We all know CAP is great organization, and that we do great things. However, its apparent at least in a large number of communities, that we aren't well known.
Our Squadron CC sent me this brochure recently, and Im truly excited to see what's inside.
The CAP BrandBook for those of you whom haven't taken a peek yet, is an extraordinary document that details not only who we are, but how we can enhance our "Brand Image" so that others outside our sphere of influence know who we are.
For instance, most companies, organizations, and products on the market today associate themselves with a series of colors, symbols, and even hashtags#. When you see these references in your daily life, you know immediately what those colors and symbols belong to.
CAP in theory should be homogenous across all units, but unfortunantly due to it being a volunteer part time organization, finds itself with a lack of clear cut guidance in many units.
The CAP Brandbook in my opinion seeks to establish a Brand Image for CAP, and make us recognizable to the public. If the public and local governments know we exist, and know what our mission and capabilities are, then we are more likely to be utilized. Utilization brings increased recognition and visibility; these two items increase membership and funding.
The bottom line? Read the CAP Brand Book and start implementing it throughout all of our Wings. Small changes are easy to make, and can benefit us greatly in the long run.
CAP Brand Book: http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/CAP_MasterPlan_RD10__Revised_3A7B79D355C5C.pdf (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/CAP_MasterPlan_RD10__Revised_3A7B79D355C5C.pdf)
What do all of you think?
As someone who's still a bit of a newbie to CAP, I feel like we are a "best kept secret" kind of thing. Nobody seems to know who we are or what we do, at least in my state (Delaware). That might be different for other wings, but out here, that's the way it seems to be.
Without brand awareness (both with social media and with plain, old-fashioned word of mouth), IMHO, we will never grow. But the PDF certainly speaks to some of the issues we face, like lack of budget for increasing our branding program, and a lack of a cohesive program to drive the branding process.
I think the paper makes a good start at addressing the issue, but it's going to take everyone doing their part to make it work. And, while the paper addresses brand awareness, it fails to address the second part of the program, which is retention. Once a new member joins, you have to keep interest up and keep our mission relevant to keep him or her coming back. That's just as important.
Sean
Quote from: SeanM on March 16, 2015, 12:58:18 PM
As someone who's still a bit of a newbie to CAP, I feel like we are a "best kept secret" kind of thing. Nobody seems to know who we are or what we do, at least in my state (Delaware). That might be different for other wings, but out here, that's the way it seems to be.
Without brand awareness (both with social media and with plain, old-fashioned word of mouth), IMHO, we will never grow. But the PDF certainly speaks to some of the issues we face, like lack of budget for increasing our branding program, and a lack of a cohesive program to drive the branding process.
I think the paper makes a good start at addressing the issue, but it's going to take everyone doing their part to make it work. And, while the paper addresses brand awareness, it fails to address the second part of the program, which is retention. Once a new member joins, you have to keep interest up and keep our mission relevant to keep him or her coming back. That's just as important.
Sean
Then you're talking to the wrong people. DE Wing has a long history of service to the state through its interaction with DelDOT and a strong relationship with the 166th at ILG. During the last 5 years the wing has interacted with schools, churches, the GA community and the EM community during some of the most active weather in history.....
Agreed, we do a lot with DelDOT, government agencies, etc... However, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I was referring more to the common person that you meet on the street, the people that we want to recruit. How many of them know who CAP is, or what our mission entails? My experience has been very darned few. We're not trying to recruit the agencies we work with, we're trying to recruit people to fill our ranks and be more "aware" of us.
Sean
Quote from: SeanM on March 16, 2015, 12:58:18 PM
As someone who's still a bit of a newbie to CAP, I feel like we are a "best kept secret" kind of thing. Nobody seems to know who we are or what we do, at least in my state (Delaware). That might be different for other wings, but out here, that's the way it seems to be.
All of the armed services have embraced "Brand awareness" and "branding campaigns" that speak to making sure that the myriad of users out in the field who might be inclined to produce materials locally for some reason (say printed materials for advertising, recruiting and public awareness, not administrative publications or regs/manuals) are doing so with a high degree of commonality to the national message and repeatability. (Sound familiar?)
The AF speaks to trademark and licensing (http://www.trademark.af.mil/ (http://www.trademark.af.mil/)) because they have to control the toy market whenever Michael Bay releases a new movie. (honestly, the AF breaks it out differently than the other services do)
The Army talks about its brand as it pertains to PA interfaces far afield, as well as social media and common elements of the "army brand": http://www.army.mil/create/ (http://www.army.mil/create/) and things like Logos (http://www.army.mil/create/designer/logos.html (http://www.army.mil/create/designer/logos.html)), Typography (http://www.army.mil/create/designer/typography.html (http://www.army.mil/create/designer/typography.html)) and color use (http://www.army.mil/create/designer/colors.html (http://www.army.mil/create/designer/colors.html)) and an overall branding guide (http://usarmy.vo.llnwd.net/e2/rv5_downloads/create/branding_toolkit.pdf (http://usarmy.vo.llnwd.net/e2/rv5_downloads/create/branding_toolkit.pdf))
The Marines are wicked serious about their brand (as you would expect): http://www.hqmc.marines.mil/Portals/134/Docs/CCM%20Docs/MCRC/MC%20Brand%20Guide/USMC_brand_guide2009.pdf (http://www.hqmc.marines.mil/Portals/134/Docs/CCM%20Docs/MCRC/MC%20Brand%20Guide/USMC_brand_guide2009.pdf) and http://www.hqmc.marines.mil/divpa/Units/MarineCorpsTrademarkLicensingProgram/FAQ.aspx (http://www.hqmc.marines.mil/divpa/Units/MarineCorpsTrademarkLicensingProgram/FAQ.aspx)
The Navy seems like "Meh, throw a fouled anchor out there, let it rip. Oh yeah, Seal Team Six!"
But your point about the "best kept secret" has rankled me since 1981, BTW. We seem to wear that like a badge of honor. That is NOT a point of pride, folks, and is an example of why we've fallen on our faces from a PA & awareness standpoint for 30+ years.
"USAF's best kept secret" was one of the first responses I received when I asked what CAP was when I was being recruited as a cadet in 1989. It's mind boggling to me that even in 2015 it's still an issue. Considering we've been in a wartime state since at least 2001 (you could probably go even further back to 1990) and with all the notable natural disasters that have occurred, it seems like CAP would've received some kind of bump in social awareness by default. I remember being part of color guard details that participated in yellow ribbon events during the first Gulf War and people were amazed that an organization like CAP existed.
Quote from: Salty on March 16, 2015, 03:31:05 PM
"USAF's best kept secret" was one of the first responses I received when I asked what CAP was when I was being recruited as a cadet in 1989. It's mind boggling to me that even in 2015 it's still an issue. Considering we've been in a wartime state since at least 2001 (you could probably go even further back to 1990) and with all the notable natural disasters that have occurred, it seems like CAP would've received some kind of bump in social awareness by default. I remember being part of color details that participated in yellow ribbon events during the first Gulf War and people were amazed that an organization like CAP existed.
After the events of 2001, our membership roles swelled to over 67,000. Membership has declined to about 58,000 today; about a 14% decrease. We continue to recruit cadets at about the same level as in past years. Senior membership stays consistent as well. Funding has also been consistent. In other words; same old same old...
What gave us that "bump" in membership? Why did things return to "normal"? Why haven't we developed a committed contributor base? Why are we still talking about "Branding"? From what I can fathom, the membership has done all it can. It's time for the Board of Governors to step in and use their combined "clout" to bring in some much needed help.
CAP is staffed with a lot of older, "out if touch" with current social media types who likely wouldn't have a clue how to properly utilize it. The fact that like 90% of all CAP websites are outdated, shoddy messes should tell you something.
Quote from: The14th on March 16, 2015, 05:10:47 PM
CAP is staffed with a lot of older, "out if touch" with current social media types who likely wouldn't have a clue how to properly utilize it. The fact that like 90% of all CAP websites are outdated, shoddy messes should tell you something.
Webdevelopers don't join/have time/want to work for free?
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on March 16, 2015, 05:42:58 PM
Quote from: The14th on March 16, 2015, 05:10:47 PM
CAP is staffed with a lot of older, "out if touch" with current social media types who likely wouldn't have a clue how to properly utilize it. The fact that like 90% of all CAP websites are outdated, shoddy messes should tell you something.
Webdevelopers don't join/have time/want to work for free?
Well, there's also the fact that NHQ is actively hostile to field-developed applications.
Quote from: JeffDG on March 16, 2015, 05:43:41 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on March 16, 2015, 05:42:58 PM
Quote from: The14th on March 16, 2015, 05:10:47 PM
CAP is staffed with a lot of older, "out if touch" with current social media types who likely wouldn't have a clue how to properly utilize it. The fact that like 90% of all CAP websites are outdated, shoddy messes should tell you something.
Webdevelopers don't join/have time/want to work for free?
Well, there's also the fact that NHQ is actively hostile to field-developed applications.
Even so, we simply don't have the numbers for everyone to "have their own", and while NHQ has their own websites, and applications, for some reason no one thinks a "cookie cutter" type could/should be set up for all.
I sure don't know, and I don't think anyone else can actually quantify it, but our state has 9 million people in it and we can't seem to break the 2000 member threshold. Nationally, with over 350 >million< people, we can't seem to break the 60,000 member threshold, and as someone mentioned, we topped out at 67,000 members post 9-11.
What should be the ratio of membership to population? I don't know, but as it stands now, it seems awfully 'out of balance' somehow.
With regards to relevance and more importantly, retention, I think the mission set and Kool-Aid machine needs a major overhaul because I see a whole lot of thrashing of the gears and wheels, and no movement.
Interestingly, Public Law 557 required "recruiting and training of 100,000 Civil Air Patrol Cadets in Aeronautical Ground School Subjects."
The 1950 report to Congress states active membership for December of that year was 161,214 Seniors, and 28,310 Cadets, for a total of 189,532 members.
During the 60's numbers fell significantly, but still remained much higher than they are now, around 80k combined Seniors/Cadets.
At that time, Civil Air Patrol PSA's flooded the airwaves, recorded by celebrities like Jerry Lewis and Max Baer (Jethro from Beverly Hillbillies). Lewis was the official Recruiter-at-large for CAP and helped our "Brand Image" quite a bit.
Since joining in the 90's, CAP has always been word of mouth. Sure, we have a website and social media, but who's telling people to go to them? Our Instagram is filled with pics of Seniors from an awards ceremony, instead of high speed shots of Cadets doing something cool. We're greatly losing on the social media front.
All it would really take, is a few well done ads on TV, and a good Social Media campaign.
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on March 16, 2015, 05:42:58 PM
Quote from: The14th on March 16, 2015, 05:10:47 PM
CAP is staffed with a lot of older, "out if touch" with current social media types who likely wouldn't have a clue how to properly utilize it. The fact that like 90% of all CAP websites are outdated, shoddy messes should tell you something.
