Single Serves ep. 306 - Chodikoff on the Image

How can architects, and other professionals, project a positive, effective image that gets them hired?

This is the question that Ian Chodikoff attempted to answer in this interview.

Ian is an architect, editor, curator and design strategist experienced in research, programming, marketing, business development and strategy. He has led communications teams and projects that include learning platforms, exhibitions, publishing, workshops and events.

He has consulted with municipalities, real estate developers, and cultural organizations. He has also led a national architectural association in which he remains a Fellow, directed a monthly architecture publication, led conference programming and currently plays a leadership role for a dynamic interdisciplinary architecture and urban planning firm.

 

About the podcast: Single Serves is a podcast where we interview experts on single issues of interest to architects and designers. The thought-provoking ideas shared here are intended to inspire our listeners to become well-rounded entrepreneurs who are the leaders of their field.

Credits: ©2022 Produced by Révélateur Studio & edited by Chris Rodd

 

Interview transcript (edited for brevity and clarity):

RVLTR: So can you start by telling us who you are and what you do in your own words in three sentences or less?

Ian Chodikoff (IC): Sure. I'll give it my best shot. I like to think of myself as a synthesizer of ideas within the design profession. I like to think of myself as someone who can speak the different languages spoken by, let's say an engineer versus an architect versus interior designer. And, what I do is develop and consolidate strategy for communication, business development and marketing for firms

RVLTR: That's pretty clear and succint. So the conversation for today, we're going to talk about the image in architecture, when you use the word image in the context of architecture, what do you mean?

IC: That's a very, very good question. And I think it's it's one of those questions that are not always easily answered by firms that seek to project their image. What is it, what is their image to the world? Kevin Lynch came up with this term. He was an urban planner in the sixties that talked about the "imageability" of cities. It's not, you know, technically a word, but it really, if you're to close your eyes or walk away when someone says, you know, firm X, what do you think of them? What is their reputation? What is their level of cultural acumen? How good a designer they are, how good are they with engaging community? And so when I talk about the image in the context of architecture, you know, what is it whether it's a building or really a design practice, what is the image that the public sees when they hear or see their work?

RVLTR: So if we go back to the idea "imageability" from Kevin Lynch, is that what he meant by that? Is that just a neologism used to describe what you just talked about?

IC: Well, I mean it's been a little while, I don't know the exact words, but, for him the city has an identity. You know, cities are in competition with each other Los Angeles versus San Francisco, you know, Paris versus Lyon or Frankfurt versus London. It's pretty clear about the "imageability" of that city. What is that? What does, when someone thinks of Copenhagen, they think of bike lanes, there's an image, that's the imageability of the city. That's the identity of, that kind of ecosystem. He was referencing it in much broader terms. Then when I talk about the image, it's really: is that firm a corporate firm, or is it a boutique firm? Is that firm, really amazing at very tactile design solutions or is that firm really about allowing its users to co-opt its design over time, like a public building would be an example the building that could be co-opted by the users over time. And, and so that's the imageability of that building could be messier gritty, or it could be, you know, sultry and smooth as some new boutique shop in Yorkville.

RVLTR: And so why is the image so critical for architecture firms?

IC: I think it's critical from a competition analysis or marketability of that firm, to know, okay, like "Arnaud's Firm" tackles these kinds of design problems and we see the results that he achieves. And so I think that's useful. So if one was to say "I have a really tough design problem that I need Arnaud to resolve". I know how he would go about doing it. And I think it's not quite the same as saying what style a firm has, because that's a whole other discussion. Especially on interiors or certain types of bespoke housing, we know the kind of hand that goes into designing a particular kind of house, but I think that the image is a more of a broader idea that encompasses the tactics and strategies of how a design firm solves the design problem.

RVLTR: So, it sounds like it almost has more to do with, while being a bit different from, but still being very much linked to the firm's positioning and how they portray themselves to the world as to what their expertise and specialty is.

IC: I think so, I mean for all intents and purposes, whether you choose your firm or my firm, both of our design team will make sure the roof doesn't leak

RVLTR: Generally speaking. Yeah.

IC: Generally speaking, but yeah, we're both gonna be competent. We'll both get the job done. So what's gonna make the difference between the client perceived value about your firm versus our firm who obviously you might charge more than me or vice versa. Maybe that might have a factor, but I think when it comes down to it, it's really : can you do something understated? Can you do something that changes over time? Can you do something that's much more environmentally motivated for a post-carbon future? Can you design a building that engages the entire stakeholder community, if it's a sensitive community center in Toronto, so certain firms have that knack to resolve these types of problems and certain firms are better doing a gorgeous home up in Muskoka. And that's an image of that firm.

