Would you hire this candidate?

At AIA Archiblog Nick Ruehl, an architect and mayor, was blogging about what he saw and heard at the conventions, and compared the candidates’ speeches to how architects try to sell themselves to potential clients.

"We are constantly trying to find folks who will vote for us. We (or our marketers) write all kinds of words and phrases that try to explain who we are, what we will do, how we will do it, and what we’ve done it in the past. We add our best graphics, shake and bake and put it out there for all to see. When we make it through to the interview shortlist, we refine our message, dress the part, and make the pitch.

How does that selection committee make a decision? Based on some rational, objective, weighted criteria that flows through a spreadsheet to a final score? Based on our relationship that we have developed with the prospective client? Based on the network of relationships that our prospective client has with our current or past clients? Style? Attitude? Our past work?"

. . . "the election will ultimately be won on which candidate is trusted most by the voters. I said that I believed people hire their architect because they trust him. Joe was quick to say that he would hire an architect for his home because the architect is more creative than he. He would look at the architect’s past work, check references, and see if the architect performed relative to schedule. He really placed a high priority on creativity.

As we drilled down a little more, I asked him if he thought it was important that the architect he would hire reflected the client’s spirit or his own? He talked about needs (space) and then continued on with comments about volume, light, exterior connection, interior design, etc. I then asked him if he would hire an architect that he didn’t trust to reflect his spirit. His eyebrows rose again.

So, whom do you trust to be America’s lead architect for the next 4 years?”

I’ve seen a lot of marketing in my 48 year connection on the sidelines of architecture. As a sole practitioner since 1994, my husband did almost no marketing (we paid for a yellow pages one line entry), it was all done word of mouth, people seeing the finished product and liking it, reputation, showing up at the selection process, his honesty and trustworthiness, and working with a younger developer early on who had promise and more connections to the building industry. His final (we think) home in Lakeside is getting so much attention for a beautiful, spacious design on a tiny lot (33'), that he's getting calls to come out of retirement. In fact, I remember when that client called two years ago--I first told her he had retired, but I passed her phone number on to my husband. She had seen another house he'd done. Fortunately, she was more desperate for a good architect, than he was for retirement.

When my husband was a partner in a larger firm, one of his partners responsibilities was to beat the bushes for “votes,” and he worked his network of social organizations like symphony, arts memberships, clubs, temple, churches, former clients and family contacts (he had several generations of family in Columbus and his father had also been an architect). What Ruehl doesn't mention (maybe because he isn't old enough), eventually that type of marketing winds down--everyone in your network is probably your age, unless you have a huge marketing arm (my husband's former firm probably only had 20 employees). Everyone, even architects, run after the "youth vote," which is why there are so many forgettable, awful boxes and baubles sitting around our cities and vacation communities passing for good design.

So I'd look at past work. That's why Mr. Ruehl, I'm by passing the flash and clever marketing and voting for past record and yes, how he touched my spirit. McCain's speech was not highly rated Thursday night, and he followed a line up of some of the worst speakers in the Republican party. But I have a confession. I hate campaign speeches, and Governor Palin's and John McCain's were the first convention acceptance speeches I'd ever watched since 1956 when I knew I was going to write a school paper on it (my parents didn't have TV--don't remember where I watched it).

McCain and I don't agree on immigration and the global warming hype, but his speech Thursday at the convention was the first time I'd ever actually listened to him, consequently there wasn't "too much Vietnam," as some have complained. (My children are 40 and Vietnam was ancient history to them in school; I'm sure they couldn't place it on a time line of the 20th century.) I was deeply moved by his account of how he had changed from a self-centered, risk-taking fly boy into a man who was broken, but saved by his love for country and his comrades who helped him survive torture, unset bones, and starvation. It wasn't his description of torture, because he barely touched that. It was the remarkable change in him. I've never been asked to risk anything, have never encountered any of the sacrifices he's made. Maybe that's why he touched my spirit.

I want someone better than me to lead the country. Obama's not that person. Obama's just a younger, smart alecky me. I'm voting McCain, not because of Sarah Palin, although she's the reason I tuned in, but because he touched my spirit.