Webdevelopers don't join/have time/want to work for free?
It doesn't take a web developer to create a decent looking site in today's day and age.
Quote from: The14th on March 16, 2015, 07:52:36 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on March 16, 2015, 05:42:58 PM
Quote from: The14th on March 16, 2015, 05:10:47 PM
CAP is staffed with a lot of older, "out if touch" with current social media types who likely wouldn't have a clue how to properly utilize it. The fact that like 90% of all CAP websites are outdated, shoddy messes should tell you something.
Webdevelopers don't join/have time/want to work for free?
It doesn't take a web developer to create a decent looking site in today's day and age.
Yea...it doesn't. But you know those sites you call outdated? That's because "someone" whether capable or not, was making it, and then they probably left CAP at some point, or no one bothers to update content.
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on March 16, 2015, 08:08:55 PM
Quote from: The14th on March 16, 2015, 07:52:36 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on March 16, 2015, 05:42:58 PM
Quote from: The14th on March 16, 2015, 05:10:47 PM
CAP is staffed with a lot of older, "out if touch" with current social media types who likely wouldn't have a clue how to properly utilize it. The fact that like 90% of all CAP websites are outdated, shoddy messes should tell you something.
Webdevelopers don't join/have time/want to work for free?
It doesn't take a web developer to create a decent looking site in today's day and age.
Yea...it doesn't. But you know those sites you call outdated? That's because "someone" whether capable or not, was making it, and then they probably left CAP at some point, or no one bothers to update content.
Which is a big issue with the brand. And is something somebody should consider fixing, but nobody seems to care that online imagine is a huge part of today's world and allowing out of date sites and members to create them on a whim is not a good thing.
We have a delimma. WE are part of a bigger brand, the USAF. With that said, Momma don't want us. Back when we had higher numbers, we used to meet on Air Force bases and have our encampment on Air Force bases and use Air Force Buses adn Aircraft to go from point to point. We used to be welcome by the Air Force. Now, due to various reasons, some good, some bogus, we are shunned. No field trips to the tower. No parties at the NCO club. No activities on the Base to speak of at all (in most places, there are a few exceptions). We are almost out of a job, here is very little search activity left, no ELT's searches to speak of. Our use as part of CD is gone, repalced by FEMA, etc. We do not do radiological monitoring anymore. WE have very little use to the Air Force anymore. In most places, any seniors flying are more of the GOB club than anything else. Try to bring a new member in and maybe, just maybe, they will have their Check ride in a year or their observer rating in a year. It is a very expensive way to go. With the state militias issuing uniforms and seemingly training with chain saws for natural disasters it would seem they have a lot in competition with us and maybe doing a better job. Are we Air search and rescue?? Are we Cadet program? Are we Emergency services? Are we Aerospace education? I don't think we know and therefore we have a branding problem. Are we recruiting pilots? Are we recruiting woodsmen for search? Are we recruiting cadets? Are we recruiting areospace engineers or teachers? We are in trouble and until we clarify who we are and what we want to do we are floating on a sea of despair. As usual, JMHO..
Quote from: AirAux on March 17, 2015, 03:16:35 PM
We have a delimma. WE are part of a bigger brand, the USAF. With that said, Momma don't want us. Back when we had higher numbers, we used to meet on Air Force bases and have our encampment on Air Force bases and use Air Force Buses adn Aircraft to go from point to point. We used to be welcome by the Air Force. Now, due to various reasons, some good, some bogus, we are shunned. No field trips to the tower. No parties at the NCO club. No activities on the Base to speak of at all (in most places, there are a few exceptions). We are almost out of a job, here is very little search activity left, no ELT's searches to speak of. Our use as part of CD is gone, repalced by FEMA, etc. We do not do radiological monitoring anymore. WE have very little use to the Air Force anymore. In most places, any seniors flying are more of the GOB club than anything else. Try to bring a new member in and maybe, just maybe, they will have their Check ride in a year or their observer rating in a year. It is a very expensive way to go. With the state militias issuing uniforms and seemingly training with chain saws for natural disasters it would seem they have a lot in competition with us and maybe doing a better job. Are we Air search and rescue?? Are we Cadet program? Are we Emergency services? Are we Aerospace education? I don't think we know and therefore we have a branding problem. Are we recruiting pilots? Are we recruiting woodsmen for search? Are we recruiting cadets? Are we recruiting areospace engineers or teachers? We are in trouble and until we clarify who we are and what we want to do we are floating on a sea of despair. As usual, JMHO..
You hit on a couple of good points. CAP doesn't have a branding issue, it has an identity issue. It wants to be all things to all people, and ends up doing them "half fast". CAP needs to figure out what role it wants to play and be the best in that role. Right now, the organization is still stuck on bombing U-boats instead of selling its current capabilities.
As an organization, there is no concentrated effort to recruit as you described. Sure, some units here and there do it, but when is the last time that a CAP guy went to a WINGS event and tried to recruit? Or make a presentation at a local or state EMO/EMA conference? Make a presentation to a school that didn't already have a CAP presence? If you want pilots, targeet them. If you want ES types, target them. If you want Cadets....
Quote from: THRAWN on March 17, 2015, 03:51:38 PM
Right now, the organization is still stuck on bombing unsubstantiated claims about U-boats instead of selling its current capabilities.
Quote from: THRAWN on March 17, 2015, 03:51:38 PM
CAP doesn't have a branding issue, it has an identity issue. It wants to be all things to all people, and ends up doing them "half fast". CAP needs to figure out what role it wants to play and be the best in that role. Right now, the organization is still stuck on bombing U-boats instead of selling its current capabilities.
As an organization, there is no concentrated effort to recruit as you described. Sure, some units here and there do it, but when is the last time that a CAP guy went to a WINGS event and tried to recruit? Or make a presentation at a local or state EMO/EMA conference? Make a presentation to a school that didn't already have a CAP presence? If you want pilots, targeet them. If you want ES types, target them. If you want Cadets....
We do have a branding issue. It may be partially due as you describe, however it is more complex than that. Proper branding means widespread identification with the brand. Active members identify. Potentials don't. Proper branding means better identity, dedicated members, and a contributor base which helps us to grow. It becomes a positive cycle.... Branding begets identity which begets positive results; not just recruitment of members.
Quote from: AirAux on March 17, 2015, 03:16:35 PM
We have a delimma. WE are part of a bigger brand, the USAF. With that said, Momma don't want us. Back when we had higher numbers, we used to meet on Air Force bases and have our encampment on Air Force bases and use Air Force Buses adn Aircraft to go from point to point. We used to be welcome by the Air Force. Now, due to various reasons, some good, some bogus, we are shunned.
Maybe it's just a matter of perspective, but from where I sit, nothing could be further from the truth.
Not only does the AF "love us," but more importantly, they depend on us in a very real sense. Recently I had the opportunity to visit the AFNORTH operations center, and the AFNORTH commander briefed us on his dependence on CAP.
He showed us his Air Tasking Order (ATO) for the day, and the majority of the sorties being flown for AFNORTH that day were CAP.
I can only agree that there are fewer activities and encampments on AF bases today than there were WIWAC. Of course there are far, far fewer AF bases today than there were when I was a troop. Just in California, I went to activities at Hamilton, Mather, McClellan, Norton, Castle, and George AFBs. All gone. And March AFB is now March ARB.
And that's just California. And just the Air Force. (I also attended activities and encampments at Ford Ord, Fort MacArthur, Alameda NAS, Moffett Field, the Presidio of San Francisco, and MCAS El Toro, too. My squadron met at a Nike site near Los Angeles. All gone)
California would still be having our encampments at Vandenberg AFB, but they tore down the transient barracks in the early 80's, and can no longer supply the 300 beds we need.
I hope you can see that any reduction in support has little to do with the support and generosity of the AF, and everything to do with BRAC and other budget reductions.
QuoteWe are almost out of a job, here is very little search activity left, no ELT's searches to speak of.
You say that like it was a Bad Thing. I cannot imagine the Fire Department complaining that because of smoke detectors and improved building codes that there aren't enough fires anymore.
Or the cops complaining that the crimes rates are down.
QuoteOur use as part of CD is gone, repalced by FEMA, etc.
Non-concur. You need only look at things like Katrina and Deepwater Horizon to see that CAP remains a vital and used asset in DR/CD. And that is
because of our partnership with FEMA and other EMAs, not in spite of them.
QuoteWe do not do radiological monitoring anymore.
Again, this would seem like a Good Thing . . .. But in any event, we maintain some equipment and doctrine in this area as a reserve capability, with the ability to ramp it up when needed.
QuoteWith the state militias issuing uniforms and seemingly training with chain saws for natural disasters it would seem they have a lot in competition with us and maybe doing a better job.
As a relatively senior member of one of the largest state defense forces, I can share that this is not exactly a common state of readiness. Most states don't maintain defense forces in any event. Of those that do, relatively few issue uniforms and equipment. (California, one of the largest SDFs, for instance does not issue uniforms.)
And FWIW, SDFs have many of the same issues facing CAP. How to convince volunteer members to pay out of pocket for uniforms, give up weekends for training, and finding viable missions within the state. The parallels are kind of eerie, actually.
QuoteAre we Air search and rescue?? Are we Cadet program? Are we Emergency services? Are we Aerospace education? I don't think we know and therefore we have a branding problem.
We are all those things, of course. As required by Congress. And while it may create a bit of a branding issue, it also creates opportunities. It makes us pretty darn unique.
I don't think the Army worries excessively that they have a variety of missions. After all, in addition to their traditional ground combat mission, they have a pretty large air component flying both helos and fixed wing aircraft (and a lot of RPVs). The Army is tasked with supporting civil authorities as needed, which has included everything from suppressing riots to putting out forest fires. Soldiers spent a lot of time and effort building schools, hospitals, and utilities recently in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. Soldiers recently deployed to Africa to assist in the Ebola outbreak. Not to mention helping out after the 2005 Sumatra earthquake.
I spent a couple of decades as a soldier, and deployed to a bunch of countries. We never really spent that much time worrying about the variety of missions hurting the Army's branding. (We did of course complain about of lot of things. But that's what soldiers do.)
I can only agree that CAP Public Affairs, including our branding plans, is complex and challenging. And I'm glad I have not been tasked with that awesome responsibility.
So, while we may disagree about the extent of the problem, what are you suggestions for improving our PA / branding initiatives?
Ned, you note: You say that like it was a Bad Thing. I cannot imagine the Fire Department complaining that because of smoke detectors and improved building codes that there aren't enough fires anymore.
Or the cops complaining that the crimes rates are down.
Those people are paid for those duties, less work is great for them. Our people spend time and money training for missions and have to retrain continually to maintain proficiency for naught. They depart, frustrated and feeling mislead.. The average CAP senior never steps in a CAP aircraft..
Quote from: AirAux on March 17, 2015, 05:56:43 PM
The average CAP senior never steps in a CAP aircraft..
There are most certainly no statistics to back that statement up, but just about any CAP senior member can certainly train to be a scanner or observer. They can choose not to....