RVLTR: Yeah. And I think it touches on what I've been yelling about on rooftops for years that most firms really don't have a clear, differentiated image if we use your term in the public's eye. And that's why most firms have to compete on price because they're not differentiated enough. They don't have enough of an image that distinguishes them from the competition to be able to charge what they want or need to charge. Does that, does that ring a bell to you?

IC: Absolutely. You know, and as you're saying that, you know, I could hear a lot of principals and firms going well. We've been trying to get that public library for many years. If we got, if we got that public library, people would really understand how we're gonna design for a for a community in Malvern or a community in Scarborough or something.

IC: But you know, there are many other things firms can do to add value to their image. And that is maybe get involved with certain boards, do certain charity work. Have some exposure to helping a community set up a garden or a farmer's market. These may not be specifically project-related, but it sets out a precedent for the kind of philosophy that the firm engenders, when you start to look on websites and something, we do all the time. It's like, how are the people conveyed? Are the staff pictures even there? Or do they have a very artificial photo of a staff member holding up a mountain bike? Another one holds up a golden doodle and it's supposed to be like a very work life balance kind of joint. Is that really value for recruitment? Do, do young hires believe in that? Do clients appreciate that? Maybe, maybe not, but you know, some firms you can see that posit themselves as urban minded firms, seeing them out there helping communities is really a golden ticket. And it's a way to project your image without necessarily having that public library under your belt that you're striving to build, a lot of young firms try and get out of that. It's hard to get out of that realm just because of procurement and RFPs and interview process, and maybe the bench strength of your firm. It might be small. And so the client's not gonna take a chance on you and maybe the market currently is very busy, but it's still risk adverse. So what can you do to enhance your image without necessarily waiting for you that moment when you get that gorgeous community library?

RVLTR: Yeah. Or do speculative projects or or there's so many ways that are more, more inspired by, by Guerilla marketing that firms can put themselves on the map. I think the speculative project still works because a client of mine have done has done a few of those in the last couple of years. And every time it's gotten them in the globe mail and a bunch of other outlets, so it may not get them that, that that big project they're looking at, but it certainly puts them on the map. And I know for a fact, I'm pretty sure that they've gotten work as a result of that exposure, even if it's not the work they were presenting to the world. Yeah. So there are ways to kind of bypass the traditional, oh, I gotta fill out RFPs till the cow comes home and hoping I get this job to, to kind of get ahead of the competition. I think it's the firms that are smarter about that and the ones that are kind of do it intuitively they don't have to be told. So I, yeah, you, you're absolutely right. There's a very kind of community almost intuitive way of putting yourself on the map and then there's following everybody else's lead. And I think, following everybody, else's lead is the wrong way to do it because then you're competing with a whole bunch of firms that are trying to do exactly what you're doing.

IC: And this is a very good point. Our firm we do we obviously do a lot of real work. It keeps people very busy and, but some of the work we do takes time to bake takes time to finish. And we feel that we take that thought leadership and trying to distill it down to those speculative projects, because they help engender a discourse. And you're right. We find that when it gets out there and people appreciate it, it helps with the discussion about architecture and design in the city that more than just a transactional basis. And it also certainly is able for people like our team to flex their thought leadership muscle on issues of affordability of equity in the city of technical innovation. So there's a lot of facets to speculative work that will help you leverage the knowledge that you've been gaining, even if there's not a project that will necessarily distill and manifest it, certainly the speculative work can achieve that.

RVLTR: So in your mind, is there a way to kind of classify or define the different kinds of images that a firm projects, or even images of projects themselves? Do you have like kind of a way to sort that out in your mind?

IC: Yeah, I do. You know, I think one of the interesting things about our firm, very smart about developing these research committees or research engines.

RVLTR: So what are the, those?

