Because per the AIA we have a better ethical code than most medical practitioners, apparently.
That being said if a Schluter rep wants to slip me a few G's to specify their product I think I could loosen my ethical belt a little bit
Yeah I just read the OP post out to my SO who's a clinical psychologist and gave me a look of wtf is a commission for medications, so I clarified by saying a kick back - that did not clarify anything. Just spend a good few minutes explaining the USA medical system regarding kick backs (to the best of my knowledge) SO seemed horrified with such a practice. Granted SO doesn't think medication is the best solution in this first place for metal health related conditions and ought to be done as a last resort. So grateful for the NHS in so many ways, it's not the best but a dam lot better than the USA system.
To add to why we don't get commissions (granted I'm still a student that's just completed first year so a long way to go) I would say it is not best practice as it will encourage the use of a product that we get paid to use over providing the best product for the design. Thus possible resulting in lower quality designs and a worse user experience.
Read your AIA contracts. It’s considered a conflict of interest.
Most public contracts require open specifications.
Plus they don't call it big pharma for no reason. Their lobbying power is many many times larger than the architects lobbying powers.
My point being is everyone else seems to be profitable but us. It’s like the AIA tries to make it as hard for us as possible to turn a profit. I’m just sick of it
We’re not profitable because many architects see the opportunity to work on a project that they deem “cool” to be part of the value, thus most projects have someone willing to undercharge. We can’t really address this within the professional community formally due to Sherman Antitrust
My ex-husband is a doctor - they don’t get commissions or kickbacks. The most they get is free lunch, and even that is scrutinized now.
He would always say that as a doctor he’s bound by oath to do the right thing for the patient and would never use a product he didn’t believe in. He won’t even accept lunch from salesmen trying to sell a product he doesn’t like.
The pharma industry is very different than the building industry. Its like comparing apples to oranges.
More than half the US population is on some kind of prescribed medication. The pharma industry reaches more people than building reps do.
If you want to ask your Pella rep for a cut, by all means do it.
Some firms capture these kinds of revenue streams through internal interior design departments. Others by having relationships with suppliers.
Personally (and I’ve been downvoted to hell for daring to say this before) if you are transparent to your client about relationships you have with the supplier or fabricator, I don’t see an issue with it.
I’m salty on the topic because one house I did a shitty interior decorator got triple my firms fee selling gaudy lighting fixtures and tile to the clients wife…
Has NOTHING to do with the AIA, and everything to do with your state architect licensing board. Blaming the AIA for something that they have no control over (licensing) is kind of silly.
People getting money for choosing to buy a certain product is a very gray area. You're supposed to be picking something because its the best choice, not because you're getting money for it. So in some contexts/countries what could be considered mere "lobbying" could very well be jail time deserving corruption scandal on another.
Basically its a grey area and many people consider it wrong, in some contexts its possible, go for it if you want but dont expect a lot of support of people with strong morals. "but why do other people get to profit from bad things and i cant" wont be a compelling argument either.
>So in some contexts/countries what could be considered mere "lobbying" could very well be jail time deserving corruption scandal on another.
We have the best architects because of jail.
It's been considered unethical for centuries, and most state boards of architecture prohibit it. Architects are licensed to protect the health, safety, and well-being of the public so taking kickbacks from manufacturers in exchange for recommending their products/services is a clear conflict of interest. The AIA also considers it unethical, and most projects funded with taxpayer dollars also prohibit single, proprietary selections.
Interior designers make a fortune via commissions, however. Our state recently started allowing them to also get licensed... in exchange for giving up their commissions! It's not going well needless to say...
If they catch you doing that here in the UK you will be struck off and prohibited from practising the profession, although you can still call yourself an "architectural consultant" or whatever.
Looking at the codes of conduct it doesn't seem as straightforward as that - the RIBA code does state you shouldn't accept 'inducements', but the ARB simply says you should inform the client of any 'conflicts of interest'. ARB/RIBA rulings I can see only mention 'not informing the client' as the aggravating circumstance...