Quote from: AirAux on March 17, 2015, 05:56:43 PM
Our people spend time and money training for missions and have to retrain continually to maintain proficiency for naught. They depart, frustrated and feeling mislead.. The average CAP senior never steps in a CAP aircraft..
Leaders at all levels have a responsibility to ensure that our members' time is valued and not wasted. And to let each member know where they fit in the scheme of things and how their efforts (including training) contribute to the mission.
That's just good leadership. If members are truly unfulfilled and feeling mislead, I would look first to the leadership to see if they would benefit from some additional training on troop-leading procedures.
In terms of comparison to other service organizations, I don't think the paid / nonpaid distinction is all that important. I can easily imagine members of a rural volunteer fire department having a sense of nonfulfillment if they cannot put their skills to use in an actual emergency from time to time.
But it is the leader's job to maintain readiness by frequent and realistic training while instilling realistic expectations amongst the team. The answer is not to have more emergencies, but to be ready and able to respond to the few that do occur. And part of that is maintaining high morale on the team.
And that leadership training starts at the top, not at the bottom. Look to national, regional, wing and group before you start blaming squadrons.. More diversity isn't the answer, unity of purpose is.
The bad thing is...there's no way to sexy it up. CAP is what it is. Our missions are just not something we can embellish. What we did in the early days is about as great as it gets. I've thought long and hard about what we can do, locally and wing, region, and nationally and as creative as I am, I'm at a loss as to how to make it interesting to the average teen and pilot. It's not as much a matter of reinventing the wheel as it is trying to put lipstick on a pig. I'm not trashing the org, or anything, but...it is what it is.
Personally, I find the cadet program fascinating...seems most American's don't share my/our views.
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on March 17, 2015, 07:18:14 PM
Personally, I find the cadet program fascinating...seems most American's don't share my/our views.
I tend to agree. I joined as a SM at 20. When I did, my parents said, "Oh, yeah, I've known about that for years..." Thanks. I still hold a grudge, but I digress.
What sets it apart from other similar youth oriented programs, though? There is Scouting, a variety of Explorer programs, JROTC, Young Marines, USNSCC, not to mention the "local" prgrams. They all have the same basic goal: make better citizens. What is it that CAP has, that the others don't? Is it worth the effort on CAP's part to keep the firey hoops blazing for its membership to jump through so they can participate in the CP? CAP needs to decide if it wants to be a youth program, or an ES force multiplier, or in the AE business. This camel is proving that it just can't hunt...
Quote from: AirAux on March 17, 2015, 06:23:47 PM
And that leadership training starts at the top, not at the bottom.
Fair enough. And that's pretty much how we have it set up. Our senior leaders typically have much more CAP training (NSC, RSC, wing commanders course, etc.) than most squadron-level leaders.
But what specific additional training were you recommending?
QuoteLook to national, regional, wing and group before you start blaming squadrons.. More diversity isn't the answer, unity of purpose is.
Please don't put words in my mouth, and I will try to return the favor. I wasn't blaming anybody, least of all squadron leadership. You described a situation, I responded with some specific suggestions to remedy what you described. I have over 20 years of working at the squadron level. I'm pretty sure I understand the dynamic.
And where did "diversity" come from in this conversation about branding? I'm a little confused by that. Please explain what you mean.
Also what do you mean by "unity of purpose?" Are you suggesting breaking up CAP in order to improve our branding efforts? Please explain your comments.
Ned, there has been a concerted effort at diversity ever since National began the 4 year rotation of commanders. Look at all of the advertizing material we are using. There is hardly a white face in the picture. I am not a racist, but there is no need to push for minority involvement just for the sake of minority involvement. As far as unity of purpose, as stated above, what is our purpose?? The Air Force doesn't need recruits anymore at least not as much as they once did. National now has commanders working their tails off with constant management of different directives such as CPPT, now changed names, new Radio operator requirements, new drivers license, new safety, monthly wing banking accounting.. The list goes on. We are not a corporation on our level. We are doing housework and no fun anymore. Very few if any squadrons have teh staff to fulfill the requirements each national director feels should be done because it has his name on it and he invented it. I have run out of time, but I will share better andmake more sence when I have a few minutes to compose.
Quote from: AirAux on March 17, 2015, 09:14:17 PM
Ned, there has been a concerted effort at diversity ever since National began the 4 year rotation of commanders.
You speak like diversity was somehow a Bad Thing. All of our members should feel welcome, don't you agree?
But you are correct that the national commander appointed a diversity committee several years back to advise us on how to identify and remove any inadvertent barriers to full participation by all of our members.
The committee produced a report, and some actions were taken to ensure fairness for all members. Nothing earthshaking turned out to be necessary, so no earthshaking changes were made. As a legal guy, I know you understand how important it is for any corporation to periodically check to make sure no inadvertent fairness issues exist. I seem to recall you and I debated this at some length in one or more of our endless diversity threads here on CT.
You may be right that process was roughly contemporaneous with the squadron commander term limits, but that would be purely coincidental. It was also contemporaneous with a lot of other regulation changes. Certainly no changes were made to squadron commander selection procedures as a result of any diversity initiatives.
QuoteAs far as unity of purpose, as stated above, what is our purpose??
I don't think we have an official "purpose," but we sure have some "missions" assigned to us by Congress and the AF as reflected in the various statutes creating and governing CAP, and according to AFI 10-2701 we have we also have some "objectives."
And they pretty much boil down to providing CP, ES, AE, and serving the Secretary of the AF in non-combatant missions upon request.
And just between you and me, even if everyone on CAP Talk could somehow agree on a Unified Statement of Purpose for CAP that was focused, catchy, and newly-relevant to the 21st century, I don't think that would actually changed our previously assigned missions or objectives.
QuoteFrom AirAux:
Those people are paid for those duties, less work is great for them...
May be true of LEOs, non-concur with Fire Depts. I would bet there are more volunteer Fire Depts than paid...
Luis, trust me, I was a volunteer fireman for a couple of years in Texas. We almost all appreciated less work, with the exception of one of our buddy volunteers who we caught setting fires.. We worked even less after he was arrested.
Quote from: Ned on March 17, 2015, 11:12:03 PM
Quote from: AirAux on March 17, 2015, 09:14:17 PM
Ned, there has been a concerted effort at diversity ever since National began the 4 year rotation of commanders.
You speak like diversity was somehow a Bad Thing. All of our members should feel welcome, don't you agree?
Yes, when "diversity" means that our organization is made up of people of different races, creeds, etc. That's a good thing.
It's not a good thing when "diversity" is a code word for "we need more (group) to make us look good, so we're going to offer special privileges to (group).", as is sadly more common than not.
Quote from: Panache on March 18, 2015, 06:49:16 AM
It's not a good thing when "diversity" is a code word for "we need more (group) to make us look good, so we're going to offer special privileges to (group).", as is sadly more common than not.
What special privilege is that in CAP? And for whom?
Air Aux, trust me, I am not responding to this.
Quote
We almost all appreciated less work...
Almost anyone appreciates less fires. From the people that fight them, the people they encounter driving on the street to the fire, to the owners of the buildings that may get burnt out or hurt.
I responded to this:
Quote
Those people are paid...
When you said
Those, you were saying
all firemen are paid. So I said
not true, not all are paid.
Quote from: THRAWN on March 17, 2015, 07:50:54 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on March 17, 2015, 07:18:14 PM
Personally, I find the cadet program fascinating...seems most American's don't share my/our views.
I tend to agree. I joined as a SM at 20. When I did, my parents said, "Oh, yeah, I've known about that for years..." Thanks. I still hold a grudge, but I digress.
What sets it apart from other similar youth oriented programs, though? There is Scouting, a variety of Explorer programs, JROTC, Young Marines, USNSCC, not to mention the "local" prgrams. They all have the same basic goal: make better citizens. What is it that CAP has, that the others don't? Is it worth the effort on CAP's part to keep the firey hoops blazing for its membership to jump through so they can participate in the CP? CAP needs to decide if it wants to be a youth program, or an ES force multiplier, or in the AE business. This camel is proving that it just can't hunt...
I disagree. Good Branding transcends this. What your describing is a failure to market the organization correctly. There are many organizations with multiple "missions" which are successful in recruiting and retaining members; as well as developing a stable contributor base. I would suggest we find out how its done. Then do it...
Hey, I got an idea. This works for the big boys so let's try it. Let's put our Brand on a NASCAR Sprint car. I mean, that is fool proof, right? Those big companies wouldn't do it if it didn't work, right? Wait, what, it's been done and we wasted a million or so??? Wow, maybe it isn't all about branding after all?? Maybe if National would address the problems we have mentioned in this thread instead of trying to invent something with their name on it, we would actually move forward. Oh, wait, I forgot it isn't about the program, it's about the people at the top knowing more than the grunts in the field. Yes, we have problems and until you identify what it is we really do and where our emphasis is, the branding is like lipstick on a pig and until we talk about the real problems or the 800 pound elephant in the room we are gaining nothing and wasting time and money.
Why does this thread remind me of, "The Emperor's New Clothes"?
When you go to McDonalds, anywhere in the world, and you order a #1 combo you know what you are getting. Now with CAP you go on a roadtrip and visit three Squadrons in three different states you have no ideal what their mindset is except they are a CAP Squadron, either good, bad or indifferent. JMHO ... 8)
^And there you have it. If we had any real interest in branding and marketing, we would all be able to visit any unit, order a #1 happy meal and be on our way to work. >:D
Before I open another bag of popcorn, I think there is a need to consider that branding is NOT a means to cover up the smell of ...
It is a simple way of identifying the brand "CAP". From official "statistics", it seems we are not doing it. What does it matter if a Sq. in Texas has a different emphasis than one in New Jersey? Yes, there is a certain standard which we all must maintain, however it becomes problematic when we can't even agree on a basic uniform to meet in.
Branding is an issue which CAP has been grappling with for years. A decade ago, we seemed to be on track. Now, I'm not sure. If our perceptions are correct, senior leadership must address this. I do remember someone in 2011 who had some ideas about changing things, but that went down like that Malaysian Airline Jet which disappeared last year... :o
Quote from: Private Investigator on March 18, 2015, 01:25:31 PM
Why does this thread remind me of, "The Emperor's New Clothes"?
When you go to McDonalds, anywhere in the world, and you order a #1 combo you know what you are getting. Now with CAP you go on a roadtrip and visit three Squadrons in three different states you have no ideal what their mindset is except they are a CAP Squadron, either good, bad or indifferent. JMHO ... 8)
I understand what you are saying, but that is not true. A #1 in the US does not equal a #1 in India, mainly because the McDonalds in India do not serve beef. Also, you will find McDonalds vegetarian options in India that you will not find in the US. So, really, if you order a #1 any where in the US, you know what you are getting. :D
It really does get to the crux of the matter. What is our brand identity? What are our core competencies? What is our mission? Who are our customers? Stake holders?
