buckeye

While I don't claim to speak for ISA on this matter, I would be very hesitant to endorse (or even participate in) any discussions on a similar subject. The Justice Department has nailed multiple trade associations for engaging in collusive or anticompetitive actions that violate federal antitrust laws. Some of those discussions never even discussed any agreement or shared actions. The simple fact that members sitting around a table started discussing prices meant that the USDOJ was able to bust them. (And the costs of complying with an antitrust consent decree would be HUGE, not just for ISA but millions of dollars spent by most of the major manufacturers within the larger sign industry.) Any well-governed organization (trying to stay in compliance with the law) would tread very lightly on any matters of pricing or threatened collective action. As to your other points, no matter how we would like the world to be (if we were in charge), we have to deal with municipal inspectors, city planners, building officials, state bureaucrats, self-interested politicians, technical standards writers, and the others that I forgot to mention. Plus the whole administrative apparatus that supports those people. That's just the world we live in. There have been plenty of times when ISA has butted heads with them, and a few occasions when the industry has sued. And even when we won, we still have the problem of needing to work with those same people in the future. Except now they are really disinclined to like us, because we just sued them. BTW, as someone who grew up in the industry and whose family has been making signs in this country since before the end of World War I, IMHO I believe that ISA (and NESA before it) performs a whole lot of heavy lifting (at great organizational expense) that benefits the industry as a whole (not just the ISA members who bear the whole cost of the efforts but represent in number only a minority of the larger industry). ISA (and its members) have invested millions in efforts to improve the national electric code, change the IBC windload standards, improve USCB economic data, modify the ADA signage regulations, fight California energy conservation regulations, outreach to electrical inspectors, and more. Some of these are Sisyphean tasks, carrying the stone up the hill, only to watch it roll back down time and again. And most of these battles occur far into the shadows and take years to bring to fruition. Even when/if the industry wins, there isn't much/any applause for our efforts. (How exactly does one explain the importance in defeating efforts to keep 70% color contrast of ADA signage as a suggestion and not a mandate? I work at ISA and I barely understand it...) Having sat through our grinding governance and budget processes, I assure you that the ISA staff and board takes very seriously the responsibility of being viewed by many as THE industry representative by government entities and technical agencies. Even this past year, when the larger economic realities meant that we had to cut our budgets significantly midyear, ISA continued a whole bunch of important research and costly studies for the industry when it would have been a whole lot easier (and cheaper) to not have to reduce staff and compensation levels or ration office supplies or let every computer warranty expire. But we prioritized a whole bunch of things that benefit a far wider circle than our own self-interest. Believe me, I don't see ISA staff playing a lot of golf. Kenny Peskin

The implementation of mandatory UL University courses was planned and announced before the Sign Industry Business Panel was formed. In fact it was part of the reason that ISA/USSC/WSA came together to form the group. UL had announced a series of changes taking effect in 2008, with additional changes announced and scheduled for implementation in 2009 and beyond (record keeping reqs and training among them). While most sign companies were focused at the time on the increase in variation notices being issued and the increase of annual fees, the UL University training was included in materials that UL distributed at that time. (And IIRC, this information was included in an ISA webinar that Lee Hewitt presented in summer 2008).

It's not exactly on topic, but the 2006 International Building Code, Appendix H (Signs), Section H112 (Projecting Signs) does speak to the subject of Attachment of Supports and mentions supporting chains, guys, or steel rods. However, the first sentence of Appendix H reads "The provisions contained in this appendix are not mandatory unless specifically referenced in the adopting ordinance." Unfortunately, I can't cut-and-paste the pages of the IBC because it is a copyrighted publication of the International Code Council. And I have no idea if Minnesota has adopted the 2006 building code in general or Appendix H specifically. (Many states only update their codes every 2nd or 3rd international code cycle)

The purchaser of the Voltarc assets is named LSI, but it is not LSI Industries of Cincinnati (which has major graphics operations in North Canton, OH and Houston, TX). The actual buyer is Light-Source Inc of Orange, CT, which operates primarily in the areas of tanning lamps and germicidal lamps. Waterbury Republican American article

The attendee registration form is being revised for 2010. That already has been decided. Other possible changes also are likely to be discussed by staff and decided by the Tradeshow Committee.

I don't know that ISA is equipped to send out emails on behalf of outside companies. Beyond the technological and logistical complications, the staff resources needed to do that on behalf of almost 500 companies are far beyond the capabilities of a organization that runs with a 20 person staff (doing all the other work that is needed to run the organization). BTW, it is not unusual for exhibitors to receive an attendee list. Two weeks after the expo, I helped staff the ISA booth at the American Planning Association's National Conference in Minneapolis. As part of our exhibitor package, ISA received the attendee list from APA. Similarly, ISA received attendee lists for the conferences/shows hosted by the Int Municipal Lawyers Association, the Assn of Small Business Development Centers, and the other four shows that ISA exhibited at in 08.

