now lamenting the poor economics of our profession. There's also not a lot of suggestions being offered to improve that situation. While we can't do much to change the global economics of our profession, we can do a lot on a daily basis if we learn to negotiate better fees. Let's discuss that topic a while, please.
I'll start:
Rule #1: Adopt the strong attitude that “I really don’t need this project all that badly” … be willing to walk away if the deal doesn’t make economic sense. If you want higher fees, this is the single most important rule.
Rule #2: Assess the client objectively. Make sure he (or she) really understands what you do and is willing to have an open, communicative relationship. Can you live with the client’s value system? Is there a solid feeling of mutual trust? Is your client willing to listen to what you have to say on both project and contract matters. If you’re getting bad vibes during the courting stage, it probably won’t get any better once you’re under contract. If that's the case, implement Rule #1.
Rule #3: Assess the project objectively. Take enough time to really understand the precise package of services your client wants to buy. Calculate carefully how much it will cost you to provide those services – don’t guess. Build in a contingency. Write a tight proposal, defining precisely what you offering to do and what those services cost to provide. Deliver the proposal in person and walk the client through the entire thing.
Rule #4: Reread Rule #1 - out loud.
Rule #5: When your client says “that’s too much”, ask him / her “what parts of our service proposal do you want to eliminate in order to reduce the cost of the project?” Don’t just cut your fee without cutting your service obligations. If the client asks you to eliminate services that you feel are necessary to the success of the project, explain why those services are necessary. If the client balks again, implement Rule #1.
Rule #6: Don’t start work until you have something in writing, with your client's signature, defining clearly what you’ve been hired to do, what you’ll be paid for that work, and when you will be paid. Once you start work, you’ve lost all negotiating leverage.
Rule #7: If the client won’t cooperate on Rule #6, implement Rule #1.
Rule #8: Commit Rule #1 to memory and recite it twice each morning as you’re getting dressed for work.
Who wants to provide some more suggestions?
P.S. if you know how much you worth in the market, ignore rule #1-#8
I typed a long response, and it crashed on me. It probably wasn't worth posting anyways. But the gist of it was that architects need to sell products alongside services. You can't make money by selling services, you make money by selling a product at a huge mark-up after the buyer has decided they just have to have it. Does this mean selling stock plans? Being a dealer of the products we spec? Buying and selling buildings?
#8 is a little korny, quizz. I will forever picture you doing this.
You can't sell services? Are you kidding? What do doctors, lawyers, tech support specialists, engineers, and prostitutes do every single day?
That's not to say that you can't sell products, or that there isn't value there. But what we as architects are offering is service and expertise, just like those other two professions we always end up comparing ourselves to. We know things the client or even that design/build contractor don't know. We make their buildings safe, beautiful, and functional. We save them money by designing buildings that are sustainable, have lower operating and maintenance costs, and that go through the permitting process more smoothly than without our guidance. At least, those are the types of things we *should* be selling, or considering, to position ourselves as a vital part of the building process.
Expertise. Service. Intellectual property. Those are the core of what we have to offer, and if we devalue it to focus on stock plans or that lovely armoire they just *must* have for their foyer, I don't think people will see the need to employ us in the long run.
dont charge a % of the construction budget and then spend 1/2 your time trying to save your client $$$ on the construction budget...you are just screwing yourself
Honestly I don't think the rules are so out of line, not black and white but good as an outline, Basically all that' being said is that establish some principle and stick to them, we break the rules all the time but we know when, where and how those rules get broken and are very specific about the consequences, ie small reno to a larger clients personal home leading to a larger commercial project is a classic scenario, sure there's risk in it not coming through but business is risk, just manage the risk, ie have a balance of projects, every project need not be risky particualrly at the same time.
... in my view, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the idea of selling products in conjunction with our services, other than the probability that most of us won't be much good at it. but hey, whatever works, go for it.
however, I will not retreat from the idea that selling a highly professional service can be a highly profitable endeavor. most architects don't seem to know how to put together the total package of a) marketing, b) appropriate fee setting; and c) efficient project delivery. however, I know a number of firms that have worked hard at all three of those skills -- those firms are enormously successful.
our own mid-sized firm routinely makes 30% profit margins on net fees (more from setting our fees high and sticking to our guns than from anything else we do) -- and we win our fair share of design awards and get published regularly. and, just so you won't think we do this on the backs of poor, abused professional labor, we pay attention to our staff, help them grow, deliver competitive wages, provide strong benefits and regularly pay year-end bonuses.
admittedly, I don't really do Rule #8 myself -- but, I don't have to anymore because I've learned that "no" is the most useful word in my client-communication vocabulary.
aspect: could you maybe illuminate on your comment above -- I'm a reasonably intelligent guy, but I really don't take your point.
if product A can be produced by a,b,c,d.....z in town, why would the client choose a more expensive a instead of b... u need to find the bargaining power before u can bargain... firstly your product has to be unique in the market, otherwise, the client would not listen to our bullshit.
ah ... the "commodity theory" of professional services ... yes, your clarification is very useful ... thanks for bringing the idea of "service differentiation" into the discussion ... a necessary ingredient for obtaining higher fees.
