I just left a multi-million dollar marketing agency. Ask me anything.

[Jeff Mottle]

And not just the architecture industry, it's hurting everything from games to film and especially VFX. Have you seen the state of the US based VFX firms? Hollywood itself has been gutted, and we're talking major firms who had done major pictures going under here.

 

A bit off topic, but to your point, Scott Ross (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ross_%28film_executive%29) spoke at the Mundos Digitales conference I was at a few weeks ago and his take on the VFX industry was very bleak. He clearly showed that the only companies in VFX that survive long term are the studios who also own the VFX company as they have access to the distribution channel. I'd never seen it all mapped out, but every single VFX company in the last 10 years has gone out of business or been purchased by a studio. He said the margins were at best 5%, yet if you look at the top 20 most successful movies of all time, around 95% of them had large amounts of VFX. VFX companies and their employee are the ones who suffer. Studios make all the money.

[Tommy L]

That day is already here and has been here for some time, say at least the last 8-10 years or so. The software and the power of the computer I am typing this on at home rivals anything you'd find at a major studio. We all have access to 3ds Max, Vray, Photoshop, After Effects, etc on our home machines. So that is leading to lower video costs as now complete amateurs can do this work at 25 cents to your dollar, they win the bids and now are producing sub-standard work. So lowering video costs is actually killing our industry. And not just the architecture industry, it's hurting everything from games to film and especially VFX. Have you seen the state of the US based VFX firms? Hollywood itself has been gutted, and we're talking major firms who had done major pictures going under here.

 

What will always be the blocking force for architecture is that to the common person, even the crappiest rendering looks awesome. How many times have we seen people soil themselves with giddy excitement over the worst rendering we've seen? Of course, we're rolling our eyes but the everyday Joe thinks that it is the greatest thing since the lava lamp.

 

The architecture industry as a whole is still very conservative. Yes, there are a few movers and shakers out there but the rest of it still is stuck in the 1950's. They say this industry is a decent 10 years behind the ball and it's true. I wish I could name one of the large architecture firms and I interviewed at, and did some contract work for, who still used AutoCAD R14 and Viz2000. This was in 2011! But, according to them, AutoCAD still drew lines and Viz still rendered so why upgrade? Why pay? There is still enough of the Old Breed running this industry, so we've got a ways to go before we truly start innovating. You can pitch your ideas until you turn blue, and they'll just ask you for your stock imagery.

 

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1990803,00.html

Read the article but just replace VFX with arch viz, and it pretty much reads the same. Especially the parts about outsourcing, cheap entry costs, change orders and the overall economy. Heck, even the part how companies were formed. A lot of the glut in our industry came during the bubble when developers were just shelling out cash with little regard because they knew they'd make it back with surging selling costs for the structure. The economic down slide from the bubble burst has taken a lot of the cash off the table.

 

Just to play devils advocate...

I think the best way to design in architicture is still with a pencil and physical models. I cant see that changing for a while. The purpose of technology to aid a designer is two-fold: communication and building technology. So there is some validity in what the the firm said about AutoCAD R14 and Viz2000 being adequate tools for design.

 

I also dont think the film/broadcast VFX houses are struggling too much. Like most industries, the smaller houses are being consolidated to larger firms and major studios are in-house and off-shore labor is being used for roto etc. But they are not suffering at the hands of cottage industry like you say.

 

As a side note: In the film industry the most scandalous trend is that of large movie producers making shit 'blockbuster' films, hollywood quality for the intellectual has gone thru the floor and there is practically no funding for indies. My hope is that Netflix in its current flailing state after some disastrous business moves and losing Starz becomes the big new indie platform.

[Ernest Burden III]

...but every single VFX company in the last 10 years has gone out of business or been purchased by a studio...

 

We certainly have some mid-size to large production houses, like for the US Neoscape, Spine3D and dBox, but is there an analogy to those parent studios? I suppose you would say mega architecture or engineering firms. It's pretty hard to imaging Neoscape being brought in-house at SOM, Architects, for example. And if that's the only way to survive, heaven help us all. As pointed out in the original post, we architects are crap at this stuff.