IC: Those would be, I mean, for us there's issues of housing, the thinking about the post-carbon future, environmental sustainability, there's also, we have a strong committee that helps permeate through the work that we do internally and externally, the sort of the justice equity, diversity and inclusion committee and we have biodiversity, but I think how I would break that down is you go, okay, what are the big issues that clients want to resolve these days? And what can we do to help our clients achieve that? And it's not really rocket science, and there's obviously building regenerative design, so sustainability, there's issues of community. So those are the social issues that, that surround your work. And then there's issues of if your firm touches on landscape or on a larger scale, there's the whole, how do you build better ecosystems, or how does the built environment interact with natural environment? So, it's people, environment, material and innovation is a big thing especially for smaller firms. It's wonderful if you're doing a lot of material investigation and you're doing smaller projects that are really trying out new technologies. So I think those are areas that you can kind of hone in on and, and within those headings, you can nurture some bite size thought leadership pieces that will only contribute to your, how your perspective client sees you.

RVLTR: Because you guys put out a lot of thought leadership from what I can tell and I think more so than most, if not all of the firms that you're competing with. How does that impact the firm first in terms of image and then in terms of how much work it gets?

IC: That's a very good question because I was out last night with a friend of mine, who's a principal, at a very large firm here in Toronto and they have offices across north America. You can very easily burn a lot of money in your research. Research is not always the panacea for achieving work. We all recognize that, our firm recognizes it. His recognizes it. You have to be careful when you plow that investment into research, because it could be more expensive than going after bad RFPs. You also don't want to subsidize, you don't want to give stuff away for free. You don't want to say "You know, Madam developer, look at this fabulous thought leadership we have, we can save you some money" and they take it, thank you very much and go to a firm that's cheaper and doesn't do research. So you have to watch that input and how it comes back to the firm. I think for us one thing it does right away is improves morale and gets people motivated and excited about the work that we do. That's certainly a huge direct benefit. Another benefit is it helps with gaining trust. So I think in some ways it's almost not what the work does, but how is the work received? When a client looks: "We may not see a direct value in that research you did Mr. Chodikoff, but we love the firm. You guys are obviously full of a lot of gearheads and visionaries. We want to hire you."

RVLTR: So you've been in the industry for some time now, how have things changed or evolved over the past 20 years and specifically in terms the image and how people market themselves?

IC: That's a good question. Sometimes, I wonder how I managed to be in this industry for so long. I think it's changed in the sense that nothing is to be taken for granted. When I started in the industry, we were in a recession, it was hard for folks like my age to even get work. It was it was a struggle. And then the economy picked up and turned around, but as I was coming out of school, a lot of firms really took a devastating hit in the late nineties with the economy or especially firms that put all their money in one market, maybe that has changed for a variety of reasons, but it used to be, you know, a firm would only be doing social housing, a firm would only be doing condos or retail. So I think firms are much more capable of diversifying even at all scales. The larger firms obviously in the last 20 years, there's been a huge amount of consolidation. In order to harvest the market or harvest sectors within the market, firms like dialogue and Cannon and Perkins + Will and others have to buy up other firms so that ythey can say they did a library in the last six months, a hospital in the last year at a certain scale or size. And that competition for those kinds of projects are has certainly increased. And so firms needed to buy up one another and merge. That's something that's interesting because in doing so they're hedging their bets, both in markets and in sectors. Another thing I think that is the smaller firms are much more capable of finding more interesting collaborative work because the the nature of networking has been facilitated. You can collaborate with someone in Europe, much more easily than you could 20 years ago. The internet allows you to find like-minded people more quickly. Always technology. I believe it's not the technology, it's the people that technology brings together. And I think that has enabled new things to happen. And I think the gap between manufacturing and design is narrowed and has allowed smaller design firms to do furniture, lamps, or other specialty equipment in a building that may not have been so tenable 20 years ago, but with different methods of manufacturing and collaboration that's now more readily achievable.

RVLTR: So how would your variety of experiences from architect and urban planner to event organizer and magazine editor shaped your opinion on architecture marketing?

IC: Well, at times it may have made me more cynical, but I shouldn't be saying that. In all seriousness it's allowed me to really meet the diversity of practitioners that are out there. It's really quite extraordinary, the energy and the imagination that happens at all generations of designer, all backgrounds of designers. Certainly my career showed me that all bets are off, you know? I don't know why Virgil Abloh comes into mind where he was trained as an architect and then became a fashion designer. And I don't know if he would be the iconic image of how the profession has changed, but the culture of architecture and design is blurred. Architects have always taken influence from so many other creative pursuits, whether it's the visual arts film or music, but it seems that that kind of academic influence has now become realistic influence in the way people practice. So through my exposure to this range and I've been blessed by meeting architects from all over the world and all backgrounds or most of the backgrounds, and you can't say all backgrounds, but certainly under, you know minorities underrepresented architects, architects of colour, indigenous architects, women... Seeing the leadership capacities change about what is leadership in the profession too has given me a lot of food for thought and a lot of excitement because when I started it really, it was much more of a narrow focus about what it means to be the star architect, the master builder, the generalist, that kind of verbiage doesn't seem to apply anymore. It seems to be much more entrepreneurial and socially motivated. And that is very exciting to me.

