CAWG's new mandatory signature blocks with branding look horrible.

[Eclipse]

Pogo Help Us! 

It doesn't have to be this hard.

[Fubar]

It does. Not correctly, but it does....

The "HQ CAP" part? Talk about the need for branding...

[jeders]

It does. Not correctly, but it does....

The "HQ CAP" part? Talk about the need for branding...

The "U.S. Air Force Auxiliary" part

[THRAWN]

It does. Not correctly, but it does....

The "HQ CAP" part? Talk about the need for branding...

No, the "US Air Force Auxiliary" part. Talk about the need for new glasses...

[JeffDG]

10-1 isn't exactly up to date on email...

BTW, I love that the graphic isn't available anyplace.

Regardless, it is a valid regulation that provides specific guidance on the matter of signature blocks.

[Eclipse]

10-1 isn't exactly up to date on email...

BTW, I love that the graphic isn't available anyplace.

Regardless, it is a valid regulation that provides specific guidance on the matter of signature blocks.

+1

Shocking - one directorate produces a "plan" which conflicts with existing regulations no one can be bothered to update.

Pick one...

"We didn't read / know about 10-1."

"We didn't care about 10-1."

Those are the only two actual options.

[NIN]

10-1 isn't exactly up to date on email...

BTW, I love that the graphic isn't available anyplace.

Regardless, it is a valid regulation that provides specific guidance on the matter of signature blocks.

+1

Shocking - one directorate produces a "plan" which conflicts with existing regulations no one can be bothered to update.

Pick one...

"We didn't read / know about 10-1."

"We didn't care about 10-1."

Those are the only two actual options.

Or

"We're not the OPR for 10-1"

[Eclipse]

Or

"We're not the OPR for 10-1"

Yeah, seriously.  Heard that before as well.

In which case the proper response is supposed to be "Well then you either involve the OPR, or get out of his lane."
But, you know, that requires effort and also might make someone sad, cause the OPR might say "No thanks...".

No different then Safety mandating equipment for ES and ES ignoring the conversation.
"Meh, just let the members figure it out...".

[Thom]

I shouldn't complain about any effort at branding, but...

In addition to the disconnect between the Branding Guide and CAPR10-1, I still have to point out that having the organization name in an image, that may not even be seen by the recipient, is not a great way to get your message across.

Coincidentally, my employer is going through a rebranding effort right now. We are working to get a consistent message to our customers. To that end, the new standard explicitly decrees that signatures should be plain text only, with no images or backgrounds. Just a few lines of 10 Pt Arial to effectively communicate name, position, company, and contact info no matter what platform or system the recipient is using. And the message won't change whether they view it in HTML, plaintext, etc. (Well, the bold on the name and company name will go away, but that's all.)

And, I don't think I've made it a secret that I work for the largest energy company in the world. If we are avoiding images and links in our signatures, you better believe the bean-counters looked hard at it and decided the plain text approach was more effective.

Just my two cents...

Thom

[Fubar]

No, the "US Air Force Auxiliary" part. Talk about the need for new glasses...

Uhh, that's not even close to our organization's name.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I worked for several years preparing official correspondence, and as a proofreader and typesetter.

In addition to the T&Q and my Master rating in Admin, I have also worked extensively out of the Chicago Manual of Style and the American Psychological Association style guides.

This sig block that CAWG is using takes too many words to say too little and does not name CAP accurately.

The K.I.S.S. (no, not Gene Simmons) is better:

FIRSTNAME, LASTNAME, RANK, CAP
CIVIL AIR PATROL
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AUXILIARY
UNIT NAME
UNIT (or personal) MAILING ADDRESS
HOME PHONE
MOBILE PHONE
E-MAIL

I have used this style for years.

