Evidence of failure of CAP public affairs

[RiverAux]

A neat new tool that is available for tracking the number of times that particular terms are searched for on the internet is Google Trends.  I recently ran the numbers for the term "Civil Air Patrol" and it is not good news.  Basically since 2004 the use of that term has dropped by half. 

The graph below shows the relative frequency of search on this term. 



If you run the numbers a different way and start with January 2004 as your "average" and compare the number of searches to that date, we are down by half.  The website doesn't graph it that way for you, but you can download the data and graph it yourself to see this yourself. 

So, if you consider the number of times people go looking for CAP on the web as a good indicator of the general level of interest in the organization, we're on a downward slide.  Note that there was a huge increase in 2007 during the Fossett search while there was only a minor blip for Deepwater Horizon.  Shows the difference between being at the center of a national event vs being at the extreme edges. 

Interestingly, we're not alone -- the Air Force is in a bit of trouble as well:

[a2capt]

So, what happened earlier, NASCAR?  ...and that peak in latter 2007, Generalissimo? Obviously something got folks attention back when.

[JC004]

Yup, that's indeed what happened with that spike.  This is very sad.   

[Eclipse]

Basically since 2004 the use of that term has dropped by half. 

Yet are membership and missions are up.

So people don't search for CAP, I don't see the issue.

Also, despite my best effort, a lot of people are connecting with various organizations through "social" media site, not search engines.
Bad news for Google, means nothing to us.

[Майор Хаткевич]

What's supposed to be on the Y-Axis?

[jimmydeanno]

What about people searching for:

"C.A.P."
"CAP"
"Air Force Auxiliary"
"CAP Cadet"
"Cadet"
"Red White and Blue Airplane I saw at the airshow"
"Tri-prop in white triangle"

Maybe they're using Google Goggles on our logo and running the search that way...

Maybe the searches have dropped because our website is on all the literature people get.  I don't search for "Civil Air Patrol" when I have something that says information is found at www.GoCivilAirPatrol.com

Perhaps it is an indicator of our marketing success that people aren't searching for us because they're going directly, or linking through the Facebook page.  Maybe they're getting all their CAP information from twitter.  No point in searching if the information comes right to you...

[Майор Хаткевич]

It's an index...who knows how they did it...

[Eclipse]

Interestingly, the most searches of the term "Civil Air Patrol" come from Alaska, by almost a 2-1 margin over the next highest state.

[RADIOMAN015]

How about the number of hits on "CAP Volunteer Now" website?  Has it gone up, down, stayed the same

Also in google news you can set up an email alert for any terms you want e.g. "Civil Air Patrol" and you will get an email every day with a summary and hot key to every article.  Does this count as a search in the google or is it internal to google and not counted

RM 

[lordmonar]

The number of searches is down....and that's a failure of PA because?

Maybe the number of searches are down because it is now easier to get to CAP related stuff.  Or possible the number of alternate search engines.  Or the number of people who are searching for CAP is down.

None of this is an indicator that PA did anything wrong of failing.

A PA failure looks like.....putting out erronious information.  Knowingly lie to the media...and getting caught.  Releasing information that by law/policy/good sense should be kept quiet.

[RiverAux]

You can go to Google Trends for more information on how the information is put together.  Basically it is a relative index. 

The other terms don't get searched enough or aren't CAP-specific enough to tell us anything. 

I don't have access to information on usage statistics for CAP web pages.  I don't recall that information ever being released.  If it shows a different trend that would be great.

There is absolutely no way to spin a decline in searches for Civil Air Patrol on the web as anything other than a failure of our public affairs program (on all levels) to generate interest in the organization among the general public. 

Sure, there are some other places that people might start a search for information on an organization that caught their interest.  But it would be pretty stupid to do your basic research starting with social media rather than the web. 

The idea that people are going direct to our website because of the literature we pass out is laughable.  If we're depending on that to drive traffic to our web site, we're in major trouble.  Again, NHQ probably has the capability to analyze direct traffic vs web search driven traffic and if that information is made public and shows a different trend, that would be great. 

FYI, I ran the program on Army, Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard and only the Navy and Marines show stable trends over this period.  The Army and Coast Guard have also declined. 

[Eclipse]

I wonder how Google Instant factors into that, it's a fairly new service, but a lot of people may never get to the whole term since what they need
pops up by the third or fourth letter.

[lordmonar]

okay.....so......you just trolling for how CAP isn't doing it right....once again.

Google trend shows a drop in searches.....okay....next issue.

[RiverAux]

Oh, and to show how Google Trends can represent a huge surge in public interest despite social media, etc. that might result in bypassing traditional web search, lets look at our good friend Snooki from the Jersey Shore show on MTV. 

[RiverAux]

okay.....so......you just trolling for how CAP isn't doing it right....once again.

Google trend shows a drop in searches.....okay....next issue.

Yes, I have been a consistent critic of CAP's public affairs program in general as are several on this board.  And how many times have we heard on this board "thats just a solution in search of a problem"?  Well, here is evidence of a problem.  And its not the only evidence -- heck, look at CAP's public awareness plan that shows that only about 10% of US adults know that CAP has done anything good for their community and its even worse in that 80% of those who are familiar with CAP don't know that we've done anything to benefit the community. 

There are plenty of threads where solutions to this issue have been offered by me and others, but forgive me for providing a new line of evidence showing that a problem exists.

[Thom]

Just as an experiment, I put in 'boy scouts' and got almost the same trend line over the same time frame. So, whatever we are doing wrong, they are also...

