Discussion on naming a surveying business

For those that care and can't Google very well, my firm is named Great Plains Surveying Consultants, Inc. and has been around for twenty years in one or more ways, shapes and forms. I specifically chose a generic name instead of operating under a surname of sorts because of the veritable cornucopia of small surveying firms operated under the name of the surveyor. I had seen an older surveyor that used his first and last name for his company for years and fell short of being able to pass his torch along due to his desire to NOT have a company with his name and him not owning it. And previously having an interest in two engineering consulting firms over the years it did not feel uncomfortable to me to own and operate a corporate entity that wasn't someone's name.

Back in the day Mark Deal had once exclaimed to me, "I wish I had thought of that name!"...Because he was looking for some catchy name that had the initials "GPS" incorporated into it...trust me, that was the furthest thing from my mind when I spun that name. Mark settled for something a little closer to home but was proud of his use of the word "geomatics" in his company logo. Really stepping out there for the '97 or '98 timeframe.

We all know what Bill Shakespeare said about a name. And I'm pretty sure it rings true with professional endeavors. I don't know where to draw a line and don't care to try. Something like "Knighthawk" surveying sounds corny to me...but who am I to judge...and all the Echohawk family boys had their name on their the side of their trucks when they were around. It's pretty much a personal preference, I'm sure.

And we all know better than to "judge a book by its cover"....

The comment regarding domain name considerations reminded me of the story about a website called Surveyors Exchange. Seems like a good name for a community of surveyors, right? Or maybe a place to barter, sell or trade surveying equipment?

Now consider that they managed to get exactly that name for their domain name, which means they got surveyorsexchange.com -- do you see what I see? Domain names are an important consideration when determining your business name.

Tom Adams, post: 375824, member: 7285 wrote: I tried the handle Adamsurveyor for a while (it's funny because the "S" in Adams is also the first letter in "surveyor", plus I'm using my name}. It didn't take all that well, and I don't know why.

Adam$urveying..."Surveying the Garden of Eden"

DDSM

Dan B. Robison, post: 375864, member: 34 wrote: Adam$urveying..."Surveying the Garden of Eden"

DDSM

I preferred "adamsurveyor" (hint - A Damn Surveyor) for the name. But not sure everyone really gets that. Surveying doesn't really cut it. The dollar-sign isn't bad, though. "Adam$urveyor"

paden cash, post: 375837, member: 20 wrote: I specifically chose a generic name instead of operating under a surname of sorts because of the veritable cornucopia of small surveying firms operated under the name of the surveyor. I had seen an older surveyor that used his first and last name for his company for years and fell short of being able to pass his torch along due to his desire to NOT have a company with his name and him not owning it.

I'm having some difficulty imagining what one buys when he buys an existing business if not a whole bunch of records of work done under the supervision of a specific licensee, including maps bearing his seal and signature, and a bunch of folks who call asking for Old So-and-So.

Old So-and-So decides to do business as Dust Devil Surveying and what does the new owner have other than a whole bunch of records of work done under the supervision of a specific licensee, including old maps bearing his seal and signature, and a bunch of folks who call asking for Old So-and-So.

To buy anything, I'd think Young So-and-So would reasonably expect Old So-and-So to participate in the business during the transition of ownership, to introduce clients, and to tell Young So-and-So all the funny stories that the clients expect to hear. So operating under the name of Old & Young makes sense for a specific period of years until the old clients either disappear or Young So-and-So decides that none of them are worth having.

Tom Adams, post: 375824, member: 7285 wrote: I tried the handle Adamsurveyor for a while (it's funny because the "S" in Adams is also the first letter in "surveyor", plus I'm using my name}. It didn't take all that well, and I don't know why.

Hey I could use that one too.

Andy J, post: 375788, member: 44 wrote: I kept the name Sanibel Surveys instead of my LLC name for a few reasons... [...] ... since I work in a small geographic area ( mainly the islands of Sanibel and Captiva) it makes sense.

I do think that place names aren't a bad choice when they communicate something about the surveyor's service area niche, i.e. are specific to a particular limited area that is a qualification in itself. Naturally the more general, aspirational names like All-Coast Surveying wouldn't make that cut.

One test is whether the storefront name communicates something truthful and useful to the prospective client. In a limited area like Sanibel and Captive Islands, a name that announces that the surveyor behind it focuses his or her practice on just that area should be very useful information to help a member of the public distinguish that practioner from an entity named "Allstate Super-Pro Precision Mapping" or something similar.

