Earlier this year, we conducted a survey of architectural sign companies as part of an ongoing effort to compile information about the workings of our industry. Our survey focused on the process by which architects design and specify sign programs. Before we share the results, I think it would be helpful to layout some background information.

Everyone in the industry is familiar with sign programs that are designed by EGD firms and architectural signage specialists. While you may quibble with the design of a given program, these sign programs are normally well documented, and they almost always are the result of a serious design effort. We put these projects into Bucket 1.

Those of us who work for architectural sign companies are also familiar with a very different kind of sign program: one which is specified by an architect and incorporated into the general construction documents of a building project, but one which lacks the basic information that is necessary for pricing and fabrication. Sign drawings, message schedules, and location plans are all missing, and the only available information is typically found in a vague and confusing section 10-14-00 specification. This kind of sign program is not the result of a serious design process, and we put jobs of this type into Bucket 2.

The primary purpose of our survey was to try and figure out how often architectural sign companies encounter projects that belong in Bucket 2, and to understand how they handle them.

Here is a quick summary of the survey results:

• There were a total of 140 respondents.
• There were 109 respondents who do mostly architectural work, interact with architects, prepare bids, and receive deficient specs.
• Of these, 55% receive deficient specs more than 50% of the time. 12% reported that they received deficient specs on almost every project that they bid.
• 86% reported that for the poor specs, that the sign company was responsible for untangling the signage requirements and extracting the necessary information for fabrication and installation.
• The biggest negative consequence of the poor signage specifications is that comparing bids was made very difficult.

The survey questions and results can be seen in this page's sidebar.

We found an overwhelming number (96%) of architectural sign companies have had experience with sign specifications that are vague, contradictory, or incomplete. We have also discovered this is not an isolated or unusual event: 57% of the survey respondents say that they encounter this type of documentation on more than 50% of the projects they try to bid.

So we know that signage for thousands of building projects in the United States is governed by poorly crafted specifications and construction documents, and sign design responsibility is ceded by the architect to the sign contractor. These projects include schools, libraries, assisted living facilities, condominiums, university dormitories, municipal buildings and many, many more.

What can we infer and deduce from these results?

1. It is safe to assume that poor specifications result in poor implementations. While there are certainly examples of an architectural sign company dutifully fleshing out poor specifications, we also believe that there are an equal number of – if not more – cases where this is not done. The signage product on these projects typically reflects a lowest common denominator profile of design, cost, and product quality.
2. Signage is governed by many national, state, and local codes and regulations. Without a sign specialist assisting with a project, it is likely that code compliance errors or omissions are routine occurrences.
3. Many sign specifications focus only on code-compliant signs, or include vague statement such as "put a sign at every door". These specs omit the many important functional and wayfinding signs are that are critical to the operational characteristics of a building, but go beyond what is required by codes.

What difference does this make to you and your architectural sign company?

No difference at all. This information is meaningless to you, provided you want to ignore the largest untapped sales opportunity for architectural signage in our market.

What do we mean?

These projects that are governed by poor specifications represent thousands of small and medium sized projects executed every year in the US. Instead of receiving poor quality specs for these projects, imagine instead that you were hired to create the design documentation for the architect, or that you engaged in a consultative sales approach with the architect that led to improved specs, or even that you turned projects into design-build jobs for your company.

However, if you want to sell signs for these projects, the results of this survey clearly indicate that the key lies with the architect. The current process by which architects design and specify signage is seriously flawed – possibly because the architect doesn’t understand all of the options available to them. If we as an industry work with architects to change the process, we can change the profile of the signage installed on their projects.

I have never spoken with an architect or a building owner who said they wanted the signage on their project to be shoddy or poorly designed. To the contrary, they want the signage on their projects to be well designed, manufactured to high quality standards, and properly installed.

Our industry's task is to show them how to do it.

If you wish to comment on these results, please visit this article on our blog and leave comments there. Thanks.