Rule #9: STOP WORK if payment is late. This means no drawings, no phone calls, no meetings to renegotiate payment terms. Don't be afraid to hold drawings and other deliverables hostage. If payment is not current, I will not submit a project for permit until it is, even if the drawings are complete and collecting dust. If I can't get my oil changed without paying in a timely manner, why should I desing a building on any other terms? We don't operate banks and we certainly don't run charities. Even if the client is a friend, clear limits need to be drawn or payment will continue to be late or nonexistent.
don't chase after 'commidity' projects where the determining factor is the lowest fee - lowest construction costs. just walk away from all tilt-slab warehouses, strip malls, tract housing projects or other cheapest possible method. except if you can sell a product - ie design-build, or have stock plans that are quickly and cheaply modified - then volume is the name of the game for making a profit off these projects types.
I'd rather chase after unique one-off high expertise projects, Q's firm seems to be doing it right- 30% profit is sweet!
yes ... the "professionals actually get paid for their work" theory also surfaces ... thanks, pvbeeber, for this useful contribution. negotiating good fees isn't really all that valuable if you can't convert those fees into actual money-in-the-bank.
Great thread guys,
Aspect, commodity projects are only useful if you've nailed these projects down 6 ways to sunday and know it will take X hours - not X+1 or X+n - but X hours. But, even with that, you still have to follow rule #1. Unless you are burning your parents money, we are not a profession of charity cases. But I'll be happy to let you take all the crappy, no pay jobs where the client doesn't respect you because you lowballed him and thus can't afford to do a decent job, further proving to the client that architects aren't worth what little he's he's paying you. Plus now you have no hope of breaking even, let alone making a profit. I just feel bad that you are going to ruin the reputation of all architects to those clients in the process.
#1a - If you really really want this project, let someone else in the office negotiate the fee.
... Rule #1a is a VERY useful addition to this thread ... thanks.
sorry ... crowbert
why negotiate fees when they are billing rates/etc...
i'm getting ready to do my marketing package and might include my contract rates for some of the firms/houses......just so they know what i charge prior to the phone call....
if you stand your ground, you will get respect in the end and possible more work...
if the client just needs some cheap bullshit down... then refer them to someone else and see if you can get a referral fee...(possible)
i have been burned over the years and now i dont let people walk over me....i have enough things in other areas to work on so a small b.s. project for a model might not be worth my time...... but if they only want to spend 4gs then i will give you a 4g model....... but dont expect a 8g model......
so i guess it's not about cutting the fee/rate but the services.....
if they dont want to pay for x-service when it's in the package then they wont...but if they come back later and need x-service then you can possibly charge a different rate depending on time/schedualing now...
b
Interesting... If we don't push the added value our services highly enough, then how will clients catch on? Anectodally, I've heard the more that (successful) architects charge, the more prospective clients clamor for their services, and the more likely you will have a authoritative role in the client - professional relationship. If we want to get paid like professionals, we have to start acting like high value professionals.
I'd add also that the upfront design concept work architects do is one of, if not the most valuable service we offer. No other construction professional can create the architectural vision, and what did we go through years of university and get licensed for? We should charge a hefty fee for this initial service and not dilute its value by doing a concept "for free" just to get a job.
Rule #1 - I like it, but what about that firm that has nothing on the table, but a staff and overhead expenses to pay? When things get tight people get desperate, and desperate people don't walk away.
I've been at a firm that took on a major project at "break even" prices just to keep the employees working and the rent paid. It was a gap fill project, but a huge 400,000 sf high school, not a little 4,000 sf infill project.
So, put yourself in this principal's shoes. Either take this project at 5% or start laying off a staff of over 50, because you've got nothing. What do you do? Also remember that if you turn down this client they will go to another firm and get the same price.
I hate to say it, but I don't see any real broad sweeping changes without gov't involvement. For one, requiring an architect's stamp on all buildings would be a start, but even then architect's are more than willing to whore themselves out. Sorry for being cynical, but I think gov't regulation of architect's fees is the only way to really change it. A federally mandated minimum fee for architectural services. Hmm, the airlines sure seemed to do better under that system.
I realize that higher fees = more money for architects, but what about those people who don't find the fees justified at all?
This question is prompted by a conversation I had at a family function with a distant cousin who was asking me about what I had been up to. I told him I was an architecture student and he replied that he and his wife were seriously considering buying a piece of land to build a house. They are early 40's, one kid, currently living in a typical middle/upper class neighborhood. Not rich - not poor just normal but obviously financially stable enough to seriously consider building their home within the next few years. He said they had found a piece of land they wanted to buy but, "weren't going to hire an architect to design their home because it was too expensive."
I realized I had no reply to this that wouldn't sound like I was accusing them of having bad taste in design and didn't have enough time to formulate something else before he had to leave. I'm sure part of negotiating higher fees also includes justifying why you are charging more. So, has anyone formulated an eloquent answer to this problem?