Or, it's an artifact of Google's trending analysis...virtually every organization I looked at has a similar trend line from 2004 to 2011. Even 'ROTC', although it has wild cyclical swings each year...surprise.

Even 'home schooling' has the same trend line over the same time period, and I'm pretty sure that hasn't fallen off the public radar. (Although, interestingly, over the same time frame 'charter schools' jumped bigtime...)

Also, 'toastmasters' and 'girl scouts' lost the same ground as CAP, though the 'knights of columbus' and the 'shriners' held pretty steady.

I think we need a more rigorous statistical analysis before deciding that this info means much of anything.

Of course, that is not to say that CAP's PA and Branding hasn't been inept and unfocused over that time, just that this might not be the data to prove it...


Thom

[MSG Mac]

Not that I take any interest in the statistics, but the downward trend could be as simple as people using  non-google search engines

[RiverAux]

Another way of looking at things is looking at the number of articles in which Civil Air Patrol is mentioned.  You can actually do this with Google News Archives search.  While their data goes back a ways, I think that there are problems using news stories as a metric back in the old days since there are probably way more papers online and visible to google now than then. 

But, if we look at just the period since 2000 we also see a decline in CAP news stories, mostly since we started our national PA plans -- and that is even with an increasing trend in online publishing which you would think that even if CAP did nothing different over this entire period would show an increasing trend in CAP stories since more of those that would have been published anyway are now online.

2000= 949
2001= 1,210
2002= 1,400
2003= 1,850
2004= 1,830
2005= 2,190
2006= 2,200
2007= 3,080
2008= 2,330
2009= 1,870
2010= 1,220

[ol'fido]

Interestingly, the most searches of the term "Civil Air Patrol" come from Alaska, by almost a 2-1 margin over the next highest state.

Much higher percentage of aircraft and aircraft owners per capita. 1 aircraft for every 60 people was the number used on the History Channel's "Tougher In Alaska" show the other night.

[RiverAux]

I think we need a more rigorous statistical analysis before deciding that this info means much of anything.

Oh, I certainly wouldn't say that this represents either high quality data or statistical analysis, but it is at least as good as any other data available to us at this point.  Web site hit data would be nice to have as well.

Maybe I should talk about who I think is failing in this case. 

I certainly don't put all or actually even much blame on NHQ.  While I think we probably could expect more from our paid staff they are no more at the heart of our public affairs program than are the NHQ paid ES guys are at the heart of our ES program.  They have let us down in certain areas without a doubt.  Maybe the blame is more on those who set our budget priorities and maybe they haven't been given the resources to really do any sort of national marketing campaign.

The main problem is that there is an extreme shortage of active unit public affairs officers and mission information officers to get CAP the publicity it needs at the local and state level.  An active PAO can just do wonders, but most are either ghosts on the organization chart or just barely active. 

Now, someone made the point earlier that our membership is growing so how bad could our public affairs be?  Well, if we were growing at a really strong clip, that might hold water.  But, on average we're barely adding 1 or 2 new members per unit across the country.  That hardly represents any sort of surge and I think that any unit should be able to sustain that rate with no public affairs program at all.  We have all been part of or heard of major public affairs events [put on by some unit resulting in huge spikes in membership.  If that was happening across the country our membership might be increasing by 10-20K per year and we'd be adding units across the country.  Any increase is great and shows that some units somewhere are doing things right, but its nothing to brag about. 

Now, lets turn to the "other organizations are doing bad so its no big deal if CAP is doing bad" argument.  I'm not surprised the Boy and Girl Scout trends are down.  Their membership has been falling.  The Boy Scouts lost 3% of their UNITs from 2009 to 2010.  Membership organizations such as ours have been in a general downturn for decades.  Toastmasters are a different story -- they have actually been growing at a great clip over recent years according to their annual report (an increase of 22% from 2006-2010) and if you measure them by number of news references (like I did with CAP in my last post) their number of mentions has been on the rise while ours has been on a decline.  If anything that might show a positive relationship between news stories and very high membership growth rates. 

[AirDX]

"We hope you find this service interesting and entertaining, but you probably wouldn't want to write your Ph.D. dissertation based on the information provided by Trends."

The problem with your use of this "data" is you don't know how they've sampled and massaged it, and you haven't QCed it at all.

I just plugged in some random search terms, and they all showed the same decline.

I tried "cessna", "astronomy", and even "toastmasters" (didn't you say Toastmasters was on the rise?).  "Congress".  Lots of things - some were level with spikes, most were declining like CAP.

There's something else going on than a "failure" of CAP PAOs, and I think it's in how Google Trends manipulates data and generates their index.

This is a non-event.

[JC004]

I think we need a more rigorous statistical analysis before deciding that this info means much of anything.

Oh, I certainly wouldn't say that this represents either high quality data or statistical analysis, but it is at least as good as any other data available to us at this point.  Web site hit data would be nice to have as well.

Maybe I should talk about who I think is failing in this case. 

I certainly don't put all or actually even much blame on NHQ.  While I think we probably could expect more from our paid staff they are no more at the heart of our public affairs program than are the NHQ paid ES guys are at the heart of our ES program.  They have let us down in certain areas without a doubt.  Maybe the blame is more on those who set our budget priorities and maybe they haven't been given the resources to really do any sort of national marketing campaign.

The main problem is that there is an extreme shortage of active unit public affairs officers and mission information officers to get CAP the publicity it needs at the local and state level.  An active PAO can just do wonders, but most are either ghosts on the organization chart or just barely active. 

