Those surveys are all based on totally bogus suppositions. If you look at my "normal" billing rates for 1040-A-MA it would be $205. But who has a 1040 and Sch A without a Sch B? Or a D? Who can buy a house without sufficient resources to have other accounts? What about non-schedule complications to the 1040 like educator expenses or student loans with worksheets to determine how much is allowed?
Plus, it makes no mention of all the other factors that go into pricing. If, for example, that 1040-A-MA return came in early, with every bit of info needed, I would probably discount the price - possibly as much as $50. If, on the other hand, I had to send a half-dozen emails asking for the 3Q property tax, or had to hound them for the closing statements to calculate the refi points amortization, I might hit them with a "accounting time" fee on top of the $205 -- which could easily hit $100 (depending on how much of a PITA they were to deal with).
Here's one for you -- picked up a family for 2012, brother to an existing client. He was charged $1075 for 2011. I would have charged $385 for the very same return. And every single client who has come to me from (insert name of favorite big box tax store) has found me to be substantially less expensive even though I think I charge very fairly if a bit skewed towards my benefit.
So I believe the "averages" they report in the article to be low -- or at the very least unable to be compared to real life situations. Nonsense, all of it. If you think your prices are fair to you, you're fine. If your clients think you're too high, they'll leave. That's fine, too -- it's called feedback. A free market runs on it -- what an un-coerced buyer is willing to pay an un-coerced seller for something they need that the seller is willing to sell. Milton Friedman talked about it a lot and there are plenty of videos on YouTube of him doing so.