I think if you got 25 CAP people in a room and ask them these questions, you would have 35 answers. different answers.
And let's face it, sometimes right here on cap talk we see this.
So then we go to make a change. Let's use a logo as an example. 10 people think it's great, 10 people think it's the worst thing they've ever seen, 10 people are ambivalent, 10 scream "what about 73 years of history?", 10 more say " will it make the plane fly different? " and 10 say "and I can only get it from Vanguard, right?"
And therein lies part of the problem. everybody wants change, but nobody seems to want to embrace change. and we can't all agree on what the change needs to be.
I was being a little goofy with my example, at the end of the day, really that's what we have. nobody seems to be able to salute and execute once the decision is made.
So really, here and now, what do you think our brand identity is?
Knowing this crowd here, for every 10 responses, only two will be similar to another..
Quote from: AirAux on March 18, 2015, 12:36:04 PM
Hey, I got an idea. [ . . . ] Maybe if National would address the problems we have mentioned in this thread instead of trying to invent something with their name on it, we would actually move forward.
So what is your idea? Tell us. You are a relatively senior CAP officer who has been a member for decades. Since you expressing your opinion so strongly here, you clearly must have some better ideas.
What is it that "those guys" at NHQ should be doing?
Quote from: Ned on March 18, 2015, 04:10:10 PM
Quote from: AirAux on March 18, 2015, 12:36:04 PM
Hey, I got an idea. [ . . . ] Maybe if National would address the problems we have mentioned in this thread instead of trying to invent something with their name on it, we would actually move forward.
So what is your idea? Tell us. You are a relatively senior CAP officer who has been a member for decades. Since you expressing your opinion so strongly here, you clearly must have some better ideas.
What is it that "those guys" at NHQ should be doing?
Have more blond kids on recruiting materials was one of them IIRC.
How about sending out fund raising letters to the seniors to set up scholarships for the diversity we seek. you know, the inner city children. I don't have a problem with that per se, but we have enough of our current cadets that need assistance with uniforms, encampments, etc. To provide for some of the cadets and not all of the cadets is a form of cadet abuse according to our new training. I recently recieved notice of our Wing Conference where it was point out that the "preferred" uniform for the conference was Air Force Blues with Jackets or corporate Dress and for the banquet mess dress or black tie. In our squadron we have recently had a family of 6, with two elgible children and the parents wanting to join. We had to wait three months for them to get all of the membership fees together. Another family of 4, a military family had to take two months to get all of their membership fees together. Do you think they can afford to attend a Wing Conference? Have we become a flying club for the rich only? Perhaps we need to become the Air Force Auxillary as a brand and narrow our programs down to Air Search and Rescue and the Cadet program? Do we really need an Aerospace education program? Isn't that already included in the senior flight program and the cadet program? Do we need to include emergency services per se? There are plenty of ground search groups available. Perhaps we could have the senior squadrons or members assist with money raising activities for the cadet squadrons? I am throwing out my suggestions to stimulate others so feel free to jump in. I love CAP and I am not happy with the direction we seem to be heading. Do we really want to put ourselves on the market for hire? Ie, drug search??
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on March 18, 2015, 04:32:01 PM
Quote from: Ned on March 18, 2015, 04:10:10 PM
Quote from: AirAux on March 18, 2015, 12:36:04 PM
Hey, I got an idea. [ . . . ] Maybe if National would address the problems we have mentioned in this thread instead of trying to invent something with their name on it, we would actually move forward.
So what is your idea? Tell us. You are a relatively senior CAP officer who has been a member for decades. Since you expressing your opinion so strongly here, you clearly must have some better ideas.
What is it that "those guys" at NHQ should be doing?
Have more blond kids on recruiting materials was one of them IIRC.
Thus the need for diversity in CAP...
Ned asks what NHQ could do for CAP's branding image to improve. One of the first things needed, IMHO, is sticking to a final Organizational Logo, which for better or worse, becomes the logo used for every function. If the logo is the "triangle thingy", so be it; just use it exclusively. The next step is for our senior leaders to "pound the pavement" and motivate the masses to believe in the "brand". This can be easily added to existing modalities. With membership buy in, more become messengers for the brand. Generating interest to the outside world becomes easier when more show our branding. For Branding to be successful, the organization needs to believe before anyone else does. Here is where a judicious use of marketing, merchandising, and preaching comes in. The more the merrier here.
CAP has much to offer. Guys like me have been enjoying it's brand for decades. I've gotten way more out of it than I've put in. It is a reason I'm the handsome, successful man of today... We just need to show off our successes, develop better ways of telling our story, and get our brand out to make it readily identifiable. 8)
Besides the logo, the most basic element of branding that CAP fails at is uniformity of appearance. For most businesses and organizations this isn't an issue, but as a paramilitary organization that wears uniforms we will always have trouble given the current AF/CAP uniform divergence.
Everyone understands differences between work and formal uniforms, but so long as we have multiple options in each category we're going to end up with a hodgepodge of uniforms being worn and will cause confusion amongst the people we're working with or trying to recruit.
How big is this problem? Well, in the overall scheme of things not major, but in so far as the general topic of branding is concerned, its right up there near the top.
Quote from: NIN on March 18, 2015, 11:08:46 AM
Quote from: Panache on March 18, 2015, 06:49:16 AM
It's not a good thing when "diversity" is a code word for "we need more (group) to make us look good, so we're going to offer special privileges to (group).", as is sadly more common than not.
What special privilege is that in CAP? And for whom?
I was speaking rhetorically in the case of CAP, but in both academia and the real world, "quotas" are a real thing.
Quote from: Panache on March 18, 2015, 06:16:32 PM
I was speaking rhetorically in the case of CAP, but in both academia and the real world, "quotas" are a real thing.
I'll give you that quotas are a real thing in those environments.
CAP doesn't have much beyond someone standing looking over the dining facility at encampment going "Hmmmm, we don't have a ton of diversity here, do we?"
Quote from: AirAux on March 18, 2015, 04:54:37 PM
How about sending out fund raising letters to the seniors to set up scholarships for the diversity we seek. you know, the inner city children. I don't have a problem with that per se, but we have enough of our current cadets that need assistance with uniforms, encampments, etc. To provide for some of the cadets and not all of the cadets is a form of cadet abuse according to our new training. I recently recieved notice of our Wing Conference where it was point out that the "preferred" uniform for the conference was Air Force Blues with Jackets or corporate Dress and for the banquet mess dress or black tie. In our squadron we have recently had a family of 6, with two elgible children and the parents wanting to join. We had to wait three months for them to get all of the membership fees together. Another family of 4, a military family had to take two months to get all of their membership fees together. Do you think they can afford to attend a Wing Conference? Have we become a flying club for the rich only? Perhaps we need to become the Air Force Auxillary as a brand and narrow our programs down to Air Search and Rescue and the Cadet program? Do we really need an Aerospace education program? Isn't that already included in the senior flight program and the cadet program? Do we need to include emergency services per se? There are plenty of ground search groups available. Perhaps we could have the senior squadrons or members assist with money raising activities for the cadet squadrons? I am throwing out my suggestions to stimulate others so feel free to jump in. I love CAP and I am not happy with the direction we seem to be heading. Do we really want to put ourselves on the market for hire? Ie, drug search??
I hear you are concerned about the high cost of CAP for the members. And you appear to be concerned about some of our Congressionally-mandated missions.
As worthy as those topics are (not to mentions diversity which also appears to be important to you), they don't appear to have much connection to the PA / branding discussion in this thread. Again, you have been articulate in your disagreement with certain aspects of CAP policies here. That continues to suggest that based on your decades of experience in CAP, including service as a unit commander and legal officer, you must have some specific suggestions to offer in this thread concerning our branding.
What are they?
Ned, I do appreciate your patience. As you can tell I feel this is a very serious situation. I love CAP and have since WIWAC. Looking at the Brand book, I identified some points therein that I like. We do need a uniformed presence at most appearances. That said, we need uniformity. Be it Air Force Blue or Candy Striper red, we need to show a uniform appearance so everyone will be able to say, Oh, look, a CAP cadet/senior/member. I think our name throws people off. Civil Air Patrol means very little to almost anybody. If we called ourselves the Air Force Auxillary, many if not most would have an idea that we are linked or a part fo the Air Force, a well established honorable entity. We need to present ourselves as one for a brand to work. If you see a young boy, wearing a blue shirt with a yellow neckerchef, you know you got a Cub Scout on your hands. We need to strive for that. If that means we have to give up the Air Force Blues, so be it. Khaki pants with a light blue shirt or something would work, if we were all wearing them. We have very little need for BDU's or jungle hats or even blue BDU's for us fatties. They do not have a slimming effect. Perhaps a new Logo, something with a modified Air Force symbol, or one of the old Air Force symbols, establishing our lengthy service with our Mother Force? I will see what kind of responses I get and then add more if warranted. I am not an enemy of the people, I just want to see some positive change so CAP will be around for it's 100th Anniversay..
Branding and uniforms... and logos... certainly something that, IMHO, there is way too much "diversity" with in the current regulations. AirAux hit is pretty squarely, I think. If you gather a group of scouts, they have the same basic uniform. If you gather a group of {pick your branch} military folks, they also have the same basic uniform. Pick a group of CAP officers/cadets, and that is not the case. Air Force blues vs. grey/whites, camo vs blue BDUs, polo shirts (of which there are two approved varieties), green vs. blue flight suits, not to mention three different logos/seals that are in use, and it almost seems like we have an identity crisis. Let's pick one version of uniforms - even if it means some changes.
I haven't spoken up much because I haven't been around for nearly as long as many of you, and I enjoy reading the variety of thoughts and opinions here. I regret waiting until last year to join. Should've, could've, would've, I never acted on my thought of joining 30+ years ago. So I don't have as much history or time invested in the organization yet. But, good Lord willing and the creek don't rise, I would love to be here for the next 30 years. My hope is that CAP is as relevant then as it has been in the past.
Sean
Quote from: SeanM on March 18, 2015, 07:41:45 PM
If you gather a group of {pick your branch} military folks, they also have the same basic uniform.
Not quite. Currently, each service has their own uniforms. Then within the service there are numerous uniforms. If you take the Army, for example, you could have: ACUs, flight suits, Class A, Class B, Cook's uniform, scrubs, tanker overalls, polos (recruiters), etc. However, within each kind of uniform there is a standard uniform (barring the various operational uniforms for the ACUs and flight suits such as FRACUs, Multi-cam, DCUs, tan flight suit, green flight suit, Aircrew ACU (do not remember the actual name) etc).
Unfortunately, the uniform requirements are a bit complicated from my understanding. Prior to the introduction of the BBDUs, all SMs wore BDUs. Those that met weight/grooming, wore rank. Those that did not, wore CAP cutouts (cloth). this was a bit complicated for new members when you see 2d Lt salute a Lt Col that wore CAP cutouts. I very much doubt the USAF would be willing to go back to everyone wearing the USAF-style uniform. I wonder if the CAP-USAF/CC would have a problem with the Senior Members only wearing the Corporate Uniform and cadets wearing the USAF-style uniform (except those over 18 that do not meet the weight requirements)?
