Marketing your Product to Specifiers

This message arrived today as an email, copied to the Architect's designer, project manager and project Principal.  All the particulars, including names and companies are redacted to their <titles> or <positions> to reduce potential embarrassment.

Some background:  The project is a California Public Works project, subject to California Public Contract Code, which requires naming of multiple manufacturers.  All DTR work is prepared using MasterFormat 2012 numbering (six digit format).  The section in question is our work, not a manufacturer pro forma.  All products, including alternates and substitution procedures, are selected or are otherwise approved by the Architect.  All research on qualifying alternates (five total are listed) is performed by the DTR team.

It sounds very much to me as if <Sales Representative> is expecting to be specified as a sole source, (regardless of possible violation of state law and liability to the Design Team and Public Owner), as a quid-pro-quo for supplying some product data to the specifier.  But I might be misreading his intent.  Perhaps he is trying to protect our firm's liability.  In any case, I feel fortunate to learn that he and <Product Manufacturer> are willing to continue to work with us, in spite of our discourteous behavior.  Redemption is possible in this life after all.  He is anxious that I understand his intent, so it's a good thing he has expressed it clearly and concisely.

I offer this to you for your observations and recommendations.  Architects, how would you feel to receive a message like this from a Sale Representative?  Specifiers, any thoughts?  Sales Representatives, is this a good marketing practice, or something to avoid?  How are Sales Representatives compensated for time spent with designers?  Are the requirements of public contracts well enough known?

I am very interested in your comments, so feel free to leave them below.  For the present, we are offering no response to <Sales Representative>, although this is subject to reconsideration.

From: <Sales Representative>
Sent: <Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:59 AM>
To: <Specifier>; <Architect’s Project Designer>
Cc: <Architect’s Project Manager>; <Architect’s Project Principal>

Subject: RE: <Product Name> specification

John,

The basis of specification for this project is <Product Name>, however your listing of the other manufacturers as approved equals now means there is no standard for a real basis of design.  As a basic courtesy, if you are relying or requesting my time and expertise to develop a proper specification that meets your client’s needs, I would hope that you would at least list the other vendors not as equals, but under the typical paragraph used by many other spec writers.

A.     Requests for substitutions will be considered in accordance with provisions of Section 01600.

Or something similar, that requires the other vendors to meet the basic qualifications of the base spec.  Here you are asking other companies to prove that their product is “equal”. – The burden is on them -   This allows you to cover your bases and protect the specification, the intent of design as well as your firms liability against client issues, etc. 

<Product Manufacturer> and myself invest many hours and resources to assist the <Architect> with very detailed information to ensure that your clients receive what the design intent of the project requires.  If you are willing to accept any product, regardless of quality or ability to meet the design intent, what is the point in spending the effort detailing the <conditions> or <material types>?  I want to continue to work with you and <Architect> and hope that you understand the intent of this email.

Best regards,

<Sales Representative>

Friday Funnies

The photograph above is the door to the guest room bath in an expensive hotel room in a major Bay Area city.

I apologize for the zoomed-in view of the fixture, but it is important to see that little gap between the door and the fixture.  Why are we interested in this gap?  Of course there is a gap, how would the door close otherwise?

Look carefully at the edge, you can see how the solid core flush door has been carefully coped to clear the water closet fixture.  Without this elegant modification, the door would not close at all.

What has happened here?  The guest room bath was recently remodeled with new costly finishes and fixtures, perhaps even some drawings may have been made.  But not every condition was documented, apparently.  At least in this room, the new water closet was just large enough to prevent the door from closing.

There probably isn't really a specification lesson to teach here.   In fact, it's difficult to determine where the fault occurred in the chain of decisions leading to this sad state.   It might be a drawing problem, or a failure to properly select or submit products, or check the submittals.

But we do know that someone was responsible for accepting and allowing this condition to be left intact for hotel guests to photograph and comment about on the Internet.

Fortunately, the cut-away portion of the door created only a tiny gap at the frame stop with the door in closed position; the loss of privacy is nominal, and there are no fire rating issues to consider.  On the whole, this could be considered an inexpensive solution to an embarrassing problem, but definitely not one to recommend to clients.

I hope this photo gives you a smile on your Friday.