Erik and Gary (and the others in the same boat), You should be hearing from one of my colleagues early next week (if you haven't already). Unfortunately, as I don't work with the tradeshow or with the exhibitors outside of my travels and my interactions on the show floor, I can't speak specifically to this issue other than saying that I am the guy who tends to follow the sign-centric internet discussions most closely and so I am the one posting here. Short answer: We're trying... Longer answer: Last week, I met with members of our ISA tradeshow department after receiving Gary's forwarded emails, as well as some thoughts from other individuals. They are working in hopes of resolving this. Longest answer: It is more difficult to accomplish this because ISA isn't sending out the emails. (And, speaking only for myself and without a copy of any contract in front of me, this type of email distribution may not have been addressed by the specific terms of the 2009 exhibitor contract.) Once exhibitors obtained the attendee list, they could continue to email those addresses without any ability of ISA to control the inclusion of any of the recipients. Most exhibitors aren't a problem; never have been. But some have acted in a manner that is annoying (and offending) attendees. Past feedback indicated that the problems with email were with pre-Expo marketing (post show emails were being sent mainly to qualified leads collected on the show floor); our exhibitor contracts and attendee registration forms reflected this concern with pre-Expo marketing. But this year has brought out a new problem that we hadn't anticipated. (BTW, many exhibitors sign contracts for the Expo at the conclusion of the previous year's show; and the economic situation was quite different in March 08.) Obviously, our plans for 2010 are different. In conclusion, we're still trying...

Normally, I only post here when speaking as an individual, but this time I want to speak for my employer. On behalf of ISA, I (and we) want to apologize that you have been inundated with emails from exhibitors. We recognize the problem and are not happy with what has happened this year. Anything that diminishes the experience or satisfaction of Expo attendees is a serious problem to all of us at ISA that work all year to build the best show possible. While the policies of providing ISA Expo attendee lists to exhibitors had not changed from previous years, the impact to 2009 attendees certainly has changed from earlier years. Below, I have outlined below the possible reason for this and steps we are taking to counter this for the future: As part of the exhibitor package, they are given the opportunity to purchase the attendee list from the Expo. (In 2009 and in past years, nonexhibiting companies are prohibited access to the list by ISA.) We are doing our best to educate exhibitors on the best use of this list, but unfortunately, many of them have taken the approach that "more is better". (Especially this year, more exhibitors have focused on all attendees, not just the targeted leads acquired on the show floor.) We will continue our exhibitor education efforts throughout the year in the hopes that we can persuade them to target emails to only those attendees who expressed interest in their product. We provided attendees with the option to opt-out of receiving exhibitor emails for pre-show marketing. Unfortunately we received almost no complaints in previous years about post-show marketing. Due to the economy and the success of the Expo, we suspect that our exhibitors have ramped up their marketing efforts to ISA attendees, which may be backfiring for them. In 2010, we will provide the option for any registrant to opt out of all exhibitor emails. If you would like to forward me a few of the emails you have received, I would be happy to personally follow up with those exhibitors on your behalf in order to reinforce the message that these emails are considered spam by our attendees and only serve to decrease the brand and prestige of the exhibiting company. Again I apologize for the multitude of emails you have received. Had ISA anticipated that exhibitors would use the attendee list in the manner that has occurred, we would have reexamined our policy for 2009; after the experiences of the last month, we will reexamine them for 2010. Regards, Kenny Peskin ISA Manager of State and Local Government Affairs kenneth.peskin@signs.org (703) 778-8096

Since there was a discussion of the Nebraska sign collapse, I thought that I'd pass this info along to everyone. (Apologies in advance for using the forum for possible marketing, which isn't my intent, but I thought it was on-topic and of interest.) Last night, ISA announced the addition of an educational seminar to discuss industry research dealing with high-rise single-pole sign performance. Scheduled for Thursday, April 16 (1000-1130), this seminar will cost $45 (ISA members)/$90 (non members). The seminar will be presented by Bill Dundas (ISA Director of Technical and Regulatory Initiatives), Roy Flahive (California Neon), and Wes Wilkens (Persona Inc.; ISA Mechanical and Structural Subcommittee Chairman): Additional info is available at Signexpo.org Education. Kenny Peskin ISA Manager of State and Local Government Affairs (703) 778-8096

I cannot speak to the specifics of ISD's situation (and they aren't members of ISA so I would speaking out of turn anyway), but any organization that is in bankruptcy or expects lots of litigation is going to be VERY careful about how or what they say publicly. Especially since anything said on the internet can take on a life of its own. I would anticipate most/all post-filing communication with a Chapter 11 corporation to occur through the bankructcy counsel, court filings, and in communication with a creditors committee. Which means, unfortunately, that sign companies/installers/suppliers aren't going to hear anything significant until after the banks have their sit-down. Kenny (speaking for myself only...)

I believe Cummings is in Nashville.

Some of the prices cited here are certainly cheaper, but--if distance is a larger concern--the official Expo hotels have also lowered their rates. (As the overall Vegas rates have dropped, most of the convention planners and travel vendors have also lowered their group discount rates to match.) On Signexpo.org, the Excalibur is showing at $99 (Wed,Th) and $159 (Fr,Sa) -- which is a few $$$ lower that the prices listed on hotels.com and orbitz. The Luxor is showing at $129 (Wed,Th) and $199 (Fr,Sa). And the Mandalay and THEhotel are priced at a level above the tolerances of anyone searching for cheap rooms. Again, I realize that many other Vegas hotels have lower prices, but factoring in the time lost in walking or cabs (and cost for cabs, depending on distance) the Excalibur or Luxor may make sense for some.