Uniform as branding element

[Fubar]

I'm not sure this is pertinent to this discussion (if it's not, I'm sure someone will tell me), but I was at the airport today and the TSA people reminded me about how they changed their uniform from white shirts with cloth badges to blue shirts with metal badges. They still have airline looking shoulder boards. If I recall correctly, the TSA changed the uniform shirts because they felt people would respect their officers more if they looked more like police officers.

The TSA changed uniforms to change the perception of their officers. Does that pertain to this discussion? (I'm not a marketing guy, so I dunno).

[Smithsonia]

Fubar;
There is an issue with the bright blue being readable at distance for security purposes as opposed to what they had before, white shirts. This came up after the cops ran down a gate jumper in New York City (If I remember) and the Police tackled a TSA man in pursuit of the real gate breecher. So security and accidentally beating up the wrong guy was part of the issue.

I am assuming the rest as it wasn't part of the public discussion - I think that they decided they wanted something "Cop-ish" Something that isn't as easy to fake. That particular blue harder to copy as it is not a standard dye. Something that looked a little (or more) snappy/stylish. Something that was readable at distance. Something that was easy to maintain. Something that was their (TSA's) unique look. There are lots of reasons for new uniforms. I am not suggesting that we need new uniforms. But, yes, it is relevant to this discussion.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Fubar;
There is an issue with the bright blue being readable at distance for security purposes as opposed to what they had before, white shirts. This came up after the cops ran down a gate jumper in New York City (If I remember) and the Police tackled a TSA man in pursuit of the real gate breecher. So security and accidentally beating up the wrong guy was part of the issue.

I am assuming the rest as it wasn't part of the public discussion - I think that they decided they wanted something "Cop-ish" Something that isn't as easy to fake. That particular blue harder to copy as it is not a standard dye. Something that looked a little (or more) snappy/stylish. Something that was readable at distance. Something that was easy to maintain. Something that was their (TSA's) unique look. There are lots of reasons for new uniforms. I am not suggesting that we need new uniforms. But, yes, it is relevant to this discussion.

You mean the big, embroidered "TSA" on the back of their shirts wasn't enough? I think the color was the only factor. There's a lot of businessmen in white shirts running around airports, and TSA agents blended in too much.

[Pylon]

"No one can guarantee the actions of another."  This is a quote from Mr Spock of Star Trek fame that people in advertising and marketing fail to take into account.  I am forever perplexed that people seem to think that the human mind can adhere to formulas as if we were discussing science or mathematics.

Yyyyeah, except there's about a dozen fields of the social sciences that would entirely disagree with you there. 

[RogueLeader]

"No one can guarantee the actions of another."  This is a quote from Mr Spock of Star Trek fame that people in advertising and marketing fail to take into account.  I am forever perplexed that people seem to think that the human mind can adhere to formulas as if we were discussing science or mathematics.

Yyyyeah, except there's about a dozen fields of the social sciences that would entirely disagree with you there. 

You can predict, but not garuntee.  I was a Social Sciences major, and I have to agree with Maj Carrales.  He's a history teacher in case people have forgoten. . .

[Major Carrales]

"No one can guarantee the actions of another."  This is a quote from Mr Spock of Star Trek fame that people in advertising and marketing fail to take into account.  I am forever perplexed that people seem to think that the human mind can adhere to formulas as if we were discussing science or mathematics.

Yyyyeah, except there's about a dozen fields of the social sciences that would entirely disagree with you there.

Yyyyeah, and Human Beings are predictable...right.

Once humanity actually, arrogantly, thinks it can predict the actions of people based on generalization (you know like racism, sexism and other "-isms" where that happens already) we have opened the door for problems and tragedy.  The biggest pratfall of our time is that people seem to think we are somehow "more evolved" and "advanced" than past humanity. That we have science.

That the Holocaust and War Atrocities could never happen again because we are evolved...well, the generation when that occurred is only about two back (our grandparents).  We are no more evolved.  Remember, these types of atrocities are often based in "social sciences," like eugenics, which were accepted institutions.  Before the Nazi period, Germany was the intellectual/scientific capital of the world...remember.

I know this is a bit "deep" for this forum and that it might be "unexpected," since I'm after all, from a backwater part of the sticks; however, it remains true.  Put your faith undying in these artificial "sciences" and you are following what amounts to a false god. 

Never forget, these social sciences, my dear Michael, are the "beginning" of understanding of the human condition, not the "end." 

[Smithsonia]

Sparky;
If you truly believe what you just wrote. Then you'll need to display the mathematical or scientific formula detailing your meaning, and therefore your conclusion.

Writing is an aesthetic enterprise.