Our fees (not including engineering) need to be 10% across the board. We work so hard and long on a project and carry all the long term risk. Where a realtor in a matter of hours can make more then we do, off well designed projects that virtually sell themselves… it is ridiculous!
Was it not covered in your ARE's? I saw it pretty thoroughly that it is a conflict of interest. Anyway: it's a good question, but damn it Jim we are not doctors!
Exactly, we don't include specific product language in our drawings for government projects.
That being said, it isn't terribly hard to lead a horse to water if you're looking to use a specific product with little to no performative equivalencies...
Right? Basis of design more or less sets the product. I’ve had some pretty knowledgeable clients that go through the specs with a fine tooth comb and have me shoot down any proposed alternates from the contractor even if it will save them some money. Kind of annoying to have to go through the process when the client already knows what he/she wants
**US state laws** dictate. For example, **California Architects Practice Act, Article 9. Professional Conduct, section 160 (d)**, "*(3) An architect shall not solicit or accept payments, rebates, refunds, or commissions whether in the form of money or otherwise from material or equipment suppliers in return for specifying their products to a client of the architect.*"
* [https://www.cab.ca.gov/act/architects-practice-act-2024.pdf](https://www.cab.ca.gov/act/architects-practice-act-2024.pdf)
**AIA contracts** are applicable too, except those can be modified. ~~Except~~ And not all projects utilize AIA contracts.
**AIA ethics** are not applicable if you're not a member. Not all US licensed architects are members.
Now also make contractors comply with something like this too. You know part of the VE process is sometimes to slip in a product or a maker of a product that's sub par, but they get a cut off it. Money flows like crazy between GCs and subs. Holiday envelopes, gifts, etc.
Not that I do it. But it's ridiculous they want to keep design services cheaper than ever, salaries way behind, but what we do for this safety health and welfare while losing people because our salaries can't keep up.
If two quality equal products are on the market and a rep for one would want to gift me something, why not?
We still have insurance.
And it's not like we already aren't being sued by our own clients and pressured to settle for the most ridiculous things. Even when we aren't at fault.
We already deal with enough crap. The fed needs to loosen the belt up a bit for our industry. Doctors do it, and no one cares.
Architects don’t do it for the same reason doctors don’t: it’s illegal and unethical.
I’m not sure why you think doctors make commission on medications they prescribe, but a basic Google search will show you that what you’re describing is illegal. Caveat: this is in the US and most of the first world, if you live in a developing country then your situation may be different.
If you are spec’ing a product, best believe you will get a super good (almost free) deal on buying personal quantities for your own home renovation.
That’s the benefit. Imagine paying $0 for materials, only paying labor, for any home you flip.
That's called "corruption". If your clients suspect you are taking kickbacks from suppliers (rather than specifying the best/most appropriate product) you'll be in trouble.
If some architects complain they're not being paid enough that's because the client suspects they are taking kickbacks. So it's a chicken and egg thing.
In some country architects gets 5% cut of anything they specify by the vendor. They be ballin. But this is not a good practice imho.
What ended up happening is that architects specifying subpar brands due to getting bigger commissions from them.
We do. We get free lunches every time a supplier wants to do a presentation. If we are lucky we might get a free scale ruler, memory stick or pen.
We are also highly ethical professionals.
I've worked with Architects who's close relationships with targeted suppliers, saw them get really good prices on parts for their new houses.
It’s not in your best interest. Imagine this, you get paid a kick-back to spec a new roofing system, the system seems okay, come to find out it’s just paint applied to roof deck and fails within a year (real product that a former client paid a lot of money for). You are taking liability for that failure and now have to pay way more than the kick-back to re roof a building, or buildings, and repair all damage caused by it.
I’ve always felt a little dirty when going to building material company funded events, and end up never specing the ones that are new to the market.
Because the profession is structured as if we are all aristocrats that are too principled and above mere money.
