It’s interesting, because the agency I work with has sort of found the opposite - majority of clients suppose they want to be able to edit their website, but they end up contacting (and paying) agency to make any updates. We use a few key plugins, like ACF and Gravity Forms, but any small functionality beyond what WP core offers and outside of well known and (relatively) stable plugins, we generally build what the client needs. Saying WP has a depth of plugins is true but when so much of it is so poorly coded, it’s hard to use “depth” as a pro, IMO.
I suppose using Bedrock and not allowing plugin installation on production also helps sway that, as it should be. Please don’t experiment with WP plugins on your live site.
To be honest, I’m also looking at what’s available in the static site realm as well. I think for the majority of clients we work with, a static HTML site would be just fine for them. They might have a contact form, and we’d need to figure out something for that, but that’s pretty minor.
Also, it’s important to mention that a “static site” doesn’t necessarily mean it doesn’t change. Prismic for instance has packages that you can use both JS or PHP (and most other major web dev languages) to query the content from them. That means you can have a static site of HTML/CSS/JS and still have it dynamically query Prismic. Still wouldn’t be as fast as a 100% static built HTML site, but still most likely faster than running WP every request and have it build your templates.
You never really know with client’s what their expectations will be when building them a site anyways, even when you cover all that before signing a contract. Some won’t ever touch the site and some will wonder why they can’t completely reconfigure every tiny piece of a site because they used Divi once.
Guess my point is, everyone knows their clients and what may or not be possible, but you also might not have a 100% clear idea of what’s out there, either. And with that being said, I think I’ve steered the topic far enough off topic from Gutenberg that we should return to that topic.