You engage in writing. But according to your posting - you must be doing so through some other application - which I'd love to know. In this I am not presenting an analogy. I am giving you the only logical progression to your premise.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

it is the "They're all Colonels" belief.  Now, this is demonstrably untrue (even if we bring it down to Lt. Cols.), but that reputation is sort of bolstered by the fact that even if we're not all Colonels, we're (for all practical purposes) all officers in the senior program. 

Obviously that manifests itself on the uniforms in the grade insignia.

So long as we continue with an officer-based program this rap will continue even if we send every single CAP officer to OCS.  The outside people will never have any real idea what training our officers have and even if every single one was the best trained officer ever seen in a military style uniform, the bad rap of "they're all Colonels" will continue.

I remember not long after I joined CAP, my dad (SP4/Cpl, active Army and National Guard) asked me "how many enlisted and NCO's have you got in your unit?"

When I told him that we were mostly officers, he said, "sounds like you've got all chiefs and no Indians."

I do think River has a point, especially where all five branches of the military are concerned, not just the AF.  A member of the military, who may or may not be acquainted with us, sees all the bars, leaves, chickens and stars, is probably perplexed, to say the least.

That will be the case regardless of uniform.  I can't think of another agency that does rank the way we do.

I have seen old CAP insignia charts and remember seeing Airmen, Sergeants and Warrant Officers as well as "Commissioned" Officers.

I don't think it would be the worst idea to return to some form of that...a good part of a "branding element" would be the knowledge that it really takes a bit to work your way up from the bottom.

[Major Carrales]

Sparky;
If you truly believe what you just wrote. Then you'll need to display the mathematical or scientific formula detailing your meaning, and therefore your conclusion.

Writing is an aesthetic enterprise.

You engage in writing. But according to your posting - you must be doing so through some other application - which I'd love to know. In this I am not presenting an analogy. I am giving you the only logical progression to your premise.

Ed,
I am engaged in "thought," to which "writing" is not.   Writing is the "bi-product" of thought and best and at worst a "tool."  Sometimes my thought is not expressed well by my writing and dialect (Southern...South Texan to be exact- with all the false cognates of a blended language of English and Spanish)

No, not even writing is an exact science.  Yes, it has conventions and there are rules and standard dialect.  But I know of no one that speaks the English taught in school nor any person that can speak or write without idiom, metaphor and other devise.

Hence, language is "the beginning" of expressing thought, "not the end" of it.  To prove my point, you may question me on any of the above, to which I will reply with words that will be still, to a degree, imprecise.

If one needs someone with more "chutzpah" on the matter please read..."Politics and the English Language," 1946 by George Orwell.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I am engaged in "thought," to which "writing" is not.   Writing is the "bi-product" of thought and best and at worst a "tool."  Sometimes my thought is not expressed well by my writing and dialect (Southern...South Texan to be exact- with all the false cognates of a blended language of English and Spanish)

No, not even writing is an exact science.  Yes, it has conventions and there are rules and standard dialect.  But I know of no one that speaks the English taught in school nor any person that can speak or write without idiom, metaphor and other devise.

Hence, language is "the beginning" of expressing thought, "not the end" of it.  To prove my point, you may question me on any of the above, to which I will reply with words that will be still, to a degree, imprecise.

Major, I am usually able to grasp what you write, but quite a lot of people do not write the way they talk, me included (actually, in person I really do not say much).

I am a product of a mostly German-English-Canadian Great Lakes environment and to a Texan, I would be the one who sounded strange.

I sometimes overthink what I write to the extent of unintended redundancy (a product of too many college-level writing courses, I suppose) - and that alone would make me unsuitable for the task of coming up with a "branding element" for CAP.  I am incapable of short, pithy statements, which is usually what marketing requires, yes?

[Smithsonia]

Sparky;
Let me give you the following idea. Science is built on the aesthetic. Aesthetics is the father of mathematics and science. To that point. Not the other way around.
1. Recurrent patterns are proved mathematically. BUT, recurrent patterns are initially recognized aesthetically. (as in insight)
2. The scientific answer is more or most often the simplest answer
3. The scientific answer can be arrived through various routes of discovery. At least one of will be an aesthetic elegance from which pleasure is derived.
4. The scientific answer expresses symmetry. What is added can be subtracted to returning you to the beginning. What is left out and remains correct was unnecessary.
5. Logic is seldom arrived at logically. Logic is most often an application that comes only after random examination becomes highly focused.
6. For every experiment there is analysis. After analysis there is a conclusion. In the analysis and the conclusion comes the expression of the scientist's aesthetic.

But now we are drifting a lot.

[Major Carrales]

Sparky;
Let me give you the following idea. Science is built on the aesthetic. Aesthetics is the father of mathematics and science. To that point. Not the other way around.

I agree and rest assured that I am a man who believes in science and its methods.  However I must point out how, in our times, science can be twisted and manipulated to meet and justify some less than noble activities.

But we are drifting a great deal.

[wuzafuzz]

But we are drifting a great deal.

