CompuServe Thread

You have to go were is money is. If the architects don't, What wrong with working with the owners. I did a lot of inerior design in my old job and worked only with the owners and found the relationship worked.

>> How do you convince architects or architectural firms that computer generated renderings or animations will help them? << From my experience I have found that it is probably best to market your skill to the client of the architect. I talked to a few architects in San Antonio, TX., and the general consensus was that we (the animators) would pretty much need to convince their clients of what could be done, give a presentation for example, since the client (NOT the architect, as was clearly pointed out) will be the one to pay for this. I too found every architect very impressed with what we had to offer, but they all asked how WE were going to convince THEIR client 🙂 Good luck. James Franssen Imagination Station

you're flogging a dead horse. I did some nice architectural work a couple of years back and went through the same grief WRT trying to sell the work. It just wasn't lucrative. Then I got into games and multimedia and started making a living.

Brandon: /_____________From your message_____________\\ How do you convince architects or architectural firms that computer generated renderings or animations will help them? _______________________________________________ I have to answer this one every day to someone in my firm. Sometimes the answer I give succeeds, most times I get the response you are used to getting which is no response at all. I work for one of the largest architectural firms in the world (I am a licensed architect) and I am in shock that computer animation and rendering services are not exploited and used fully. Reasons which keep me from having more fun: 1. PERCIEVED cost. Architects generally believe that this service costs them more money than it is worth. Architects are totally fearful that a client will not be willing to foot the bill for these additional services. As you have found out, this is hardly the case as owners find animation and computer renderings to be outstanding sales tools and useful in making a building design understandable. I have been on an in-house crusade to change this erroneous perception among those who market our services. 2. PERCEIVED time. Architects assume this stuff takes way too long. In some ways I agree. It is very difficult to animate and render during the early design stages as the desing changes every minute. By the time you've rendered the tall 15 story tower it now sprawls out at only 3 floors, by the time you've rendered the wild metal and glass stair it is now concrete. Depending on the speed and budget of the design phases of an architectural project, computer rendering and animation can be the bottleneck and will be eliminated as a tool if this is the reality. 3. Modelling takes time and may not be necessary. If the old design process did not used to include detailed study models then the current process is not likely to include computer models. In other words, if you design in 2D you don't need 3D. If you can show that computer modelling can effectively replace the study models of old with no loss of time and no requirement for extraordinary computer knowledge then you'll have some success. To sell the service to a client an architect has to have examples to show the client. If the service is done out of house then an architect is less likely to sell the service as it is not his own. I encourage your angle of selling directly to the owners and developers. This causes them to approach the architect with the request for animation and computer renderings. I would not rely on the architects to breach the subject. Architects make precious little profit and are forced to be extremely cost conscious to the point of economical myopia. Most are not willing to put money into producing an animation which could be used for marketing new business. The tradition has been to use past projects to market future work. Repeat business is where the most work is and if you already had them as a client then the client knows what you are capable of and knows what services they will need. My personal feeling is that the younger architectural firms will integrate the technology much faster into their operation and will grow tremendously because of this. I am in a position where I have to get a cumbersome dinosaur to take quick strides like the younger architectural antelopes out there. I look forward to an enlightening thread. Hope everyone puts their $.02 in.

Here's my experiences: I usually ask for someone at the firm involved in design visualization. its hit or miss if they want an outsider impressing their bosses. I suggest a meeting to show 'em my demo tape and stills. If they agree, good. However, their usual response is to ask me to send a brochure to keep on file, and if a client asks for it, they might give a call. This is the kiss of death, I'm told. The only gigs I've gotten from architects came about from firms with a visualization person who is secure in themselves and an interest in future technology. I also gave my first customer 50% off just to get my hands on some ACAD files and get business going. Much as clients will return to the same architects, this architect will probably return to me. We've got some future plans already. The biggest problem I'm facing is the hand renderings. There are at least two guys locally who do very nice work and have decent turnaround times. They are better able to add a sense of warmth or atmosphere. These guys have been around. My gut feeling is its just a matter of time before the ball starts rolling. If enough clients begin to see our work, the demand will surge.

humm… where to start. first you have to deal directly with the clients i have found out that usually the architects will be either be impressed or intimidated, and they ain't going to pay for it. you will have to sell them on the idea to approach there clients for you, or you go to thier clients and try to sell them. second …. go where the real money is. example: i did a very simple rendering for a client, looking out his window on to his carport. after he saw what he was going to see, he told the architects to redesign the front of the house, taking out these huge columns to his entrance of the house. thus saving him 250,000 dollars, out of a buget of 50 million. yes this house is huge. over 42,000 feet. so the point here is that sure it cost him 1,500 hundered dollars for the rendering , and saved him money, and he saw the usefullness of this tool. HE saw this , not the architect. point. this also goes for autocad work, the savings that the client saved in biulding the structural stuff in autocad befor the actual biulding started saved him over 300,000 on mistakes. anyway , if you want to do this architectural stuff go for the clients and not the architects, its the clients that pay the bills. and go for the big projects<g> one of these could keep you busy for over a year. oh ya one more thing , i have found that the interior designers on these projects are good ones to hit first because THEY have to relate to the client how its going to look when finished, and if you arm them with amunition they can be your biggest sales people. sherwood animations

Hi, Brandon. Just a thought from a former CAD production grunt: I have found that engineers, like architects, also tend to resist change (computer graphics??…), and in general, acceptance of new technology tends to be a function of AGE…try the "progressive, the-future-is-now" angle with the younger ones, and maybe a more soft-peddled, appreciative-of-the-past-contributions, RESPECTFUL orientation with the more experienced architects.

