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...

[Eclipse]

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.

You tell them to take it down.

[KyCAP]

Agreed.  CAPR covers the internet and advanced media very clearly and it is in the pervue of the PAO (CC) to control.

[A.Member]

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.

Part of that issue is easily solved by placing approved versions of the seals, logos, etc. in a central repository on the Wing site.  These should be available for download and in formats that are scalable for everyone to use.  That is not a difficult task.  Yet, it hasn't been done to my knowledge.

[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.

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.)

I agree enforcement is part of the problem but as Pylon's post demonstrated so well, the regs are unclear or don't exist in numerous areas.

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.

And there in lies the a crux of the problem.  We can all find these issues with very little effort.  I agree with your previous post.  When issues are discovered, attention must be brought to it and the offending usage removed immediately.  So why do they persist?  Is it laziness or an unwillingness to act.  That's not acceptable.   It may seem like a trivial item to deal with on the surface but the underlying implications, especially as it pertains to the overall image of the organization is much greater.  As a result, we need to take our brand much more seriously. 

[KyCAP]

I believe that the lack of interest to act exists when there is no long term plan of action to "manage" it after one has acted.

That was the case in KY Wing.   No one wanted to go after a squadron and say hey that doesn't look right or like the rest until we had a solution to offer that was better than the solution they had in place.   Now that we have a plan, we can "manage it" vs. just "policing" it.

[A.Member]

I believe that the lack of interest to act exists when there is no long term plan of action to "manage" it after one has acted.

That was the case in KY Wing.   No one wanted to go after a squadron and say hey that doesn't look right or like the rest until we had a solution to offer that was better than the solution they had in place.   Now that we have a plan, we can "manage it" vs. just "policing" it.

See, I don't think the issue is that complex.  The foundation for all this stuff already exists.  I think the Air Force Heraldry standards provides us with pretty well defined precedent to follow.  If we want to apply that to a reg, on say patches, it would be easy to do.  We currently have no guidance on patches at a National level.  Yet squadrons are cranking them out left and right with all kinds of stuff on them.  It screams for a reg.  Once in place, enforcement is easy.   Set a realistic date for compliance - say 1 year.  After the compliance date arrives, any noncomplying patches must be removed.   Sooner or later (hopefully sooner), someone needs to put their foot down and just make the call in an effort to get us realigned.

As for enforcement of this stuff, to my knowledge every unit undergoes an inspection every 2 years.  Simply make the review of squardon letterhead, websites, uniforms, etc. a part of the inspection process (some of it is but add the part about compliance with emblems, seals, logos, etc.). 

[BuckeyeDEJ]

See, I don't think the issue is that complex.  The foundation for all this stuff already exists.  I think the Air Force Heraldry standards provides us with pretty well defined precedent to follow.  If we want to apply that to a reg, on say patches, it would be easy to do.  We currently have no guidance on patches at a National level.  Yet squadrons are cranking them out left and right with all kinds of stuff on them.  It screams for a reg.  Once in place, enforcement is easy.   Set a realistic date for compliance - say 1 year.  After the compliance date arrives, any noncomplying patches must be removed.   Sooner or later (hopefully sooner), someone needs to put their foot down and just make the call in an effort to get us realigned.

As for enforcement of this stuff, to my knowledge every unit undergoes an inspection every 2 years.  Simply make the review of squadron letterhead, websites, uniforms, etc. a part of the inspection process (some of it is but add the part about compliance with emblems, seals, logos, etc.). 

The old 10-series regulations actually had diagrams showing dimensions and placement of the seal and other items on letterheads and business cards. Those days are gone, apparently.

By the way, the seal is supposed to be one inch in diameter on the letterhead. And squadrons don't use the "HEADQUARTERS" line, since squadrons have no headquarters element. But I digress....

[wuzafuzz]

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.

You tell them to take it down.

Easier said than done.  If the CC isn't down with enforcement there is no bully pulpit.  Even in the face of internal branding programs, many people could care less.  That leaves us to commiserate about it on CAP Talk ;-)

[jimmydeanno]

I honestly don't know how anyone could say that there is too much or enough guidance on the use of any of "our" logos. 

All we do in 900-2 is tell you what you can put the seal and the emblem on, that's about it.  It doesn't cover colors, fonts, modifications, etc.

Bare minimum we need to have NHQ establish which logo we're going to use and develop a style guide for it.  But even if they didn't put that out, a depository for "proper" graphics would be great. 

It honestly is a free-for-all right now and somehow the logos that are being used for conferences and such are making their way onto normal literature, etc.

We need far more guidance and instruction on the use of "a" logo / the CAP brand.