Now, someone made the point earlier that our membership is growing so how bad could our public affairs be?  Well, if we were growing at a really strong clip, that might hold water.  But, on average we're barely adding 1 or 2 new members per unit across the country.  That hardly represents any sort of surge and I think that any unit should be able to sustain that rate with no public affairs program at all.  We have all been part of or heard of major public affairs events [put on by some unit resulting in huge spikes in membership.  If that was happening across the country our membership might be increasing by 10-20K per year and we'd be adding units across the country.  Any increase is great and shows that some units somewhere are doing things right, but its nothing to brag about. 

Now, lets turn to the "other organizations are doing bad so its no big deal if CAP is doing bad" argument.  I'm not surprised the Boy and Girl Scout trends are down.  Their membership has been falling.  The Boy Scouts lost 3% of their UNITs from 2009 to 2010.  Membership organizations such as ours have been in a general downturn for decades.  Toastmasters are a different story -- they have actually been growing at a great clip over recent years according to their annual report (an increase of 22% from 2006-2010) and if you measure them by number of news references (like I did with CAP in my last post) their number of mentions has been on the rise while ours has been on a decline.  If anything that might show a positive relationship between news stories and very high membership growth rates.

I think this is basically right.  As I have been saying, this isn't an issue of "NHQ public affairs people suck" or "National volunteer public affairs people suck."  It's more an issue of an ongoing neglect by the National Board and others that has been going on for many, many, many years (and many new people over that time).  While things may have been done by specific groups or individuals that are disappointing, the problem is ongoing and has several causes.

As I see it, marketing must be addressed as such:

• Cut off Bob from the outside world so he doesn't know that things are being done with social media
• Make an actual Facebook presence that doesn't suck, get the official setup going - not a million pages (which reminds me, I have to make a list of Facebook examples)
• Make an actual Twitter presence that doesn't suck
• Make a YouTube presence...Having one to start with would be great.  Then make sure it doesn't suck.
• Standard brand across online media
• STYLE GUIDE - COME ON, PEOPLE.  SERIOUSLY.
• Standard logo!  Duh.  Again...seriously.
• Make the vehicles not look silly
• Local Search Engine Optimization - for example: I type in "volunteering philadelphia pa" into Google and up comes CIVIL AIR PATROL!
• General Search Engine Optimization
• Website re-design (internal and external)
• Get "civilairpatrol.com" through an ICANN appeal. We have General Counsel for stuff like that.
• Re-do the print brochures and other print materials
• Prepare more guides for the wings and subordinate units to implementing marketing of all kinds
• Prepare templates for wings and subordinate units to use (website, social media, print materials, etc.)
• Increase the material offered in the Public Affairs toolkit
• Implement e-learning for things in public affairs - general marketing, writing, photography, websites, etc.
• Create an easy-to-deploy system for wings and subordinate units to take a standard software set (content management system and extras) and templates to deploy a unit website easily
• Revise CAPR 110-1 (while technically an IT regulation, this has a significant impact on online operations - especially marketing)
• Start a social media working group - NOT a committee.  Make it composed of people who KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING
• Stop this silliness of National's FIRST consideration of social media being the SOCIAL MEDIA POLICE. Instead, implement guides, best practices, etc. as Pylon has outlined previously
• List CAP on volunteer recruiting websites nationwide.  Assist the units in doing the same.
• Effective partnerships and collaboration with outside organizations
• Increased presence of CAP at related conferences and similar events
• New public service announcements
• Develop FIELD teams of great photographers and videographers to collect more material for local and general use
• Provide software and links to software for units to use that would help in things like web work
• Provide a great set of image files - logos, web banners, website graphics, that can be used as-is or easily modified (like a Photoshop .psd) for customized use

Overall, the approach should be:

• Standards
• A solid, consistent brand
• Engagement
• Useful materials
• Member guidance
• Member education
• Utilization of member talents and ideas to make the program a success from National to the squadron

The following are not included:

• A racecar
• Totally freaking random usage of brand elements like colors and logos
• Anything half-baked

Special emphasis should be on educating, empowering, and equipping at the local level.  Marketing campaigns, like political campaigns, are highly local and things like local SEO and squadron-level education in marketing assist in making this a success.

While I keep working on my personal Operations materials (as time allows, bit by bit) for eventual release to the masses once they're done, I keep seeing these issues and kind of thinking that I should go back to marketing stuff if given the support/opportunities, including updating my massive 4-part Public Affairs course (a 4-inch binder worth of material).

[RiverAux]

I tried "cessna", "astronomy", and even "toastmasters" (didn't you say Toastmasters was on the rise?).  "Congress". 

I said Toastmasters news stories had increased not web searches for them. 

[RADIOMAN015]

Unfortunately, much of what is presented gets down to the volunteers available time to do all of this.  Also the willingness of the local/regional media to run stories about CAP, which will vary greatly throughout the US.

IF you look even at wing level website you will see lack of updates.  My wing currently doesn't even have a pubic access site for wing related public affairs information e.g. stories, news releases etc. ---  I also know that the wing Director of Marketing & Public Affairs (new title) is working full time in a demand job.     

Personally, my suggestion on the website information is to have national maintain a sub site for every wing and the wing posts their news to that site.    On the squadron side, I now have a younger senior member who has the skill, motivation, and discipline (and has) re energized the squadron website.   I now have to catch up my articles to post a two year history of what we've done, with of course the current year having individual articles.  However, again with squadron (groups & even wings) IF you loose the resident expert on website design/maintenance, the site becomes outdated.   Is it better to not have a website at all OR to have one that has only news 2 years old  

It also seems to be an IG "checklist charlie" item on publishing a unit newsletter.  Personally, I think stories should be published (our goal) to the website as they happen rather than news that is a month or more old being published.  The issue also is do we publish the story in html or in PDF format (or both).  It's also very expensive to publish in paper form a squadron newsletter, especially if it is in color.

