CAP "Brand": More Regulation Around the Use of Logos, Seals, etc?

[A.Member]

Over the past several weeks, I've read numerous posts that seemed to have a consistent underlying tone...a lack of direction as it relates to our "brand".   For example:
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=6666.0
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=572.0
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=6081.0

Regulations and guidance on the use of symbols, emblems, logos, mottos, etc. is extremely light - to the point of essentially being nonexistent.  These items represent our "brand".  Interesting enough however, this has not stopped the legal eagles at National from shutting down certain suppliers that "infringed" on the brand.   The fact that they pursue these things is not in itself unusual, most companies take their brand image rather seriously and look to maintain consistency in it's presentation; for many major corporations this is paramount.  However, what is unusual, as it pertains to CAP, is the inconsistency of efforts to protect the brand; most notably within the organization.

I've seen many variations on the use of our brand, some are good but many are not.  There have been discussions around the need for a strategic plan out of National; I'm one of the biggest proponents of that.  However, while related, this question is slightly different.  I'm simply talking about protecting the brand and maintaining consistency, regardless of the message.  There are no stated rules governing patches or mottos.  That is odd.   There is no style sheet that discuss the use of our corporate logos and emblems nor is there an on-line public library/repository that houses approved designs (at least not that I'm aware of). 

Let me be clear, this single issue alone will not change the world as we know it.  It is simply one of many changes that needs to occur on our path toward a clearly defined goal.  With that said, what are your thoughts?  Should national (and I see this as a PAO responsibility) undertake efforts to clarify and/or create regulations around the use of brand items - at all levels:  National, Region, Wing, Group, and Squadron/Flight?   Not only do I think they should, I don't think it's that big an undertaking.  It's low hanging fruit, sts.

[Eclipse]

The regs are clear enough today, what we need is more oversight and enforcement, which is not likely to happen any time soon because of manpower limitations.

Take insignia, for example, they all require Wing approval today, but how many units even submitted theirs to Wing before having the patches made?  Most Wing CC's are aware of the Heraldry guidelines, but not all enforce them (though an increasing number of states are publishing supplements to that effect, and mine, thank goodness, will now be requiring units with incorrect insignia to fix them before the next batch can be ordered.)

We could all spend 15 minutes right now and find 10 CAP websites that have bad graphics, report them up stream, and nothing would happen because in a lot of cases "anything, even something not quite right" is considered better than "nothing", and frankly our Wing Kings have a lot more important things to worry about than logos with bad scaling or colors.

[A.Member]

The regs are clear enough today, what we need is more oversight and enforcement, which is not likely to happen any time soon because of manpower limitations.

Can you point me to the location of our approved symbols?  (seriously, if you have it I'd love to know how to find it)

How about the regs that we have in reference to the creation of patches or logos?  Can you direct me to that regulation as well?

If these regs exist, I'm not aware of them (willing to be proven wrong).   And if they don't exist, how is more oversight or enforcement going to work.   If these regs do exist, oversight shouldnot be an issue because there should be a check and balance, via approval processes up the chain of command.  If it's not approved, enforcement is that it's immediately removed from use.

[Eclipse]

See my edit above - the regulations regarding logo / seal use, AF wings, online publications, etc., are already in our pubs library.

The insignia's are a problem, but not the "long pole in the tent" and there are some practical realities of expense to deal with - mandating new insignia can be expensive.

[alamrcn]

I voted yes, as I think the poll had nothing to do with manufacturing. I'm way against the "authorized manufacturer" deal.

Hey, Eclipse - Since your wing is so gung-ho on the USAF guidlines,  when are they going to fix their OWN shoulder patch? Lead by example, ya know...

[Eclipse]

I voted yes, as I think the poll had nothing to do with manufacturing. I'm way against the "authorized manufacturer" deal.

Hey, Eclipse - Since your wing is so gung-ho on the USAF guidelines,  when are they going to fix their OWN shoulder patch? Lead by example, ya know...