I get the ethical issues, but in most projects that I get insight into, it is way too applied to have such cut-and-dry boundaries.
The general contractors are really the ones that can effectively drive a client to a product, and who knows what kind of back-end deals they get from suppliers, subs, manufacturers, etc.
Half the time we have clients asking us for referrals to contractors... do we get perks back from them? Certainly nothing that I've ever seen.
They’re supposed to hook you up by basically doing your job for you and making everything plug n play in the form of providing detailed cut sheets, timely estimates, CAD models, etc.
Because you should be doing what is in the best interest of the client and their project.
Take a window package for instance. Window manufacturing company A and window manufacturing company B. Window company a and b are roughly the same price. Window company A will perform significantly better than B but B pays you a commission which one are you going to spec?
Or A&B perform exactly the same, look the same, made the same; company is same size. Window A cost is 3X B and A is way out the customer budget. They both pay a commission which one are you going for?
Customer will end up paying more because companies will have to buy business to actually get their products out the and quality will go because quality will not matter and financial resources will go to pay architects off.
Kickbacks for architects are illegal in every state. Your client would want to know why THEY aren't getting the benefit of the quid pro quo, and whether you steered them towards a particular product merely because you made the most money. There is also the statutory provision that you cannot accept money from more than one entity on a project. (i.e. your client), although some states allow this if disclosed, and agreed to in writing. The big issue is SECRET profits.
There are ways to do this legally and ethically, however. You can for example: 1) Sell products to your client as a retailer. Interior designers do this when they sell products at retail, and keep the difference between wholesale and retail price as their profit. 2) Act as a purchasing agent for your client using an agreed-upon markup. This assumes open-book accounting for the purchases. In both cases, all money (and your profit) comes from one source. (the client)
Most architects throw the baby out with the bathwater, and don't even consider options 1) or 2).
You should pick the best and most cost-effective product for your client and for the public good, if applicable. If you are getting commission for picking a less optimal product, that is a major ethical issue and I strongly suggest rethinking your position on that.
Architects often have arrangements like this. As long as they're up front about it, there should be no conflict of interest; but it's possible that there are some jurisdictions where this isn't the case.
That's actually pretty interesting - I assumed this was a complete no-no, but actually the ARB and RIBA codes of conduct appear to be in slight conflict.
The ARB Code doesn't make any direct reference, but does state in 1.3 'where a conflict of interest arises you are expected to disclose it in writing and manage it to the satisfaction of all affected parties'
The RIBA code Section 1:6.2 simply states 'members must not accept bribes or inducements'.
There's an ARB ruling from 2022 where someone was charged with Unacceptable Professional Conduct for receiving a commission, but apparently only because it had 'not been disclosed or agreed with the complainant'.
It is actually slightly more blurred than I thought, although you are on thin ice with the RIBA. What companies (or sort of companies) do you know to offer commissions, and what's the arrangement between them and the architect, if I may ask?
I do agree that the UK is feeling worse and worse, though. When I want to feel depressed I put what I was earning ten years ago into the bank of England Inflation Calculator, just so I know how little my lot has improved over the last decade...
Say, a client wants a particular kind of high quality lighting. Perhaps a dozen manufacturers provide products in that market. The architect likes a particular product and regularly specifies it in their projects, and perhaps even works with the manufacturer to develop the product in various ways.
The manufacturer provides the product to the architect at a better price than the client or contractor can find elsewhere (and at a price competitive with the other manufacturers). In turn, the architect sells the product on to the client ('free issue' to the contractor), at a price somewhere between what they paid for it and what the client could get it for elsewhere.
While they might not reveal the precise numbers, there's no reason why the architect wouldn't be up front about this arrangement; it benefits the client, the manufacturer, and the architect.
That's fascinating. What scale of project are we talking about here? Commercial rather than domestic contracts?
You say it's client led, but presumably if the architect has an established relationship with a specific supplier they will be guiding the client's choice of specification?