However, one thing I would probably due is eliminate the CAP polo shirt as that seems to have become the defacto uniform for a large number of senior members. Do not get me wrong, I like wearing them as they are comfortable and easy. However, when you see people at SARXs and Wing Conferences wearing them when all the cadets and other senior members are wearing BDUs/BBDUs and Service Dress/Aviator, respectively, it does not look professional. At the vary least, put some serious restrictions on its wear. For example, not on SARs/SARXs, not around cadets, not at conferences that require a formal appearance, etc.
Now I am just rambling about uniforms. Sorry, my fault.
Ned, what about a METL put together by NHQ for each region and wing to follow and report?
OK, here are the suggestions I have seen so far:
1. Pick a single logo use it exclusively. (FW)
1A. Make the logo more AF-related (AirAux)
2. Reduce the number of uniforms - use them for branding. (AirAux & Sean M))
This is a decent start. Anyone else?
Quote from: Ned on March 18, 2015, 09:23:17 PM
OK, here are the suggestions I have seen so far:
1. Pick a single logo use it exclusively. (FW)
1A. Make the logo more AF-related (AirAux)
2. Reduce the number of uniforms - use them for branding. (AirAux & Sean M))
This is a decent start. Anyone else?
Regarding the CAP logo, I believe we've already done that. The CAP Seal is not a logo and it's used for specific business of an official nature, as specified in CAPR 900-2. In fact, CAPM 39-1 shouldn't prescribed the CAP Seal for the CAP Polo shirt, IMHO. The CAP Emblem or Command Patch also has specific used IAW CAPR 900-2, and should be used for uniforms such as the CAP Polo. The CAP Triangle Logo is the official logo to be used for branding purposes to include recruiting materials, newsletters, posters, websites, social media, etc. We have three distinct emblems used for different things just like the Air Force has a Seal, an Emblem and Logo for similar purposes.
Quote from: LSThiker on March 18, 2015, 08:57:32 PM
Quote from: SeanM on March 18, 2015, 07:41:45 PM
If you gather a group of {pick your branch} military folks, they also have the same basic uniform.
Not quite. Currently, each service has their own uniforms. Then within the service there are numerous uniforms. If you take the Army, for example, you could have: ACUs, flight suits, Class A, Class B, Cook's uniform, scrubs, tanker overalls, polos (recruiters), etc. However, within each kind of uniform there is a standard uniform (barring the various operational uniforms for the ACUs and flight suits such as FRACUs, Multi-cam, DCUs, tan flight suit, green flight suit, Aircrew ACU (do not remember the actual name) etc).
Unfortunately, the uniform requirements are a bit complicated from my understanding. Prior to the introduction of the BBDUs, all SMs wore BDUs. Those that met weight/grooming, wore rank. Those that did not, wore CAP cutouts (cloth). this was a bit complicated for new members when you see 2d Lt salute a Lt Col that wore CAP cutouts. I very much doubt the USAF would be willing to go back to everyone wearing the USAF-style uniform. I wonder if the CAP-USAF/CC would have a problem with the Senior Members only wearing the Corporate Uniform and cadets wearing the USAF-style uniform (except those over 18 that do not meet the weight requirements)?
However, one thing I would probably due is eliminate the CAP polo shirt as that seems to have become the defacto uniform for a large number of senior members. Do not get me wrong, I like wearing them as they are comfortable and easy. However, when you see people at SARXs and Wing Conferences wearing them when all the cadets and other senior members are wearing BDUs/BBDUs and Service Dress/Aviator, respectively, it does not look professional. At the vary least, put some serious restrictions on its wear. For example, not on SARs/SARXs, not around cadets, not at conferences that require a formal appearance, etc.
Now I am just rambling about uniforms. Sorry, my fault.
Ned, what about a METL put together by NHQ for each region and wing to follow and report?
Even though the military has different uniforms for different occasions and functions, their uniforms are available to all their members within those functions. That's not the case with CAP. I agree with others that the "diversity" of CAP uniforms presents a branding challenge for our unified corporate image.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on March 18, 2015, 09:48:47 PM
Even though the military has different uniforms for different occasions and functions, their uniforms are available to all their members within those functions. That's not the case with CAP. I agree with others that the "diversity" of CAP uniforms presents a branding challenge for our unified corporate image.
I agree. Knowing that the USAF will never sign off on SMs wearing the Service Dress that do not meet weight and/or grooming requirements, that is why I suggested that all SMs are required to wear the corporate uniform. Cadets should remain in the USAF-style uniform. Then either remove or seriously restrict the wear of the polo uniforms along. Of course, I would make a few changes to the aviator shirt, but that has been already discussed in other threads and this is not really the thread for it. I think it would really help with public understanding when there is a easily seen uniform.
Quote from: Ned on March 18, 2015, 09:23:17 PM
OK, here are the suggestions I have seen so far:
1. Pick a single logo use it exclusively. (FW)
1A. Make the logo more AF-related (AirAux)
2. Reduce the number of uniforms - use them for branding. (AirAux & Sean M))
This is a decent start. Anyone else?
I do. I have always wondered why Squadrons support local events and activities by providing traffic/parking lot control, yet I have never seen or heard of a Squadron or Group entering a team into an athletic event such as a Wounded Warrior 5k/10k or a Tough Mudder race. Maybe it does happen, but I've never heard of it. Think of the possibilities if a CAP cadet unit did both the traffic/parking lot control and then had a team (or teams) entered that wore PT gear with a CAP logo or squadron t-shirt. I've seen ROTC cadets and pre-enlistment Marine Recruit teams (under the guidance of their Recruiters) enter these events as teams with distinctive t-shirts, and even during the races (while we were running) people were asking them where or what school (in the case of the ROTC cadets) they were from. And if you could get together a reasonably in-shape team of Senior Members in CAP PT gear to run in an event, who knows ...
In a similar vein, during my time in CAP I have not seen much in the way of inter-Squadron or inter-Group competitions focusing on physical skills, land navigation skills, team leadership skills that A) Raise the esprit-de-corp of the participating units, and B) Are visible to the public (occurring at County or State public parks as an example) and so could raise more awareness of what CAP offers. Most competitions at the Group level (between Squadrons) I've seen or heard of happened at a local High School on a Saturday morning and/or Sunday morning, where for sure few non-CAP participants would ever know what was going on. Does anyone know of Squadrons that compete with JROTC units or other cadet organizations in events that focus on GT/PT-style skills and abilities?
As for the the earlier comments about structural/content uniformity amongst CAP unit websites, I would have to agree that many Squadron and Group web-sites are woefully out of date and in some cases (certainly Squadron-level) are simply dead links. There has got to be a better way, especially if the study is recommending greater participation in social media. Imagine the frustration of a parent whose 9th grade kid gets all excited about a CAP twitter feed, and when Dad Googles the local Squadrons all he comes up with are dead links or web-pages that haven't been updated since 2006. Bummer. Is review of a unit's web-site for content and currency incorporated into the SUI process? If not, maybe it should be. Perhaps National should mandate use of a fixed group of web-site templates that units could chose from.
By the way, anyone know the cost of the "Branding" study? Seems sort of light in the way of substance, just curious.
Comments interspersed.
Quote from: Bobble on March 19, 2015, 01:29:43 AM
I do. I have always wondered why Squadrons support local events and activities by providing traffic/parking lot control, yet I have never seen or heard of a Squadron or Group entering a team into an athletic event such as a Wounded Warrior 5k/10k or a Tough Mudder race. Maybe it does happen, but I've never heard of it. Think of the possibilities if a CAP cadet unit did both the traffic/parking lot control and then had a team (or teams) entered that wore PT gear with a CAP logo or squadron t-shirt. I've seen ROTC cadets and pre-enlistment Marine Recruit teams (under the guidance of their Recruiters) enter these events as teams with distinctive t-shirts, and even during the races (while we were running) people were asking them where or what school (in the case of the ROTC cadets) they were from. And if you could get together a reasonably in-shape team of Senior Members in CAP PT gear to run in an event, who knows ...
Big if, for seniors or cadets. At my previous unit, I used to do the mile run with the cadets, and usually finished mid-pack, at age 55. Fewer than 25%of the cadets were in good enough shape to consider running a 5K or 10K. There might be half a dozen SMs in my unit who are potential entrants in this kind of activity, and most of them are active military who aren't interested in another PT event outside of work.
QuoteIn a similar vein, during my time in CAP I have not seen much in the way of inter-Squadron or inter-Group competitions focusing on physical skills, land navigation skills, team leadership skills that A) Raise the esprit-de-corp of the participating units, and B) Are visible to the public (occurring at County or State public parks as an example) and so could raise more awareness of what CAP offers. Most competitions at the Group level (between Squadrons) I've seen or heard of happened at a local High School on a Saturday morning and/or Sunday morning, where for sure few non-CAP participants would ever know what was going on. Does anyone know of Squadrons that compete with JROTC units or other cadet organizations in events that focus on GT/PT-style skills and abilities?
Again, it's usually a matter of numbers. Many units are doing good to keep their weekly activities going, without getting into this kind of thing, which is outside the normal program. Those who do have the time or interest usually go for color guard or drill team, and the internal competitions.
QuoteAs for the the earlier comments about structural/content uniformity amongst CAP unit websites, I would have to agree that many Squadron and Group web-sites are woefully out of date and in some cases (certainly Squadron-level) are simply dead links. There has got to be a better way, especially if the study is recommending greater participation in social media. Imagine the frustration of a parent whose 9th grade kid gets all excited about a CAP twitter feed, and when Dad Googles the local Squadrons all he comes up with are dead links or web-pages that haven't been updated since 2006. Bummer. Is review of a unit's web-site for content and currency incorporated into the SUI process? If not, maybe it should be. Perhaps National should mandate use of a fixed group of web-site templates that units could chose from.
That's been beaten to death in other threads, but basically, there's an ebb and flow of talent and interest. The gung-ho member with the skilz and interest ages out/burns out/moves out, and the site falls off until someone new steps up. Rinse, repeat. Until that problem is solved, efforts at the NHQ level are pretty much doomed at the outset.
QuoteBy the way, anyone know the cost of the "Branding" study? Seems sort of light in the way of substance, just curious.
No answer for that one.
I see these as good ideas, but executing them is going to take a lot of work.
Quote from: SarDragon on March 19, 2015, 06:29:57 AM
I see these as good ideas, but executing them is going to take a lot of work.
Not too many years ago, CAP and CAP-USAF had more than enough paid employees scattered around the country to assist in branding. This isn't the case now. The volunteers must to do the job; we just need a framework for action. We must also find a way to insert our "brand" in ways that don't violate our S.O.W. The goal should be more growth and financial stability for those missions of CAP which are not funded by taxes. These missions are AE and CP. I think Bobbie is on the right track; anything that provides a positive awareness of CAP is good for branding. Does "Wreaths Across America" do it? What else gives our "Brand" positive awareness?