 

...the only companies in VFX that survive long term are the studios who also own the VFX company as they have access to the distribution channel...

 

And again, applying the analogy--what is our distribution channel? It's less a cash pipe and more a leach field at best.

 

Can an industry like ours survive long-term being so removed from the end sale?

Edited July 23, 2012 by Ernest Burden

[Ernest Burden III]

Oh, and it appears someone has figured out how to make money in VFX:

http://forums.cgarchitect.com/71339-digital-domain-says-you-owe-us-money.html#post364509

 

Become a patent troll, for fun and profit. Sue your entire industry except for your friends once they've bowed to your greatness.

[Dan Norfolk]

Very interesting thread. Don't mean to hijack the thread but just bought a copy of the graphic novel "Batman: Death by Design". Architecture is front and center of the plot, but a lot of the things in the novel still says how little the common man knows about architecture.

[matthewspencer]

The only reason you see rows of identical, hideous, poorly-made houses in the USA is purely because of economics. Much of the post-1950s American Dream has been defined by deeply subsidized suburban migration.

 

John Doe can buy himself a McMansion for $300,000. Any volunteers willing to design and build a 4,000 sq. ft. home, from start to finish in a month, delivering Mr. Doe a bill for $300k?

 

None of this has anything to do with architects being stuck in the past, nor with what version of AutoCAD they're using, nor with how communicative their portfolio site is.

 

Blame a culture of quantity-over-quality, of speed-over-meticulousness. In other words, blame the developers.

 

Why should the contemporary man's taste for architecture be any more refined than what it was in 1950, when the model for purchasing a home has been tailored to make it as easy and economical as possible for him to have a gargantuan vinyl castle of junk on his new property faster than you can say "Freddie Mac?"

Edited July 24, 2012 by matthewspencer

[gregjenkins]

That day is already here and has been here for some time, say at least the last 8-10 years or so. The software and the power of the computer I am typing this on at home rivals anything you'd find at a major studio. We all have access to 3ds Max, Vray, Photoshop, After Effects, etc on our home machines. So that is leading to lower video costs as now complete amateurs can do this work at 25 cents to your dollar, they win the bids and now are producing sub-standard work. So lowering video costs is actually killing our industry. And not just the architecture industry, it's hurting everything from games to film and especially VFX. Have you seen the state of the US based VFX firms? Hollywood itself has been gutted, and we're talking major firms who had done major pictures going under here.

 

What will always be the blocking force for architecture is that to the common person, even the crappiest rendering looks awesome. How many times have we seen people soil themselves with giddy excitement over the worst rendering we've seen? Of course, we're rolling our eyes but the everyday Joe thinks that it is the greatest thing since the lava lamp.

 

The architecture industry as a whole is still very conservative. Yes, there are a few movers and shakers out there but the rest of it still is stuck in the 1950's. They say this industry is a decent 10 years behind the ball and it's true. I wish I could name one of the large architecture firms and I interviewed at, and did some contract work for, who still used AutoCAD R14 and Viz2000. This was in 2011! But, according to them, AutoCAD still drew lines and Viz still rendered so why upgrade? Why pay? There is still enough of the Old Breed running this industry, so we've got a ways to go before we truly start innovating. You can pitch your ideas until you turn blue, and they'll just ask you for your stock imagery.

 

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1990803,00.html

Read the article but just replace VFX with arch viz, and it pretty much reads the same. Especially the parts about outsourcing, cheap entry costs, change orders and the overall economy. Heck, even the part how companies were formed. A lot of the glut in our industry came during the bubble when developers were just shelling out cash with little regard because they knew they'd make it back with surging selling costs for the structure. The economic down slide from the bubble burst has taken a lot of the cash off the table.

 

This is all true Scott and will probably even change more in the next 8-10 years than the previous. The big question that comes into my mind is

 

How can i use Hollywood status design software as an advantage to me?