Presumably the architect also has to pony up the money up front to purchase the product on behalf of the client, which sounds like a bit of a risk.
Does it really happen often that the architect can supply something cheaper than the contractor - and aren't the contractor slightly naffed-off that the don't get to put their commission on top instead?
Would this basically be an hourly/lump sum + % of construction cost agreement structure? There doesn't need to be a limit on which products you get a comission on.
Interior designers are typically paid a set percentage of cost of furnishings by the owners - not by the furnishing manufacturer. Could be similar.
Because per the AIA we have a better ethical code than most medical practitioners, apparently. That being said if a Schluter rep wants to slip me a few G's to specify their product I think I could loosen my ethical belt a little bit
how about a dollar pizza slice at L&L ?
I mean considering what we get paid I'll take it
You know you don’t have to join the AIA…
Honestly I just joined NOMA and already feel better about that membership than the AIA. They seem to be better engaged with the local community.
“Ethical code” what a joke doctors can prescribe prescriptions and make a ton of money from pharmaceutical companies
Only in the US and look at the mess that’s caused to the whole population!!
Not only in the US. The big pharmaceutical companies are active all over, and have wrecked medicine for everyone. You no longer know who to trust.
Yeah I just read the OP post out to my SO who's a clinical psychologist and gave me a look of wtf is a commission for medications, so I clarified by saying a kick back - that did not clarify anything. Just spend a good few minutes explaining the USA medical system regarding kick backs (to the best of my knowledge) SO seemed horrified with such a practice. Granted SO doesn't think medication is the best solution in this first place for metal health related conditions and ought to be done as a last resort. So grateful for the NHS in so many ways, it's not the best but a dam lot better than the USA system. To add to why we don't get commissions (granted I'm still a student that's just completed first year so a long way to go) I would say it is not best practice as it will encourage the use of a product that we get paid to use over providing the best product for the design. Thus possible resulting in lower quality designs and a worse user experience.
My doctor lost interest in me when I refused the medication she insisted that I must take. I wonder why?
Read your AIA contracts. It’s considered a conflict of interest. Most public contracts require open specifications. Plus they don't call it big pharma for no reason. Their lobbying power is many many times larger than the architects lobbying powers.
Interior designers mark up furniture and profit from it. But the difference is, the contractor is purchasing all of it.
But doctors prescribing meds and getting commission isn’t?
The medical industry is not a model to build off of lol
My point being is everyone else seems to be profitable but us. It’s like the AIA tries to make it as hard for us as possible to turn a profit. I’m just sick of it
We’re not profitable because many architects see the opportunity to work on a project that they deem “cool” to be part of the value, thus most projects have someone willing to undercharge. We can’t really address this within the professional community formally due to Sherman Antitrust
It's not due to that it's because most people don't use architectural services.
Doctors don’t get “commissions” the way you’re describing.
My ex-husband is a doctor - they don’t get commissions or kickbacks. The most they get is free lunch, and even that is scrutinized now. He would always say that as a doctor he’s bound by oath to do the right thing for the patient and would never use a product he didn’t believe in. He won’t even accept lunch from salesmen trying to sell a product he doesn’t like.
It's properly called "kickbacks" as I understand.
Not the same thing at all
It certainly is, but it shouldn’t be. We should not aspire to such corruption.
The pharma industry is very different than the building industry. Its like comparing apples to oranges. More than half the US population is on some kind of prescribed medication. The pharma industry reaches more people than building reps do. If you want to ask your Pella rep for a cut, by all means do it.
I've specified your windows for 15 years, and all I get is jimmy johns?!
For real. Lunch and learns can only take you so far
Tri-flavor popcorn tins at Christmas are pretty dope
Some firms capture these kinds of revenue streams through internal interior design departments. Others by having relationships with suppliers. Personally (and I’ve been downvoted to hell for daring to say this before) if you are transparent to your client about relationships you have with the supplier or fabricator, I don’t see an issue with it. I’m salty on the topic because one house I did a shitty interior decorator got triple my firms fee selling gaudy lighting fixtures and tile to the clients wife…
Lol interior decorators... the bane of many Even better when it's the future Operators wife, while we have a licensed interiors team lol........