Yeah, what he said!   :clap: :clap: :clap:

The TSA uniforms are a good example of branding...gone bad.  Arguably the overall perception of TSA isn't good.  Not even close.  Changing their uniform did little, if anything, to improve their image.  Unlike CAP, they were already perfectly recognizable to those of us who were halfway conscious. Their publicly stated reasons for the change were something along the lines of "we want more respect" or "we want a more authoritative look."  Hardly statements calculated to actually improve their image.  It came off more like whining.

Unlike CAP, TSA already had a coherent brand.  Unfortunately, their brand "speaks" of ineffective bureaucracy.  They need to fix their core problems.  Obsessing over their uniforms should have waited until the ship stops sinking. At the moment, they aren't popular or very respected.    Changing their readily identifiable uniforms did nothing to improve that.

Granted they are fighting a very uphill battle...too many regular folks throw tantrums over reasonable security precautions.  Further, not all TSA's policies seem reasonable.  That's not the fault of the screeners in the airports.

Having said that, their problems are very different than ours.  CAP already has a fair to middlin' reputation but lacks a decent marketing strategy.  We can make a few changes to improve that.  It would actually cost very little.

[Rotorhead]

All that CAPNHQ-PA can do is create the logos and slogans, they cannot pay to have it run in everyone's market and running it in a national market is too costly.  That was another issue Maj Gen Courter talked about at that PAO Academy.  The idea that Nation Wide CAP publicity does not justify the cost.

NHQ doesn't have to run anything in everyone's media market.  That's a straw man argument.

NHQ just needs to come up with a solid brand and image--that stays the same for more than five minutes--that we can promote.

[Smithsonia]

Wuzafuzz:
You're going off on the TSA?... may earn you a body cavity search. They've got as thankless a job as the IRS, but it's got to be done.

Good Luck to you and I don't want to clear security in YOUR company. Other than that I am always happy to hang out with you.

[Gunner C]

Unlike CAP, TSA already had a coherent brand.  Unfortunately, their brand "speaks" of ineffective bureaucracy.  They need to fix their core problems.  Obsessing over their uniforms should have waited until the ship stops sinking. At the moment, they aren't popular or very respected.    Changing their readily identifiable uniforms did nothing to improve that.

I'm an intell guy supporting the Federal Air Marshal Service.  FAMS is part of TSA so I have some inside information on this.  Allow me to set the record straight and point out the similarities with CAP.

When Kip Hawley became DHS Assistant Secretary for Transportation Security and TSA Administrator, he inherited an agency that was almost built overnight.  (One of my mottos: "You can have it right or you can have it right now."  The screeners had been federalized and the quality of training was poor, the pay was low, there was no real career progression, and they were universally disliked.

Kip set out to make correcting the problems his number one job.  First, he got qualified as a screener (and remained qualified until the day he left).  He rearranged the budget so they could increase their pay at the entry to attract better qualified employees and to raise morale. He changed the training regimen and raised the standards. He changed their job description from "screener" to "transportation security officer" and moved them into the TSA Office of Law Enforcement along with linking TSOs with other TSA Law Enforcement specialties to give them more upward mobility.  He also convened a uniform board made up of TSOs from across the country.  They felt that their uniform, a left-over from when TSA was part of the FAA, didn't give a professional image.  This board came up with several options.  After some field testing, they came up with the present uniform.  All of these were part of a plan to improve the performance of the force and change the public perception.

Link to CAP?  Yes. Like us, we have a self-image problem and a perception problem from the public at large (not to mention the AF). The uniform was part of a larger plan.  He knew that people are more important than technology and he leveraged this resource.  He made an investment in a combination of training and uniforms (along with better pay and work environment).  Only the IRS is disliked more than TSA, but Kip changed a couple of things to improve the brand (if only slightly) and improve the self image of those folks who have to put up with the crap they get from the public. 

The change of the uniform had nothing to do with being tackled by LEOs.

[wuzafuzz]

Wuzafuzz:
You're going off on the TSA?... may earn you a body cavity search. They've got as thankless a job as the IRS, but it's got to be done.

Good Luck to you and I don't want to clear security in YOUR company. Other than that I am always happy to hang out with you.

No, not going off on them.  I used to be an airport ops and security guy at a podunk commercial airport.  So I understand the need as well as the challenges they face.  That doesn't mean I agree with everything they've done, but I'm in their court.  The public as a whole hasn't been.  Many people would rather put their head in the sand instead of facing the fact there are some bad actors out there. 


Gunner C explained some of the things that accompanied the uniform change.  Those didn't get as much press as the new duds, so it looked like nitpicking while there was more serious work to be done.  That's all I was getting at. 

A BCS?     I knew karma would get me; I've been teasing co-workers for years, anytime they went to court or the airport, that I'd call security to claim they are smuggling dope where the sun don't shine.