Quote from: FW on March 19, 2015, 10:54:36 AM
Not too many years ago, CAP and CAP-USAF had more than enough paid employees scattered around the country to assist in branding.
Not sure what any outlaying AF liaison officers and CAP bookkeepers were doing to assist in branding. Their job is/was to shuffle papers.
I think FW was referring to before that.
Quote from: RiverAux on March 19, 2015, 12:16:16 PM
Quote from: FW on March 19, 2015, 10:54:36 AM
Not too many years ago, CAP and CAP-USAF had more than enough paid employees scattered around the country to assist in branding.
Not sure what any outlaying AF liaison officers and CAP bookkeepers were doing to assist in branding. Their job is/was to shuffle papers.
Darin is correct. Not only did each wing have an LO, it had an ALO, a RAELO, and a staff which could help spread the word. NHQ also had many more employees than now. Also, up until 15 years ago, we had the privilege of MAC airlift for members to use to get to national conferences, encampments, and NCSA's. We also had "big shots" to help us with PSA's. We don't have these resources now, and until we can develop contributors which will allow us to get there, we need to step in and do it ourselves. However, we need that framework. The Branding Book is a start... I guess...
Is it a branding problem or a lack of an actual mission?
My daughter is in the AF. Her perception of CAP? "You guy work with kids and collect ribbons and badges, right?" At least she knows CAP exists.
Quote from: FW on March 19, 2015, 02:11:41 PM
Darin is correct. Not only did each wing have an LO, it had an ALO, a RAELO, and a staff which could help spread the word. NHQ also had many more employees than now. Also, up until 15 years ago, we had the privilege of MAC airlift for members to use to get to national conferences, encampments, and NCSA's. We also had "big shots" to help us with PSA's. We don't have these resources now, and until we can develop contributors which will allow us to get there, we need to step in and do it ourselves. However, we need that framework. The Branding Book is a start... I guess...
Almost none of those are branding issues. Definitely had a role in getting work done but branding is an entirely separate issue.
Quote from: danhawkeye on March 19, 2015, 04:04:34 PM
Is it a branding problem or a lack of an actual mission?
My daughter is in the AF. Her perception of CAP? "You guy work with kids and collect ribbons and badges, right?" At least she knows CAP exists.
Funny, was chatting with a fellow gamer who's AD NCO at Yokota currently. Eventually I asked him if he knew of CAP. He said that he did, had quite the positive outlook, and that more kids should be in something like CAP as it gives them structure that he lacked as a young teen/adult.
He's about my age, so mid-20s, and has two nephews in CAP in PAWG.
I guess it all depends.
Quote from: RiverAux on March 19, 2015, 04:24:33 PM
Quote from: FW on March 19, 2015, 02:11:41 PM
Darin is correct. Not only did each wing have an LO, it had an ALO, a RAELO, and a staff which could help spread the word. NHQ also had many more employees than now. Also, up until 15 years ago, we had the privilege of MAC airlift for members to use to get to national conferences, encampments, and NCSA's. We also had "big shots" to help us with PSA's. We don't have these resources now, and until we can develop contributors which will allow us to get there, we need to step in and do it ourselves. However, we need that framework. The Branding Book is a start... I guess...
Almost none of those are branding issues. Definitely had a role in getting work done but branding is an entirely separate issue.
Riv, actually it is a branding issue. Getting ourselves "recognized" is part of the problem. The more we get our brand noticed, the more successful we become. Having "employed" individuals helping to spread things around was a help back then. We don't have the same resources today. It is now more of a task for the volunteers, however we need the tools to succeed. This is where our leadership and our NHQ staff comes in. Unity of message is key to successful branding, and I think we will need more than a branding pamphlet to make it happen.
I remember a story that was told to me regarding the involvement of a squadron that met in an Air Force or National Guard Base at the time of September 11 in upstate New York.
The story goes like this. The squadron, which unfortunately the story does not mention, was cooking and feeding the volunteers coming down the NY Thruway. An Army JAG found the squadron in the base, ordered them off the base. The CAP LO was contacted, showed the Army JAG where in the USAF regs it mentioned that CAP could be in a military base, and the squadron went back there.
Quote from: danhawkeye on March 19, 2015, 04:04:34 PM
Is it a branding problem or a lack of an actual mission?
My daughter is in the AF. Her perception of CAP? "You guy work with kids and collect ribbons and badges, right?" At least she knows CAP exists.
With regards to the mission, it depends largely on where the units are located. Some units due to their location specialize in one thing, while it other areas the mission focus may be completely different. Regardless, all units can conduct the same types of missions...it just depends on what they are primarily utilized for.
I am prior Enlisted Air Force, and currently a Commissioned flight student with the Navy. Commanders, Senior Enlisted, Junior Enlisted, and Civilians alike give me the same answer when I talk about Civil Air Patrol: "Wait..what is CAP...Who?" Then after you tell them the mission and our capabilities I usually get the following: "Wow thats awesome!...What a great resource! I/Somebody I know would love to get involved in that!"
Even talking with community leaders on several occasions, they are USUALLY very interested in tasking CAP with missions and activities. The problem lies not with our capabilities, but with becoming a known force within local, and state governments. Don't forget private sector tasking for select activities too...
It's in the brand image, and with the advertisement. A few well placed TV commercials and radio advertisements would do the organization wonders.
You can't advance your organization if you keep it a secret from the world!
The problem is...CAP is so...vast in it's missions, it's hard to formulate an elevator speech.
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on March 19, 2015, 09:18:07 PM
The problem is...CAP is so...vast in it's missions, it's hard to formulate an elevator speech.
If there was a "Like" button in this forum, I would have hit it for this post. Spot on.
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on March 19, 2015, 09:18:07 PM
The problem is...CAP is so...vast in it's missions, it's hard to formulate an elevator speech.
Sorry but vast? Three is vast?
Quote from: lordmonar on March 19, 2015, 10:27:55 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on March 19, 2015, 09:18:07 PM
The problem is...CAP is so...vast in it's missions, it's hard to formulate an elevator speech.
Sorry but vast? Three is vast?
Because I can just tell someone CAP does ES, AE, CP, and call it a day?
Quote from: FW on March 19, 2015, 04:34:13 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on March 19, 2015, 04:24:33 PM
Quote from: FW on March 19, 2015, 02:11:41 PM
Darin is correct. Not only did each wing have an LO, it had an ALO, a RAELO, and a staff which could help spread the word. NHQ also had many more employees than now. Also, up until 15 years ago, we had the privilege of MAC airlift for members to use to get to national conferences, encampments, and NCSA's. We also had "big shots" to help us with PSA's. We don't have these resources now, and until we can develop contributors which will allow us to get there, we need to step in and do it ourselves. However, we need that framework. The Branding Book is a start... I guess...
Almost none of those are branding issues. Definitely had a role in getting work done but branding is an entirely separate issue.
Riv, actually it is a branding issue. Getting ourselves "recognized" is part of the problem.
You're confusing branding with general public affairs and agency coordination work. That is the stuff you do AFTER you have your branding on target so that you are actually able to tell a a coherent story and present a coherent image to the people you're wanting to recruit and/or work with.
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on March 19, 2015, 10:32:42 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on March 19, 2015, 10:27:55 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on March 19, 2015, 09:18:07 PM
The problem is...CAP is so...vast in it's missions, it's hard to formulate an elevator speech.
Sorry but vast? Three is vast?
Because I can just tell someone CAP does ES, AE, CP, and call it a day?
i would you expect to be a little more forth coming then that....but yeah.....I can explain our three missions to a prospective member in less then 10 minutes...and hit all our the high light.
We got a CP that focuses on leadership training, character development, aerospace education and physical fitness. Its goal is to make our young people better citizens by using a military training model.
We got an ES missions that provides air and ground assets to conduct SAR, Disaster relief, counter narcotics, to local, state, and federal agencies. We also provide support to Homeland Security, and USAF training operations.
We have an AE mission that aims to educate our cadets, our adult members and the community at large about the value of aerospace power.
That's not too vast.
River, I apologize for not being clear. Let me explain. IMHO, CAP does not have a clear and concise marketing strategy to get what we want. This includes our brand, image, vision, and mission awareness to the public. In the past, we had a better plan, and the people to make it a reality. Now, we are coming up short. We must depend on our members to bear the load of marketing our brand, however National must still come up with the strategy, and a logo which doesn't change every other year... It is all related. :D
Quote from: FW on March 19, 2015, 02:11:41 PMAlso, up until 15 years ago, we had the privilege of MAC airlift for members to use to get to national conferences, encampments, and NCSA's.
That must have been in the "other" MAC, because the one I was in didn't fly CAP on anything other then on a Space Available, Non-Interferece basis.
15 years ago we were a bit busy flying to and from sandy areas!
Must have been. I was fortunate to have been on two airlifts to cadet special activities/encampments, and had some staff utilize same for national conferences in the late 90s and early 00s. Ok, I may have been "off" by a year or two. How that has to do with our branding issues or overall marketing strategy is not registering with me.
MAC ceased to exist almost 23 years ago... 1 June 1992.
AMC arose from that which was MAC. Lot of money to change two letters around.
Just, ah, just to let y'all know... TAC and SAC are gone too.
: P
^That's a branding issue ;-)
Quote from: lordmonar on March 19, 2015, 11:21:23 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on March 19, 2015, 10:32:42 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on March 19, 2015, 10:27:55 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on March 19, 2015, 09:18:07 PM
The problem is...CAP is so...vast in it's missions, it's hard to formulate an elevator speech.
Sorry but vast? Three is vast?
Because I can just tell someone CAP does ES, AE, CP, and call it a day?
i would you expect to be a little more forth coming then that....but yeah.....I can explain our three missions to a prospective member in less then 10 minutes...and hit all our the high light.
We got a CP that focuses on leadership training, character development, aerospace education and physical fitness. Its goal is to make our young people better citizens by using a military training model.
We got an ES missions that provides air and ground assets to conduct SAR, Disaster relief, counter narcotics, to local, state, and federal agencies. We also provide support to Homeland Security, and USAF training operations.
We have an AE mission that aims to educate our cadets, our adult members and the community at large about the value of aerospace power.
That's not too vast.
Elevator speech != 10 minutes.
Elevator speech can be turned into radio or TV spot. A 10 minute lecture or even your (very good, brief but broad explanation) wouldn't work for that.
Quote from: TheTravelingAirman on March 20, 2015, 01:45:15 AM
MAC ceased to exist almost 23 years ago... 1 June 1992.
AMC arose from that which was MAC. Lot of money to change two letters around.
Just, ah, just to let y'all know... TAC and SAC are gone too.
: P
And before MAC, it was MATS. I flew on MATS flight back in the late '50s. It took me (and many others) well into the '70s to get used to the MAC name.
AMC was MAC with SAC's tankers added. Not a whole lot changed.