 

You could explain to clients how what you are doing is the way of the future, and then give them the same proof you just gave me to really solidify it to them.

 

You could compare your renderings side by side to a famous Hollywood film.

 

Having all architects behind the curve, puts you at an advantage. You can work faster and produce higher quality designs than some almost any architect still using Auto-CAD.

 

These are just some spit-balled examples

 

 

The big question to ask is how can i use these changes to make myself stand out in a field where everyone is ten years behind?

[gregjenkins]

That day is already here and has been here for some time, say at least the last 8-10 years or so. The software and the power of the computer I am typing this on at home rivals anything you'd find at a major studio. We all have access to 3ds Max, Vray, Photoshop, After Effects, etc on our home machines. So that is leading to lower video costs as now complete amateurs can do this work at 25 cents to your dollar, they win the bids and now are producing sub-standard work. So lowering video costs is actually killing our industry. And not just the architecture industry, it's hurting everything from games to film and especially VFX. Have you seen the state of the US based VFX firms? Hollywood itself has been gutted, and we're talking major firms who had done major pictures going under here.

 

What will always be the blocking force for architecture is that to the common person, even the crappiest rendering looks awesome. How many times have we seen people soil themselves with giddy excitement over the worst rendering we've seen? Of course, we're rolling our eyes but the everyday Joe thinks that it is the greatest thing since the lava lamp.

 

The architecture industry as a whole is still very conservative. Yes, there are a few movers and shakers out there but the rest of it still is stuck in the 1950's. They say this industry is a decent 10 years behind the ball and it's true. I wish I could name one of the large architecture firms and I interviewed at, and did some contract work for, who still used AutoCAD R14 and Viz2000. This was in 2011! But, according to them, AutoCAD still drew lines and Viz still rendered so why upgrade? Why pay? There is still enough of the Old Breed running this industry, so we've got a ways to go before we truly start innovating. You can pitch your ideas until you turn blue, and they'll just ask you for your stock imagery.

 

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1990803,00.html

Read the article but just replace VFX with arch viz, and it pretty much reads the same. Especially the parts about outsourcing, cheap entry costs, change orders and the overall economy. Heck, even the part how companies were formed. A lot of the glut in our industry came during the bubble when developers were just shelling out cash with little regard because they knew they'd make it back with surging selling costs for the structure. The economic down slide from the bubble burst has taken a lot of the cash off the table.

 

I am still a bit shocked that huge companies like Disney are taking a hit, that really tells you the direction that the industry is going.

[gregjenkins]

A bit off topic, but to your point, Scott Ross (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ross_%28film_executive%29) spoke at the Mundos Digitales conference I was at a few weeks ago and his take on the VFX industry was very bleak. He clearly showed that the only companies in VFX that survive long term are the studios who also own the VFX company as they have access to the distribution channel. I'd never seen it all mapped out, but every single VFX company in the last 10 years has gone out of business or been purchased by a studio. He said the margins were at best 5%, yet if you look at the top 20 most successful movies of all time, around 95% of them had large amounts of VFX. VFX companies and their employee are the ones who suffer. Studios make all the money.

 

Heh, sounds a bit like the entertainment industry.

[gregjenkins]

Very interesting thread. Don't mean to hijack the thread but just bought a copy of the graphic novel "Batman: Death by Design". Architecture is front and center of the plot, but a lot of the things in the novel still says how little the common man knows about architecture.

 

I just did a quick search on the book and it looks like a very creative and interesting way to really get people interested in architecture.

 

If you were to do a survey about how much the average person knows about architects the results would not even be published.

 

Getting the average person to see eye to eye with the architectural field is necessary to get you guys back in the position you should be in, as the people who build the world.

[gregjenkins]

The only reason you see rows of identical, hideous, poorly-made houses in the USA is purely because of economics. Much of the post-1950s American Dream has been defined by deeply subsidized suburban migration.

