Weshalb orientieren sich die meisten Marketingstrategien von Architekturbüros an ihren Mitbewerbern, statt sich an potenzielle Kunden zu richten? David Basulto (archdaily.com) stellt die Frage in seinem aktuellen Blogbeitrag.

Unnötige Berührungsängste
Viele Architekten haben Berührungsängste mit Marketing insbesondere auch, weil sie den Begriff zu stark einschränken oder meinen, sie müssten sich “verdrehen” um Marketing zu betreiben. Das Gegenteil ist jedoch der Fall. Marketing und Kommunikationsmassnahmen sind die Mittel, dem Kunden die eigene Arbeit, das eigene Verständnis von Architektur näherzubringen. Dazu muss man jedoch auch in einer Sprache kommunizieren, die nicht nur Architekten, sondern auch die potenziellen Kunden verstehen.

Hier ein paar Kommentare:

• rupertKensington says:
  I most certainly agree. If you’re talking about the studio at a university, we’re talking about competition at every level between your peers, the only ‘focus group’ being your studio-mates. This is certainly becoming an important aspect of upper level studio courses, and criticized/worked on just the same as the drawings for the project in some cases. Also, in this age, graphics/diagrams are publicized as much as renderings and photographs in presenting a project(BIG/OMA/etc..)The information age is at hand, and the architecture of graphics themselves is now crucial in rationalizing/conveying architectural strategies, unfortunately mostly to each other it seems!

• Andrew says:
  The reason is because most architects don’t feel like they want to position themselves purely as a service-provider, and I feel like that’s a position that’s not undesirable. Architecture encompasses the design of buildings in multiple contexts. There are those who are concerned with the art of building and constructing buildings. Others are concerned with engaging in the creation of beautiful objects. Others are concerned socially or environmentally. And some are concerned with only engaging a philosophical dialog through which architecture is the mediating material.
  But concerning marketing more specifically, it’s tough because we don’t deliver finished products to then be marketed and sold to the public, but rather we set off on creative endeavors that incorporate client/patron input from the outset. When it comes to basic aesthetics we don’t benefit from the position of objective expertise that say a doctor or lawyer would. As a result, we have to negotiate a thin line between client involvement and desires and our own aesthetic values.
  In that respect, that’s why I don’t think we can base marketing purely on the desires of a client. I think a lot of us as designers wouldn’t evaluate our success solely on the happiness of the client.

• Paul Lee says:
  This is so true. The time has come for architects to “get real” If architecture fails to engage people then it fails as architecture. The public are no longer intimidated by architecture as something they could not possibly understand or appreciate. Having said this, the pendulum has swung so far that unfortunately clients often don’t respect the huge work it takes to create something of value. Still, architects need to work hard to regain a healthy respect for their profession. (I’m an architect by the way..)

• Thiefsie says:
  We don’t market only to peers… (well at least my company doesn’t) – we just don’t widely publicise to our peers that we don’t! haha
  Fear of being labeled as ‘selling-out’ stops this, but often peers don’t drive the money… That is the fine line we walk!