Discussion on: How do you convince a client to a static website?

I'd argue against there being "little business value" in static sites.

• They're 10000x more efficient than their server-rendered counterparts since they can be purely served off a CDN. You get less bandwidth costs and immense scalability with static.
• Your site is 10000x more secure because it's run off a CDN, not a server, so there's no much malicious code that can run. And even if there was some scrupulous client-side script, it'd be difficult to slip through, since content is controlled (Markdown only basically). No issues with a client installing a rogue plugin that runs mining operations or bloats the DB.
• Since most deployments are through Git, your site is version controlled, allowing you to step backwards to a previous state, easier than a Wordpress backup.
• You can still serve your static content from Wordpress as an API, and benefit from the flexibility of it's content structure (like using ACF).
• Your SEO can be handled completely, like Yoast in WP. It's simply setup by the develop when they optimize the website (often using react-helmet and Markdown metadata).

It really depends on the client. If your client is looking for a product they can iteratively develop themselves, sure, Wordpress and a slew of plugins will work. But those clients probably aren't dealing with scaling issues, or honestly, they don't know what they want and the site's quality will suffer regardless.

At that point, they're not looking for a website, as much as a theme builder. Those are the clients I could recommend Squarespace or Wix and they'd probably be more satisfied with the greater degree of control. and honestly, being cheapos who want to install a plugin for a contact form instead of paying a dev to do it