 

John Doe can buy himself a McMansion for $300,000. Any volunteers willing to design and build a 4,000 sq. ft. home, from start to finish in a month, delivering Mr. Joe a bill for $300k?

 

None of this has anything to do with architects being stuck in the past, nor with what version of AutoCAD they're using, nor with how communicative their portfolio site is.

 

Blame a culture of quantity-over-quality, of speed-over-meticulousness. In other words, blame the developers.

 

Why should the contemporary man's taste for architecture be any more refined than what it was in 1950, when the model for purchasing a home has been tailored to make it as easy and economical as possible for him to have a gargantuan vinyl castle of junk on his new property faster than you can say "Freddie Mac?"

 

I think this is touching on the core problem with the architect to customer relationship.

 

People think that they want the most bang for their buck, by getting some track house with a bunch of junk strewn all over it.

 

Deep down everyone wants to be unique, nobody wants the same house as their neighbor, they want something that represents them, just like their car, or their clothes. They really want an extension of themselves they can show their friends and family.

 

If you can bring out this desire in your clients, it would be amazing.

 

If an architect could eliminate this problem, they would be on the top of their market, fast.

[gregjenkins]

I got a couple ideas solidifying in my head for you guys.

 

I am gonna post them up tomorrow and get your feedback

[Mario De Achadinha]

Hi Greg

 

Just a question do you know what 3d Illustration and Architectural Visualization is? If yes, how do you think we can market ourselves to be more effective communicators with our industry(architects) to show them the benefits of our service?

[Jonathan Fantucchio]

Deep down everyone wants to be unique, nobody wants the same house as their neighbor, they want something that represents them, just like their car, or their clothes. They really want an extension of themselves they can show their friends and family.

.

 

In the US at least, I'm not so sure of this. My limited experience tells me that they want want what their neighbor has but bigger or better or both. I am very interested in what you have to say either way.

[gregjenkins]

Hi Greg

 

Just a question do you know what 3d Illustration and Architectural Visualization is? If yes, how do you think we can market ourselves to be more effective communicators with our industry(architects) to show them the benefits of our service?

 

I have learned a lot in the last week or so of posting on here and am starting to get a very good idea, especially in terms of how you guys differ from architects.

 

I was gonna make a post on this today.

 

Here is what i think is the best way for you guys to market yourselves.

 

Animated Video + Written Script (in your clients language) + call to action/easy way to contact you

 

1. Animated Video

 

You probably know a hell of a lot more than me about animation and should use this to your advantage.

 

If you look at a few of the videos that Jeff made a few posts back, those are perfect for grabbing and wrapping potential clients.

 

From a marketing perspective they lack 2 things.

 

1. A good script

 

2. A call to action

 

You could take the same videos and add an audio track talking about the benefits of your services that go hand and hand with what is being animated. This is amazing because it creates multiple emotional connections in your viewers head. Visual, audio and logical.

 

Get creative with the videos, make them the best you can, 2-3 minutes is more than enough. What is important is that you get your script correct and make it easy for the viewer to contact you as soon as the video finishes and the material is fresh in their mind.

 

Let me know if you want more info

[gregjenkins]

In the US at least, I'm not so sure of this. My limited experience tells me that they want want what their neighbor has but bigger or better or both. I am very interested in what you have to say either way.

 

There is definitely a large stigma about this in the U.S., and yes i have met plenty of people that just want bigger and better and everything their way. These people suck to work with. I still feel like they are the minority and even in their cases, they want to be unique.

 

The reason they want bigger and better is to stand out from their neighbors and friends. Which is being unique/special.

 

The average person wants to be unique, wants to express themselves, wants to be an individual. The problem is that the social standard is the opposite and people pretty much do the same thing (school, work, kids, etc.) if they can connect with someone who understands what they want in an honest way, they would be more than happy to have you design their building.

 

This is a bit over psychological but i feel it was the proper answer to your question.

 

Think of your customer first, not your product.