RVLTR: I can see that because when I started school by 20 years ago, architecture school, that is you know, the big names were still the the Frank Gehrys and Rem Koolhaases and Tom Maynes of the world. That was the kind of aspiration. I think - I have no actual evidence of that - but based on what I see around the industry, it seems like this has waned a little bit and there's more of a diversity, it's almost like the internet has democratized design in a way where you don't have to be superstar architect to gain traction. If you have a decent project or cool idea, the internet might give you a break and push you to the forefront. It requires an incredible amount of luck too, because good work is not the only parameter that needs to be fulfilled. But I think there's more of a democratization of access to the public as an architect than there ever was.

IC: You're bringing up some interesting points and I don't profess to have all the answers, but you know, it used to be, if you were published in a particular magazine print, if you had a monograph print, maybe you had an exhibition in real life, maybe you made it to the serpentine gallery as a designer, the Venice Biennale, there were certain points that would be on your bucket list to become your superstar architect. And some of those are still very important and still remain in effect, I guess they all do to some degree, but you can do a lot to circumvent that if you don't make it, if you don't think you'll make it. Of course, the challenge is, you can get a lot of "B+" architects out there, meaning the ones that just reside under the so-called "A-level", you can get a lot of B+ maybe even the "B-" ones that aren't even building anything, but they can put on a hell of a show on their landing page, but what have they done for the society lately. They have some ideas, but it's not realized, there's no real clients, they haven't really been tested by builders. So, you know, it's like so many other things in the last 20 years with social media on the internet, what is real and what is fake? What is your, is your "imageability" - back to that issue - Is it a big bubble of nothingness or do you have a lot to back it up? And then there are also a lot of people that do amazing work and have very little presence on the web. Sometimes we all look at images now and is that real? Is that a rendering or did that get built? And if it did get built, is it [photographed] on a perfect day when there's no people or no cars or the first day it was opened, but not five years later? Where is the grittiness?

RVLTR: I remember when I was in school, towards the end of my studies, a dozen or so years ago, I spent a lot of time on blogs, like ArchDaily at the time. And then I started realizing that they put a lot of unbuilt projects on there, basically renderings. And after seeing a couple of those first before being built, so as a rendering online and then the project being built later on and being highly disappointed in the finished project, not living up to the expectations of the renderings, I really became skeptical of looking at renderings online, because they're always very sexy obviously. But the reason I'm saying this is because to your point of like maybe B+ or even B- architects can make a splash online, but I think for anyone who knows the industry and has been around long enough it's very easy to see through that, even with beautiful pictures of a finished project. I certainly, and maybe I'm a bit biased because I look at projects day in and day out and I photograph them too, but I can look at pictures of a project, even if I haven't seen it in person and almost instantly gauge the quality of the building itself, like how well detailed it is, how well built it is. So I think if you look at that long enough, you can't really fool anyone. You might fool the general public who doesn't know about architecture and there could be a danger in there because they're the ones who are going to hire you. But I think there's still something to be said about long-term reputation. And if you do too much work that doesn't live up to the expectations for whatever reason, that's gonna catch up to you at some point. You only get so many free passes before your reputation is destroyed. I think that leads us to an interesting point over the reality of social media and its influence on the architecture industry. Can you explain - in your mind - the the myth and realities of social media for the for design firm?