ACC was still the Fighter Pilot Mafia.
Killing off SAC was a bad idea as the incidents with the Nukes and the Missiles have proved...
Aye, not a lot changed from MAC to AMC, but...I'm a PACAF guy. Realignment didn't affect us or USAFE much (not that I've been in that long, but I can read). Spent most of my career as PACAF and am fortunate enough to be going back for round 3.
I can't argue with the inactivation of SAC as a mistake, one with far reaching consequences we are STILL seeing in GSC. Lessons hard learned, but the Fighter Mafia doesn't seem to care about anything that isn't one of their airframes (personal opinion). We lost those nukes a while ago, and we are still fighting morale issues in the missile forces.
"So in other Brand Image News, CAP'ers can't decide on a brand image because we are SO EASILY DISTRACTED."
Gosh. I thought my adult-onset internet-induced ADHD was bad.
We know it'd be different if we were doing this in person at some conference. Us being on here however...
Quote from: lordmonar on March 19, 2015, 11:21:23 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on March 19, 2015, 10:32:42 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on March 19, 2015, 10:27:55 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on March 19, 2015, 09:18:07 PM
The problem is...CAP is so...vast in it's missions, it's hard to formulate an elevator speech.
Sorry but vast? Three is vast?
Because I can just tell someone CAP does ES, AE, CP, and call it a day?
i would you expect to be a little more forth coming then that....but yeah.....I can explain our three missions to a prospective member in less then 10 minutes...and hit all our the high light.
What the hell kind of building do you work in that you can give 10 minute elevator speeches? >:D
Stargate Command? Area 51?
As a Cadet Officer I flew to and from with 2 other Cadet Officers from Kulis air national guard base in Anchorage, Alaska to the Sparks, NV area for the Pacific Region Conference held at John Ascuga's Golden Nugget. That was just a few years before 9/11.
quote author=PHall link=topic=19809.msg365708#msg365708 date=1426811978]
Quote from: FW on March 19, 2015, 02:11:41 PMAlso, up until 15 years ago, we had the privilege of MAC airlift for members to use to get to national conferences, encampments, and NCSA's.
That must have been in the "other" MAC, because the one I was in didn't fly CAP on anything other then on a Space Available, Non-Interferece basis.
15 years ago we were a bit busy flying to and from sandy areas!
[/quote]
Quote from: Jaison009 on March 20, 2015, 05:12:38 PM
As a Cadet Officer I flew to and from with 2 other Cadet Officers from Kulis air national guard base in Anchorage, Alaska to the Sparks, NV area for the Pacific Region Conference held at John Ascuga's Golden Nugget. That was just a few years before 9/11.
quote author=PHall link=topic=19809.msg365708#msg365708 date=1426811978]
Quote from: FW on March 19, 2015, 02:11:41 PMAlso, up until 15 years ago, we had the privilege of MAC airlift for members to use to get to national conferences, encampments, and NCSA's.
That must have been in the "other" MAC, because the one I was in didn't fly CAP on anything other then on a Space Available, Non-Interferece basis.
15 years ago we were a bit busy flying to and from sandy areas!
[/quote]
You answered your own question, you flew out of Kulis which means that the Alaska Guard was flying you.
Entirely different set of rules when it's a Guard aircraft flying on "State" time.
Quote from: NIN on March 20, 2015, 11:40:09 AM
"So in other Brand Image News, CAP'ers can't decide on a brand image because we are SO EASILY DISTRACTED."
Gosh. I thought my adult-onset internet-induced ADHD was bad.
Apparently so.
I think Ned has already checked out of this thread.
I have not been on here in many years, but this thread was brought up recently. There are a lot of good comments and ideas here.
I recently became CAP's national marketing and social media manager on the volunteer side of NHQ staff. The position was created so CAP could focus more attention on social media and branding. And I am not one of those "old people with no clue about social media" as referenced in one of the posts. ;-) I manage the FAA's social media program for aviation safety as well. There is work to do to build CAP's image, and it is not an easy task. No one will ever agree on everything, but rest assured that I am doing my best to work with everyone at NHQ and in the field to better focus CAP's identity and public recognition.
I will be at the national conference in August if there is anyone that would like to talk in person. If you would like to learn more about branding and social media, please attend the PAO Academy; you don't need to be a PAO.
Lt Col Paul Cianciolo
Mod Edit: Content of post reverted.
Wouldn't it make sense to have the Nat. Commander call up General Johnson, the commander of the Air Force Recruiting Service, and talk about how the branding and advertising of CAP could go hand in hand with that of the USAF? Maybe recruiters could have CAP marketing materials on hand at events to give to younger people, etc.
Just my $.02
V/R
C/SSgt Aidan F.
Just as an aside, I once attended a recruiting event with the USAF folks that perfectly illustrates the recruiting hierarchy:
The USAF Academy had a big room with a whole bunch of swag and about 4 recruiters.
The USAF Recruiters had a single room with some swag and 3 recruiters, 2 AD & 1 reservist.
The ANG had a table in the hallway with 2 guys and a bunch of ANG Swag
I had 2 chairs in the hallway that I stole from the USAF recruiters' room and a bunch of handouts that I had to print myself...
Quote from: NatCap on April 06, 2015, 08:49:34 PM
Na
Did someone knock some sense into you for posting on these forums ;-)
Quote from: Al Sayre on April 07, 2015, 02:11:10 PM
Just as an aside, I once attended a recruiting event with the USAF folks that perfectly illustrates the recruiting hierarchy:
The USAF Academy had a big room with a whole bunch of swag and about 4 recruiters.
The USAF Recruiters had a single room with some swag and 3 recruiters, 2 AD & 1 reservist.
The ANG had a table in the hallway with 2 guys and a bunch of ANG Swag
I had 2 chairs in the hallway that I stole from the USAF recruiters' room and a bunch of handouts that I had to print myself...
When I was a squadron CC, we were able to order promotional materials from National. Are we still able to do such things?
Quote from: Afbrat52 on April 07, 2015, 12:51:59 PM
Wouldn't it make sense to have the Nat. Commander call up General Johnson, the commander of the Air Force Recruiting Service, and talk about how the branding and advertising of CAP could go hand in hand with that of the USAF? Maybe recruiters could have CAP marketing materials on hand at events to give to younger people, etc.
Just my $.02
V/R
C/SSgt Aidan F.
Nice outside-the-box thought, but the Air Force Recruiting Service has a mission and recruiting for CAP (U.S. Air Force auxiliary or not) is not it.
Quote from: DoubleSecret on June 07, 2015, 07:21:15 PM
Quote from: Afbrat52 on April 07, 2015, 12:51:59 PM
Wouldn't it make sense to have the Nat. Commander call up General Johnson, the commander of the Air Force Recruiting Service, and talk about how the branding and advertising of CAP could go hand in hand with that of the USAF? Maybe recruiters could have CAP marketing materials on hand at events to give to younger people, etc.
Just my $.02
V/R
C/SSgt Aidan F.
Nice outside-the-box thought, but the Air Force Recruiting Service has a mission and recruiting for CAP (U.S. Air Force auxiliary or not) is not it.
Also, at least for recruiting cadets, the people going to a recruiting station tend to be older than the average new cadet
I understand the need for branding in an organization, but before you can brand, you need to know what you are branding. I would think we'd work on better defining our mission, and then worry about how social media plays into it
Quote from: Alaric on June 07, 2015, 07:29:51 PM
I understand the need for branding in an organization, but before you can brand, you need to know what you are branding. I would think we'd work on better defining our mission, and then worry about how social media plays into it
What don't you understand about our mission?
Quote from: lordmonar on June 07, 2015, 08:04:17 PM
Quote from: Alaric on June 07, 2015, 07:29:51 PM
I understand the need for branding in an organization, but before you can brand, you need to know what you are branding. I would think we'd work on better defining our mission, and then worry about how social media plays into it
What don't you understand about our mission?
As SAR declines, and DR photographic missions are lessening (except for major disasters) what will be our role in ES in 5 years?, 10? As society changes, how do we make CP more relevant and improve on the 35% 1st year retention rate for cadets? How do we determine if our money is being spent wisely in enhancing those missions. How do we bring relevance to AE, especially for the school age, where STEM education is now being funded by the actual education system (to greater or lesser extent depending on where they are)
Quote from: Alaric on June 07, 2015, 08:40:22 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on June 07, 2015, 08:04:17 PM
Quote from: Alaric on June 07, 2015, 07:29:51 PM
I understand the need for branding in an organization, but before you can brand, you need to know what you are branding. I would think we'd work on better defining our mission, and then worry about how social media plays into it
What don't you understand about our mission?
As SAR declines, and DR photographic missions are lessening (except for major disasters) what will be our role in ES in 5 years?, 10? As society changes, how do we make CP more relevant and improve on the 35% 1st year retention rate for cadets? How do we determine if our money is being spent wisely in enhancing those missions. How do we bring relevance to AE, especially for the school age, where STEM education is now being funded by the actual education system (to greater or lesser extent depending on where they are)
We want those things to decline. But we will always be there to do the job.
Improving how we do our mission is not better defining our mission.
We don't need to better define our mission.....just look for ways of doing them better.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 07, 2015, 08:47:26 PM
Quote from: Alaric on June 07, 2015, 08:40:22 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on June 07, 2015, 08:04:17 PM
Quote from: Alaric on June 07, 2015, 07:29:51 PM
I understand the need for branding in an organization, but before you can brand, you need to know what you are branding. I would think we'd work on better defining our mission, and then worry about how social media plays into it
What don't you understand about our mission?
As SAR declines, and DR photographic missions are lessening (except for major disasters) what will be our role in ES in 5 years?, 10? As society changes, how do we make CP more relevant and improve on the 35% 1st year retention rate for cadets? How do we determine if our money is being spent wisely in enhancing those missions. How do we bring relevance to AE, especially for the school age, where STEM education is now being funded by the actual education system (to greater or lesser extent depending on where they are)
We want those things to decline. But we will always be there to do the job.
Improving how we do our mission is not better defining our mission.
We don't need to better define our mission.....just look for ways of doing them better.
We want to continue having retention issues? We want to continue duplicating STEM efforts handled by the schools (you know professional educators)? We want the ES mission to decline (please explain why we still need to train and have biannual evaluations, not to mention all the money the AF is spending on planes, vans and comms equipment)? We want to continue spending money unwisely? Please elucidate.
Retention problems are not a mission issue.
Duplication of effort is not a mission issue.
We want ES missions to decline...because that means we are not losing people in the woods, planes falling out of the sky, etc. We want to be ready to respond....but your "as SAR Declines" lament.....is not because they are not calling us....just that there are not as many missing aircraft and those that do go down are being found quicker.
We do need to make sure that we are wisely spending our money....but that is Techniques, Training and Practices (TTP)....not a mission issue.
We still do ES.
We still do CP.
We still do AE.
Those are missions.
Using STEM or not using STEM is a TPP within the CP and AE missions.