 

If you go from there, you can never go wrong.

[gregjenkins]

Alright guys after a bit of research here are 3 ways i think you can best market yourself in your industry.

 

One i mentioned earlier.

 

Here is what i think is the best way for you guys to market yourselves.

 

Animated Video + Written Script (in your clients language) + call to action/easy way to contact you

 

1. Animated Video

 

You probably know a hell of a lot more than me about animation and should use this to your advantage.

 

If you look at a few of the videos that Jeff made a few posts back, those are perfect for grabbing and wrapping potential clients.

 

From a marketing perspective they lack 2 things.

 

1. A good script

 

2. A call to action

 

You could take the same videos and add an audio track talking about the benefits of your services that go hand and hand with what is being animated. This is amazing because it creates multiple emotional connections in your viewers head. Visual, audio and logical.

 

Get creative with the videos, make them the best you can, 2-3 minutes is more than enough. What is important is that you get your script correct and make it easy for the viewer to contact you as soon as the video finishes and the material is fresh in their mind.

 

 

2. Website/Branding

 

This will be the host for all of your videos/previous works and also the place that your customer connects with you at.

 

To stand out above the competition and get more inquiries. You must make a personal connection with your customers before you

talk with them. This is already going to be done through your video mentioned in step 1, but you just need a place to put the video/videos. Your website.

 

Your website should be uniform throughout and have personality to it. It should be written in your customers language and show them how you can solve their frustrations/fears and why you are the best person to do it.

 

Always think about your customer first, then about your product/service.

 

 

3. Social Media/Word of mouth

 

I threw these together because i feel they basically are the same, people talking about your company.

 

Social media is important because it is the way the world is turning, and more and more people are talking to their friends about products/services, so you are going to want to be there.

 

The other benefit with social media to visualizers is that from there people have easy access to your previous works an can contact you

easily.

 

If you want more people to spread your word on social media, offer them incentive. A discount if they re-post your company name a few times.

A sample rendering/consultation if they like your page, whatever suits your situation best.

 

This one may sound monotonous, but let me tell you the key to all word of mouth.

 

Going the extra mile.

 

What do you think your customer will do if you give them something of massive value for pressing a "like" button. They will tell everyone the awesome deal they got.

 

Your customer doesn't stop at the sale. Find out what they like, what their hobbies are and buy them a book about it and send it to them with a thank you note.

 

Take them to their favorite restaurant.

 

These are things that will make you stand out and people will talk about you. Guaranteed.

 

 

What do you guys think of these ideas?

[Scott Schroeder]

Companies like Neoscape, dBox, Squint Opera, MIR, etc all have the distinct advantage in being able to hand pick clients. However, for a lot of us in this industry we either work for ourselves or work for someone who doesn't have that luxury. Maybe most of us are tying to cultivate that culture of the bigger companies were we can be a lot more selective and creative with clients, but it takes a lot sorting and figuring out before you can get to that. I'm sure all of those aforementioned companies had to deal with quite a few turds back in their start up days.

 

Low cost and faster turnarounds, yet wanting the world for a render, is pretty much standard these days. The other thing that is a struggle in the architecture industry is the fact that many times, a client won't have cash on had to pay upfront. Then, once they do have the render, they can't resell it. Sure, they can recoup cost by selling the building/house/condo/etc but they fail to see it that way. So the fact that they don't have upfront investment capitol and can't resell the product you provide, they tend to want things done for the cheap.

 

I got almost 80% of my freelance work not through a website or social media (though it doesn't hurt to use those venues), but through good old fashioned human networking. I volunteered with Habitat for Humanity and always made sure I had a few business cards on hand. I did other community work and outreach programs where I met most of my client base. The advantage of this is that you get to know the person on an outside the workplace level, and they are 100% easier to work with and deal with when it comes to payments and the inevitable change order.