IC: Well, I think this is a tough question again, you know, I don't want tp sound like The Economist. It says: "Well, it depends" but I think these are the discussions we have a lot, both internally and with my colleagues is that the key to a successful design platform is that it has to be consistent. You have to deliver consistent content over your platforms day in and day out, it's a bit of a churn. And with that pressure to be consistent, sometimes you're just throwing a past project, a current project and stuff out, and you're just putting stuff to fill the air. So you shouldn't necessarily be doing that. LinkedIn is different from Instagram, which is different from Twitter and, and all of them have their own characteristics. And I think they all have their own value, Instagram still trends younger, but Instagram is much more effective, I think for firms whose work - I don't wanna say their work is commodified because I don't want to sound patronizing - but if you're doing, sexy interior, sexy retail, you can just take a cool photo of a light. You can take a photo of a handrail. You know, those things work well on Instagram because people kind of get the gist with very small tangible items, the larger ineffable things of public buildings, for example, universities, hospitals you know, community centers, that's harder to convey in an exciting way on Instagram or even on social media, generally. What it does do, Instagram's really good for conveying the culture of a firm. I think that's one aspect too. Obviously again, the small jewel-like projects go very well on social because they're quick and digestible. But cultural things work well, some firms, put a lot of photos of their team on site or maybe their team has these sort of parties or event and those things can work well. And then other platforms are much more effective at conveying policy elements, housing, affordability, sustainability. Those are, those are prime examples of that. So many of my colleagues, they do a presentation, they do a conference, they do a talk. During COVID, you can be doing five conferences in five different cities, one day it's very easy, because you can just do it all virtually and you can project that out onto LinkedIn and your website to kind of prove your chops in terms of a particular facet of the work that you're doing. I think you can achieve some success with that. It is a communication board. It is a mouthpiece. But I guess it's always important to be authentic because sometimes these you're sending out messages and it can be kind of normative. "Well, so what if you're doing geothermal isn't everyone? Well, so what if you achieveLEED Gold?" People used to joke about achieving LEED gold.

RVLTR: I think you can tell me if I'm wrong, but I have a hunch that this is generally true. I think most people and firms alike get on social media without really thinking about what that will do for them, or what's the purpose of getting on social media because let's, let's be frank, we've all been at that point where everybody gets on Instagram and then you feel left out. So you're gonna get on Instagram - and I remember my Instagram started by just posting pictures of food and my new bike and whatever stupid stuff that no one cares about - 12 years ago, like way, way back when it started. But I think when people get more serious about social media and they start spending a lot more time and resources to strategize and curate the content that's gonna be on there, one of the questions that they rarely ask themselves is: "Why should we be on this platform to begin with what is it gonna do for us?" And I think there's a bit of a rat-race happening on social media, especially with Instagram, like the more visual ones because everybody's on there, there's a huge network effect of people thinking: "Oh, if everyone is on there, I need to be on there too." Without really questioning the reason why. And I think that's an issue with a lot of firms' endeavour on social media because, some firms clearly benefit from it and have become masters at it, so there's no question it can be useful, but I think too many firms just do that and they kind of half-ass to do what their friends do, but not really make sure that it serves them. I know this is just an example of one, but I haven't been on social media except for LinkedIn for over two years now and it hasn't affected my bottom line. As a matter of fact, I made more money since I stopped being on social media than I had before. So it's not necessarily really an argument to say: "Well, I have to do it for my marketing." What kind of results do you get out of it is the real question. And if that doesn't serve you, why are you on there? What are your thoughts on that?

IC: I think that's key. I think the website is your basis.

RVLTR: The website is the brochure everyone needs to have. That's kind of a given

IC: When your client goes Googling they're gonna be looking for you - hopefully - on the website and Instagram or any social media platform they all have. I think you have to be clear about what kind of audience are you going after? If you're, if you're a larger firm and you need to recruit people, you need to be on the new young hires' radar, social media is good.

RVLTR: Yeah. I have a friend who's a medium-size, firm design firm principal, and the only reason they have an Instagram account is for recruitment purposes. So they know that. Some people are very clear on that.

IC: You might be involved with the cultural industry and you're involved with museums, there might be an aspect of your work that will tie into other discussions online. And I think that's a fair assessment. Retail would be a good example. It's often very specialized lighting applications and specialized hardware. And linking that to a broader discussion is useful. For ourselves, when we're dealing with transit or with housing, we wanna be part of that larger conversation because we're players in that market and we need to assert ourselves in that online discourse. Whether it's comments online, Twitter and LinkedIn are very helpful, because we're engaging with city planners or municipal bureaucrats who tend not maybe be so visual, they may be more policy oriented. So we wanna be part of that discussion. So whether your discussion is through text or visuals, just understand "What kind of conversation do you wanna be part of?" I think is maybe a good question. Good place to start.