Depending on how you view it, they already have.  They recently adopted a shield, as appropriate for a Headquarters component, as the "unit insignia" for members of Wing staff, but I don't believe there is any plan to address the actual wing patch for historical reasons as much as anything else. 

Ours remains optional, and fewer and fewer are wearing it, anyway, at least up my way.  (I only have it on one uniform and that one goes "DNIF" in March).

[Pylon]

We already have standards, Eclipse?  Hmmm.... did I miss some parts of CAPR 900-2?    Did I miss the section on the command shield usage?  Or does CAPR 900-2, with a few restrictions, pretty much still give everyone permission to use whatever logos and seals they want willy-nilly?

All of these are in circulation, currently used by NHQ on various national webpages, currently distributed documents and items... and given the scope of current regulations these are all fair game for almost everything from signage and promotional items to websites and your squadron newsletter:



But it's well defined in one document which ones are current, which ones are not, and which places you use which of these, right?

[Eclipse]

OK, I'll grant you that here, again, there isn't enough in the text to make things 100% certain.

The MAJCOM is addressed in ICLs (yeah, yeah).

All but the first variant are illegal (bad colors, scaling, or simply homemade), and the perps should be told to change or remove them - that's the enforcement part.

I suppose one only needs to look at the Interweb to see that the average Joe doesn't understand issues like scaling and color matching.

But how many upstream commanders even pay enough attention to this stuff to impact change.  A lot of the issues stem from the ease of the technology with no requirement for fundamental understanding of the tools.

[KyCAP]

Where do the PAO's hang out these days on the internet?   Maybe we should go visit PAO land and get them stirred up about this? (former wing PAO)

[Pumbaa]

how many units even submitted theirs to Wing before having the patches made?  Most Wing CC's are aware of the Heraldry guidelines, but not all enforce them

Well we went through the wing and he loved what we did and only had one recommendation of change on our patch.  We followed every step and process along the way, and only went to printing AFTER approval.

Our website went thorough wing as well.   Again minor recommendations on how registered users names show up on the "online" list.. Otherwise a green light as it is.

Wing would actually like to see what I did as a standard.

[Pumbaa]

I will add this.  RE Web Sites

If National/ Wings were smart, they would dictate one standard web template using a CMS system such as joomla.  The only thing that could change in the template is the base color.  Otherwise it is the same. national logos, etc.

It comes pre-populated with national/ regional type information.  History, missions, etc... RSS feed to national news

Then it is up to the squadron to fill in the local logo/patch, activities, contacts, events, news, photo gallery...

Look what Gannet did for their local online papers.  A unified look, but still local..

http://www.stargazette.com/
http://www.pressconnects.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage
http://www.theithacajournal.com/

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Please refer back to the image in Pylon's post to accompany my reply.

From left to right, top row:
1. Authorized. This is supposed to be the new MAJCOM patch. Unfortunately, the type used here is clunky (it's obviously coming out of Windows, not off a Mac) and could have been adapted better. (I might just have to do that myself and post a new version.)
2. Historically used in lieu of the CAP seal.
3. Used as authorized with the Air Force emblem.
4. This is the seal. It's the one currently available on the Air Force's Web site, submitted by National Headquarters. It replaced color artwork that was probably better executed.
5. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. It's clumsy and should be shot on sight. I'd dare say someone was trying to be "creative" and misdirected their efforts. The white triangle with red element inside historically denotes "civil defense," but this obscures the triangle, which is the essence of the CAP emblem, with yet another layered element.
6. This is the coat of arms, the central part of the CAP seal.

Second row:
1. This was MAJCOM emblem No. 2. The placement of the "U.S." hearkens to the World War II-era CAP emblem, but I'm sure was used as a former national commander tried to put "U.S." before CAP's name.
2. This was MAJCOM emblem No. 1. Boy, we diddled a lot on this, didn't we?
3. This is (almost) what our shoulder emblems looked like in World War II.
4. The arc was removed here. The organization is "Civil Air Patrol," not "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" and its status (not its name) is "U.S. Air Force Auxiliary."
5. This is unfortunate. You can't read it at small sizes. The MAJCOM emblems were intended to sit in this space, not a seal.