 

The other 20% were people whom I will never be back in contact with. In my humble, and probably cynical opinion, screw giving these people a break. Screw the discounts. Many clients already want you to to work 7 days a week and basically for free, they don't need more discounts. Forget about the freebie renderings too. That costs time and overhead that are better spent on paying projects. Most of us can't afford these extra costs when trying to woo a client. You can't take the Coca-Cola or McDonald's advertising model and apply it to a small firm or even architecture for that matter.

 

If I do that (giving a massive discount or something of value just because someone hit like), my cost for the client is going to increase or else I'll be operating in the red and that's not the best business model.

 

Watch this video, I'm sure most of us will get a chuckle out of it.

 

[Devin Johnston]

I love that video, it's exactly the kind of relationship most Freelancer and small business people have to put up with from clients. Marketing is such a tough thing to do unless you have a lot of experience with it, I agree with Scott that most of the work I've gotten has been through word of mouth. In the past I've offered discounts for different reasons but I don't think that really impacted whether or not a client returned to do business with me but then again I've never asked. I think as a whole the Arch Viz industry does an OK job with points 1 & 2 on Greg's list, the last one is tricky for those of us not blessed with the gift of gab.

[gregjenkins]

Companies like Neoscape, dBox, Squint Opera, MIR, etc all have the distinct advantage in being able to hand pick clients. However, for a lot of us in this industry we either work for ourselves or work for someone who doesn't have that luxury. Maybe most of us are tying to cultivate that culture of the bigger companies were we can be a lot more selective and creative with clients, but it takes a lot sorting and figuring out before you can get to that. I'm sure all of those aforementioned companies had to deal with quite a few turds back in their start up days.

 

Low cost and faster turnarounds, yet wanting the world for a render, is pretty much standard these days. The other thing that is a struggle in the architecture industry is the fact that many times, a client won't have cash on had to pay upfront. Then, once they do have the render, they can't resell it. Sure, they can recoup cost by selling the building/house/condo/etc but they fail to see it that way. So the fact that they don't have upfront investment capitol and can't resell the product you provide, they tend to want things done for the cheap.

 

I got almost 80% of my freelance work not through a website or social media (though it doesn't hurt to use those venues), but through good old fashioned human networking. I volunteered with Habitat for Humanity and always made sure I had a few business cards on hand. I did other community work and outreach programs where I met most of my client base. The advantage of this is that you get to know the person on an outside the workplace level, and they are 100% easier to work with and deal with when it comes to payments and the inevitable change order.

 

The other 20% were people whom I will never be back in contact with. In my humble, and probably cynical opinion, screw giving these people a break. Screw the discounts. Many clients already want you to to work 7 days a week and basically for free, they don't need more discounts. Forget about the freebie renderings too. That costs time and overhead that are better spent on paying projects. Most of us can't afford these extra costs when trying to woo a client. You can't take the Coca-Cola or McDonald's advertising model and apply it to a small firm or even architecture for that matter.

 

If I do that (giving a massive discount or something of value just because someone hit like), my cost for the client is going to increase or else I'll be operating in the red and that's not the best business model.

 

Watch this video, I'm sure most of us will get a chuckle out of it.

 

 

 

Haha, man that was a great video.

 

Personal relationships and connecting with your clients is hands down the best way to do business. If somebody likes you personally, the chances of doing business is high.

 

I think it is important to connect the same way you do with your habitat for humanity clients as the ones who come to you through other sources.

[gregjenkins]

I love that video, it's exactly the kind of relationship most Freelancer and small business people have to put up with from clients. Marketing is such a tough thing to do unless you have a lot of experience with it, I agree with Scott that most of the work I've gotten has been through word of mouth. In the past I've offered discounts for different reasons but I don't think that really impacted whether or not a client returned to do business with me but then again I've never asked. I think as a whole the Arch Viz industry does an OK job with points 1 & 2 on Greg's list, the last one is tricky for those of us not blessed with the gift of gab.

 

What are the three biggest problems you face when dealing with or getting new clients?

[gregjenkins]

What are your guys thoughts on the ideas posted above?