Have you tried selling it as a _design tool_ ? Architects percieve computer images along a thin line that balances between the contrived and photorealistic. They are very sensitive about loosing touch with the medium, presenting a "cold" image, one without life, character, and most importantly art. But, present it as a tool for making design descisions and you have an in road into what they really need. Afterall, they CAN draw, they can create adequate (if nut lush) presentation drawings by hand and are use to doing so. But, being able to explore the design, walk within it, try lighting solutions and examine materials in scale & combined in correct proportions (something sample boards fail miserably at) with the ability to try different solutions at will and you have what 3DS really is – a 3D tool for design. As for finished animations and renderings – market them as additional services. Have the client pay as they do now for watercolors and professional photographs.

Brandon, <<How do you convince architects or architectural firms that computer generated renderings or animations will help them?>> That one's easy. Help one of their competitors take 4 or 5 good jobs away from them.<g> I say 4 or 5 because it may take them that long to catch on to what's going on. Even if the people doing the work know it, it'll take management even longer. There was a firm here, pretty good-sized, where they keep laying off all the lowest paid pawns that do the work, but they've got a few guys on the top with lots of expenses (leased cars, big salaries, country club memberships) who stay. Meeting after meeting–"Why aren't we getting the jobs? Why aren't we making the money?" Another round of cuts. Now there are less people to support any kind of sales. When will they learn? When you take work away from them. Hang in there. I just heard the other day that a firm that I couldn't get to return my phone calls a year ago recently dropped my name in respect to a billion dollar project. I was amazed. I've never even talked to these guys first hand. Roger D.

Hi Brandon, Quite a blizzard of responses that you've gathered in just one day! Let me toss in my two cents, not so much as one who has pursued many such contracts, but rather as an instructor who has taught a number of architects how to use 3D Studio. The first issue to remember is that, unless you are selling time to the condemned, a certain portion of the market simply will not buy your product. No matter how good or beneficial it may be. The question is, what portion of the A/E/C community is receptive to the use of computer rendering and animation? While I have had a number of small architectural firms send one or two people to courses on 3D Studio, what really stands out is the type of firm that sends significant numbers of people to multiple classes. Here's an example of firms I've encountered that are getting into 3DS in a big way: 1) An airport consulting firm that competes head to head with KPMG. 2) A major Chicago architectural firm that has sent nearly two dozen people for training, including staff from the design, production, and interiors departments. 3) The architectural department of a major fast food chain. 4) A consulting engineering firm in Minnesota using 3DS for DOT work. What all of these firms have in common is that they are LARGE multi-state or even international companies that work on projects with high-profile review and public relations requirements. These projects live and die by the success of presentations. Presentations to review boards, community information meetings, and investor proposals. Many small to mid sized firms look to light commercial, custom housing in the upper-middle income range, churches, and institutional work to make their living. Such projects rarely push a need for rendering and animation. I firmly believe that 3D Studio is a useful design tool, and that it can help to attract clients to an architectural firm, but that's not what is going to drive the market. At least not right now. Look for the big guns, the firms that have the budgets and need to stay out on the leading edge to maintain their reputation. I think you'll find your market there. Steven

Good question, Brandon. There are many subtle aspects to this area. At our firm, the decision on using animation is 'client driven'. Animation is seen as a marketing tool, not a design tool (though an intern here from Scotland says he's used 3DS for preliminary design at home). For the most part, clients have wanted animations in order to 'market' a project to a board (internal or governmental) who have approval power but are comprised of individuals who are not expert engineers or architects. Engineers and architects are more able to read 2D representations than most, because of their training. One thing to keep in mind is that it is not only the architects who think animations are more expensive than hand-renderings and models. Clients view it that way too (and may wonder why the architect is 'wasting their money'). Our company won its biggest project ever not too long ago using the lowest-tech presentation of all the competing firms, by emphasizing skill and experience over flashiness. At the same time, most people here think that low-tech approach will become less and less viable over the next few years. In addition, there is the problem many designers have faced, where a client feels intimidated by too-real imagery. Hand-renderers and -modelers have learned how to make presentations that allow the viewer to dream, whereas computer modelers often present images so solid that there is too little room for fantasy. Over time, both the creators and the viewers will become more sophisticated, but for now it's going to be constant education on both sides.

>>How do you convince architects or architectural firms that computer >>generated renderings or animations will help them? You've got me! I've been trying in-house (the architecture firm I work for) for about 3 years now. I do some great rendering/animation, they say "that's really great," they use the stuff in promotional/interview presentations, but will they ask me to help them visualize a project they're designing? Hah! (Although, that MAY be starting to change — I think I've spent so much money on 3DS & accessories that they've decided that using it is the only way to recoup their investment!<g>). Seriously, architects, for all their protestations to the contrary, are a very conservative and tight-pursed lot. They like tradition — and tradition is hand-drawn renderings and hand-built models. You can make all the arguements you want about how spending the same money and time on a 3D model vs a hand-painted rendering gives you infinite points of view and easy change-of-form-or-materials, etc, but their eyes just glaze over and they say, "but I like the 'artistic' look of a hand-rendering" (never mind that their goal is SUPPOSED to be to convey the design accurately and successfully to the client). Also, people (clients too, although then the term "people" has to be used VERY loosely<g>) like to have something physical, and no matter how cool a video tape is, a model is cooler. I think that computer visualization is gaining ground, and certainly it doesn't replace hand-drawings/models in ALL situations, but it's a long, slow battle that you just need to keep waging. Oh, and one more thing… Architects are highly competitive creatures. Once you, as an independent artist, break through with one firm, and the other firms see that firm x is using computer-generated visuals, the others will be beating down your door.