RVLTR: So if you were to do a media campaign to promote a project, if you did it well, you were gonna really think about the kind of publications you want to target and you're gonna write your media kit specifically to target those publications. So I think when it comes to marketing, it has to be the same thing. If you're thinking about getting on social media, if you're not already on there, or even if you're already on there, the real question is: "Is the audience you're targeting on those platforms?" If you're, if you're a high-end or even a mid-range residential designer and all you do is like houses between $2 and $5 million of property value, then you know that your target's probably on Pinterest maybe on things like Houzz, maybe a little bit on Instagram, but so the platforms you're gonna target are different from, if you are a company that does large institutional projects where you probably more likely to target the proper audience on LinkedIn, in trade magazines, places where the property managers or the building managers hang out, things like that. Does that make sense?

IC: Yeah, absolutely. Sometimes we've all been there where your campaign might be to target [only] five people that you might be able to identify by name and you almost wanna know: "Where do they hang out?" You could get very granular and drill down to that level.

RVLTR: And I would say be creative too, because if you know that person X goes to that restaurant every day, maybe the best approach is to go hang out at that restaurant and approach them in person.

IC: Maybe yeah. Or if you want to do cultural buildings go hang out at the art fairs. That's a whole other aspect of marketing. I remember few years ago I was doing some consulting work with a healthcare firm and, you know, I showed up at a healthcare conference. I was the only architect in the room.

RVLTR: How many leads did you get out of this?

IC: I got a couple leads. It was remarkable. I certainly was do not profess to be a healthcare expert, but as an architect, we can translate issues into a visual solution, more readily than someone who's not an architect, that's sort of what we do. And just being there was appreciated because you're in the healthcare profession and you, and you're planning facilities you don't know who to turn to. You don't know what's out there, you don't know where to start.

RVLTR: I think that's a telling example, because an acquaintance of mine is both a licensed architect and an MD and she's been fighting for years to connect the two worlds because her whole thesis is that they're too disconnected and that's why a lot of medical buildings don't work very well. She's probably the only one in the world and maybe one of a handful that has that kind of education. So it speaks a lot to having the ability to zig when everybody else zags and see opportunities where no one else sees them. I think that's a very valuable lesson. Because you've been in this industry and especially looking at marketing for so long, are there some particularly egregious mistakes that you see firms making over and over when they market themselves that you can pinpoint?

IC: Yeah. It's often the case of "on time, on budget." We're hiring you to be on time and on budget you say you're gonna be on time and on budget. It's like to market that you - when someone says "Can we have a three o'clock appointment?" and you're gonna market yourself: "I always show up at my three o'clock appointments", it's not great. And you can do better than that. There's a lot of the stating of the obvious. And I think people pick up on a lot of the jargon and so you're afraid not to use it. Again, you don't wanna be the outlier and a lot of firms have that attitude. The idea of a multidisciplinary, transdisciplinary, pluri-disciplinary firm yeah, that's useful. But by nature if we don't have that expertise in house, then we work with them through our consultant base. So I find that a little bit of a weak statement.

RVLTR: I've written a few of those very generic paragraphs that basically summarize 90% of what the architecture firms say on their website: We're a full service, multidisciplinary, diverse group of architects who designs buildings. I mean, this is a gross exaggeration, but those kinds of things don't stand out because everybody else is saying them. So I think it's very important to remember.

IC: That's a hard thing. I don't blame partners or leadership for being afraid to drop it.

RVLTR: Why not?

IC: Well, because I'm not, I'm being kind, but you're competing at brinkmanship. You feel like: "Oh, if I take my hand off the button and say: 'I'm not multidisciplinary', people are gonna think I'm not multidisciplinary, and they're gonna go to the next guy."

RVLTR: Clients probably don't even know what that means. Do they?

IC: Some do and some awesome clients are pretty sophisticated, hey can always hire a couple other people, you know, they don't need to [hire us] but for smaller projects, it's useful to have certain in-house services depending on what it is. SvN is very unique in that we're a pretty intensive planning operation and we are an architecture firm. There are not too many firms that can say that so we can stick handle difficult projects through the approvals process and get them built with a higher degree of confidence than our competition, because they don't have that multidisciplinary component. And I think it's an achievement. So I think it's a bona fide statement to say that we are a multidisciplinary firm. That being said, I just think that the term or that direction can sometimes lead to a client [that] may not be able to distinguish our multidisciplinary firm next to the other multidisciplinary firm. So we have to take [the] next steps to really clarify that for our client. And we do do that through other means that try and leverage our tactical muscle.