Imnop15,
There are many reasons that your would engage a more expensive architect to design your project! If you can gauge whether your distant relative is interested in having an architecturally designed home, then your fee structure or scope doesn't have to match that of a draftsperson down the road. Why not offer concept design or CD/DD phases only? A well designed architectural house will have a perceived greater value at completion, and they'd probably command a premium price if they decide to sell in the future. You could also say that an architect would approach a project in a unique way, tailoring a house to a client's specific needs. That level of service and design is not something they would necessarily get from a draftsperson.
Architects are able to offer the ability to interpret a client's dreams and desires into a buildable project. When the parameters for design are very defined and the client will not be convinced otherwise e.g. I want this house I saw in a magazine but with a different kitchen, then they should probably go to a drafting service.
What if the client's specific needs are to maximize space, a la, McMansion?
I don't disagree with your response theantipodean, but been there, done that. It's extremely hard to convince a middle class client an architect's fee is justified when they are entering the conversation with a preconceived notion of what they want from the already built examples of developer scholck.
Catch 22. I can completely understand the need to "feed the beast" so to speak, aquapura. Plenty of big (and not so big) firms need to take on work just to survive. Surely there must be a way of doing this without losing out dignity?
A change in perception by the general public e.g the middle class client, doesn't come quickly or easily. My views on taking a tough stance on fees has been drummed into me while working in a smallish up and coming firm doing very nice residential work, and moving into commercial projects. Perhaps when I was there, the large amount of work available and the lack of architects to go round meant being able to pick and choose. Make hay while the construction sun shines, and when times are leaner, the strategy would have to change...
I am often confronted with the situation where I have to tel people that they can get the work done cheaper by firm x ( it tends to be work that I don't want to work on ) but its reasonable for people not to want an architect and when it gets fucked up all I say is "that you get what you pay for". its so true. But if a potential client can't appreciate the extra level in the design quality that an architect would hopefully bring to the project then its not going in to that arguement. I often relate it to a car. If someone can appreciate the 18 coats of hand rubbed paint on hte finish of a ferrari then they note the difference tire pressures, gearing, aerodynamic etc etc. but if they just want to get from A to B then a ford pinto will work just fine. Same goes for Architecture and design, if it matters to you that evey reveal in the house is exactly 1/4" in every room, vertical and horizontal then you'll pay more for the design, if you don't then you'll find some other rate more appropriate to your specific needs.
I find that in qualifying your clients be what their appreciation for the fine details will tell you a lot about what they might expect to be paying. The real issue is the conflict with caviar tastes and beer budget crowd.
What does low balling your services get you? More clients who expect you to low ball your services. Why? Because ideally you will do a good job for this client like you would for any client you have. Right? They in turn will go out and tell their friends and their friend's friends that you do great work for not a lot of money. This why Rule #1 is so important.
the discussion above about whether a firm should take on low-fee work simply because they need the work is interesting. i certainly understand the notion and the motivation. however, i tend to go back to what quizzical wrote above. running a firm well and successfully is about maintaining a consistent balance among ongoing marketing efforts, solid fee negotiations and effective project delivery.
in my experience, too many firms forget totally about marketing when they're somewhat busy and don't think about the next job until this one is almost played out. then, they're desparate to generate some fees to keep their staff occupied. that's how you find yourself forced into taking a project you otherwise would not want at a fee you can't afford. it's an ugly, destructive cycle because this crap work takes a lot of time, doesn't earn much (if any) profit and demoralizes the staff.
we can control, and improve, our own destinies, but not if we don't wake up and understand the broad ramifications of running a business properly. whether you like it or not, if you want to do good work and make some decent money, you've got to be able to do more than just deisgn good buildings - you've also got to learn something about practice management.
A lot of new clients also come through referrals from past clients...word of mouth is the best form of marketing...
By having a good referral, generally the new client would have an expectation of the level of service and quality an architect would offer. Therefore, its easier to negotiate a good fee because the client expects that and know what they'll get for that fee, without the architect having to do the big song and dance about it.
Of course, you have to do kick ass work in the first place to earn that reputation :D
referrals are a good first stage to a successful negotiation ... but, many of the people who are referred to our firm still come to the table with unrealistic expectations of what we do and what our services should cost - we still must morph into an educational role and negotiate like hell to get the fees we need (and deserve) to meet their expectations - it's hard, hard work, but it pays off more often than you might expect.
at our firm, we do embrace quizzical's Rule #1 a lot -- if the deal just doesn't make economic sense, we're quite prepared to walk away. it was really, really hard to develop that discipline, but today we're really happy we did. after a little practice (and a tremendous gut-check) it's not all that hard to do.
Additional rule:
Whenever possible, get a retainer to start. I've never been denied a retainer when I've asked. Mind you, I only ask in certain instances (particularly smaller, hourly jobs where scope of work and outcomes are less certain).
Lawyers won't start without retainers, many of my clients just assume that's standard in our industry.
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.