[pierson777]

I guess the Brand and Resource Guide wasn't up for preview like other publications.  The signature line contradicts CAPR 10-1 Preparing Official Correspondence, which is a regulation while the Brand and Resource Guide is not.  I've always use the signature line from R10-1.  As an admin officer, it's also my responsibility to correct members in my unit that use incorrect signature lines.  Before, I could always reference R10-1 but now this new Guide is in conflict with R10-1.

10-1 specifically says 7.C.1... "other organizational designations, such as AF Aux or USAFA, are not authorized."

I wonder if the Brand and Resource Guide was written by CAP volunteers or if we paid a marketing company to write it.  I like the intent, but I would have liked it more if it had examples of how websites should look, examples of posters, flyers, etc.  It also should describe the preferred font and the colors.

[THRAWN]

No, the "US Air Force Auxiliary" part. Talk about the need for new glasses...

Uhh, that's not even close to our organization's name.

Uhh, if you're going to comment, at least make an attempt to read the previous posts.

[Nick]

I must be missing things in my old age. How did you guys originally become aware of this branding guide? I haven't received any word of this through command or IT channels.

[Eclipse]

I must be missing things in my old age. How did you guys originally become aware of this branding guide? I haven't received any word of this through command or IT channels.

It got pushed out sometime late last year via RSS as I recall (Nat Conference maybe?).
The sig block document in question is dated Oct 2014

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, there are at least two dead links to it on top of the one purported to be
the live one:

Live:  http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/public_affairs/branding_resource_guide/

Dead:
http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/cap_national_hq/public_affairs/cap_pao_toolkit/bra
http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/public_affairs/cap_pao_toolkit/bra/

Also amusing is what happens to the signature when it's not inserted properly,
or it's included in one of the far too typical "multi-forwards" CAP members love to
send.  It looks like it got hit by a bus with pieces scattered all over the place.

[Nick]

Thanks. I guess I need to pay more attention to the RSS feed.

I was thinking about how to deal with the train wreck that is embedded images in an email. I see it all the time, especially with mailing lists and clients that don't handle HTML well. The best I can think of is to force people to have alt text in their images (like "Civil Air Patrol" for the top image, and the name of each social media site for those icons, and pray for the best... Or just watch the train wreck.

[Eclipse]

^ Most of what you just wrote might as well be Lorem Ipsum to a lot of people, which is the issue.
Many simply assume that if it looks OK to them, it looks the same for all.

The fact that the example sig is published on a Word .doc probably speaks to the technical
level of whosoever good idea this was.  You don't publish a purported standard in a proprietary format
that not everyone can even open, or which requires a translator to view.

I just did this for a company where we created a social icon footer and privacy disclaimer (ugh)
and forced it at the domain level, separate from any user-specific sig.  It looks nice as long as it
isn't on a mobile device, or in a forward or reply, and then, as you say, it's a wreck.

There is simply no way to control how the recipient displays it, nor even that the recipient
displays HTML at all, which many companies don't allow for security reasons, and too much
HTML of the wrong kind can false-positive SPAM filters.

[Storm Chaser]

As I said before, I have an issue with this new branding signature block. Not only does it look horrible, but it conflicts with the current CAPR 10-1. It won't be long before we see memorandums and business letters using this or similar signature block. It doesn't matter whether it's approved or not. Some members will see the new signature block from staff members at NHQ and will start using it indiscriminately for their own correspondence.

[A.Member]

CAPR 10-1 is the requirement, plain and simple.  That's what we will continue to follow, regardless of any suggestion by National.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it:

FIRSTNAME LASTNAME, Rank, CAP
Duty Position

CAPR 10-1 aligns with the Tongue & Quill and keeps signatures to a reasonable length without being ridiculous.  And despite and early comment to the contrary, it addresses and conforms with email just fine.

Aside:  National's new branding suggestion with the triangle is horrible.  Our unit will continue to exercise our option to use the MAJCOM shield instead, when appropriate.

[JeffDG]

I like the 3 line sig from 10-1 as well.

I very much like the suggestion in 10-1 that "graphics are not appropriate"