[arajca]

Since we all seem to agree that this is a problem, is anyone interested in developing a solution, i.e. a style guide or updated regulation/policy, for submittal to NHQ?

I would, but I am starting a new project for the Master Trainer Program, and do not have the time.

[Pylon]

Since we all seem to agree that this is a problem, is anyone interested in developing a solution, i.e. a style guide or updated regulation/policy, for submittal to NHQ?

I would, but I am starting a new project for the Master Trainer Program, and do not have the time.

The style guide, though very important is one of the last steps in the process.  The first steps involve stepping back, collecting and evaluating our entirety of external communications and our organization's position (things like SWOT anaylsis, public surveys, etc.), developping a plan to leverage our existing perceived identity and then building a style and brand around that.

In reality, the corporation should eliminate all of our 8+ logos except for the seal and one other (doesn't really matter which, but the command shield is already on our planes and vans, makes it a cheaper choice).  The seal should be used on everything official from higher HQ (charters, raised seals, letterhead).  The remaining logo then represents our public brand (vans, planes, signage, business cards, websites, books and printed materials, recruiting items, etc.)

This is analogous to how the AF does it.  The AF has their official seal but you don't see it used much on vehicles intended primarily for the public.  You see the AF seal on things like regulations, official memorandums, internal mechanisms of the organization.  The AF symbol appears on everything else:  base signage, recruiting vehicles, recruiting materials, websites, etc.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Since we all seem to agree that this is a problem, is anyone interested in developing a solution, i.e. a style guide or updated regulation/policy, for submittal to NHQ?

I would, but I am starting a new project for the Master Trainer Program, and do not have the time.

The style guide, though very important is one of the last steps in the process.  The first steps involve stepping back, collecting and evaluating our entirety of external communications and our organization's position (things like SWOT anaylsis, public surveys, etc.), developping a plan to leverage our existing perceived identity and then building a style and brand around that.

In reality, the corporation should eliminate all of our 8+ logos except for the seal and one other (doesn't really matter which, but the command shield is already on our planes and vans, makes it a cheaper choice).  The seal should be used on everything official from higher HQ (charters, raised seals, letterhead).  The remaining logo then represents our public brand (vans, planes, signage, business cards, websites, books and printed materials, recruiting items, etc.)

This is analogous to how the AF does it.  The AF has their official seal but you don't see it used much on vehicles intended primarily for the public.  You see the AF seal on things like regulations, official memorandums, internal mechanisms of the organization.  The AF symbol appears on everything else:  base signage, recruiting vehicles, recruiting materials, websites, etc.

Amen, brother.

The seal should be used on official documents, to include:
Letterheads
Business cards
Certificates
Plaques (to include the plastic seal plaques)

Let's say the MAJCOM boiler shield is used as an alternate, used to parallel the Air Force's shield use. It would go on:
Airplane tails
Uniforms

An alternate marketing logo (to parallel the Air Force marketing logo) could be used for recruiting purposes, as well as for informal use. That logo could be the existing round CAP logo (with the red arc above and "USAF Auxiliary" below the triangle).

I'd contend the seal should go back on corporate vehicles, because it better identifies us as a government-related organization and it tells motorists who we are and what we represent.

So that's three "logos." That's quite enough.

[RiverAux]

Keep the seal and only use it on certificates and plaques.  Use the MAJCOM for everything else, including letters.  The seal was horrible for vehicles -- you want something easily identifiable or readable. 

FYI, the CAPCHANNEL site for PAOs does have a file containing these sorts of images. 

[jimmydeanno]

Use the MAJCOM for everything else, including letters. 

Bleck...

[A.Member]

FYI, the CAPCHANNEL site for PAOs does have a file containing these sorts of images. 

Yet, these are the same guys that list this on their page  :

Wonder when exactly that was developed and authorized.  Anyway...

Thanks, the PAO Toolkit has it's own entire set of issues (I also have wonder why the PAO's have their own site).   Nonetheless, at least it contains the formats of what are presumably the only authorized logos.  However, many other gaps still exist.

BTW, the Air Force also has our emblems listed on their site at:
http://www.af.mil/art/index.asp?galleryID=5187

In addtion, you can find these on the AF site, which I've not seen anywhere else (says they're for Fact Sheets although I'm not exactly sure how I'd use the images but I'd love to get ahold of the background for powerpoints, etc.  ):




And just for good measure, e-Services contains even a slightly different set of emblems from those already listed.

[Eclipse]

This one's no longer authorized...



...but my vote is that the majority of pubs and online media would use the current MAJCOM, I agree the seal is too busy for most use.

[A.Member]

This one's no longer authorized...