If Civil Air Patrol simply adopted Air Force heraldry guidelines, as I dare say it should, a lot of this stuff could be eliminated by virtue of being outdated.

Of course, we'd look at custom-made wing flags for all 52 wings, as the shields in the center of each flag would be the wing emblem (like in the Air Force), not just words on a scroll under the CAP organizational emblem.

This is a collaborative issue for PAs, historians and commanders at all levels, not just for PAs.

[NC Hokie]

If National/ Wings were smart, they would dictate one standard web template using a CMS system such as joomla.  The only thing that could change in the template is the base color.  Otherwise it is the same. national logos, etc.

I like this idea but joomla, etc. might be a bit much (with regards to hosting cost and maintenance) for some squadrons.  I'd suggest static pages using a standardized CSS for design and layout; the squadron would simply have to update the text in well-defined HTML pages.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

If National/ Wings were smart, they would dictate one standard web template using a CMS system such as joomla.  The only thing that could change in the template is the base color.  Otherwise it is the same. national logos, etc.

It comes pre-populated with national/ regional type information.  History, missions, etc... RSS feed to national news

Then it is up to the squadron to fill in the local logo/patch, activities, contacts, events, news, photo gallery...

The Air Force already does this.

Look what Gannet did for their local online papers.  A unified look, but still local..

http://www.stargazette.com/
http://www.pressconnects.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage
http://www.theithacajournal.com/

Gannett and other newspaper companies resorted to templated sites because their maintenance and/or control is consolidated.

[Pumbaa]

Gannett and other newspaper companies resorted to templated sites because their maintenance and/or control is consolidated.

You are correct, but if you look at what the papers online looked like before...  the point being CAP as a whole sufferes from a lack of a unified look, no style sheet,  no oversight.

By adopting the gannett model you can have a consolidated control, unified look and feel.

In terms of cost of joomla.  it is free, I host on GoDaddy for $4 a month with Linux hosting.  that's pretty cheap.

[MIKE]

If they let anyone design a CAP emblem, why do they have to be so picky about where you get your name and branch tapes, or your ASNP? 

[RiverAux]

3. This is (almost) what our shoulder emblems looked like in World War II.

Actually this is the almost the symbol that is on the dark blue blue baseball cap currently being sold by Vanguard and commonly worn by members wearing the golf shirt and BBDU uniforms.  It is like what Mike posted except with a U.S. in white below the triangle. 

[RiverAux]

By the way, I still find it laughable that as part of our national marketing program we've come up with yet another brand new CAP symbol - the triangle-shape one on the top right.

[wuzafuzz]

It's true, CAP has no single brand.  The situation is made worse by the multitude of logos, seals, and insignia that represent our organization.  Throw in the homegrown newsletters and web sites, not to mention the menagerie of uniforms and missions, and it's no wonder we don't have a unified public image.  Most people don't know who or what we are, and our schizophrenic branding makes matters worse.

Even if improved regulation is created, chances are it will be largely ignored. For instance, my wing created a website that enforces standards by limiting individual squadrons to small sandboxes within the wing website.  The cadet side of my squadron didn't like it and promptly created a web page in Google Sites.  I suspect similar circumstances are widespread.

Until simple standards are created and enforced we will continue to suffer from ineffective branding.

[KyCAP]

Kentucky Wing is already using Content Management System.  DotNetNuke Frameworks.  Each unit is a portal and shares a single set of style guies and image resources.  It's obviously also written with .Net tools which is the underpinning of e-services.  So, NHQ IT could pick this up RAPIDLY and it's FREE.

For a $1000 month NHQ could buy co-location services to host the hardware for the entire US.

Also, on the PC vs. MAC comment?  It's a tool/expertise issue, not a platform. You can run Illustrator / PhotoShop on both and last time I checked they did the same thing on each operating system...