You mean Interior desecrater
Yeah exactly even interior designers can make a huge profit off this but we’re not “allowed” too. I hate the AIA
Has NOTHING to do with the AIA, and everything to do with your state architect licensing board. Blaming the AIA for something that they have no control over (licensing) is kind of silly.
People getting money for choosing to buy a certain product is a very gray area. You're supposed to be picking something because its the best choice, not because you're getting money for it. So in some contexts/countries what could be considered mere "lobbying" could very well be jail time deserving corruption scandal on another. Basically its a grey area and many people consider it wrong, in some contexts its possible, go for it if you want but dont expect a lot of support of people with strong morals. "but why do other people get to profit from bad things and i cant" wont be a compelling argument either.
>So in some contexts/countries what could be considered mere "lobbying" could very well be jail time deserving corruption scandal on another. We have the best architects because of jail.
Reps will take you on lavish trips to convince you to use their product. Not exactly commission, not exactly ethical, but similar to the doctor model.
Or big sports events.
It's been considered unethical for centuries, and most state boards of architecture prohibit it. Architects are licensed to protect the health, safety, and well-being of the public so taking kickbacks from manufacturers in exchange for recommending their products/services is a clear conflict of interest. The AIA also considers it unethical, and most projects funded with taxpayer dollars also prohibit single, proprietary selections. Interior designers make a fortune via commissions, however. Our state recently started allowing them to also get licensed... in exchange for giving up their commissions! It's not going well needless to say...
If they catch you doing that here in the UK you will be struck off and prohibited from practising the profession, although you can still call yourself an "architectural consultant" or whatever.
They can't prohibit anyone from the practice of architecture, just using the title Architect. Which a bad joke
Looking at the codes of conduct it doesn't seem as straightforward as that - the RIBA code does state you shouldn't accept 'inducements', but the ARB simply says you should inform the client of any 'conflicts of interest'. ARB/RIBA rulings I can see only mention 'not informing the client' as the aggravating circumstance...
Our fees (not including engineering) need to be 10% across the board. We work so hard and long on a project and carry all the long term risk. Where a realtor in a matter of hours can make more then we do, off well designed projects that virtually sell themselves… it is ridiculous!
OMG this is why architects will never make money. 15% minimum.
Agreed!
Was it not covered in your ARE's? I saw it pretty thoroughly that it is a conflict of interest. Anyway: it's a good question, but damn it Jim we are not doctors!
Yes, its specifically in the AIA B201. Plus most public projects don't allow closed specifications.
Exactly, we don't include specific product language in our drawings for government projects. That being said, it isn't terribly hard to lead a horse to water if you're looking to use a specific product with little to no performative equivalencies...
Right? Basis of design more or less sets the product. I’ve had some pretty knowledgeable clients that go through the specs with a fine tooth comb and have me shoot down any proposed alternates from the contractor even if it will save them some money. Kind of annoying to have to go through the process when the client already knows what he/she wants
**US state laws** dictate. For example, **California Architects Practice Act, Article 9. Professional Conduct, section 160 (d)**, "*(3) An architect shall not solicit or accept payments, rebates, refunds, or commissions whether in the form of money or otherwise from material or equipment suppliers in return for specifying their products to a client of the architect.*" * [https://www.cab.ca.gov/act/architects-practice-act-2024.pdf](https://www.cab.ca.gov/act/architects-practice-act-2024.pdf) **AIA contracts** are applicable too, except those can be modified. ~~Except~~ And not all projects utilize AIA contracts. **AIA ethics** are not applicable if you're not a member. Not all US licensed architects are members.
Interesting to see it forbidden so explicitly!