[Scott Schroeder]

What are the three biggest problems you face when dealing with or getting new clients?

 

Money, Money, Money. Did I mention money?

 

Seriously though, the 3 big ones for me are always money, time, and scope. Most new clients want the world for cheap and faster than a pizza delivery company.

 

Money, that's always going to be an issue so it's just part of this business really. You learn to negotiate and if they still don't want to work with you, then walk away. There is no reason to take a job for well under what you deserve.

 

Time, many clients don't understand about render time and it's impact. Yes, that billboard size image you want can be done but it takes time to render. Yes, moving that lamp is a 20 second fix. However, it's a 2 hour render time.

 

Scope, not fully understanding what they even want to see or be done. So, given an entire master plan community or skyscraper or what have you, they can't tell you where to begin. So you are left to pick and chose and model things that they decide on later to never show. That is a waste of your time and your budget. Scope loops back into time and money as well. Or they will try to give you a SketchUp model that their cousin's brother's nephew modeled and say, "But, we already have it modeled for you, just use that one."

[Nic H]

Well tbh I don't really see the point of us doing those long schmick, slick, overproduced self big upping marketing videos. I think in general they and the one you posted are pretty awful and would turn away clients - however - maybe it would work in the US market ? I certainly don't think that would hold any kind of sway in the UK or Australia.

 

Im also not impressed with the examples you give as good tbh..they all look the same and that haririiririr site is bloody tedious. I see no *brand* or more importantly creative intent here beyond a gallery of nice photos? boring - i still dont get what they do different - is it bland contemporary architecture? If it looks like it then it is...maybe I'm missing the point.

 

http://www.haririandhariri.com/

http://www.aedas.com/

http://shl.dk/eng/

 

 

I do think websites are important if you want to delineate yourself from the hoardes and they give you a chance to present the kind of work you want to do rather than doing what the client thinks you can do. This gap can be hard to breach - the amount of people (that pay bills) that think we do just a few renders are in the majority (changing fast though)

 

There are so many bleak gallery type sites out there that just don't cut it as anything more than a folio site. I personally rarely go to specific studios websites unless Im directed there via vimeo / twitter / cg architect etc.

 

Word of mouth is perhaps to me the most important thing besides quality and niche of work. I think every job Iv ever had has been a personal referral from someone or a chat that led to more. In fact I started working at squint/opera UK after someone sent me a message on here years and years ago when I moved to London!

 

A lot of new work is also personal connections here - it doesnt always come down to price - I find its more about taking a lead, posing questions, being responsive, showing them the process and similar work and then trying to manipulate/mould it into something that you also find interesting or something you have wanted to try for a while than showing them an image and saying 'i can do ur render mate - no worries its c00L'

 

I see a lot of studios have vimeo and twitter now which I especially like as it delivers a feed of their best work / ideas straight to you and allows a modicum of networking. Not sure how that gets you extra work though as Im not sure developers and marketing managers and the ilk spend time trawling the internet for work?

 

Most difficult thing in my mind at the moment is convincing people to do unorthodox imagery / film. People are so used to the bland status quo of architectural visualization any departure from that norm is seen as 'weird' or 'radical' When in fact its not at all. Advertisments for chicken noodles are more radical.

 

Just positioning yourself in a different area than the typical arch vis studio would help. I hate the word 'arch vis' - it's a term invented by architecture studios in the late 90's to describe their in house 3D drones. It's an unhelpful toxic description that undermines what you can actually do.

[Justin Hunt]

I pretty much agree with Nic, the hardest part is convincing clients to step away from the same old, same old. This also holds true working in-house as well. It's taken years (yes years) to convince the bosses to stop recommending the traditional and horrendous one path walkthoughs. Now that we have them convinced its onto our clients.

 

Some of my best clients are those I have built a relationship with, I have proven that I do know what I am talking about and can deliver. My biggest difficulty personally is approaching new potential clients. Any tips on that would be most helpful.

 

jhv