And then there's my motto: "We're not very good, but at least we're slow!"

foggyidea, post: 375759, member: 155 wrote: I went for local cutesy historical sounding name for mine. The Outermost House is a locally famous book, that has maybe become popular beyond the sandbar I live on.

I'm still surprised that you didn't opt for "Silent D Poodle Surveying".

Kent McMillan, post: 375869, member: 3 wrote: I'm having some difficulty imagining what one buys when he buys an existing business if not a whole bunch of records of work done under the supervision of a specific licensee, including maps bearing his seal and signature, and a bunch of folks who call asking for Old So-and-So....

One can purchase existing contracts. Either large projects or in my case, continuing on-demand work orders at not only a prescribed hourly rate breakout for different services, but a determined schedule of possible rate increases over the term of the contract; 5 years in this case.

And you're still stuck on that specific individual ditty. Here's a shocker, Kent; more than one surveyor is capable of properly supervising and providing these rudimentary, but very necessary (and profitable) services. As long as the supervising surveyor is capable of determining the location of specific easements and right-of-ways (and providing the necessary professional coverage required) my client probably doesn't care if it's my name or a new guy that signs and seals documents. It's a BUSINESS. An established business providing professional services only a surveyor can provide, with an integral working relationship for a couple of corporate and quasi/ public entities. And while a number of the contract administrators and myself are good friends, one in particular is retiring. It was a good time for me to profit from the sale of my oh-so-foolishly-named 'storefront' endeavor.

I understand you feel as though your stock in trade is your expertise. (And Lord knows there's no one else that could ever hold a candle to that expertise.) There is nothing wrong with marketing just yourself and your laurels. Being able to maintain a good standing among your clientele is an accomplishment. But you're a one trick pony. One trick ponies SHOULD stick with just using their names. Therefor when someone is in need of professional services on a larger scale they can avoid wasting their time with small time operators that cannot perform logistically.

Apples and oranges, obviously.

[USER=3]@Kent McMillan[/USER]

Dust Devil is a client of mine.
The first survey I made for him was when he bought a 15 acre ranchett from Happy Jack Thrapp.

Yeah, I ask to see their DL to make sure.

paden cash, post: 375886, member: 20 wrote: And you're still stuck on that specific individual ditty. Here's a shocker, Kent; more than one surveyor is capable of properly supervising and providing these rudimentary, but very necessary (and profitable) services.

I suppose that if client relationships didn't matter and the world were entirely rational, it would be universally true that all clients always sought out the most qualified service providers. The reality, however - and that I'm willing to wager applies even North of the Red River - is that clients want to deal with service providers that they like (and who coincidentally happen to be nominally qualified to provide the service). This is the intangible element to building a surveying business that isn't necessarily subject to contracts of sale. I would imagine that both you and I have watched established surveying practices swirl around in the porcelain bowl upon transfer.

Kent McMillan, post: 375888, member: 3 wrote: ..The reality, however - and that I'm willing to wager applies even North of the Red River - is that clients want to deal with service providers that they like (and who coincidentally happen to be nominally qualified to provide the service). This is the intangible element to building a surveying business that isn't necessarily subject to contracts of sale. I would imagine that both you and I have watched established surveying practices swirl around in the porcelain bowl upon transfer.

Sure. A majority of them actually. Generally a file cabinet full of old survey records is only worth what the cabinet will bring on eBay. Sad, but true. If all I had to sell was "blue sky and old blue lines", the company would only be worth what the used equipment would bring.

And clients do want to deal with likable people with which they have working relationships. One of my client's accounts payable department has access to a portion of my accounting software that resides on my server. And my accountant talks with their accountants. Our organizations are entrenched to the point changing something would be painful at best and possibly expensively counter-productive for them.

Over the last year I have spoken with board members concerning a transfer of ownership and they are all for it. One gent even quipped that I had 'better not get rid of any of my help' because of how well we treat them and the service they receive. Personal relationships are the key to everything.

You're concept of calling Jones Surveying and only talking to Jones is cute but antiquated, like a small town doctor and his buggy. In my case support staff is a lot more of the equation than just 'mediocre help', they're daily efforts are a part of the worth of the organization.

Surveying can be a lot more than surveying.

paden cash, post: 375893, member: 20 wrote: Over the last year I have spoken with board members concerning a transfer of ownership and they are all for it. One gent even quipped that I had 'better not get rid of any of my help' because of how well we treat them and the service they receive. Personal relationships are the key to everything.