It does seem to me that all the talk about social media policy at the NB level seems to be more about "control of the membership (opinions)" rather than "substance improvement on the use of".       

Additionally even in the planning side, when I took a public relations course in college,  public relations planning primarily looked at the various "publics" (e.g. general public, our membership, potential/actual contributors/supporters, potential/current users of services) and developed specific strategies for each (including method(s) for reaching).

IF you look at any wing plan it is basically the same for all of them.   They also want the same type of plan at the unit level.   The unit level plan in my opinion really just needs to be a supplement to the wing plan or even use the wing plan as the guide.  Time needs to be spent actually producing content to distribute to the media, rather than "pie in the sky" planning.   So if you asked me what my plan is, it is:...  " to foster good community relations & awareness by participating in community events & also preparing and sending news releases (and completed stories) to various media outlets in the local area for squadron and individual squadron members achievements...."   I don't believe in flooding the media with lots of news releases but trying to do one or two a month.

I think the pubic relations/public affairs paid employees at National, really are committed to do the best job possible.  They've published my releases in CAP Volunteer Now, and sometimes I'm writing the stories/releases for wing and even region events because there's no other PAO available to attend (which I understand totally because of the cost of gas just to travel to these events (and even the travel time) that are held right in my back yard so to speak).   Yes I just step in and do it :angel:, without even being asked

I think that our public affairs/public relations program will always face challenges and some controversy BUT overall I think we are making some progress.
RM

[RiverAux]

It also seems to be an IG "checklist charlie" item on publishing a unit newsletter.  Personally, I think stories should be published (our goal) to the website as they happen rather than news that is a month or more old being published.   

FYI, using a wing web site as your "newsletter" has been accepted on at least two wing compliance inspections that I'm aware of. 

[Smithsonia]

There are so many things to say on this subject. Several I know nothing about and being trained in "old media" I won't comment on - with this exception - Twitter and Facebook are certainly worthy pursuits particularly regarding cadet recruitment.

Regarding "old media": Almost every town, state, region has a cable channel devoted to the community. These were once titled Community or Public Access channels. The channel that I have in Colorado routinely run 30 minute feature video content from the Army/Air Force/ and Marines. I have long sought funds to produce a 30 minute documentary or magazine format show to provide an interesting half hour program. I think with a cadre of 6-8 cadets and 3 to 4 seniors this could be done for about $500.00 per episode ($1000-$1500 per year.) I even had a local station in Denver offer to donate cameras and some editing time for this project plus the local community access had extra edit room time to donate.

If I remember right the 5 access channels that I talked to in Colorado were willing to clear 20 half hours per month to run this project in rotation along with the Army Navy etc.. That is a bunch of free publicity even given the fact that Public Access channels don't garner large audiences.

I put it to my command and they thought about it so long that the TV station pulled out and the local access channel became wary of our dedication to the project.
I think:
a) This kind of project can be done nearly anywhere because public access channels are ubiquitous.
b) This kind of project can fill in with resources from National and other Wings. You tube stealing should be encouraged.
c) This kind of project would be a great teaching tool for CAP Cadets to learn both PA duties and television production.

If you like the idea. Do it.

Pieces and parts of this idea still exist on You Tube SEE HERE:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EyJmkER-d8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VZJhTMURs4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SzvIsMC6B4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbciFZYHGzk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mze_U34y7mk

[Eclipse]

It also seems to be an IG "checklist charlie" item on publishing a unit newsletter.  Personally, I think stories should be published (our goal) to the website as they happen rather than news that is a month or more old being published.   

FYI, using a wing web site as your "newsletter" has been accepted on at least two wing compliance inspections that I'm aware of.

As well it should - no one is interested in "newsletters" anymore.  The ones I get, I pitch.  The very nature of the medium means they are not current
information, just a rehash to check a box, and even a lot of those are filled with non-CAP information.

As to the domain name, seriously?  It never occurred to me until this minute that the "gocivilarpatrol" domain was anything but a misguided attempted to be "withit".  That could be handled in a few phone calls or a lawyer letter or two.  Or just buy the darn thing and move on.

The fact that we moved off the ".gov" is ridiculous for starters, and CAP.com is just a placeholder as well.

[JC004]

It also seems to be an IG "checklist charlie" item on publishing a unit newsletter.  Personally, I think stories should be published (our goal) to the website as they happen rather than news that is a month or more old being published.   

FYI, using a wing web site as your "newsletter" has been accepted on at least two wing compliance inspections that I'm aware of.

As well it should - no one is interested in "newsletters" anymore.  The ones I get, I pitch.  The very nature of the medium means they are not current
information, just a rehash to check a box, and even a lot of those are filled with non-CAP information.

As to the domain name, seriously?  It never occurred to me until this minute that the "gocivilarpatrol" domain was anything but a misguided attempted to be "withit".  That could be handled in a few phone calls or a lawyer letter or two.  Or just buy the darn thing and move on.

The fact that we moved off the ".gov" is ridiculous for starters, and CAP.com is just a placeholder as well.

That's true and CAP's .gov domain may yet get yanked with the new project to review these as ordered by EOP.  This is especially true, I'd think, if it isn't being used.  The lack of a real redirect effort was a joke too on the part of the company that built the mess.