Agreed.  Although the boards should take yet another vote to reauthorize it (until it is approved again) - it is the one we should be using     That, however, is another topic altogether.

[RiverAux]

Use the MAJCOM for everything else, including letters. 

Bleck...

My theory for that is that if you use it on letterheads that same symbol is going to be the one most easily available to folks and then they're going to start putting it on their newsletter, press releases, etc.  Sort of make it rare to actually see the seal for both CAP members and the public.  I'm not actually a big fan of the MAJCOM, but if we're going to standardize on anything, that should be it.   

[A.Member]

Use the MAJCOM for everything else, including letters. 

Bleck...

My theory for that is that if you use it on letterheads that same symbol is going to be the one most easily available to folks and then they're going to start putting it on their newsletter, press releases, etc.  Sort of make it rare to actually see the seal for both CAP members and the public.  I'm not actually a big fan of the MAJCOM, but if we're going to standardize on anything, that should be it.   

And how about guidance on squadron produced publications.  Should they have a logo/emblem that can be used/  Should both be used?  Etc.  Whichever way we go these should be defined as well.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

The seal is just fine on official correspondence. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

The MAJCOM emblem is nice, but for crying out loud, we should parallel our efforts to the Air Force, not strike out (pun intended) on our own.

Air Force units actually use the DoD seal on its correspondence. Since we don't use either the DoD seal or the AF seal, and we have our own, why not use it?

On the right side of a letterhead, unit emblems are authorized, or at least they were.

[RiverAux]

The seal is just fine on official correspondence. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

If we had actually had a working system, this would probably be true.  However, everything is so hodge-podge now that I don't think this is working either.  For example, in just looking at Interim Change Letters on e-services you can find both full color and black and white seals used in the last year (mostly color). 

[BuckeyeDEJ]

That the seal is color or black only isn't a huge deal, as long as the seal is properly placed, the address element beside it is appropriate, the signature element is correct and the body of the text is in an appropriate format.

Since CAPR 10-1 was revamped to eliminate all those guidelines (as well as a camera-ready seal, which I used to draw the seals that you see around, unlike what came from NHQ), the only place anyone really learns to do correspondence correctly is at... wait for it... REGION STAFF COLLEGE.

So unless you're working on a promotion to light colonel, or you're previous military, you probably don't know -- and should -- how to process CAP correspondence.

[Gunner C]

So that's three "logos." That's quite enough.

+1

Gunner

[G+10]

That the seal is color or black only isn't a huge deal, as long as the seal is properly placed, the address element beside it is appropriate, the signature element is correct and the body of the text is in an appropriate format.

Since CAPR 10-1 was revamped to eliminate all those guidelines (as well as a camera-ready seal, which I used to draw the seals that you see around, unlike what came from NHQ), the only place anyone really learns to do correspondence correctly is at... wait for it... REGION STAFF COLLEGE.

So unless you're working on a promotion to light colonel, or you're previous military, you probably don't know -- and should -- how to process CAP correspondence.

http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/afh33-337.pdf

There is a good section on email formatting starting on page 149. The written formats start on page 171 (with examples of the branding, to stay on topic).

There, go forth and spread the good word!

John

[jimmydeanno]

the only place anyone really learns to do correspondence correctly is at... wait for it... REGION STAFF COLLEGE.

We didn't do anything about correspondence at RSC.  The old SLS cirriculum had a block on preparing CAP correspondence though.

[jimmydeanno]

Alright, during my lunch break today (since I was bored), I decided to try and produce a style guide.  Of course this would probably have no possiblity of being used, but it only took an hour to produce. 

It also doesn't include all possible uses of the CAP Emblem (decided focus), but I think it gives a general idea.

(PS: I know the graphics are a little hokey, but that's what you get for an hour)

[fireplug]

jimmydeanno-
Hallelujah!!!
Anxiously awaiting the next part, covering the corporate seal. Thanks.

[davidsinn]

Alright, during my lunch break today (since I was bored), I decided to try and produce a style guide.  Of course this would probably have no possiblity of being used, but it only took an hour to produce. 

It also doesn't include all possible uses of the CAP Emblem (decided focus), but I think it gives a general idea.

(PS: I know the graphics are a little hokey, but that's what you get for an hour)

Awesome  :clap: I hope you are planning on continuing this. If you need any diagrams (for dimensions and what not) look me up. I'm a drafter in my day job and might be able to help.

[Eclipse]

A good start, but please include "unofficial" prominently and who is actually writing it.

The last thing we need is arguments that NHQ has mandated using this.

Unlike Chuck's uniform guides, these are just one person's opinion (I agree with them, but still), and something this
professional looking will have have a tendency to creep into people's kits.

