By Vincent Driscoll
In recent years, schools across the United States have invested heavily in security measures to protect students from potential threats. One such investment is the installation of security window films. However, a recent investigation by The Wall Street Journal has raised questions about the efficacy of these films and the marketing practices within the window film industry.
The Promise vs. Reality
The allure of security window films lies in their promise to enhance safety without the substantial costs of installing bullet-resistant glass. These films are designed to hold shattered glass together, thereby delaying forced entry and providing additional time for occupants to react. Tests have demonstrated that while the film may prevent glass from shattering, it does not stop bullets from penetrating. This discrepancy between marketing claims and actual performance has led to concerns that schools are investing in a false sense of security.
Brad Campbell, President of Riot Glass LLC, a manufacturer of security glass in Itasca, Illinois, points out that the window film industry has dealt with false narratives before.
“The industry has struggled with misrepresentation in the past with hurricanes, and now with ballistic protection claims,” he says. He notes that misleading marketing practices continue to impact the industry, leading customers to believe they purchase a higher level of protection than the product can deliver.
Industry Misrepresentation
According to Campbell, companies sometimes use murky or overstated claims without clear scientific backing, leaving customers unaware of critical factors like the type of glass used in testing and the specific application methods required for the film to perform as advertised.
“The companies are not making it abundantly clear what glass they are using in testing as compared to what the client has in their buildings, how many layers of film are to be added, how it is attached (if at all), and they are not educating the buyer to ensure the application will perform as expected,” he explains.
Campbell also warned about the potentially disastrous consequences of over-reliance on misleading security claims.
“This is a ticking time bomb because the truth will come out only in a tragedy when the solution vastly underperforms, and lives are lost,” he says. “Why anyone would set themselves up to be in that position is beyond me, but it happens every day.”
James Beale, CEO of National Glazing Solutions LLC, a film installation company based in Canton, Georgia, emphasizes that deceptive practices are not coming from traditional practitioners but from those he feels are opportunistic newcomers to the market.
“Those responsible for the lies are not traditional window film dealers,” Beale says. “There are conmen in every industry, and the Wall Street Journal called them out.”
Beale notes that while the industry is largely composed of reputable companies offering valuable products, the actions of a few bad actors can tarnish the entire sector’s reputation.
“This is a very good industry with very good products, but it’s a problem when people come in and do that (lie),” he adds.
The Call for Transparency and Education
The International Window Film Association (IWFA), a non-profit trade association that provides unbiased educational information about window film, has issued cautions about information portraying safety and security window films as bullet-resistant, emphasizing the importance of accurately representing product capabilities. The IWFA’s Safety & Security Education Guide explores issues arising when industry members exaggerate or distort the capabilities of safety films through ignorance or misrepresentative advertising and marketing.
In the original Wall Street Journal article, Darrell Smith, executive director of the IWFA, even offered examples of how some of the bad actors may impress school officials with live demonstrations that show film-stopping bullets.
“The trick,” he says, “Is done with low-powered guns or bullets and a thicker, outdated glass most schools don’t have.”
Campbell suggests that the industry could benefit from a unified effort to educate potential buyers about the realistic capabilities of security films.
“Window film industry leaders can come together with an education campaign that focuses on government (GSA), schools, law enforcement (local, state and fed) and legislators,” he says.
He proposed that such a campaign could “clearly outline security films’ primary role in protecting buildings” while warning against deceptive marketing practices.
Wade Arnold, commercial sales director at Quikserv, a window manufacturer from Houston, notes that while security window film is valuable, it should not be marketed as bulletproof or blast-resistant. “Window film has its place, but not for ballistic and blast,” he says. He clarifies that the term ‘bullet-proof’ is a misnomer, explaining, “It’s a marketing term used for sales.”
Instead, Arnold emphasizes the importance of correctly positioning security films within their appropriate use cases.
“Window film, if sold correctly, belongs in the security space,” he says. “As a psychological deterrent, or for delayed entry, it can be very effective.”
A Ticking Time Bomb
The potential consequences of over-reliance on misrepresented security films are dire. As Campbell warned, the truth about these products’ limitations may only come to light during a tragedy when the solution underperforms, potentially resulting in loss of life. This scenario underscores the urgent need for industry-wide standards and honest communication to prevent such outcomes.
Campbell believes that many manufacturers and operators are on the same level, yet a few bad actors are responsible for the perception problem.
“Many manufacturers and operators are conducting themselves with integrity,” he states. “The handful of smaller startups muddy the waters and are largely responsible for the perception problem.”
Moving Forward
To address these challenges, industry leaders advocate for a comprehensive education campaign targeting government agencies, schools, law enforcement, and legislators. Such initiatives would aim to outline the primary functions of security films clearly, provide disclaimers against deceptive marketing, and promote rigorous testing from certified third-party labs.
Beale illustrates the issue metaphorically.
“If you took the brakes off a Chevy Malibu, put it on a Porsche and raced it, the brakes would fail,” he says. “That doesn’t mean the brakes don’t work.”
His point underscores that security films can be effective when used in the right context but should not be marketed as “bulletproof” solutions.