How should an architecture studio decide which potential clients to target?

When I first start looking at new business with a studio, one of the things I am usually less interested in is how many companies they have in their database.

A list of 2,000 potential clients can look impressive, but if nobody can explain why company number 734 is on it, it isn't really a strategy. It is just data.

This matters particularly in architecture and design because, technically, an enormous number of organisations could need what a studio does. A practice wanting more developer work could quite easily build a database containing hundreds or thousands of property companies. That doesn't mean all of those businesses are equally relevant to the practice, and it certainly doesn't mean the founders should spend their limited business-development time trying to know all of them.

I would rather begin somewhere else: what does the studio actually want more of, and where does it have a credible reason to win it?

“We want to work with more developers” is only the beginning

The more useful conversation is usually underneath that statement.

What kind of developer? What kind of project? At what scale? In which markets? What is happening in those organisations that makes the studio's experience relevant? What does the practice want its future portfolio to look like, and what kind of client relationship does it actually enjoy?

There can also be commercial considerations that have very little to do with the photographs that eventually appear on the website. A studio may want more repeat work, better margins, fewer competitions, longer-term client relationships or projects that allow a particular part of the team to grow.

Those choices should influence who the practice pursues.

Keeping the definition broad can feel safer because nobody wants to exclude a future opportunity, but focus doesn't mean refusing work outside the strategy. It means knowing where you are going to spend your proactive time.

There is an important difference between those two things.

I look for an overlap between ambition, evidence and market need

The studio needs to want the work, but desire on its own isn't enough.

There also needs to be a credible reason the organisation on the other side should care.

This is where existing experience becomes particularly useful. Which projects have gone well and why? Where has the studio solved something difficult? Which clients have returned? What did those clients actually value? Where does the practice understand a problem unusually well because it has encountered it repeatedly?

Architects naturally talk about projects through design, but clients don't necessarily experience the value of the practice in exactly the same way.

A project might reveal expertise in navigating a difficult planning condition, working within an operational environment, unlocking a complicated site, handling an unusually constrained brief or bringing together stakeholders who wanted different things. Those experiences can become very relevant when you start looking for organisations facing similar situations.

This is where positioning and targeting begin to meet.

You aren't simply asking, “Who buys architecture?”

You're asking, “Where is what we know particularly useful?”

Then the target market becomes much smaller and much more interesting

Once that becomes clearer, building the target universe starts to have real value.

Rather than collecting every company that matches an industry label, you can begin identifying organisations with characteristics that make them genuinely relevant.

Some will already know the practice. Some may be connected to existing clients or consultants. Some will be completely new. Some may be strategically important despite having no immediate opportunity.

Then you can start understanding them rather than simply counting them.

Who are the relevant people? What does the organisation care about? What has it been doing? Where does the studio's experience intersect with its world? Is there an existing relationship? Is there a sensible route in?

This is why I don't particularly like the idea of treating a target list as something completed once and then handed over to whoever is responsible for business development.

A good target universe should keep changing

Companies move in and out of relevance.

People change jobs. Businesses expand, restructure and enter new markets. A studio develops new expertise. An existing relationship becomes stronger. A market that looked exciting six months ago becomes less attractive.

The target universe should therefore learn with the practice.

There is also a difference between fit and priority that I think is incredibly important.

A company can be an excellent long-term fit for the studio while having very little reason to receive attention today. Another organisation may suddenly become much more relevant because something has changed around the business or the people inside it.

That doesn't remove the need for judgement. In fact, it makes judgement more important.

The system can help surface what is changing. Somebody still needs to decide whether it actually matters.

More companies don't necessarily create more opportunity

There is something reassuring about a very large database because it gives the impression that the market is enormous.

For most founder-led architecture and design studios, however, time is the scarce resource, not names.

I would rather see a practice understand a smaller universe properly. Know why each organisation matters, who the people are, where a relationship already exists, what makes the studio relevant and where there is a sensible reason to invest more attention.

The purpose of targeting isn't to find everybody who could theoretically buy from you.

It is to make a deliberate choice about who is worth getting closer to.

That is a much more useful starting point for a relationship.

By Richard Hall, Founder & CEO of Grand House.