(This reply first appeared in BD in 2007)

I would ask the question the other way around. Why are clients prepared to pay their surveyors, lawyers and doctors more for their services than they pay their architects?

The price you get for your services is not directly related to the costs or skills involved, but primarily dependent on how much the client values it.

In my view the solution lies with architects, rather than clients. Compared to our surveying, legal and medical colleagues, architects are generally less motivated by money and are attracted to the creativity of architecture more as a passion and vocation than as a professional career.

The pay structure of the architects’ profession is therefore more akin to other creative professions. Look at the vast difference in financial rewards between Hollywood stars and jobbing actors, or pop stars and working musicians.

Similarly, Norman Foster is number 249 in the Sunday Times 2007 Rich List, while the average UK architect with six years’ experience on top of seven years’ training earns about £36,000 annually. Similarly experienced UK quantity surveyors and building surveyors earn an average of £38,900 and £41,150 respectively, while GPs reportedly now earn an average of £100,000.

Going back 50 years or so, architects used to have similar earning power to lawyers and medics, but we seem to have gradually painted ourselves out of the picture for clients. We wanted to focus on the interesting design bits.

We didn’t want to “do money”, which led to the rise of the QS in advising and controlling costs for the clients. We were less interested in the management of projects, which led to the project manager becoming the client’s agent.

All the so-called boring technical bits we delegated to technicians, technologists and engineers. No wonder clients now put far less value on what architects do.

So if architects are to be paid more, we need to promote the “value addedness” that architects can deliver to clients. All those lateral thinking and problem-solving skills are valuable and relatively unique to architects among the other construction professions.

Here are some ideas for getting paid more:

• Start by defining your services to clients in terms of the benefits you bring to them, such as increased property value and the operational improvements of your design, or your ability to skilfully steer a client’s project through the increasingly complex regulatory processes of planning and building control. Communicate in a language they will understand and appreciate; deliver at least what you promise and manage expectations; and don’t focus on the cleverness of your design in architectural terms.

• Express your fees in terms that offer tangible benefits to your clients. Don’t express your fees as a percentage of the construction cost, as clients don’t see this as working in their interest. You can hear the client asking: “What! You mean the more you spend of my money on the construction, the more I have to pay you too?” Instead, express your fees as a lump sum for a defined service or outputs, with a performance bonus related to client benefits such as increased site value, additional lettable floor area, quicker service delivery. Clients will respond positively to this approach and will share with you less grudgingly the additional value they see you creating for them.

• See the emerging challenges of climate change, rising energy costs, scarcity of traditional on-site construction skills and even the increased complexity of planning and building regulations as real opportunities for architects. These crunchy issues do require our holistic problem solving skills, which is where other specialist professionals find it difficult to see the big picture. This is what clients will really value.

The UK construction industry needs to do a lot more to prove the value of good design and architects. There is an increasing amount of evidence from the US on improvements in healthcare and teaching related directly to the design qualities of new hospitals and schools. Clients need to see tangible benefits to convince them to pay more for their architects.

I used to be a young structural engineer (Im now studying a masters in Urban Design) and you would certainly have to pay me more (millions perhaps) to return to dealings with that part of the built environment for 40 hours a week :-)

The better the job, the less people will pay you to do it! >>>speak to any muscian/artist

As discussed in Richard Brindley's response I would say that we are failing to focus on client perceptions of value and often loose focus on how we can deliver best value for clients.

There is a great need for architects and architectural technologists to promote the added value that they can bring to clients.

Ruth Reed, Current President of the RIBA, recently put this view forward when she visited Ipswich to meet with the Suffolk Association of Architects. She expressed her view that it is vital that architects learn to promote themselves as being able to bring added value to clients, particularly through promoting and practicing "Good Design". This concept of focusing on the client and being clear on how architects and architectural technologists can bring this added value can only be a good thing.

While the focus on Good Design is one way to promote the benefits we can give to clients I would also suggest that there should be some inward looking focus on how much of the process of design building and the boarder built environment is now out side of the role of both architects and architectural technologists.

There are movements toward specialisation, which can be a great tool to actively bring this added value to clients, and I would suggest in these hard economic time we need to try to explore and debate how we can build on these ideas.

Finally I would suggest that even without becoming a "specialist" there is a need for those in the architectural sector to ensure they can deliver the widest range of service to clients possible, either by individuals building on their existing skills base and adding to it or for there to be a move towards practices with a mix of specialist skills.

To close I refer back to the concept of selling Good Design, if this is to be how we promote ourselves is this only possible if we actively seek to explore and define the concept of good design with reference to bring added value to clients? To this end I will post a question to try to trigger some debate on this concept.

Too many architects seem to able to afford working for free. Maybe most come from better off backgrounds.

