It occured to me that I spend a great deal of time promoting products and recieve no comissons for doing so or specifying them in a building project. I see no reason why as architect's shouldnt or cant do this legaly. Doctors take gifts from pharmaceuticals, interior design is based on selling products. I dont believe selling a certain floor topping over another or lumber or rain screen is diminishes our profesionalism because at the end of the day I still have to stamp it and be held accountable for it. Honestly - can you tell me why USG should be spec'd over American gypsum? As for clients' interest I say there is rarely anything more than a marginal difference in product manufacturer costs for a given market / time and additional income may actualy allow us to service them properly. Why arent we doing this? It seems like a no-brainer.
because we are easily paid off by a stroke on our ego, a free lunch or two, generous display of tits and ass and/or hairy chest with strong arms, depending on one's sexual orientation and/or gender...
i agree 100% with your proposition. i take back calling you a political basket case.;.)
anyway, architects spend a lot of time researching a product, selling it to the client, take responsibility of its risks, work out the details and co-ordination of the product into the project, assist contractor for installation issues, sometimes even negotiate the price and damn right they should get some additional commission/benefit for it.
i think this should find its way into the standard contracts and ethical issues should be worked out.
it should also be made ultimately beneficial to the client.
this could be done by basically having specified materials' manufacturer-wholesaler to cover some of the architects' time on research and document preperation, thus lowering the out of pocket expense for clients. therefore making architects more affordable to the public and consequentially giving public more incentive to work with architects, meaning more projects for us.
it would also give more say and a role to architects in the development of the product. a win win situation for everybody really.
this could bring a lot of dynamics to the architect, client, manufacturer and installer rectangle.
when our fee is based on a % of the construction cost, we're getting a defacto commission. Of course, value engineering diminished our firm's profitability.
There is the ethical issue of how can you best represent the client's interests when you have a financial incentive to increase costs or to install a particular system that might not be the best for the project... That is why we don't get commissions unless you're working as in interiors as a shopper.
It might be in the client's best interests to make a comission on the products if it augments the true cost of design which today's system rarely does. We want to do a good design job. Rarely can we recoup the full cost it takes. As for project pricing we have lost ground to the contractors in that realm. They now have better grasp on costs - so they seem to be looking out for the clients best interest in that regard. Or at least the more reputable builders are.
Jan 24, 09 6:52 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.
Product Commissions
It occured to me that I spend a great deal of time promoting products and recieve no comissons for doing so or specifying them in a building project. I see no reason why as architect's shouldnt or cant do this legaly. Doctors take gifts from pharmaceuticals, interior design is based on selling products. I dont believe selling a certain floor topping over another or lumber or rain screen is diminishes our profesionalism because at the end of the day I still have to stamp it and be held accountable for it. Honestly - can you tell me why USG should be spec'd over American gypsum? As for clients' interest I say there is rarely anything more than a marginal difference in product manufacturer costs for a given market / time and additional income may actualy allow us to service them properly. Why arent we doing this? It seems like a no-brainer.
because we are easily paid off by a stroke on our ego, a free lunch or two, generous display of tits and ass and/or hairy chest with strong arms, depending on one's sexual orientation and/or gender...
i agree 100% with your proposition. i take back calling you a political basket case.;.)
you did?
did i? hmm... never mind m...
you know i like you nevertheless...
anyway, architects spend a lot of time researching a product, selling it to the client, take responsibility of its risks, work out the details and co-ordination of the product into the project, assist contractor for installation issues, sometimes even negotiate the price and damn right they should get some additional commission/benefit for it.
i think this should find its way into the standard contracts and ethical issues should be worked out.
it should also be made ultimately beneficial to the client.
this could be done by basically having specified materials' manufacturer-wholesaler to cover some of the architects' time on research and document preperation, thus lowering the out of pocket expense for clients. therefore making architects more affordable to the public and consequentially giving public more incentive to work with architects, meaning more projects for us.
it would also give more say and a role to architects in the development of the product. a win win situation for everybody really.
this could bring a lot of dynamics to the architect, client, manufacturer and installer rectangle.
Then contractor submits a substitution.
when our fee is based on a % of the construction cost, we're getting a defacto commission. Of course, value engineering diminished our firm's profitability.
There is the ethical issue of how can you best represent the client's interests when you have a financial incentive to increase costs or to install a particular system that might not be the best for the project... That is why we don't get commissions unless you're working as in interiors as a shopper.
It might be in the client's best interests to make a comission on the products if it augments the true cost of design which today's system rarely does. We want to do a good design job. Rarely can we recoup the full cost it takes. As for project pricing we have lost ground to the contractors in that realm. They now have better grasp on costs - so they seem to be looking out for the clients best interest in that regard. Or at least the more reputable builders are.
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.