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

[aviator9417]

For those of you on the CAWG mailing list you have probably gotten an email about the new mandatory email signatures with "branding".  IMO they look horrible.  My first problem is that half of the signature is images which most modern email clients don't even show by default for security reasons.  Second is the bottom of the signature is a bunch of social media icons which IMO look less professional than a simple plain text signature that has your unit website or if you don't have a unit website your group or wing.

Before these new signatures were approved my signature was modeled off what we use in AFROTC (I'm a senior in CAP and cadet in AFROTC)

<end of email>

Respectfully,

//SIGNED//
FIRST MI. LAST, RANK, USAF-AUX
DUTY POSITION
SQUADRON, CIVIL AIR PATROL
CITY, STATE
YOUR EMAIL
YOUR PHONE

It looks WAY more professional and easier for the recipient to view as they don't have to download any images to see it's a CAP signature block. 

I'm just stating my opinion, I'll still change my signature as instructed of course.

[Eclipse]

Well, yours isn't correct either, by case or the use of "USAF-AUX", which is specifically prohibited,
and as for showing images, I'd have to disagree, as if anything the display of HTML in email
is increasing (not necessarily a good thing for security as you indicated).

Sounds like a non-IT person who hasn't read the T&Q had a "great idea".

[vento]

For those of you on the CAWG mailing list you have probably gotten an email about the new mandatory email signatures with "branding".  IMO they look horrible.  My first problem is that half of the signature is images which most modern email clients don't even show by default for security reasons.  Second is the bottom of the signature is a bunch of social media icons which IMO look less professional than a simple plain text signature that has your unit website or if you don't have a unit website your group or wing.

Before these new signatures were approved my signature was modeled off what we use in AFROTC (I'm a senior in CAP and cadet in AFROTC)

.....

You are barking at the wrong tree, it is not a CAWG design or idea, CAWG just appears to be trying to comply with NHQ's suggestion. It is from page 18 of the CAP Branding Resource Guide. http://capmembers.com/media/cms/CAP_BrandBook_RD12__Revised_DA547E24B0F48.pdf

[Lord of the North]

As happens all too frequently in CAP a suggestion is being carried to extreme.  The following is the e-mail from NHQ on the new e-mail signature blocks.  I have added some bold and text color to an important part of the NHQ e-mail which makes it clear that the new signature block is to be used only on e-mail that will be sent outside of CAP.  It is not for use within CAP.


Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 2:22 PM
To: CAP Corporate Team
Subject: New Standardized Signature Block as Part of Implementation of CAP Branding Plan
Importance: High



(Please view this message in HTML or Rich Text)



CAP Team,



We are in the process of implementing the CAP Branding Plan that Gen Vazquez approved several weeks ago. 



One of the simple, yet effective steps in the plan is to encourage all of our members to standardize their email signature blocks when they send an official CAP message.  My signature block below is the new standard that we will all be using.  It includes social media icons that point to the National pages which is also important in standardization.  Please use it for external emails (not for those emails sent within headquarters).  You can copy and paste this signature block and make the necessary changes by going to the "Tools" – "Options" – "Mail Format" and then "Signatures" in the Microsoft Outlook menu. 



For those who want additional info on branding, two quick one page excerpts from the branding documents are attached to help explain why branding is so important to the future of the organization and what CAP's branding communication strategy is. 



Note: the full versions of the Brand Resource Guide and the Branding Master Plan can be downloaded in the upper right hand corner of the following link:

http://capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/public_affairs/





cid:9A18312A-A445-4805-8F77-524A881DDED9

John A. Salvador
HQ CAP Senior Director
(O) 877.227.9142 ext. 235
(O) 334.953.7748 ext. 235
(DSN) 493.7748 ext. 235
U.S. Air Force Auxiliary
gocivilairpatrol.com

[a2capt]

I have a simpler solution.

Skip it all together. I don't put anything at the end of my message, except a period.

They look horrible so far, to me. I don't download embedded/inline graphics in messages by default. It's a lot more efficient that way. All those twitbook facer space icons and links are just a big waste of bandwidth on mobile devices.

[JacobAnn]

While I'm personally not a fan of social media I can't deny that it is currently a highly visible and inexpensive method of getting the word out.  I can't blame CAP for jumping on the same bandwagon that corporate America has.  I see very similar signature blocks in the many high tech firms I deal with.

[FW]

^ Yes; I understand some who aren't happy with this format, however it is a simple, effective, and inexpensive way to advertise CAP.  I am proud of my membership. IMHO, it is good we are permitted to use this easy way to "spread the message". 

BTW; I'm pretty sure Mr. Salvador's message was meant for interoffice emails sent by NHQ personnel working at Hansell St.

[NIN]

And look: no more bogus ominous FOUO / Classification tomes attached to emails that purport to be legit.



(those who deal with classified materials on a daily basis cringe at those things)

[Flying Pig]

And look: no more bogus ominous FOUO / Classification tomes attached to emails that purport to be legit.



(those who deal with classified materials on a daily basis cringe at those things)

You mean the entire paragraph that attaches to your emails!  AAHHHHH..   for an email that says "Hey dude, come on over to HQ we ordered pizza and have plenty of left overs?"

[Storm Chaser]

Not only does that signature block look horrible, it contradicts CAPR 10-1.