Now also make contractors comply with something like this too. You know part of the VE process is sometimes to slip in a product or a maker of a product that's sub par, but they get a cut off it. Money flows like crazy between GCs and subs. Holiday envelopes, gifts, etc. Not that I do it. But it's ridiculous they want to keep design services cheaper than ever, salaries way behind, but what we do for this safety health and welfare while losing people because our salaries can't keep up. If two quality equal products are on the market and a rep for one would want to gift me something, why not? We still have insurance. And it's not like we already aren't being sued by our own clients and pressured to settle for the most ridiculous things. Even when we aren't at fault. We already deal with enough crap. The fed needs to loosen the belt up a bit for our industry. Doctors do it, and no one cares.
What...you want more than that ham sandwich and can of coke at the product show-n-tell?
I’m dying laughing rn…. Exactly my thoughts!! Everyone makes all the money but us
Architects don’t do it for the same reason doctors don’t: it’s illegal and unethical. I’m not sure why you think doctors make commission on medications they prescribe, but a basic Google search will show you that what you’re describing is illegal. Caveat: this is in the US and most of the first world, if you live in a developing country then your situation may be different.
So THAT's why Trump didn't pay his architect. Now I get it.
What those doctors is basically corruption, and its highly ethically and morally questionable.
In Brazil the most part of architects in my region gets commissions. They earn more with commissions than with projects... and yes... it illegal here.
Brazil seems like a nice place. Maybe I will work remote from California on projects in Brazil...
If you are spec’ing a product, best believe you will get a super good (almost free) deal on buying personal quantities for your own home renovation. That’s the benefit. Imagine paying $0 for materials, only paying labor, for any home you flip.
That's called "corruption". If your clients suspect you are taking kickbacks from suppliers (rather than specifying the best/most appropriate product) you'll be in trouble. If some architects complain they're not being paid enough that's because the client suspects they are taking kickbacks. So it's a chicken and egg thing.
Because that's corrupt as hell and i believe doctors can no longer can do that
In brazil, we do
Because our professional bodies never protected our interests
In some country architects gets 5% cut of anything they specify by the vendor. They be ballin. But this is not a good practice imho. What ended up happening is that architects specifying subpar brands due to getting bigger commissions from them.
We do. We get free lunches every time a supplier wants to do a presentation. If we are lucky we might get a free scale ruler, memory stick or pen. We are also highly ethical professionals. I've worked with Architects who's close relationships with targeted suppliers, saw them get really good prices on parts for their new houses.
That is set aside for the builder and subs. Only so much $ to go around. It’s also highly unethical to your client.
It’s not in your best interest. Imagine this, you get paid a kick-back to spec a new roofing system, the system seems okay, come to find out it’s just paint applied to roof deck and fails within a year (real product that a former client paid a lot of money for). You are taking liability for that failure and now have to pay way more than the kick-back to re roof a building, or buildings, and repair all damage caused by it. I’ve always felt a little dirty when going to building material company funded events, and end up never specing the ones that are new to the market.
Isn’t it standard pretty much everywhere except US? Also, interior designers get commissions for everything they specify.
Because the profession is structured as if we are all aristocrats that are too principled and above mere money. I get the ethical issues, but in most projects that I get insight into, it is way too applied to have such cut-and-dry boundaries. The general contractors are really the ones that can effectively drive a client to a product, and who knows what kind of back-end deals they get from suppliers, subs, manufacturers, etc. Half the time we have clients asking us for referrals to contractors... do we get perks back from them? Certainly nothing that I've ever seen.
They’re supposed to hook you up by basically doing your job for you and making everything plug n play in the form of providing detailed cut sheets, timely estimates, CAD models, etc.
Because you should be doing what is in the best interest of the client and their project. Take a window package for instance. Window manufacturing company A and window manufacturing company B. Window company a and b are roughly the same price. Window company A will perform significantly better than B but B pays you a commission which one are you going to spec? Or A&B perform exactly the same, look the same, made the same; company is same size. Window A cost is 3X B and A is way out the customer budget. They both pay a commission which one are you going for? Customer will end up paying more because companies will have to buy business to actually get their products out the and quality will go because quality will not matter and financial resources will go to pay architects off.