If you go to civilairpatrol.com, which as I said, should be acquired by ICANN's process, has a link to buy the thing.  If you click it, it says "Why Build a Brand When You Can Buy One?™"

How about that?  They're allowing you to buy Civil Air Patrol's brand.  They must be on the losing end since CAP doesn't have much of one because they neglected to build it!  :-)  That said, legitimate claim under Federal Law, so the thing is CAP's - BOOM.  I know someone who has done these things.  I reviewed the work that he did for my credit union.  Pretty straightforward. 

Do you really think they tried to be cool, though?  Or they just saw "Sorry, civilairpatrol.com is not available.  We suggest: gocivilairpatrol.com, getacivilairpatrol.com, supercivilairpatrol.com, mycivilairpatrol.com..."? 

[jimmydeanno]

well, the Army put "Go" in their URL, they have a lot of members... 

[JC004]

well, the Army put "Go" in their URL, they have a lot of members... 

I've seen this little pattern of "check out armed services websites, put it in National Board agenda."  They need to look at a BROAD range of sources for ideas, especially volunteer organizations.  At current, they don't seem to be looking at volunteer organizations, based on what's written.

Someone needs to task them to my list above.  It should keep them occupied.

[Eclipse]

The problem is that the audience is the "great unwashed", and for them, "go" and "my" seem to still mean something in internet naming.

[Major Carrales]

Contrary to what you read on GOOGLE, GOOGLE is not the WORLD.  But they are working on it.

[EMT-83]

Someone at Google just logged that comment!

[Major Lord]

If the sole purpose of CAP Public Affairs Officers was to ensure that we have a continuing and climbing incidence of searches by name, it would still be a tremendous over-reach to suggest that a Google ( A company with a very political agenda) trend chart represents useful data. Polls and Statistical evaluations are far better tools for altering public opinion than reflecting it. To suggest that Google Searches for CAP have a direct correlation on our publicity or recruiting efforts is an unreliable and potentially misleading tool for evaluating PAO's .

The single largest search for a single word as I understand it is still the word "sex" , and we have not seen sex become wildly more popular as a correlated function of Google searches. CAP and Sex still seem to be remarkably popular, despite Googles' advocacy or dissuasion.

I reject the initial premise that PAO's are merely an ad hoc public relations firm, whose sole job is to keep our names and heroic exploits ( while leaving out the scandals and corruption) in the eyes of the public, and I would not characterize the Google data as " Evidence of failure of Public Affairs" and find the inference insulting, ignorant, and ill conceived ( Note: I am not a PAO, although I do enjoy Kung PAO chicken) 

This does not address the larger question of whether CAP is in fact a "failing" organization. To make that statement would be as much an unfair over-reach as the first accusation. It is clear that our mission is changing, and that all things being equal, we are not currently the beloved step-children of USAF or USG in general. Things could change.......we have the very clear advantage of working for free, something that becomes increasingly desirable as our Country falls into a cataclysmic financial abyss. If we can keep our own leadership from turning us into a flying Peace Corp, and lead us back to Father-USAF to get us back into the homeland security game, we stand a fair chance of surviving, but this is not something an uncoordinated mass of PAO's can do for us. Its up to us to sink or swim.

Major Lord

[RiverAux]

I never said that CAP was a failing organization, just that our public affairs program is failing.  We've been puttering along in about the same place for many years now. 

I'm not sure what you think the job of the PAO is if it isn't to keep CAP in front of the media to the maximum extent practical.  Yes, they also have duties in keeping our members informed as well, but those two go pretty hand in hand.  Either you've got a PAO that does both or you've got a "PAO" that probably doesn't do either. 

I actually did cite some of CAP's polls showing how little known our name is.  There is no doubt that if we re-did that poll now it would give us more reliable information on how we are doing.  Give me some money and I'll do the poll.  In the meantime, I make use of what data is available. 

BTW, there are several other threads where the failures of CAP's public affairs program are discussed in great detail.  No one is resting any argument solely on this information.

[SoCalMarine]

I'm going to have to side with RiverAux here.

I have two examples which are completely anecdotal so back off you Academic Nazi's! (Just kidding Eclipse!  )

First example: Upon getting off active duty, after a few months I starting looking to get involved in some type of service organization. I ran across the Coast Guard Auxiliary by chance and ended up joining. Before anyone thinks I'm saying the CGAUX is better, I am not. I think their PA program has had issues as well speaking to people outside of the boating community. Anyway, during all that time I never came across CAP in a search. Funny thing is, I was in CAP as a cadet, and I had completely forgotten about the existence of the organization. I only came across CAP after a few years in the CGAUX when some cadets showed up to a rescue swimmer demonstration we were putting on with the USCG. So, even for people searching CAP doesn't always come up.

How do you guys think we can change that?

Second example: I recently attended the CLC class at the AFA. One of the instructors was a 2nd year cadet, and still a CAP member. Someone in the class asked him how many fellow cadets knew of CAP. He answered that almost no one that he has talked to in two years knew. The only ones that did know were, for the most part, current or former members and they had their own little get togethers. He DID say, however, that the brass generally knew about CAP, and that it was his personal belief that CAP cadets going to the AFA were expected to be more knowledgeable and squared away than the average cadet coming in. Sometimes, that made it harder, but better.

Just two examples. I think more public events need to take place, more CAP sponsorship and so on. You've got to spend the money to make the money.