[Toth]

my squadron (and I get the feeling lots of others in my wing) uses:

C/Rank First M. Last
Duty/Staff Position
RGN-WG-UNT

[Майор Хаткевич]

Michael Hatkevich, Capt, CAP
Palwaukee Composite Squadron
Cell: 847.XXX.XXX

My positions had a habit of changing a lot, so I took it out. Otherwise it would be the line between name and unit.

[JeffDG]

Hmmm...perhaps people should read CAPR 10-1 Preparing Official Correspondence for guidance:

c. Signature Block. The signature block begins at the center of the page on the fifth line after the preceding text. The writer's signature is placed in the space immediately above the signature block.
(1) Two-Line. This is the preferred signature block. It consists of the writer's name in all capital letters followed by a comma, the writer's grade in normal upper and lower case followed by a comma, and the capital letters CAP on the first line (other organizational designations, such as AF Aux or USAFA, are not authorized). The second line states the writer's duty title in normal upper and lower case. See examples below:
JONATHAN Q. OFFICER, Colonel, CAP
Commander

JASON P. KIDD, C/TSgt, CAP
Cadet Logistics Officer

(2) Three Line. A three-line signature block may be used when the name and grade or the duty title are too long for a two-line format. See examples below:
JONATHAN Q. OFFICER, Colonel, CAP
Assistant Wing Deputy Director for
Operational Resource Management

ARTHUR J. FELDEMEN, JR
Brigadier General, CAP
National Vice Commander

(3) Graphics are inappropriate with either type of signature block

Although I will admit, my signature block is somewhat different, in that e-mail lacks "letterhead", I will put the unit after the duty position, such as "Deputy Commander, Unit" instead of just the duty position.

[NIN]

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

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

[Eclipse]

BTW; I'm pretty sure Mr. Salvador's message was meant for interoffice emails sent by NHQ personnel working at Hansell St.

That's the opposite of what it says:

My signature block below is the new standard that we will all be using.  It includes social media icons that point to the National pages which is also important in standardization.  Please use it for external emails (not for those emails sent within headquarters).  You can copy and paste this signature block and make the necessary changes by going to the "Tools" – "Options" – "Mail Format" and then "Signatures" in the Microsoft Outlook menu. 

It also presupposes that the receiver is using Outlook, which is the exact opposite of what you should be doing with a Google Apps account.

And the image itself is useless without the HTML tags that point to the sites.

If your sig line is longer then your message, you're doing it wrong.

[Fubar]

John A. Salvador
HQ CAP Senior Director
(O) 877.227.9142 ext. 235
(O) 334.953.7748 ext. 235
(DSN) 493.7748 ext. 235
U.S. Air Force Auxiliary
gocivilairpatrol.com

Shouldn't an email signature that contains that much information at least include the name of the organization to which the sender belongs to?

[FW]

BTW; I'm pretty sure Mr. Salvador's message was meant for interoffice emails sent by NHQ personnel working at Hansell St.

That's the opposite of what it says:

My signature block below is the new standard that we will all be using.  It includes social media icons that point to the National pages which is also important in standardization.  Please use it for external emails (not for those emails sent within headquarters).  You can copy and paste this signature block and make the necessary changes by going to the "Tools" – "Options" – "Mail Format" and then "Signatures" in the Microsoft Outlook menu. 

It also presupposes that the receiver is using Outlook, which is the exact opposite of what you should be doing with a Google Apps account.

And the image itself is useless without the HTML tags that point to the sites.

If your sig line is longer then your message, you're doing it wrong.

Sorry I wasn't clear.  I think Mr. Salvador's message was targeted to NHQ inter office staff SOP, IE; internal emails are not to have the full signature block.

I  like your comment about the length of the sig vs. message length.  I may steal it from you for a message to be written at a later date...

[THRAWN]

John A. Salvador
HQ CAP Senior Director
(O) 877.227.9142 ext. 235
(O) 334.953.7748 ext. 235
(DSN) 493.7748 ext. 235
U.S. Air Force Auxiliary
gocivilairpatrol.com

Shouldn't an email signature that contains that much information at least include the name of the organization to which the sender belongs to?

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

[THRAWN]

BTW; I'm pretty sure Mr. Salvador's message was meant for interoffice emails sent by NHQ personnel working at Hansell St.

That's the opposite of what it says:

My signature block below is the new standard that we will all be using.  It includes social media icons that point to the National pages which is also important in standardization.  Please use it for external emails (not for those emails sent within headquarters).  You can copy and paste this signature block and make the necessary changes by going to the "Tools" – "Options" – "Mail Format" and then "Signatures" in the Microsoft Outlook menu. 

It also presupposes that the receiver is using Outlook, which is the exact opposite of what you should be doing with a Google Apps account.

And the image itself is useless without the HTML tags that point to the sites.

If your sig line is longer then your message, you're doing it wrong.

But then how will you know my favorite quotes?

[JeffDG]

Just for the heck of it, I received an e-mail from Mr. Salvador forwarded to me today through the chain.

On my screen (all of this is specific to a specific screen, dot pitch, zoom level, etc. for the absolute numbers, but the relative stuff should all even out), there was ~1" of "Headers", 2" of "Body" content, and 3" of "Signature"

So, 1/2 the e-mail was "Signature", and the signature consumed 50% more screen real-estate than the body itself.