New CAP Logo?

[sparks]

This logo reminds me of "Buzz Light Year"! Next we'll have that cartoon character on a patch to accompany the "Goofy" ES patch. We don't need it or any more uniform changes.

[N Harmon]

This may sound odd, but what about the idea of branding each of CAPs missions differently, almost as separate entities in and of themselves?

I think it would dilute our identity.

[JC004]

I think it would dilute our identity.

BTDT.

[Rotorhead]

Has anyone noticed the new "triangle prop" logo on the Volunteer, the report to congress, and even the updated CAP credit card?

What's up with that??

It's been more than 15 minutes since the last one was designed.

Time for a new one.

[A.Member]

Has anyone noticed the new "triangle prop" logo on the Volunteer, the report to congress, and even the updated CAP credit card?

What's up with that??

I give up.  What els eshould we expect from the team that thinks it's OK to photoshop every other image they put to print. 

The tringle prop is horrible...as is it's use as the letter "O".

Surely someone here must know who's running the show done there.  If so, for the love god and all that is right in the world, ask them to consider another position.  They're clearly not cut out for this one.

[wuzafuzz]

That's about all I got to say about that!

[Lancer]

"I just got this thing, its called Photoshop, and its wicked awesome.. Let me show you!"

Actually it was done in Illustrator Darin... get your Adobe applications straight! 

The P'ing & M'ing in this thread, like others is getting a little old, don't you think fella's? Seriously.

Those that can, do...
those that can do better teach...
those that can't do either one, criticize.

[wuzafuzz]

"I just got this thing, its called Photoshop, and its wicked awesome.. Let me show you!"

Actually it was done in Illustrator Darin... get your Adobe applications straight! 

The P'ing & M'ing in this thread, like others is getting a little old, don't you think fella's? Seriously.

Those that can, do...
those that can do better teach...
those that can't do either one, criticize.

People have a right to express their opinions regardless of their personal skill level on a given task.  Ideally we'll also find a constructive way to share our thoughts with National.  I suppose the bigger question is whether CAPTalk, visible to the public, is the appropriate forum for our informal conversations.

[Pylon]

The P'ing & M'ing in this thread, like others is getting a little old, don't you think fella's? Seriously.

Those that can, do...
those that can do better teach...
those that can't do either one, criticize.

Actually, it's the continual acceptance of low-grade mediocrity from National Headquarters that is really getting old.  Fast.

[Lancer]

Actually, it's the continual acceptance of low-grade mediocrity from National Headquarters than is really getting old.  Fast.

Mike, you know me well enough (at least electronically) to know where I'm coming from. I'll agree with your statement and the change is coming, but it takes time.

This isn't directed at you Mike, but there's constructive criticism and then there is flat out bashing and that seems to come from a lot of folks these days. I always have believed that if you don't like something, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! It's that simple.

Think about it for a minute. Say you have an organization called, oh, say... 'The Kieloch Air Patrol' and there was a public forum where members of your organization could discuss all things KAP, and there were a lot of members who did nothing but complain about you and everything you did. Would you want to change how you were doing things to please these people, or would you continue to march to the beat of your own drum? I know the last thing I like is to be criticized for criticisms sake, and for those people that want to do that to me, well they can 'p**s up a rope'.  If you want to help me by working together to fix something you see as a deficiency, then let me know.

We have a way to work stuff up the chain of command; but how many of you contact your wing commander about things you believe need to be corrected at levels above wing? Specifically about how things are ran nationally? I'd say most of you don't. If you did, the agendas for NB meetings would be huge.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not satisfied with taking 'no' for answer for a lot of things...and a negative attitude begets a negative atmosphere.

So, here we are. Happy now?

People have a right to express their opinions regardless of their personal skill level on a given task.  Ideally we'll also find a constructive way to share our thoughts with National.  I suppose the bigger question is whether CAPTalk, visible to the public, is the appropriate forum for our informal conversations.

I've said from pretty much day one of joining here that there should a private section of the site that the general population can't see without taking some trouble to do so. I'm a member of other internet forums, and we do our [censored]ing behind 'closed doors'.

[Pylon]

Well, I can't agree with the "Do something about it" argument in this case, because in this case people are being paid to work on these things.  This isn't an example of CAP only having sub-mediocre marketing because we've just got some volunteers and some good intentions to work with, and a good volunteer stepping in could make a difference.  This is a case of paid staff not having the professional background necessary for jobs of this caliber.  Marketing communications and public relations for a nation-wide organization of CAP's size is not the same as churning out the newsletter for the local free clinic or corner non-profit co-op grocery.

Frankly, if your example above were true -- there was a Kieloch Air Patrol that I was somehow involved with and our membership was pointing out areas where we severely lacked, I'd thank them.  Yes, it smarts to be criticized.  But it hurts the organization much more for professionals in-the-know to not point out areas where CAP needs to improve and simply allow us to continue down the road of mediocrity.

Mike, you know me well enough (at least electronically) to know where I'm coming from. I'll agree with your statement and the change is coming, but it takes time.

