Are Serviced Offices Really More Expensive?

I just found this article about the state of the office market in Edinburgh, Scotland.

One phrase that struck me was this; “Although serviced offices tend to be more expensive, flexible leases and additional facilities like video conferencing and switchboard operators are an increasingly attractive part of the package.”

To my mind the first part of this sentence is misleading, I would argue that Serviced Offices actually tend to be less expensive. And researchers at Reading University agree...

“There is real danger of comparing the price per square foot or square metre of a standard lease with that of a serviced office. What is often not made transparent is that the (conventional lease) price excludes many of the costs that ultimately must be borne by the occupier, such as facilities management and reception, but which are included in serviced offices. A further complication is that capital costs of equipment and furniture may not be fully taken into account when making the comparison. The second reason is that, in the case of a serviced office, risks have been transferred from the occupier to the provider because of the short-term commitment to, and instant availability of, the space. It is this risk transfer element which is much more difficult to price.”

This is what the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply say...

“Serviced offices are now even more cost–effective for longer periods, for larger numbers of people and over a wider geographic spread, compared with five years ago.”

Question is why do people still pedal the myth that serviced office space is more expensive? Perhaps because they do a raw per sq ft comparison with traditional leased space. [Or] maybe it's a misapprehension about what a serviced office really is and what it includes?