I have been working to help CAP on different levels with PA stuff. I'm the public affairs specialist with my Guard unit, and I'm a PA III with the CGAUX (the highest level). I've got considerable experience, but I keep running into excuses. Some are legitimate, and some are not in my opinion.

[flyboy53]

Two things.

First, you can make statistics say anything you want them to say, so I'm not that excited about this graph.

Second, if you're really looking for a way to boost CAP's image in the public, that's a big PR campaign above and beyond the financial resources of NHQ, the Regions, Wings and local units. Remember the more local the level, the more likely the public relations is handled by a volunteer doing the best that person can do.

Anthing above and beyond the local unit press in the local media takes big bucks and a PR department looking at getting the message out there, and I, for one, am not that excited about throwing money at NASCAR again.  Remember, too, that the average local person looks at the CAP as part of the Air Force, so you have the same identity crisis that the Guard and Rerserve feel no matter what you do.

You want to boost the name recognition, especially in a positive way, than the responsibility falls on each of us to promote the organization in any POSTIVE way we can.

I have, however, been very excited recently at the sharp ads in the Air Force Association monthly magazine that show us doing our thing.

[RiverAux]

Well, right now CAP is spending only about 100K out of a 55 million dollar national budget on advertising, which is just amazing to me.  Sure, NASCAR was a disaster, but there actually are effective ways to spend money on marketing CAP.  For example, advertising could be bought for a song in the many regional pilot-focused tabloids that you can find in FBOs across the country. 

I'm glad that you agree with me that the local PAO is the heart of the program.  The few real PAOs that we have (as opposed to many that are on the roster but do nothing) can make an impact.  If there were more of them and if they received proper support then I might not say that the PA program as a whole is a failure. 

I'm very glad to hear about ads in the AFA magazine. 

[Spaceman3750]

Well, right now CAP is spending only about 100K out of a 55 million dollar national budget on advertising, which is just amazing to me.

Really? Why is PA more important than our three missions? If you want to spend more money it's got to come from some other budget area, presumably where it's being better spent.

[RiverAux]

Who said it was more important?  Are you saying that we should spend absolutely nothing on anything other than ES, AE, and CP?  Of course you're not (I assume).  But, this is a truly insignificant and insufficient amount.  PA is an investment in making sure you have the people and resources so that you can carry out your primary missions. 

Now, if you gave me a choice of having 100 top-flight squadron PAOs or 1 million to spend on advertising, I'd probably pick the PAOs.  But, that isn't the choice we've got. 

[SoCalMarine]

Let me tell you the problem with CAP Public Affairs as I see it. There's almost a public affairs program, but not quite. To make matters worse? There is no training program to speak of really. Yeah, there's a manual someone updated a few years back. Fantastic. Where's the training? I don't see squadron, group or wing level training as a standard across the country. We all know that an organization makes its living by the grunts, but the grunts in the PA program are running around like chickens with their heads cut off. Most of the local PAOs I've met are doing their best with little, to no, guidance.

Look at this example...

Take two kids equal in every way... background, parents, homelife and intelligence. Both are taking a calculus course. One student is given just a text book to use to teach themselves with no help except the occasional person they might be able to talk to. The other kid has a classroom full of other students, teacher's, TAs and even the opportunity to go to special classes specifically to train them in calculus. Which student is going to do better?

The first student is a CAP PAO. The second student is a PA specialist with the CGAUX.

So what's my point? I'm not trying to make the CGAUX out to be better than CAP as an organization. I'm simply making the point that the CGAUX has put in place a serious training program designed to give the local level PAOs all the tools they need to succeed. You add in that almost every other officer on the flotilla level also has training in their own position. So, you don't just have a well trained PAO, but all of his support staff and fellow officers having good training as well.

So, again what's the point? CAP could do well to get onboard with serious training programs. This hodgepodge crap is not working. You can't tell me that the USAF doesn't have the money to work with CAP to set up comprehensive training programs. CGAUX personnel can go to USCG C schools and even Navy C schools completely paid for by the USCG. I know for absolute certain that the USAF has more money. There's no reason that the USAF can't set up a program that would allow CAP officers to attend AF PAO schools and others. Once these training programs get up and running they will be able to run themselves with the first graduates being able to staff future classes and CAP schools.

Anything else and I'll call BS. The USAF is approaching CAP half-assed and we all know it. CAP is a good organization doing a good job with no training. There's already an excellent example in place, and I know for a fact that the CGAUX is willing to help out CAP getting things running. The problem is not just the USAF not investing time, money and effort, but you also have CAP not doing anything to set up training programs on its own (and it doesn't need AF permission for that) and finally you have too many people in CAP who are naysayers. Can't be done, AF won't allow it, don't have the money and so on and so on. People need to stop the negativity and just freaking get on board with making CAP a better organization than it is today. We need dedicated people willing to make the hard choice.

Put suggestions on the table. Quit telling us how it won't work and just tell us what parts will. We can come up with it on our own.

[RiverAux]

I've commented on the relatively more advanced state of PAO training in CG Aux in other threads and there are some things that we could probably do to improve in this area.  But, even though better training is available to CG Aux public affairs folks I'd say my overall assessment of their PAO program would be about the same -- pockets of hope centered around a very few number of good, active PAOs but overall a failure due to the fact that those folks are the rare exception and not the rule.

For example, the number of people with PA ratings resulting from going through the available training (as opposed to those who just hold the PA staff position) was in the dozens the last time I looked (though they have been making an effort to increase this). 

