Prepared August 16, 2018 by David R. Hawn, FRCI, RRC, CEM I have reviewed and studied the brand assessment provided by CCS Innovations, LLC. I conducted a web search as indicated in the report and found similar results for RCI, Inc. but also other entities. What we have in common is limited exposure to the public and web search efforts. RCI, Inc. has almost no promotion, marketing, advertising, or outreach of any type, except within our organization and industry. Recognition depends heavily on those functions and is an important component of this effort. Any branding endeavor that lacks these important steps is unlikely to result in the most favorable results. Still, to begin we need to have a brand that is ours, clear, and concise. Concerning the choice to use RCI, Inc. in 2006, a little history is of value. That change from the Roof Consultants Institute to RCI, Inc. addressed several important factors: * RCI was just beginning to earn more than they spent. A large effort and change was not affordable. The acronym RCI, logo, etc. was already in place and being used. At that time, we would have gone in debt just to hire CCS. The solution was affordable. * The Roof Consultants Institute was most interested in preserving the dignity of both our existing members as well as embracing new growth and the exterior wall practice area professions. Note that most of the membership then considered themselves roof consultants and waterproofing consultants. The latter included solving water intrusion associated with the vertical building exterior elements as well. Also note that those serving on the RCI boards prior to 2006 did not just invest their time and talent but their own financial resources to keep the Institute moving forward, they were, and still are “all in”. The moderate change from the Roof Consultants Institute to RCI, Inc. allowed for the growth to occur while preserving the past. That decision accomplished its goal of embracing change and fostering growth, so we can now contemplate our brand and our exposure to the industry and public. * We were, and still are, an institute or association of professionals with specialized expertise and RCI, Inc. fit our roof, waterproofing, and exterior wall members at the time. Now, it is indeed time to move forward again. In 1999 the Roof Consultants Institute (RCI) joined forces with a smaller similar institute, the Institute of Roofing and Waterproofing Consultants (IRWC), to become a single organization under the banner of the Roof Consultants Institute. In 2006 the Building Envelope Institute merged into the Roof Consultants Institute and realizing the broader scope; RCI, Inc. In 2009 +/‐ RCI considered a public relations effort, however, in searching for an appropriate firm we found only the Kellen Company which basically specializes in association management, a function that we already had. They also indicated they were proficient in public relations and we gave them a chance. Of course, while we learned some things, the effort was not successful. Perhaps we needed CCS Innovations at that time. All that said, I agree with the results and the reporting of CCS Innovations. Further, I continue to believe that we do need to better define and promote ourselves. I found a few interesting takeaways in the study that I believe merit special attention. * On page 85 the discussion concerning NRCA indicates their tagline uses the words “roofing professionals” but really, it’s an association of roofing contractors. The “C” in NRCA is for Contractors and not Professionals. So, there is some confusion concerning who should belong. Also, the national roofing day in DC has been held only once, in 2018, and it may (probably) will continue but was not done until the new executive director took the helm in 2017. NRCA includes waterproofing and their membership includes contractors that practice waterproofing within their membership just as RCI does but neither state that specifically. * The report indicates the term “building envelope” to not be well understood or defined. I agree with that. Further, I think it should be very carefully considered whether it is RCI that takes on the task of defining “building envelope” as part of this effort. Europe has had the “Dach und Wand” (which translates to roof and wall) organization with symposia for many years. It is not uncommon for roofs and walls to be included together. However, you will note that they do not include or discuss “envelope”. * The report further indicates the term “Institute” to provide a strong message that is aligned with what our RCI, Inc. organization does, and I agree with that. * There is discussion that several companies and organizations do have names and acronyms that do not match exactly what they do. Those organizations and companies exist and thrive because they have a very strong and clear definition and promotion effort in place. Change of any type is uncomfortable and generally tends to be resisted. However, one can choose to change or stay in the same place; whichever moves you forward is what you should embrace. I believe that includes attachment to specific names that easily come to mind as we contemplate this rebranding effort. Still, I do believe that change is necessary for