I’d like to throw this post out for fun to provoke a potential shift in industry thinking about AEC firm brands.
In a utopian society, every project your firm completes would:
- Evoke an emotional response
- Leave a lasting impression
- Be relevant to, yet remarkable amongst, its surroundings
Most of us will never be able to say that every project we’ve worked on has done that. Some of them…but not all.
When considering your firm’s brand and specifically the name, the same criteria should apply though. Take any random sampling of architecture firm names and a large majority, more than 80% in my experience, are the name or names of the partners. What does this actually say about your brand? In essence, the name says more about the principals, than the principles.
Professional services firms (of all types) have intricate brands because they are often based on people, not products. The questions need to be asked, “How should my clients and potential clients feel about or react to my firm’s name when they here it?” And then, “Does our firm’s name impact those reactions?”
Only after those questions, among others, have been answered, should a firm settle in on a name.
Interesting article. Is the 80% figure an actual statistic, or just an out-of-the-air guess?
To be clear, are you advocating against naming firms with the names of the partners? While it might not speak directly to the firm's principles, as you note, it stems from architects trying to be seen as professionals – and borrows, obviously, from the naming of law firms. There's certainly some sound reasoning there, given that architects are still struggling with maintaining respect and professional relevance, perhaps now more than ever.
If you haven't read it, there's a brief history of how the names of architecture firms have evolved over the years: http://slate.com/id/2177941.
That said, I doubt that Morphosis or Studio/Bang or (one of the more fanciful names currently talked about – which, I suppose, accomplishes their goal) GinsengChicken are names that convey any more information about their firm than Skidmore, Owings & Merrill. So, what *does* work?
I would have to say that naming your company with your name has a lot to do with the egos of many architects. As an architect working in the construction industry, most of my colleagues feel that a big ego is synonymous with being an architect, which in turn is a big stereotype that I'm constantly working hard to break.
First and foremost, thanks for the comments!
The 80% stat came from three random searches I did through the AIA's architect finder. It is a rough average (and may be a tad low actually). Thanks also for the Slate article.
From a branding standpoint, naming your organization after a person (or persons) does little to communicate why you or your firm differ from others. Unless it actually has the word architecture in it, it actually doesn't even distinguish the firm from other professional services. Are they consultants, accountants, lawyers, lobbyists…?
Likewise, names that appear to be non sequitur don't help much either. However, what all of the names that you mentioned do, is create an image. Whether or not the image is one that is closely associated with those firms determines whether it was a good choice.
To respond to your request for clarity :-), if a start-up firm approached Markitecture for help with naming and branding, I would recommend against naming their firm via the names of the partners. However, an established firm has (or should have) already begun developing their own brand around who they've become, so I'm not suggesting that they go change their names for the sake of coming up with something catchier.
Again, a big thanks to both of you for the comments! Keep them coming!
Good article. Here is my take on it:
Every business book I read tells me: You should build your business in such a way that it can run without you. Set up standards and procedures, let others follow them and retire in Hawaii. I don’t think this formula applies to architects. It’s like telling an artist: Let your paintings be created by others. Does not work.
Whether we like it or not we become our brand. Sure, we can hire staff architects, draftsmen and marketing people but the design has to come from us. We become integral part of our practice. Therefore including your name in the name of the company is very appropriate.
However, there is still this nagging question: How do we ever retire?
Gosia Kung, AIA, LEED AP
KUNGarchitecture
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Denver-CO/KUNG-architecture/77524147846
http://twitter.com/KUNGarchitect
http://kungarchitecture.blogspot.com/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/gosiakung
Another great comment. Thanks Gosia!
You are absolutely right. Because of the personal, artistic and services nature of architecture, you often become your brand and vice versa…and depending upon your business model and size, that may work out well.
Until you get to your last question though. 🙂
The brand has to supercede the person for a practice to survive beyond that person's involvement.
The follow up question is, am I a principal setting up a firm or am I just creating a legal structure for me to practice architecture?
I have to question does an architectural practice have to survive beyond the principal?
Hi Kenneth, just seeing your comment. Sorry for the delay. My answer to your question would be "no." A practice doesn't have to survive beyond the principal, but that's up to the person starting the firm and their business goals, of course. It goes to the question in my last comment, am I a principal setting up a firm, or am I just creating a legal structure for me to practice architecture?