Your site is a portfolio. Their search is a question.

By project typology and place, and by the anxiety that precedes the project: "architect for house extension [area]", "loft conversion architect", "listed building architect", "do I need planning permission for...", "architect fees for extension". Practices organise their sites by portfolio and philosophy; clients search by what they want built and what they are afraid it will cost. Bridging that gap is the whole opportunity, and it is largely unclaimed because architecture sites are designed as portfolios rather than as answers.

Because it captures clients at the exact moment of uncertainty, before an architect is chosen and often before they know they need one. Permitted development limits, listed-building and conservation-area constraints, planning application processes, appeal realities, party-wall basics: these are searched heavily and answered mostly by government pages and forums. A practice that explains them clearly for its own area becomes the obvious next call, and the content demonstrates competence more persuasively than any manifesto.

At least the structure, and the practices that do report better-qualified enquiries. Explaining how fees work (percentage of construction cost, stage-based fees against RIBA work stages, fixed fees for feasibility), what a typical project of each type involves, and what clients commonly under-budget for, captures the enormous "architect fees" query class and filters the enquiries that were never viable. Full price lists are rarely appropriate; structural transparency almost always is.

As real pages, not gallery items: one page per project with the brief, the constraints (site, planning, budget realities), the approach, the outcome, location context and enough photography to be persuasive. These rank for typology-plus-area searches, prove capability in the specific thing a client wants, and give image search something to index. A grid of unlabelled photographs, the industry default, ranks for nothing.

Considerably: clients gather references visually, and Pinterest, Houzz and Google Images all feed discovery. Properly named files, descriptive alt text, captions with project context, and image sitemaps turn a portfolio into a discovery channel. Most practices upload files straight from the photographer with camera-generated names, which is a free channel abandoned at upload.

From £750/month for small practices building typology and planning content, £1,400-£2,500/month for larger practices with multiple sectors (residential, commercial, education, heritage) and content programmes. One-off project-page architecture and image-SEO work from £1,200, which suits practices with a marketing coordinator to maintain it.