[KyCAP]

make sure to specify the font for unofficial is official font thought..

When you're done, send a copy to Rick Greenhut.   This looks PRO and he's a good inlet and positively working on the image at the National Level.

[RiverAux]

Pylon, you forgot the symbol currently found on the Ground Team reference text.  Don't know how to copy it here but it is the blue AF wings symbol cradling the "old" command patch (CAP in the shield, USAFAux in the lower rocker) -- The kicker is that the command patch symbol is all blue with silver letters!


--jimmy -- in your guide I can't get behind the red version of that symbol.  Can't think of a time when that would be approriate.  All black and white is fine and I could live with the blue due to the AF association. 

[jimmydeanno]

--jimmy -- in your guide I can't get behind the red version of that symbol.  Can't think of a time when that would be approriate.  All black and white is fine and I could live with the blue due to the AF association. 

Oh, I agree, it's hideous

This "project" was more along the lines of what could be done and a response to not necessarily providing more regulation around a logo or emblem, but more guidance on how to use it.  Just having some fun really.  Heck, even the typeface selected was off the cuff.  I'm sure that there is a more suitable one out there - but it was handy.

From the feedback I've recieved so far it sounds like I should continue the project and see what comes of it...

[BuckeyeDEJ]

--jimmy -- in your guide I can't get behind the red version of that symbol.  Can't think of a time when that would be approriate.  All black and white is fine and I could live with the blue due to the AF association. 

Typically, one-color printing is done in either black or blue ink. The nice thing about the traditional emblem is that it's only two colors.

The old CAP Bookstore business cards were two-color cards, by the way -- the only red was in the propeller on the seal. Everything else was blue. And that was the SEAL!

[JAFO78]

Thanks Jimmy, I downloaded a copy of this.

[A.Member]

Alright, during my lunch break today (since I was bored), I decided to try and produce a style guide.  Of course this would probably have no possiblity of being used, but it only took an hour to produce. 

It also doesn't include all possible uses of the CAP Emblem (decided focus), but I think it gives a general idea.

(PS: I know the graphics are a little hokey, but that's what you get for an hour)

Definitely keep going on this.  Thanks for the initiative.  Good looking start to the document!  :clap:

[alamrcn]

Like it! Please continue to evolve this project, and let's hope National latch's on!

I also agree with the all-red version, blue or black on white seems sufficient. The font information is great, never knew about it. Is it a free font for download somewhere? I'd host the TT file or whatever on the CAP Patches site - as well as your publication, of course.

Do you think "thread" color would be a good addition to the color chart? There is an industry standard there as well - I'll reference this website...
http://www.usafpatches.com/palette.shtml
Interestingly, the Institute of Heraldry does not have a comparable red listed as being used by the USAF.

[jimmydeanno]

Like it! Please continue to evolve this project, and let's hope National latch's on!

I also agree with the all-red version, blue or black on white seems sufficient. The font information is great, never knew about it. Is it a free font for download somewhere? I'd host the TT file or whatever on the CAP Patches site - as well as your publication, of course.

Do you think "thread" color would be a good addition to the color chart? There is an industry standard there as well - I'll reference this website...
http://www.usafpatches.com/palette.shtml
Interestingly, the Institute of Heraldry does not have a comparable red listed as being used by the USAF.

I actually made up most of the information in the thing.  So please don't think any of it's official.

For the colors, I just did an eyedrop on the existing colors in the version of the emblem that I liked and named them.

For the typeface, I literally just picked a font and made justification around it. 

Again, nothing in this is official or has any prior historical justification behind it - just the ideas of a madman <-Me

My goal was just to put something out there to show what the possibilities were.  The thread was talking about creating more regulation around it, so I put the "guidance" spin on it.

It would be helpful if there were an official document like this that was available to us so if we wanted things made, or were creating webpages, etc we could use the "proper" colors, etc. 

Many companies have a guide like this for the use of their logos, it includes colors, etc.  I figured since most of us are volunteers and not professional marketers or branders (including myself), providing example guidance for webpages, etc would also be beneficial.

I'll keep working on it and see if I can modify it to be more cohesive, give more examples, etc.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Traditionally, the type used in DoD letterheads and other similar collateral has been either a version of Copperplate or Helvetica.

CAP used Helvetica when the type on the seal was reversed in the mid-1980s, but when the seal was digitized at National Headquarters, I think they picked a Windows-only approximation, like Arial (and it shows).

Used to be, a camera-ready seal was included in regulation. That's the seal I retraced to develop the file I gave AFNS (telltale sign: eagle's gold without feather outlines).