us to continue to serve our membership base. That membership has broadened to embrace continued growth as we serve the entire building exterior with consultant and industry members that have specialized expertise. We should also recognize that the future may bring new technology and products into place that we have not yet thought of but require specialized skill and expertise that is not taught in the classrooms of colleges, universities, and technical schools at this time. An example is RCI’s efforts concerning commissioning. Therefore, our effort should be focused on the development of our members differentiation and dignity in the practice areas we serve and to realize that the strength of our organization grows with members and embracing new technology. Not long ago I penned a letter to the board of directors and Fellows of RCI indicating that it was time for us to look at this very issue. A professional firm that has specialized expertise was engaged and the reporting appears to be quite clear that we do indeed need to have a clear message that is promoted well to the outside world. Because we are a big tent organization with a diverse membership, at least in the building exterior practice areas, any effort that continues would be beneficial to our organization and our members, existing and new. I believe there is merit in thinking outside of the box as we move forward with this endeavor. Further, we must be willing to accept the challenge and discomfort that comes with change. We are a resilient group of specialized individuals and many of us have indeed put significant time, effort and personal resources into the growth of this organization. RCI, Inc. now has the resources available to take on this effort. We should use that to our benefit to grow and prosper what began as the Roof Consultants Institute. Reply
August 24, 2018 I have read the 103-page Brand Assessment by CCS Innovations, dated March 9, 2018, and believe we should explore rebranding RCI, Inc. Two questions arise: I. What should the new brand be? II. How would we make this change? Let’s not be so hasty. Do we really need to do this? Absolutely! I have had the experience of having to explain my credentials to clients, and it is not a simple explanation. It was simple prior to the early 1990’s when I could state that my credentials were granted by RCI, the Roof Consultants Institute. Now it is not easy. Decoding “RCI” into “Building envelope professionals (architects, engineers and former contractors) who specialize in the design, investigation, repair, and management of roofing, exterior wall, and waterproofing systems” is not logical. It does not compute. Did we miss our chance to rebrand in Miami in 2005 when we were confronted with the “building envelope?” At that time some consideration was given to BEI, Inc., the Building Envelope Institute, but we were not ready to entertain a change. Perhaps we should have given it more thought. Could we still consider this? Not likely, as there are similar names such as the BEC and BETEC used by AIA. Those “brands” are associated with AIA and for RCI to attempt a similar branding would be difficult as there already is a Building Enclosure Council and a Building Enclosure Technology and Environment Council. Could we consider NSPE BEC? NSPE BEI? ACEC BEC? ACEC BEI? AGC BEC? or AGC BEI? Not a chance in my opinion. We missed our chance in 1995; however, we can still explore rebranding. Other groups have taken the term “building envelope” and have defined it and have introduced it to the building industry. Building envelope still is not a commonly understood term in the building industry, but it soon will be. Have we really missed our chance or would rebranding research identify a solution to the lengthy description of RCI, Inc.? A definition of building envelope is: A building envelope is the physical separator between the conditioned and unconditioned environment of a building, including the resistance to air, water, heat, light, and noise transfer. H2O decodes into “water.” It would be fantastic if we could develop a brand that could be that simple and authentic. There are lots of such “brands”: EPA Environmental Protection Agency DOT Department of Transportation NCDOT North Carolina Department of Transportation OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration. ICRI International Concrete Repair Institute These brands, when decoded, make sense and are easily understood. RCI made sense and was easily understood, but not any longer as our professional services have expanded into the building envelope. What about: Microsoft Apple Westinghouse Cadillac Volkswagen Kodak Nikon GE Maytag Google Amazon These brands are not acronyms to be decoded, but are known by their history and reputation; we have a lot of that. Consider RWCI, Inc., the Roof & Wall Consultants Institute? There are numerous articles about branding on the internet. They provide some guidance, much of which is a common theme to many internet branding articles. Things not to do: I. Rushing the process. II. Being too clever. III. Forgetting to do your research. IV. Choosing a name that’s too long. (Or in our case, a description that is too long.) V. Letting your emotions decide. When we find a new brand