Main Menu

CAP's Brand Image

Started by FlyNavy, March 15, 2015, 11:55:03 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ned

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?



AirAux

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.. 

RiverAux

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....


Ned

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.



AirAux

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.

Garibaldi

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.
Still a major after all these years.
ES dude, leadership ossifer, publik affaires
Opinionated and wrong 99% of the time about all things

Майор Хаткевич

Personally, I find the cadet program fascinating...seems most American's don't share my/our views.

THRAWN

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...
Strup-"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
USMC CSCDEP 2023

Ned

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.

AirAux

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.

Ned

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.





Luis R. Ramos

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...
Squadron Safety Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer

AirAux

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.

Panache

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.

NIN

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?
Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
I have no responsibilities whatsoever
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2024 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Luis R. Ramos

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.
Squadron Safety Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer

FW

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...

AirAux

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. 

Private Investigator

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)

FW

^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