Training and evaluation frequency and equipment levels are readiness and availability issues within ES Mission.
I'm calling you out on using your terms correctly. We do need to continuously improve our TTPs and readiness in all our mission areas. We always need to be good stewads of taxpayer's money.
But I don't see any need to better define our missions so we can start issuing instructions on how to brand CAP better.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 07, 2015, 09:09:29 PM
Retention problems are not a mission issue.
Duplication of effort is not a mission issue.
We want ES missions to decline...because that means we are not losing people in the woods, planes falling out of the sky, etc. We want to be ready to respond....but your "as SAR Declines" lament.....is not because they are not calling us....just that there are not as many missing aircraft and those that do go down are being found quicker.
We do need to make sure that we are wisely spending our money....but that is Techniques, Training and Practices (TTP)....not a mission issue.
We still do ES.
We still do CP.
We still do AE.
Those are missions.
Using STEM or not using STEM is a TPP within the CP and AE missions.
Training and evaluation frequency and equipment levels are readiness and availability issues within ES Mission.
I'm calling you out on using your terms correctly. We do need to continuously improve our TTPs and readiness in all our mission areas. We always need to be good stewads of taxpayer's money.
But I don't see any need to better define our missions so we can start issuing instructions on how to brand CAP better.
Retention problems are not a mission issue? Who do you think will perform the missions if we can't keep people. We lose more than 2/3s of cadets in their first year, year over year our cadet retention is a little over 50% how is that not a mission issue? Our senior retention rates are better at approximately 75% but that still means we are losing 1/4 of our senior members every year
I do not equate ES = SAR, what I am saying is that as SAR declines we need to redefine how we will use those assets that we have been given by the AF to fulfill our mandated ES mission, whether that's more CD, Damage Assessment, sheltering or something else.
Duplication of effort is certainly a mission issue, because a) it means we are being poor stewards of the taxpayer's money and b) it means that people will not bother with us for AE if they can get it somewhere else for free.
40 years ago, we did ES, we did CP, and we AE. If you were to transport a member from that time to now, without experiencing the intervening years they would not recognize the organization. My point is we need to know how we are going to remain a relevant and thriving organization before we worry about how to brand ourselves. I believe they call that "truth in advertising"
Quote from: Alaric on June 07, 2015, 09:21:37 PM
Retention problems are not a mission issue? Who do you think will perform the missions if we can't keep people.
No....retention is a retention issue. We are not losing people because they don't know what the mission is. We are losing people because of poor leadership, lack of training, too much bureaucracy, etc.
QuoteWe lose more than 2/3s of cadets in their first year, year over year our cadet retention is a little over 50% how is that not a mission issue? Our senior retention rates are better at approximately 75% but that still means we are losing 1/4 of our senior members every year
Not a problem that can be fixed by clearly defining/redefining our mission.
QuoteI do not equate ES = SAR, what I am saying is that as SAR declines we need to redefine how we will use those assets that we have been given by the AF to fulfill our mandated ES mission, whether that's more CD, Damage Assessment, sheltering or something else.
That's a TTP issue not a mission issue. You are using the terms wrong.
QuoteDuplication of effort is certainly a mission issue, because a) it means we are being poor stewards of the taxpayer's money and b) it means that people will not bother with us for AE if they can get it somewhere else for free.
Again you are using the terms wrong. The AE mission is to teach Aerospace and aerospace related subjects to our members and the general public to encourage them get involved in Aerospace industry or to support Aerospace initiatives.
CP's mission it so to build good citizens for our nation, state and community.
Teaching STEM or not teaching STEP, or duplicating the efforts of some other organization are all TTPs on how do to these missions not the missions themselves. While yes if we are in competition with other organizations we need to be as good as we can be...to attract more people to our program. But if you are saying "if someone else already does it, we need to do something else"....then CAP would not exist at all.
CAP grew out of a lot of local programs.
ROTC, BSA, GSA, BC/GC, YMCA....all have well established youth programs. I guess we don't need one.
GSAR......lots and lots of agencies do that just like most of all the other ES capabilities.
But again...we are not talking about redefining our missions but redefining how we do those missions....and that is TTPs not missions.
Quote40 years ago, we did ES, we did CP, and we AE. If you were to transport a member from that time to now, without experiencing the intervening years they would not recognize the organization. My point is we need to know how we are going to remain a relevant and thriving organization before we worry about how to brand ourselves. I believe they call that "truth in advertising"
Yes....exactly....the missions have not changed. The ways we do those missions have. And we do need to improve how we do those mission. But we don't need to redefine or better define our mission before we start branding CAP.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 07, 2015, 10:04:10 PM
Quote from: Alaric on June 07, 2015, 09:21:37 PM
Retention problems are not a mission issue? Who do you think will perform the missions if we can't keep people.
No....retention is a retention issue. We are not losing people because they don't know what the mission is. We are losing people because of poor leadership, lack of training, too much bureaucracy, etc.
QuoteWe lose more than 2/3s of cadets in their first year, year over year our cadet retention is a little over 50% how is that not a mission issue? Our senior retention rates are better at approximately 75% but that still means we are losing 1/4 of our senior members every year
Not a problem that can be fixed by clearly defining/redefining our mission.
QuoteI do not equate ES = SAR, what I am saying is that as SAR declines we need to redefine how we will use those assets that we have been given by the AF to fulfill our mandated ES mission, whether that's more CD, Damage Assessment, sheltering or something else.
That's a TTP issue not a mission issue. You are using the terms wrong.
QuoteDuplication of effort is certainly a mission issue, because a) it means we are being poor stewards of the taxpayer's money and b) it means that people will not bother with us for AE if they can get it somewhere else for free.
Again you are using the terms wrong. The AE mission is to teach Aerospace and aerospace related subjects to our members and the general public to encourage them get involved in Aerospace industry or to support Aerospace initiatives.
CP's mission it so to build good citizens for our nation, state and community.
Teaching STEM or not teaching STEP, or duplicating the efforts of some other organization are all TTPs on how do to these missions not the missions themselves. While yes if we are in competition with other organizations we need to be as good as we can be...to attract more people to our program. But if you are saying "if someone else already does it, we need to do something else"....then CAP would not exist at all.
CAP grew out of a lot of local programs.
ROTC, BSA, GSA, BC/GC, YMCA....all have well established youth programs. I guess we don't need one.
GSAR......lots and lots of agencies do that just like most of all the other ES capabilities.
But again...we are not talking about redefining our missions but redefining how we do those missions....and that is TTPs not missions.
Quote40 years ago, we did ES, we did CP, and we AE. If you were to transport a member from that time to now, without experiencing the intervening years they would not recognize the organization. My point is we need to know how we are going to remain a relevant and thriving organization before we worry about how to brand ourselves. I believe they call that "truth in advertising"
Yes....exactly....the missions have not changed. The ways we do those missions have. And we do need to improve how we do those mission. But we don't need to redefine or better define our mission before we start branding CAP.
We'll agree to disagree, I believe we should be utilizing our resources in improving our performance and your concerned with advertising. The usual sizzle versus steak argument, but just for my own edification what is TTP?
Tactics, Techniques and Procedures.
And you can agree to disagree all you want.
As you yourself pointed out....the mission has not change in over 40 years. Only the TTPs have changed.
And I agree we always need to be improving our TTPs.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 07, 2015, 10:28:40 PM
Tactics, Techniques and Procedures.
And you can agree to disagree all you want.
As you yourself pointed out....the mission has not change in over 40 years. Only the TTPs have changed.
And I agree we always need to be improving our TTPs.
When you advertise "brand" then you generally not only talk about the mission, but how you do them. Saying we do ES, with no further definition is not really going to bring people to our door. To me this worry about branding is just another way for us to divert from making the hard decisions on what we should be doing and how we should be doing it operationally.
Quote from: Alaric on June 07, 2015, 10:34:12 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on June 07, 2015, 10:28:40 PM
Tactics, Techniques and Procedures.
And you can agree to disagree all you want.
As you yourself pointed out....the mission has not change in over 40 years. Only the TTPs have changed.
And I agree we always need to be improving our TTPs.
When you advertise "brand" then you generally not only talk about the mission, but how you do them. Saying we do ES, with no further definition is not really going to bring people to our door. To me this worry about branding is just another way for us to divert from making the hard decisions on what we should be doing and how we should be doing it operationally.
I agree. But your original comment was about redefining the mission before we started a branding campaign. We don't need to redefine the mission. We need to understand where we are with that mission and where we are going with that mission.
Again...the mission is clearly defined. The TTPs may not be be clearly defined and by their very nature are constantly changing. Don't get the two confused.
Sure "we do ES" is a poor branding campaign. Kind of like the Army saying "We shoot guns". But "We do ES" is not our only definition of that one mission. What about our current mission definition don't you understand? We still do aerial and ground SAR. We still do Disaster Relief Support. We still do counter drug support. We still do Homeland Security support. We still do USAF training support. None of that has changed, nor is it very likely to change in the future.
Who we do it has changed and will continue to change.
That we are not out every other day chasing down ELTs in hangers is a good thing.
That GA aircraft are much safety then 20 years ago is a good thing.
That we don't have to do real life DR missions is a good thing.
But none of those changes requires a redefinition of the ES mission.
Same is true for the other missions. TTPs have changed...but the mission is still the same.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 07, 2015, 10:49:47 PM
Quote from: Alaric on June 07, 2015, 10:34:12 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on June 07, 2015, 10:28:40 PM
Tactics, Techniques and Procedures.
And you can agree to disagree all you want.
As you yourself pointed out....the mission has not change in over 40 years. Only the TTPs have changed.
And I agree we always need to be improving our TTPs.
When you advertise "brand" then you generally not only talk about the mission, but how you do them. Saying we do ES, with no further definition is not really going to bring people to our door. To me this worry about branding is just another way for us to divert from making the hard decisions on what we should be doing and how we should be doing it operationally.
I agree. But your original comment was about redefining the mission before we started a branding campaign. We don't need to redefine the mission. We need to understand where we are with that mission and where we are going with that mission.
Again...the mission is clearly defined. The TTPs may not be be clearly defined and by their very nature are constantly changing. Don't get the two confused.
Sure "we do ES" is a poor branding campaign. Kind of like the Army saying "We shoot guns". But "We do ES" is not our only definition of that one mission. What about our current mission definition don't you understand? We still do aerial and ground SAR. We still do Disaster Relief Support. We still do counter drug support. We still do Homeland Security support. We still do USAF training support. None of that has changed, nor is it very likely to change in the future.
Who we do it has changed and will continue to change.
That we are not out every other day chasing down ELTs in hangers is a good thing.
That GA aircraft are much safety then 20 years ago is a good thing.
That we don't have to do real life DR missions is a good thing.
But none of those changes requires a redefinition of the ES mission.
Same is true for the other missions. TTPs have changed...but the mission is still the same.
I believe you are making a distinction without a difference whether we need to redefine the mission or the method that needs to be done before advertising. Steak not sizzle