Cutting Deep.

I had lunch with an architect friend yesterday. September might be my second favourite month. We often get the sun but without the crowds and traffic. There has been a lovely warm easterly wind these past couple of days.

So, with the sun out yesterday lunchtime, I turned on the electric barbecue and cooked us some tasty bacon cheeseburgers, salad and a nice cool pint of Erdinger Alkoholfrei with lime. We soon got onto fees, which is probably a favourite topic. Well, favourite is not right. Let’s say popular.

He told me how he’d submitted a fee for designing a few hundred houses with a decent-sized developer he’d worked for many times before. He’d just received a call saying they love working with him, but another architect has come in at about a quarter of his fee. A quarter? His fee was the same as in 2009 for the same work. He knew it was good value and offered them the services they needed.

‘So if you can reduce your fee by two-thirds, we’ll go with you’, said the developer.

They mean that we like working with you and know you’ll do a much better job. You’ll likely add more value to the development in the long run, but we can’t help but think that we could get something that sounds like what you do for a lot less.

Now, you can’t just chop a fee to a third of your original proposal and feel or look good about it. So, he reached an agreeable number by reducing the level of service but just about maintaining the basics. Some of it will likely be added later when the developer realises they weren’t offered without purpose in the first instance. But initially, the architect gets the job, and the developer gets a deal.

This reminded me of how businesses in many fields sometimes reshape their offerings to make costs more digestible, justifiable or understandable.

1

Easy Jet stripped out allocated seating, baggage, and in-flight meals and justified this as a legitimate cost savings. If it were presented the same as BA but at half the price, the consumer would not believe it and think perhaps the planes or pilots were substandard.

2

The Betty Crocker cake mix didn’t sell well when it only required water. Adding an egg made consumers feel like they were really cooking, boosting sales despite the extra cost and effort on their part.

3

Sometimes, the opposite of a good idea is a good idea. Many aspire to Dyson, the high-end vacuum cleaner, but Henry vacuum cleaners are the opposite. They are basic, cheap, and cool in a different way.

4

A taxi needs to arrive quickly. However, knowing where it is via the Uber map reduces stress. It makes it okay if it takes a bit longer than you hope. The wait duration is not the problem; it is the element of uncertainty. The live map transforms the quality of the wait.

5

Making the process appear more complex can be counterintuitively better marketing. However, making the process seem overly complex in architecture can backfire—clients want the end result, not the red tape. The trick is simplifying the message while ensuring they see the value of having a professional handle the complexities.

It’s frustrating to see fees lower than they were a decade ago, especially when we know the value of our offer. But you can’t blame a developer for negotiating a fee. Much of the problem is wrapped up in the mysticism of what we do and the disconnect between what we, as designers and professionals, see as necessary and what most clients understand or believe they need.

As we finished lunch, my phone pinged. The first sale from my new online shop landed.

This week’s web links include a pointless pavilion, reasons to miss breakfast and a house in Basque Country.

You will always find me at carl@carlarchitect.co.uk

​All the best

This Week’s Links:

A refreshing drink when you add a dash of lime cordial. It tastes slightly odd without it.

A Basque country house with a fantastic veranda

Your body ages rapidly in two bursts. How to prepare.

It’s ok to skip breakfast if you’re not hungry.

Personally I’ve had enough of these pavilions that get designed and built for various shows and expos. This one is a garden for insects and people in London. No doubt the designers and commissioners will spout on about carbon and resources and climate. Yes, I agree, reduce waste and use what we have. I give you a hedgerow and a field.

Main Image credit: Reflecting on architecture, value, and fees at 30,000 feet. (DALL-E)