How about the basic laws of supply and demand: in 1994 there were 19,800 registered architects and now there are over 33,000. There are also over 20,000 students in the system. You would need to close down half the schools of architecture to start to redress the balance. Philip.

I think promoting "Good design" is a bit too low key. Clients expect good design as a matter of course. If a QS promoted accurate surveying or an engineer correct calculations it would be nothing less than the client would expect, in fact the client would start wondering why such a low level of service was being promoted; the only lower level being incorrect surveying or incompetent calculation.

Excellent design, money saving design, innovative design would be better if they weren't shorthand for (respectively) showing off, cheap and experimental design.

I think this is one of the fundamentals as to why architects and technologists are paid less - the added value they bring s no less than the client expects from them in the first place.

These are all good points, but there's one which I think is blindingly obvious. Experience tells me that the single most influential factor in persistently low architect salaries is the partnership between the riba and the UK schools of architecture.

Together they continue to promote courses which:

• fail to prepare graduates for the realities of architectural practice

• are at least one year too long, extending the misery of student debt

• flood the market with people who have been brainwashed into thinking that working for no pay is somehow a good thing

I learned more about my job in my year out than in the previous four years at university, which were padded out with all sorts of completely irrelevant coursework (writing programs for lifts, advanced mathematics, and finger-painting. That was just second year). I know that I'm not alone in this.

Architect salaries will remain the lowest in the construction industry until architectural courses are reduced to a reasonable period, re-focused on practical matters, and made more relevant to the industry. If there's strong evidence to back up the need for seven year courses then by all means reconfigure them to focus more time on practical matters, and to allow students to spend more time making a salary while they learn, instead of building up debt, and filling their heads full of unrealistic expectations.

The suggestion that better marketing is the answer is obviously well intentioned, but is unlikely to promote the kind of change that's required. The riba and the schools tend to be managed largely by academics for whom practical matters hold little value. For them it's all about bums-on-seats, lucrative research grants, and the perpetuation of a stratified attainment system which guarantees that the next generation of teachers will maintain the status quo.

Don't expect to see the salary situation improve unless there is a major shift in how courses are funded and in the methods used to train architects.

All of the above points are valid, particularly the one regarding architectural education which I completely agree with.

Surely some blame for architects poor salaries has to fall with the RIBA. They have protected the title of "architect" but not the profession.

You need to be a lawyer to practice law, a doctor to practice medicine, you need an engineers certificate to obtain most building warrants...

Yet to act as an architect you need nothing. Granted you cannot call yourself an architect, but "architectural services" soon gets around that hurdle. If a registered architect was required for every construction project then our fee's would represent the value they should.

Why is it that we, as a profession, allow other professionals and non-professionals to setup on our doorstep and steal our potential clients?

@ Noah Murney,

I agree entirely with your point about the problematic quality and length of education, but I'm unclear as to how student debt could lead to a low post-education salary. I think that it is simply a matter of an over saturated job market (this problem will, obviously, only get worse in the coming years).

Clearly, a Part 1 or 2 with an advanced level of knowledge of construction and running a job would be more likely to get a job than one who is clueless, but as long as there are 1000 similarly qualified buggers behind him in the dole queue, graduate pay will remain low.

I do think educational reform is necessary (universities are the only one's who cynically benefit from the current system). But I don't think it would increase pay.

Er, maybe architects don't charge enough for the hours they work? If more was charged then more would be paid. Seems quite simple to me really.

I'm speaking from an American point of view, and inexperience as I will be starting school this fall.

With the prevalence of the beige planned communities, I think people here have lost touch with the value that Architects provide. It's difficult to sell a client on "good design" when their perception of what an architect does is design one or two houses, then the contractor builds 500 of the same design. Their idea of value is that their house will increase in value due to the neighborhood being desirable. Not to the good or unique design.

I've ranted about these communities for a long time. They are a big reason that Architects aren't valued here. They are rarely seen as a big part of the equation.

Perhaps a good way to prove value would be to put it in terms of time. If it takes an architect X hours to complete a building, and it only takes the contractor and other services a small portion of that time, perhaps it would highlight the value.

Because we are not seen as essential to ensuring the competent design of buildings. Many clients are fooled into procuring by means of design and build, thinking that they are saving on professional fees and perhaps more crucially transferring all risk. The RIBA is an organisation completely out of step with the times. The discipline code is completely unenforced allowing architects to undercut each other on fess to the point where we all know the job simply can't be done properly. The RIBA turns a blind eye to this and architects themselves do nothing to force the RIBA to change. Despite the emergence of sustainability as a key project driver there is still the predominance of big practices hoovering up work hundreds of miles from where they operate, which undermines local architect's ability to survive and pay decent salaries to their staff. Finally, we have to sell ourselves but we don't have to sell ourselves short.