RVLTR: I think it's important to say that being multidisciplinary is not a bad thing at all, if anything, it's an asset, but when everybody else is trying to claim that as their superpower, then it's not a superpower anymore. You'll have to present yourself in a different way that may still touch on the fact that you're multidisciplinary or transdisciplinary, but also presents you portrays you as different from the competition. I think that's the key. It's just not the first thing necessarily you should put on your website because - and I've done that exercise where you go look at a few dozen websites, if not hundreds, and I know people who've done that with thousands of architecture websites, I don't know how they've had the patience to do that - But if you did that and look the keywords, you quickly start seeing the ones that repeats themselves all the time, multidisciplinary, diverse, whatever. I think it's just not the first thing clients should see, because if you're gonna look at 10 architects who do what you do, and they see the same thing on all the landing pages, then say in their mind: "I can't tell them apart". And so the best way to tell them apart is on price. So the cheaper one will always get the job. It always comes down to that. So it's not necessarily that you don't want to be those things it's that you just want to present yourself in a different way that makes you stand out as unique. And I've talked a lot to advertising people, especially on this podcast, because I think there's a lot of really good lessons about marketing to be learned from advertising. And most advertising is total shit. 90% of it. And there's a number of reasons for that. But occasionally you'll see a very creative ad come out and usually they're funny or quirky or some variation thereof or some of them can be like really emotional., hat works too, like tear-jerkers almost. But the ones that are effective at keeping brand X on top of your mind are the ones that stand out one way or another. And they're usually also very effective commercially. One of the best examples is the Snickers campaign. They ran a few years ago: "You're not you when you're hungry". And I think the first one of that series were people playing rugby. And then all of a sudden, one of them gets knocked to the ground and turns into a famous old actress that just died this last year. She was already old at the time. And then she eats the Snickers and then turns back into this young, healthy, energetic man.

IC: Betty White?

RVLTR: Betty White that's right.

IC: Bless her.

RVLTR: And, and those were great. I hate Snickers. I would never buy one of those, but the fact that I remember it and the reality is that it also increased their bottom line. They sold more Snickers after those campaigns than they ever had before. So I think there's a true value commercially in standing out. It's just that too many people are afraid of it.

IC: It's hard. because it's you want to build trust with the client. The work we do is [challenging], we have to embed ourselves with the clients [who are] taking a chance on us. If they're building their own home, it's probably the most expensive thing they've ever done in their lives. If it's an institution it could have huge effects on fundraising. So that's a lot on the line. I think it's very easy to kind of drop some of the humour and be very serious and trust -ased. But to your point, to stand out you have to present your differentiator. I mean, candy bars are sort of hard to present your differentiator. In architecture, we're a multidisciplinary firm which SvN is. How do you project that don't sound like it's cliche or platitude? How do you build trust without conveying arrogance? That's another thing. I know anecdotally, I've been on a lot selection committees and juries over a number of years. Sometimes when the architect comes in and sits at the edge of the table after he has given his talk in front of the board, casually sitting there going: "You know, Arnaud, we'll build your student residence. We'll build it on time and on budget, We've got a multidisciplinary office, we'll do a great job". The client might get scared because it's almost arrogant because it's kind of like: "were you not even listening to us?" Versus: "I've heard that [for] that particular project, it went to another firm and I know the client said: 'We chose this other firm because they came to us.' We actually don't know what we're gonna do. Because we haven't talked to anybody. We haven't talked to the community, we haven't talked to the students. We haven't fully fleshed [it] out with you. We don't know, but we're set up to listen. We're set up to go through the process. And we're pretty confident that when we go through that process, we'll come up with, with a solution that will benefit everyone." It turns the conversation around. Not trying to toot our own horn too much, I know SvN kind of touts itself as "listen first". It's a big thing for the firm, big tenet. It could sound kind of cheesy, but it's important. Because if you are arrogant, that's a trust-breaker. That's not good, no one likes an arrogant person on the first date, no one likes to hire an architect who's arrogant. Architects are arrogant enough as they are. That trust is important. If you eat that Snickers bar, you'll remember who you are all along. So if you're an architect that listens first maybe your client will feel like, you know that you will see them for who they are.