I understand the position you're in, also.  I see your sig block there.     But we'll have to agree to disagree, because I do not believe for one second that the right kind of change in this regard is even on the table let alone already in the works.   Yes, change of this magnitude does take time; but I don't believe that is the case now.   It's not that the appropriate measures are underway and it's simply a matter of time for them to be implemented due to staff time and budget constraints.  The individuals in key positions on this matter have yet to see the professional light on this subject and so no movement towards that have been taken.  In fact, recent evidence including the subject of this thread, would certainly suggest that we keep moving away from any decent grasp on our marketing communications, let alone the issue of branding and identity.

I can stand in a classroom (and do) and teach fellow non-profit communications, PR and development professionals about how to improve their game.  I think I could then at least be qualified to point out some short-comings in an organization I know so well.

We have a way to work stuff up the chain of command; but how many of you contact your wing commander about things you believe need to be corrected at levels above wing? Specifically about how things are ran nationally? I'd say most of you don't. If you did, the agendas for NB meetings would be huge.

You should know as well as I do that bringing up concerns to the chain of command does not fix an issue.  Even if a Wing Commander actually cared enough about the feedback from one wing member, there really isn't much that he or she could do by way of agenda item that can fix this issue.


We simply do not use our resources as an organization of our size in an appropriate way.  Our organization could be a household name with widespread community support and better membership performance (both in quality and quantity) -- without changing a thing aside from appropriate management of our identity, marketing communications and PR efforts.

[JC004]

...
We simply do not use our resources as an organization of our size in an appropriate way.  Our organization could be a household name with widespread community support and better membership performance (both in quality and quantity) -- without changing a thing aside from appropriate management of our identity, marketing communications and PR efforts.

w00t!

[A.Member]

Well, I can't agree with the "Do something about it" argument in this case, because in this case people are being paid to work on these things.  This isn't an example of CAP only having sub-mediocre marketing because we've just got some volunteers and some good intentions to work with, and a good volunteer stepping in could make a difference.  This is a case of paid staff not having the professional background necessary for jobs of this caliber.  Marketing communications and public relations for a nation-wide organization of CAP's size is not the same as churning out the newsletter for the local free clinic or corner non-profit co-op grocery.

Frankly, if your example above were true -- there was a Kieloch Air Patrol that I was somehow involved with and our membership was pointing out areas where we severely lacked, I'd thank them.  Yes, it smarts to be criticized.  But it hurts the organization much more for professionals in-the-know to not point out areas where CAP needs to improve and simply allow us to continue down the road of mediocrity.

Mike, you know me well enough (at least electronically) to know where I'm coming from. I'll agree with your statement and the change is coming, but it takes time.

I understand the position you're in, also.  I see your sig block there.     But we'll have to agree to disagree, because I do not believe for one second that the right kind of change in this regard is even on the table let alone already in the works.   Yes, change of this magnitude does take time; but I don't believe that is the case now.   It's not that the appropriate measures are underway and it's simply a matter of time for them to be implemented due to staff time and budget constraints.  The individuals in key positions on this matter have yet to see the professional light on this subject and so no movement towards that have been taken.  In fact, recent evidence including the subject of this thread, would certainly suggest that we keep moving away from any decent grasp on our marketing communications, let alone the issue of branding and identity.

I can stand in a classroom (and do) and teach fellow non-profit communications, PR and development professionals about how to improve their game.  I think I could then at least be qualified to point out some short-comings in an organization I know so well.

We have a way to work stuff up the chain of command; but how many of you contact your wing commander about things you believe need to be corrected at levels above wing? Specifically about how things are ran nationally? I'd say most of you don't. If you did, the agendas for NB meetings would be huge.

You should know as well as I do that bringing up concerns to the chain of command does not fix an issue.  Even if a Wing Commander actually cared enough about the feedback from one wing member, there really isn't much that he or she could do by way of agenda item that can fix this issue.


We simply do not use our resources as an organization of our size in an appropriate way.  Our organization could be a household name with widespread community support and better membership performance (both in quality and quantity) -- without changing a thing aside from appropriate management of our identity, marketing communications and PR efforts.

:clap:  Well said!

I'll also add, more directly, that if National showed any sign of a pulse or responsiveness to member feedback, I suspect that you'd see the form and tone of the feedback change.  As Pylon indicated, some of these people are actually being paid for this.  We should expect better...we deserve better.  It's simply unacceptable (whether you like to hear it that directly or not).

[Lancer]

I'll also add, more directly, that if National showed any sign of a pulse or responsiveness to member feedback, I suspect that you'd see the form and tone of the feedback change.  As Pylon indicated, some of these people are actually being paid for this.  We should expect better...we deserve better.  It's simply unacceptable (whether you like to hear it that directly or not).

You obviously have internet access and a phone...so:

http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/cap_national_hq/nhq_contacts.cfm

[A.Member]

I'll also add, more directly, that if National showed any sign of a pulse or responsiveness to member feedback, I suspect that you'd see the form and tone of the feedback change.  As Pylon indicated, some of these people are actually being paid for this.  We should expect better...we deserve better.  It's simply unacceptable (whether you like to hear it that directly or not).