The thing that gets me is that CAP has the huge advantage of being at the center of state, regional, and sometimes nation-wide news events involving missing airplane searches in particular.  And CAP often plays a supporting role in other major national news stories.  But, too often we fail to take advantage of those opportunities either through a lack of PAOs or ICs being scared about having any interaction with the media. 

[jimmydeanno]

I think the amount being spent is insufficient as well.  My experience in the corporate world has told me that a good public affairs team pays for itself and then some because of the increase in sales, services, and personnel that it brings to the company.  In our case, a good public affairs effort, properly funded, with quality players on the team would result in a significantly higher revenue stream from donations, etc.  People want to get on board with organizations that do good things and that everyone knows about.

Getting our name out better improves the chances of getting grants, donations, corporate partnerships, etc.  Throwing some money at public affairs, with a solid plan behind it would be a great thing.  However, the real questions are whether or not that 100K is coming out of corporate funds or appropriated funds, can we use appropriated money for fundraising and public affairs, and if there is more money available in the appropriate pot to put towards that goal. 

If it's corporate money, then I think we'll have a hard time getting an increase in that area - considering how little corporate money we use/have each year.  If it's appropriated money, there will be more restrictions - but my understanding is that we often return about 1 million in unused appropriated money each year.

[RiverAux]

Just to be clear, that 100K figure is the amount specifically spent on advertising.  I'm sure that if we lumped in the cost of salaries and benefits of paid NHQ public affairs staff that it would probably look more like a quarter million and there might very well be some other "public affairs" spending accounted for in other parts of the national budget. 

[flyboy53]

So, what's the solution.

It seems that you want a HQ-level Public Affairs Department that is both marketing and public affairs oriented. The problem is that they are two distinctly different missions, conducted by separate functions: the various recruiting services and Public Affairs. Each has separate budgets for different target audiences.

If you want the flashy billboards, the slick ads, the promos and the PSAs (which is not a bad idea) that's all recruiting. However, I don't see us ever in the situation of giving out t-shirts, ballcaps, cups, etc., to everyone that signs up...but it is necessary to get the message out. The closest we get are all those DDR handouts...but somebody has to pay for all that, and if it isn't the unit, it's the DDR officer out of pocket.

You want to get the story out there, that's all Public Affairs. Air Force Public Affairs at wing level used to be (and probably still is) broken into four policy areas: internal, external, community relations, and policy/security review. It's at wing level that everything (the mission) takes place. As a minimun, a wing-level PAO function had two officers, a NCOIC and at least two to three enlisted types in each functional area. Squadrons had stringers and groups had one to two individuals who managed things like hometown news releases, or prepared things for release by wing.

Also, during my tenure in AF Public Affairs, commands used to quota wings for story ideas that would be marketed to national publications. I know because I managed this program at Mt. Home AFB and actually authored the initial pubic release of information in the Grumman EF-111A; to include writing an article about the aircraft for a national publication...I'm dating myself.

In my own experience, CAP wing or region public affairs don't operate anywhere close to that model and there's a complete lack of community relations. This is because the different NHQ functions guard their own programs. Case in point, the TOP Flight program is a combined AE, community relations and recruiting program.

If I were in a position of authority, I would push for the CAP-USAF side to take over the PA function and let the marketing guys do the marketing, billboards, etc. I would strongly promote things like the Hometown News Release Program and provide the units with the same, very simple, template that is still used today. Also, although it is highly unlikely that a CAP PAO ever gets picked for someting like DINFOS (I'm a DINFOS grad), the summer months, when the school was at Fort Harrision, Ind., were filled with Reservists and Guardsmen who attended week-long short courses to bone up on their skills or give those who learned the job OJT an opportunity to experience DINFOS. I don't understand why that isn't an option for CAP PAOs, especially as a special activity.

Just my own thoughts on this subject.....for what they're worth.

[ProdigalJim]

It seems that you want a HQ-level Public Affairs Department that is both marketing and public affairs oriented. The problem is that they are two distinctly different missions, conducted by separate functions: the various recruiting services and Public Affairs. Each has separate budgets for different target audiences.

:clap:  :clap:  :clap:  :clap:

The mixing of those two concepts drives me bananas, both in the CAP sense and as a recipient of it during my day job (for those who haven't read my profile...which is probably everyone...I'm a senior editor at Aviation Week).

I know because I managed this program at Mt. Home AFB and actually authored the initial pubic release of information in the Grumman EF-111A; to include writing an article about the aircraft for a national publication...I'm dating myself.

Hee! You are. One of the first things I ever read that helped fuel my interest in aviation as a career was an "Amazing Expose" of the F-111 in Popular Science in 1967. Cool piece, and I still have it scrapbooked someplace. That was back when PopSci was small-format and perfect-bound...a book-sized magazine each month that hid nicely away in my desk at school so Sister didn't see me sneaking a peek...

[FW]

I think the amount being spent is insufficient as well.  My experience in the corporate world has told me that a good public affairs team pays for itself and then some because of the increase in sales, services, and personnel that it brings to the company.  In our case, a good public affairs effort, properly funded, with quality players on the team would result in a significantly higher revenue stream from donations, etc.  People want to get on board with organizations that do good things and that everyone knows about.

Getting our name out better improves the chances of getting grants, donations, corporate partnerships, etc.  Throwing some money at public affairs, with a solid plan behind it would be a great thing.  However, the real questions are whether or not that 100K is coming out of corporate funds or appropriated funds, can we use appropriated money for fundraising and public affairs, and if there is more money available in the appropriate pot to put towards that goal. 

