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

[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.