THE SIGNAGE FOUNDATION FOR COMMUNICATION EXCELLENCE, INC.

A sign is a placed-based "speech" device, which visually communicates a message to its viewers. A sign may inform the public about a specific good or service...it may direct the public to a particular spot...it may even suggest that the public act in a certain way, for example, vote for one candidate or buy one house, instead of another. A sign is entitled to certain Constitutional protections which must be taken into account by a regulatory body.

Signs come in two basic types:on-premise and off-premise. The off-premise sign (or outdoor advertising) is unrelated to any use or activity occurring where it is placed. The off-premise sign we are most familiar with is the billboard, which includes posters of approximately 300 square feet up to bulletins or spectaculars which can measure 700 square feet. The off-premise sign normally advertises nationally known goods, products or services, and can be used for either a multi-city or cross-country showing. Thus, the primary function of these signs is to reinforce public awareness first created through other mediums, such as television, radio and newsprint, and they are usually very expensive to buy or lease.

The on-premise sign comprises an accessory land use, i.e., its use is accessory to a site's main use, which for purposes of this paper is commercial. On-premise business signs are located somewhere on site and are functionally related to the success or failure of the site. In contrast to off-premise signs, which generally reinforce information already familiar to the viewer, the on-premise business sign many times must convey new, previously unknown information. In appearance and dimension these signs will vary according to the communication needs the site requires to become and remain economically viable. The costs of sign design, production, and placement will also vary, but are generally more affordable, especially for the small, independent business, than alternate forms of commercial communication.

Although on-premise business signage performs a major role in the success of local economies, its regulation does not impact all businesses equally. The food service business provides an illustration:

For the large national franchise, such as McDonald's or KFC, the on-premise sign may display nothing more than the corporate logo and customers will be attracted. This is so because these corporations can afford and extensively use other mediums to advertise their wares. In such instances, all the on-premise sign has to do is assist the consumer in locating the facility -- the consumer already knows what he or she is going to get there, and approximately how much it will cost. The corporate logo system is especially effective in attracting the non-local or in-transit customer.

On the other hand, the local independent restaurant must generally rely upon its sign to attract customers because the owner usually cannot afford the costs of other media, such as television or large newspaper advertisements. In most cases, national media advertising would be foolish anyway, because the targeted consumer is probably from the local trade area. In other words, the local merchant aims at reaching people who live, work and travel in the vicinity of his or her business and not at triggering recall, recognition or top of the mind awareness on a multi-regional or national scale.

When a community examines on-premise signage with the purpose of making recommendations concerning new sign regulations, it is of paramount importance that the complexity of the undertaking be understood. Minimally, the stakeholders must become familiar with recent research and literature to be certain proposed new regulations are not compromising traffic safety, or manipulating business strategies or giving preference to one retailer over another without intending to do so. Also, where areas of a community are zoned for commercial use, it should naturally be a community goal to do as much as possible to ensure that all businesses that choose to locate in the zone are able to succeed.

As a corollary, well-intentioned, aesthetic-driven agendas, which do not take into account the consequences of on-premise signage restrictions, may cause the destruction of business districts and bring upon a community the blight and deterioration the community most wanted to avoid. Since no community administration would want to knowingly recommend policies that resulted in a substantial negative impact on the municipality, those with legitimate aesthetic concerns for the streetscape need to be open to information, in part contained in this paper and in part brought to them by sign manufacturers, sign users, economists, transportation engineers, lawyers, appraisers, and others professionally conversant with the function of signage in the commercial environment.

When considering the economic context of signs, a city administration should be cognizant of what types, sizes, and number of signs work best for citizens and business in each community district. Sign codes for larger cities and urban areas should be drafted with district "type" in mind. For example, separate sections of the sign code might be written for downtown businesses, neighborhood businesses, business parks or industrial/commercial areas, and mixed use, historic and entertainment districts. Also, scenic, view, gateway or commercial strip corridors may require individualized regulatory treatment.

All sign codes should be context appropriate, and no comparisons between communities should be made, absent detailed analysis of all demographic variables. In other words, municipal administrators and officials should not look at sign regulation as "Santa Fe vs. Las Vegas" or "over-restriction vs. under-restriction." Instead they should approach sign regulation in the context of "appropriate regulation vs. too-restrictive." Also, municipalities should guard against codes designed to the lowest common denominator -- i.e., codes designed to get rid of the ugliest sign in town, or to prevent similar signs in the future. Many times the "ugly sign" is not the fault of the existing code, but rather due to a lack of its enforcement; thus, vigilant enforcement often will negate the need for a new code.

Allowing businesses to maximize the utility of their signage is not a call for a laissez faire approach to sign regulation. Instead it is a call for a common sense approach that recognizes the consumer's need for information and the business's need to communicate this information, while remaining mindful of community character and ambience. Although notions of residential aesthetics should never be applied to retail zones, well crafted, responsive sign codes certainly can be used to create attractive, inviting streetscapes in central business districts, neighborhood commercial areas, entertainment districts, tourist destinations, and commercial corridors.

In the search for a fair sign code that protects the legal rights of all parties, it is often a difficult task to balance community desire for attractive streetscapes with driver need for safe sized and placed signs and business need to communicate with existing and potential customers. However, a workable balance of all competing interests can be achieved when regulators have a full understanding of the various forms of signage and how they are economically evaluated. Of equal importance to the process is recognition by business interests of the public's desire for attractive commercial environments. Ideally, when all stakeholders are participating with full knowledge and appreciation of sometimes opposing viewpoints, governing bodies will better comprehend the options and better craft a sign code which is responsive to and respective of business needs, consumer expectations and community aesthetic concerns.