You're concept of calling Jones Surveying and only talking to Jones is cute but antiquated, like a small town doctor and his buggy. In my case support staff is a lot more of the equation than just 'mediocre help', they're daily efforts are a part of the worth of the organization..

Well, I'm certainly not trying to derail a deal that will allow you to retire to Texas, but you did pretty much give the game away when you noted that you have spoken with board members. It wasn't folks on your staff that they wanted to discuss things with. I realize that you may want to downplay the importance of the owner/practitioner (at least until you get the sale closed and are able to move to that lake house near Austin that you have had to forego all these years) but the owner/practitioner is almost certainly the essential ingredient, a condition that storefront names only serve to camouflage.

My Pops who owned his own small business (nothing fancy that required letters behind his name; he was a custom meat cutter and a damn successful one...the best in 5 counties and pretty much my hero) told me one day that if I wanted to be a successful business man with employees of my own, I always needed to be working towards training my replacement because no one is irreplaceable. He always wanted more for me than what he had built and was happy for me when I chose a different path but every day I test my business decisions against what he taught me and more times than not I find myself doing things the way he did from a business perspective. Choosing to have employees changes the game in how you think about things because you're not only responsible for the food on you and your family's plate but the plates of those whom you employ. I encourage those who work for me to build their own relationships with our Clients, if at some point they choose to leave and those Clients choose to go with them rather than staying with me then I've done my job well and I need to continue doing it and find new Clients to replace them. Conversely, if I've done my job well in tutoring a replacement and they see value in what we've built together hopefully they'll choose to take my place and the responsibility it demands when the time comes. If I get hit by a bus tomorrow it will be difficult but not insurmountable for those employees left behind because I've tried my best to teach them how to do my job. The paper or terabytes of data held by the company have value, the contracts and receivables due the company have value but the culture and ethic you build into it are what's truly valuable and if I've done my well those things should stand on their own if it's me at the helm or someone I've trained.

Cameron Watson PLS, post: 375906, member: 11407 wrote: Conversely, if I've done my job well in tutoring a replacement and they see value in what we've built together hopefully they'll choose to take my place and the responsibility it demands when the time comes.

I tend to think that it has as much to do with finding understudies with innate aptitude as anything. Surveyors tend to be relatively rare types.

The culture of an organization tends to depend upon the model used, i.e. whether the whole basically operates as some large in-bred family, an army, a gang, creative chaos, or something else. If the principal can model and demonstrate sustainable practices, then so much the better, but the organization will still tend to mirror the principal's relation to the world.

Likewise, the dysfunctions in organizations can usually be traced back to the origins of the same, and there again you are left with the principals.

The dynamic that I think tends to work against long-term sustainability in organizations is that the second generations who show up to run them tend to be chosen for their differences with the principals (compensating for some perceived deficit) and so are not equipped to continue as the principals had for years.

Kent McMillan, post: 375916, member: 3 wrote: If the principal can model and demonstrate sustainable practices, then so much the better, but the organization will still tend to mirror the principal's relation to the world.

Brother, it sounded just like that when it was rolling around in my head, I guess it got filtered and/or diluted somewhere between my brain and the keyboard...

If I didn't want the organization to tend to mirror its principal's relation to the world I think I would have skipped the organization part to begin with LOL

This is mainly for Kent: I know of a survey company name that implies they are the best in the business, and I just looked at their website, which certainly reinforces their high opinion of themselves. They can apparently do anything, and fast, and the site is full of laudatory letters from happy clients. The problem is, the peers who follow the work of this surveyor know he is an incompetent boob. Not just once - time after time. The clients have no idea how bad his work is. The drawing looks great and was on time, so must be right. Right?

Bruce Small, post: 376100, member: 1201 wrote: This is mainly for Kent: I know of a survey company name that implies they are the best in the business, and I just looked at their website, which certainly reinforces their high opinion of themselves. They can apparently do anything, and fast, and the site is full of laudatory letters from happy clients. The problem is, the peers who follow the work of this surveyor know he is an incompetent boob. Not just once - time after time. The clients have no idea how bad his work is. The drawing looks great and was on time, so must be right. Right?

Absolutely! The name just clinches the deal, too! I've been trying to determine exactly when the flakey company names became common, In Texas, I think it probably happened after 1975 and certainly before 2000.