or a modification to what we have, how would we implement the change? That is the easy part. For example, Rooftop Systems Engineers, PC, is now Raymond Engineering-Georgia, Inc. Our staff in Raleigh, NC, has the same address as before the acquisition, the same staff as before the acquisition (with the exception of some additional staff), and our client base includes old customers and new. We were deliberate about explaining the change to our customers and after three years the transition is complete. Rebranding RCI can be completed in a similar fashion and time frame. We need to either develop (1) a suitable new brand, or (2) a shorter explanation of RCI, Inc., that would allow retaining our heritage while at the same time clearly defining who we are. I do not believe option #2 is possible; let’s move forward and engage some professional help with this task. See you all in Nashville, John Willers Reply
I agree with Mr. Willer’s assessment and personally like the concept of RWCI as it does not confuse terms, ie envelope in lieu of wall. Utilizing plain or descriptive language clearly transmits the brand and presents the “offer” as it were…you wouldn’t call Sunshine Plumbing to sell your house or mow your yard… I also find that such descriptive terms are already firmly entrenched in the public’s mind, consider the use of engineering; most people think of structures and design…the term provides the logical path and allows the public to quickly decide if that term is appropriate for their needs. As a former contractor and now consultant, I am invested in the property loss arena and find that Haag has more name recognition with the carriers than the RCI does…I feel this is a dis-service to all the members and the organization…we need to re-brand in an effective yet simple to understand way. BECI anyone? (Building Exterior Consultants Institute) Reply
September 4, 2018 I encourage all voting members to take the time to read all 96 pages (about 49 pages are chapter dividers, charts, graphs, and graphics, leaving only 47 pages to read). I do not agree with the extent of CCS Innovations’ survey scope because building owners, facility managers, and directors of buildings and grounds were not listed as primary targets of the external survey. Yes, they did offer the survey through social media, but how many of your clients are active on SM? If building owners and facility managers become aware that RCI’s credentialed members are their best ROI, then the association would not have a problem in growing membership. Though I do agree with CCS that some of the “Brand” components need to be clarified, aligned, focused, and improved, but fiddling with the name, logo, creating new mission statements, and taglines will not do it alone. RCI, Inc. (or whatever they want to call themselves) needs to market to the end users of consulting services so that members do not have to continually explain what it is. Reply
Google “BCBEC” to see how an organization can successfully brand as building envelope consultants. Also note that the BEC part is part of this brand, and stands for just what you think it does. They are local western Canada based, and basically direct competition for RCI (or whatever we become). They provide excellent education opportunities, have seminars and shows, and are a player in our local market. Are they a player in the US?, not much to my knowledge. They offer no credentialing, which is what sets RCI apart from most other groups. I have attended many seminars & functions, and they get architects, engineers, etc at their functions. Those groups need continuing education, same as us. We also have the O(ntario)BEC present in central Canada. Being a group of building envelope consultants can be successfully done with sufficient time and resources. Get used to saying “formerly RCI, Inc.” for a while. Now that “Professional” is a bad word, it adds a greater challenge to branding. BEP could have been a contender… and any contender should be checked on the Urban Dictionary to ensure a lack of negative use in popular culture. I wish I was joining about that last part but I’m serious. I wish all of the very best with this moving forwards, with a reminder that forwards is the best direction for RCI, Inc. Reply
Agreed; targeted marketing campaigns from the RCI to other associations explaining the brand and benefit of services offered by the membership would increase the exposure and therefore the usage of the members. Part of my presentation is explaining why a potential client wants someone intimately versed in roofs or walls to provide those services; having a recognizable and easily understood brand that is actively promoting it’s members would be a boon! Reply
I have read with interest position statements from others related to our brand and our name. As a member of the peer review group for I think nearly 20 years now (best committee ever), for purely selfish reasons I think the name needs to be changed. In example, try reaching out to industry leaders in the windows arena and asking them for their time in preparing an article the will be published in a magazine sponsored by the Roof Consultants Institute? I am sure William Meyers in advertising sales is faced with similar challenges. Reply