You obviously have internet access and a phone...so:

http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/cap_national_hq/nhq_contacts.cfm

Do you know I haven't?  The answer to that is obviously no. 

More importantly, my suggestion is that you not be so presumptuous about what others may or may not have done.  If you don't know, ask.   So... 

Back on topic...

[Lancer]

Do you know I haven't?  The answer to that is obviously no. 

More importantly, my suggestion is that you not be so presumptuous about what others may or may not have done.  If you don't know, ask.   So... 

Back on topic...

I never said I knew who may or may not have called. A lot of folks will sit behind a keyboard and raise their issue with everyone but the people they should raise the issue with.

Even more importantly, don't assume that what I bring to this conversation is not 'On Topic'.

Is it the most masterful piece of artwork that has been made, no? I don't think it ever was meant to be. It's simple, clean and is similar to other logos we have with the tri-prop.

Next.

[arajca]

Given this new logo, in addition to the various ones that have popped up from National over the past few years indicates they do not have a clue about marleting or branding. My employer has used the same logo since the late 1970's. They've added or removed some trimmings, but the central part hasn't changed. Look at most corporate logos and you'll find the same thing. Occasionally, a company will change it's logo, and when it does, they make a HUGE deal about it and at the same time remove the old logo from EVERYTHING.

CAP has not figured this out. They keep producing these new logos without any plan. IMHO, they need to step back to the CAP emblem and stop any new logos until they can get a PLAN for how to market CAP.

As for them listening to the field, I will mention an example of the "Opportunity Knocks" brouchure that replaced both the senior and cadet brochures. When it was released at the NB meeting (2006?) to a room of volunteers doing recruiting, they were told, unanimously, that it was OK for seniors, but was completely wrong for cadet. Their attitude was not one of accepting criticism. It took three years from them to figure out what the recruiting people told them at that meeting.

[Pylon]

As for them listening to the field, I will mention an example of the "Opportunity Knocks" brouchure that replaced both the senior and cadet brochures. When it was released at the NB meeting (2006?) to a room of volunteers doing recruiting, they were told, unanimously, that it was OK for seniors, but was completely wrong for cadet. Their attitude was not one of accepting criticism. It took three years from them to figure out what the recruiting people told them at that meeting.

Perfect example.  This happens over and over.  Given that, imagine how well feedback is received from those not "in the room" but three or four echelons removed, down at the squadron-level.

Is it the most masterful piece of artwork that has been made, no? I don't think it ever was meant to be. It's simple, clean and is similar to other logos we have with the tri-prop.

Sorry bud, this discussion has very, very, very little to do with how the logo looks.  It's about planning and identity management.

[O-Rex]

I absolutely agree with Pylon: this is not about the aesthetics of the logo designs rather than how CAP wants to be perceived.

Over the past ten years, we've seen a 'curve' as to our corporate versus military branding, the height of which (for Military) was 2004, when the CAP/USAF Aux MAJCOM-syle patch replaced the old round patch on flightsuits, when 'performing missions for america.' was the slogan-those were happy times.

When Tony Pineda was CC, the removal of USAF AUX from aircraft and patches was not about a falling out with USAF (as urban legend would have it) but about branding in such a way that CAP could diversify it's customer-appeal, so-to-speak (remember, he had a law-enforcement background)  I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the direction, simply making an observation.

Regardless of the envisioned end-state, this branding issue now seems to have become a runaway train.

Granted, CAP is a Federally-chartered non-profit corporation with a "military storefront"  (please don't flame, this is not a criticism, it's just reality..)

Nonetheless, it's the quasi-military aspect that attracts members, cadets in particular; IMHO, it's what gives the organization an edge of sorts.  Otherwise, CAP would be just another after-school activity for cadets, like 4H, DECA, Junior Achievement, etc. etc.  and Red Cross for Seniors.  Not bad in themselves, just not what I think most of our membership is looking for.

It's hard enough for us individually to explain who we are, without having to sift through a multitude of gee-gaws and trendy slogans.

I'd just like for CAP to get past this 'identity crisis," and sincerely hope that by the end of the decade, our programs are not touted as "baked by little elves in a hollow tree..." 

[wuzafuzz]

CAP is in serious need of "Brand-Aid."

Arajca is exactly right, CAP should step back to the CAP emblem.  Future changes should only be made VERY carefully.  Our brand is a huge part of our public identity and should be guarded jealously.  My employer has has the same logo for over 80 years.  We aren't allowed to create internal logos; we are supposed to live the brand internally as well as externally.  It's part of a shared vision.  In contrast, our current CAP branding efforts scream we don't know what we want to be when we grow up.

IMHO, one logo is all we need, individual programs could be identified by simple, but uniform, text below the standard CAP emblem.  Instead of  appearing to be separate organizations, it would educate people about all we do.  "I didn't know CAP did that too!"  Our brand, our image, would be strengthened instead of scattered into the wind.