If it's corporate money, then I think we'll have a hard time getting an increase in that area - considering how little corporate money we use/have each year.  If it's appropriated money, there will be more restrictions - but my understanding is that we often return about 1 million in unused appropriated money each year.

Most of the money for "advertising" CAP comes from our national "dues".   Salaries and office expenses come mostly from our "appropriated funds". 

CAP's marketing and advertising budget is determined by the NEC and BoG.  Could we spend more?  Probably.  For me to approve of such an additional expense, we would need a comprehensive marketing plan which would show a realistic expectation of positive returns.   Targeting potential members is good however, as Jimmy says, targeting potential contributors is better.   After all, getting members is not our problem; keeping them is. Adequate funding is always a question.  Oh, and last I heard, we never turn back appropriated cash...

[RiverAux]

After all, getting members is not our problem; keeping them is.

While I agree that retention can be an issue, anyone who thinks that CAP is adequately staffed on the senior side for any of our missions, and ES in particular, is just wrong.  For most ES specialties on a good day we can handle a mission just barely.  We have very little depth at most of our positions and in most of our units given that most of our volunteers don't have job protection and can't respond like the National Guard.  We need a minimum of 3 and preferably 6 people for every slot on whatever team you want to put together.  For example, you need 3-6 GTLs and 12-24 GTMS to have a pretty good chance of fielding a 5 person ground team at any given time, especially for a multi-day mission.  I haven't run the numbers lately, but the last time I looked at mission pilots in particular we were right on the edge of bare minimum nationally and many wings were below it. 

We could also be doing much better in terms of raw cadet numbers.  There is no reason that we couldn't have at least a small cadet unit in any town with more than 10,000 people and any town with more than 30-50K should be able to have at least 50+ cadets. 

There is no reason that we should be satisfied with the stagnant membership numbers we've had for decades.  We appear to be on a slight rise at the moment, but certainly nothing spectacular. 

I too am not totally comfortable with the mixing of marketing and public affairs, but they to have a lot of similarities.  I don't see that confluence as holding us back.  Ideally we would have enough people to separate them out, but we don't.

We do have a marketing plan, but it is more of a general overview rather than laying out particular campaigns. 

Having CAP-USAF do public affairs?  Are you nuts?  What training or experience do they have in it?  There may be a random former public affairs guy in CAP-USAF somewhere, but I don't see them as bringing any more to the table than any CAP PAO might and sometimes less as their knowledge and understanding of CAP can be pretty limited at times. 

[flyboy53]

Having CAP-USAF do public affairs?  Are you nuts?  What training or experience do they have in it?  There may be a random former public affairs guy in CAP-USAF somewhere, but I don't see them as bringing any more to the table than any CAP PAO might and sometimes less as their knowledge and understanding of CAP can be pretty limited at times.

No not nuts, just trying to get someone to understand how this very important function needs to be managed. Ask yourself this question, who manages the PAO function from the Air Force side or does the CAP staff contribute to Air University or Maxwell AFB Publications. Someone is generating news releases that make their way into things like Air Force Times, Airman magazine, or the AFA Magazine.

Think of this. How much more successful would the PAO function be if the wing PAO shop was staffed large enough so that there were teams to put out wing-wide publications. news releases, PSAs, sound bites or community relations projects. A squadron-level PAO could be a stringer for group or wing, which would serve as a less-stressful and better training opportunity. Then at group oir wing level there would be teams of PAO types separated into the different functions and tasked with generating news releases wing-wide or developing one wing-level publication with everyone contributing to it.

You could even have Mission PAO teams capable of responding to a crisis/plane crash/search/etc. just like incident commanders.

[RiverAux]

Your second paragraph sounds great, but I don't see how getting CAP-USAF involved would aid in that at all.  There are very few people assigned to CAP-USAF and I don't see that changing given AF-drawdowns.  So, you're talking about giving them an additional duty.  Doesn't sound like it would lead to an increase in quality or quantity of CAP public affairs work.

 

[flyboy53]

Your second paragraph sounds great, but I don't see how getting CAP-USAF involved would aid in that at all.  There are very few people assigned to CAP-USAF and I don't see that changing given AF-drawdowns.  So, you're talking about giving them an additional duty.  Doesn't sound like it would lead to an increase in quality or quantity of CAP public affairs work.

So that's an unrealistic goal and a given fact. Then that means that NHQ should be studying what they need to do to improve their functions to include re-designing the delegation of authority to all things, not just big wing PA operations. So many times, a wing staff function is just one person trying to manage a wing-wide program.

In a long run, I would think that more people in any given wing function would allow delegation of authority and time to concentrate on projects that could net the CAP things like the Public Relations Society of America's Anvil awards.

The closest we've ever gotten to a massive in-your-face almost daily PR campaign was the search for Steve Fossett or all those neat video products with things like Fox News following 9-11. I've seen CAP in movies like "Solo Flight" and there are a few AF Audiovisual Service movies that make the CAP continue to shine even though those products are now almost 40 years old.

The thing is, is that in recent months, it almost seemed like somebody went to sleep and now we have a public perception problem.

[RiverAux]

Some wings actually do have public affairs "teams".  I think I've seen some with as many as 4-5 people (Wing PAO, Asst. Wing PAO, webmaster, recruiter, etc.). 

[Eclipse]

CAP-USAF's job is not to do CAP's wrench turning, nor are they necessarily more capable simply by their military status.

The USAF's  job is not to do CAP's wrench turning, nor are they necessarily more capable simply by their military status.

Wrench turning is the job of the volunteer membership, that's the whole point, and if we can't or won't do it, then it is to our
detriment.