RVLTR: That's a very good point. It's not actually not that hard once you learn how to do it properly to ask questions and just listen, because all you gotta do is ask, you can learn everything about a potential client by asking four or five, maybe six questions. That's all you need to do. And then the conversation will go from there, but that's all you need to start with. And that reveals so much more about your clients, which gives you the knowledge as a service provider. You need to be able to offer a solution that suits them. Obviously there's a lot more that goes into designing buildings for clients, but as a starter conversation, that's really all you need. And I think in the industry it would be beneficial if people said things about themselves less and demonstrated it [their expertise] more in their actions. Instead of saying you're multidisciplinary, maybe it's time to think about how you can show that to your clients, through your actions. So instead of sending the principal architect to a meeting with the clients, maybe you send a team of people and that could include the architect, but to [also] show that actually it's important for that portion of the team to be there because they need to know about the client too, or they can't design a building otherwise. And that's just a silly example. Maybe that's not the right way to do it, but just to think about how to do things differently, that will make you appear as if you're not just trying to get a job, but you genuinely care about doing good work for that client. And that will come with fees and profit and whatever. Obviously everybody needs that. But more listening. I certainly think that would be a great asset to a great many firms.

IC: I think that that's a really important part. Makes me think of some of these firms where on their website, it's really just the two partners and everyone else.

RVLTR: Yeah.

IC: And you go: "Is that partner gonna be answering my call or email at 10 o'clock at night when I'm worried about something, and I trust that partner that's looking all glam to answer my calls or do I wanna know that there's a whole team that's gonna back me up?" Trying to build off what you're saying, you wanna project a sense that there's not just one person, there could be dozens that can back you up and having that teamwork, having that relationship. That's a strong selling feature. I think a lot of firms miss that opportunity to project that dialogue that you engage with when you hire an architect,

RVLTR: There's never just one person. And sometimes the person who claims to be behind the masterpiece is not even doing any work, they're just basically lending their name to it. So yeah, it's a very good point.

IC: I always remember once: it was a very, very large public building and I was on the selection committee. I was consulting. They paid along the way and we had a series of interviews and one architect firm, very high profile didn't get the job because the principal was saying: "You know, I'm working on this big project, I'm working on that project, I'm handling this, I'm flying out there." And the client was like: "Well who are we gonna call? Are you gonna handle our project? And what other projects are you working on?" And he's like: 'Oh, I'm handling them all. They're all under my charge. Don't worry." And we're scratching our heads going: "Well, that's just not possible. There's not enough hours in the day" Versus the teams that did better would bring in the principal and the more junior staff, they're all in the room, they're all going for the interview. And it's like, woo, we've got a team here. That's a strong selling feature. We've got a team. We just hired this new landscape architect. We're not even an architecture firm, but we've got a landscape architect. When you walk in and go: "You hire us, we just picked up this amazing woman. She just came out of this program. She's doing all this award-winning stuff, we're so glad to have her on the team. She's got a couple years experience. Boy, she's a good designer, but worry not, I've got you and I can handle it. So you have the range and the client would sit there and go: "My god".

RVLTR: What if something happens to the principal even if they just get the flu for two weeks? Is the project stopping? It's important to think about. I think we've covered most of the questions I had for you. The last one I have is if you had one piece of advice for any architecture firm regarding how they market themselves, what would it be?

IC: First, be authentic, really sell how you solve a problem. When a client is gonna hire you, whether you're going for your first job or whether you're going for a major airport, when it comes down to the wire, if both your firm and my firm, Arnaud, we both did these great airports. You know, yours might have been in Paris. Mine might have been in Berlin, but when it comes down to it, what's our team and what's our people? So I think really selling the people behind every design. I think that's, that's the greatest asset you can go with.

RVLTR: That's a great piece of advice. And I would add to that, think of every touch point with your potential client as an opportunity to sell. Even if you're not saying anything, but just by the way you act. Things as simple as showing up a few minutes early, whatever the case maybe, there's so many things you can do. That's a thing that a lot of people tend to forget and I have forgotten it in the past too, but I think ultimately people judge you by all those micro touch points that happen throughout the interaction. And when you work on a project that lasts for years you don't necessarily have to maintain the perfect standard because nobody's perfect. But it has to be at a certain level throughout. There's also the fact that as projects get longer and longer, you have to work harder to maintain the same level of trust. Because trust tends to wane a bit over time. So if you don't work extra hard to maintain that trust that's that could bite you in the ass.

IC: That's a good point. And it's consistency.

New Speaker:

RVLTR: That's a perfect way to summarize it. Consistency. This was a great conversation. We went in many different directions, but all kind of somewhat relevant to the topic of the image. So I want to thank you very much for giving some of your time to this podcast. And I look forward to the next conversation.

IC: Arnaud, I appreciate it. I appreciate your authenticity. I appreciate your consistency and your, your reliability.

RVLTR: You're very welcome.