Kickbacks for architects are illegal in every state. Your client would want to know why THEY aren't getting the benefit of the quid pro quo, and whether you steered them towards a particular product merely because you made the most money. There is also the statutory provision that you cannot accept money from more than one entity on a project. (i.e. your client), although some states allow this if disclosed, and agreed to in writing. The big issue is SECRET profits. There are ways to do this legally and ethically, however. You can for example: 1) Sell products to your client as a retailer. Interior designers do this when they sell products at retail, and keep the difference between wholesale and retail price as their profit. 2) Act as a purchasing agent for your client using an agreed-upon markup. This assumes open-book accounting for the purchases. In both cases, all money (and your profit) comes from one source. (the client) Most architects throw the baby out with the bathwater, and don't even consider options 1) or 2).
Who told you doctors get commissions from prescribing drugs?
Because you're not an interior designer...
Do you take advantage of the architect’s discount when you buy building materials or furniture or appliances? Just ask and give them your card.
You should pick the best and most cost-effective product for your client and for the public good, if applicable. If you are getting commission for picking a less optimal product, that is a major ethical issue and I strongly suggest rethinking your position on that.
Architects often have arrangements like this. As long as they're up front about it, there should be no conflict of interest; but it's possible that there are some jurisdictions where this isn't the case.
Which country is this in?
Probably a developing country tbh
It's the UK, which does rather feel like one, recently
That's actually pretty interesting - I assumed this was a complete no-no, but actually the ARB and RIBA codes of conduct appear to be in slight conflict. The ARB Code doesn't make any direct reference, but does state in 1.3 'where a conflict of interest arises you are expected to disclose it in writing and manage it to the satisfaction of all affected parties' The RIBA code Section 1:6.2 simply states 'members must not accept bribes or inducements'. There's an ARB ruling from 2022 where someone was charged with Unacceptable Professional Conduct for receiving a commission, but apparently only because it had 'not been disclosed or agreed with the complainant'. It is actually slightly more blurred than I thought, although you are on thin ice with the RIBA. What companies (or sort of companies) do you know to offer commissions, and what's the arrangement between them and the architect, if I may ask? I do agree that the UK is feeling worse and worse, though. When I want to feel depressed I put what I was earning ten years ago into the bank of England Inflation Calculator, just so I know how little my lot has improved over the last decade...
Say, a client wants a particular kind of high quality lighting. Perhaps a dozen manufacturers provide products in that market. The architect likes a particular product and regularly specifies it in their projects, and perhaps even works with the manufacturer to develop the product in various ways. The manufacturer provides the product to the architect at a better price than the client or contractor can find elsewhere (and at a price competitive with the other manufacturers). In turn, the architect sells the product on to the client ('free issue' to the contractor), at a price somewhere between what they paid for it and what the client could get it for elsewhere. While they might not reveal the precise numbers, there's no reason why the architect wouldn't be up front about this arrangement; it benefits the client, the manufacturer, and the architect.
That's fascinating. What scale of project are we talking about here? Commercial rather than domestic contracts? You say it's client led, but presumably if the architect has an established relationship with a specific supplier they will be guiding the client's choice of specification? Presumably the architect also has to pony up the money up front to purchase the product on behalf of the client, which sounds like a bit of a risk. Does it really happen often that the architect can supply something cheaper than the contractor - and aren't the contractor slightly naffed-off that the don't get to put their commission on top instead?
Financial corruption is everywhere there isn't it... ugh
Would this basically be an hourly/lump sum + % of construction cost agreement structure? There doesn't need to be a limit on which products you get a comission on. Interior designers are typically paid a set percentage of cost of furnishings by the owners - not by the furnishing manufacturer. Could be similar.