Triangle thingy spottings

[JC004]

That was also the case with the stylized emblem that was being used for the race car (to some extent), the USAFAux command patch, and the U.S., then non-U.S. command patches.  They were also ALL OVER the place.  They were approved in SOME capacity (as a patch).  The only thing I've ever seen close to "authorization" was a mention of it being ok for the proposed social media guidelines.  There was, of course, the requirement to add it to the vehicles too, but that's just random (just like CAP's entire branding "strategy").

What irks me is how very simple it is to do a style guide.  It also irks me that my money was being wasted to produce these stupid decals and all, only to change them a couple times shortly thereafter.  We went from the seal to various command patches on the vans which had to cost a small fortune in production and mailing.  Still the regulations are not updated to reflect this and some vehicles are even getting the Triangle Thingy.  Then there is the fact that wings and even NHQ do not follow the limited guidance that we ALREADY have in place.

I had already produced some pretty freaking professional style guides and marketing plans for three non-profit programs when I was a 16 year old cadet.  They can't do this?  My methodology has changed since I was 16, but the basic outline for my current style guides and marketing plans still come out of what I did as a teenager because it was well researched and took from many different experts.

[Eclipse]

http://dilbert.com/

[JC004]

My philosophy is to keep red tape where it belongs - in the National Archives gift shop:

http://estore.archives.gov/ProductInfo/N-07-3401.aspx

[Major Carrales]

My philosophy is to keep red tape where it belongs - in the National Archives gift shop:

http://estore.archives.gov/ProductInfo/N-07-3401.aspx

Been there, saw that!!!  Didn't buy...

[JC004]

But you can buy it online and get the matching cuff links.  I was there again on Thursday for the Civil War exhibit.

[A.Member]

At this point, feeback needs to be provided direcetly to the following persons:

Julie DeBardelaben
Deputy Director of Public Affairs
CAP National Headquarters
1-877-227-9142, extension 250
jdebardelaben@capnhq.gov

Steve Cox
Public Affairs Manager
CAP National Headquarters
1-877-227-9142, extension 251
scox@capnhq.gov

And/or to:
paa@capnhq.gov

[arajca]

My philosophy is to keep red tape where it belongs - in the National Archives gift shop:

http://estore.archives.gov/ProductInfo/N-07-3401.aspx

That is tempting...

[Patterson]

At this point, feeback needs to be provided direcetly to the following persons:

Julie DeBardelaben
Deputy Director of Public Affairs
CAP National Headquarters
1-877-227-9142, extension 250
jdebardelaben@capnhq.gov

Steve Cox
Public Affairs Manager
CAP National Headquarters
1-877-227-9142, extension 251
scox@capnhq.gov

And/or to:
paa@capnhq.gov

Emails and LETTERS sent!!!  Yay.......it was fun being a CAP Member!!!!

[HGjunkie]

At this point, feeback needs to be provided direcetly to the following persons:

Julie DeBardelaben
Deputy Director of Public Affairs
CAP National Headquarters
1-877-227-9142, extension 250
jdebardelaben@capnhq.gov

Steve Cox
Public Affairs Manager
CAP National Headquarters
1-877-227-9142, extension 251
scox@capnhq.gov

And/or to:
paa@capnhq.gov

Emails and LETTERS sent!!!  Yay.......it was fun being a CAP Member!!!!

Let us know what the 2b says!



/sarcasm

[JC004]

I don't know what I'd say to them.  They should know (or whoever it is...it may not have been they who decided this, so I use "they" generally) that they have to follow the regulation that we do have in place and they should know about professional practices like a style guide.  I wouldn't write them a nasty note because 1. I don't have all of the background, 2. I wouldn't want them to feel personally attacked because it's not a personal thing - it's an ongoing problem that has just been growing for many years now, getting much worse with the Triangle Thingy.

This is really about a chronic issue that hasn't been addressed by our governing bodies and falls on the shoulders of many groups rather than just a few individuals.  Really, the National Board should take action to get additional guidance approved above what we already have.  That's where this should fall.  They should also have someone enforcing the things that are already in place, since they are not followed from the flight/squadron on up to NHQ itself.

[RiverAux]

At this point, feeback needs to be provided direcetly to the following persons:

Julie DeBardelaben
Deputy Director of Public Affairs
CAP National Headquarters
1-877-227-9142, extension 250
jdebardelaben@capnhq.gov

Steve Cox
Public Affairs Manager
CAP National Headquarters
1-877-227-9142, extension 251
scox@capnhq.gov

And/or to:
paa@capnhq.gov

Only if you are not a public affairs officer and like jumping the CAP chain of command.

[jimmydeanno]

Only if you are not a public affairs officer and like jumping the CAP chain of command.

The folks at NHQ are not in our chain of command and we aren't in theirs any more than the CAP-USAF folks are.

They are there to support the volunteers, not to support only the corporate officers.  How many times a day do people call NHQ with questions?  Hundreds, from the mundane "where do I order patches" to "I went to encampment in 1951 and want credit." 

People can call and ask questions, give comments, etc all day long without it being "jumping the chain." 

[A.Member]

Only if you are not a public affairs officer and like jumping the CAP chain of command.

The folks at NHQ are not in our chain of command and we aren't in theirs any more than the CAP-USAF folks are.

They are there to support the volunteers, not to support only the corporate officers.  How many times a day do people call NHQ with questions?  Hundreds, from the mundane "where do I order patches" to "I went to encampment in 1951 and want credit." 

People can call and ask questions, give comments, etc all day long without it being "jumping the chain."

Agreed.   

I assume everyone is an adult and can address the issue tactfully...none of which should have you worried about a 2b. 

As for what to write, it could be something along these lines (feel free to copy and modify as needed):

Dear Ms. DeBardelaben:

I'm writing to provide member based feedback on the Triangle "logo" that recently appeared in a number of publications from NHQ:


This new image does not appear in the regulation that defines our long established seals or emblems (CAPR 900-2) nor do I recall any approvals to amend this regulation in the last several years.  As such, I'm hoping you can shed some light as to it's origin and the intent for it's use.

Recently, there has been considerable on-line discussion by CAP members and interested parties related to this image - most of which is very unfavorable as to it's continued use:  http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=10555.200

I share the opinion that the use of this unapproved image significantly dilutes and harms the Civil Air Patrol brand.  I welcome the idea that returns us to the use of only the recognized and approved seals and emblems that have long represented the Civil Air Patrol brand, such as those defined in CAPR 900-2.   The use of the command shield which is rooted in Air Force history and appears on every CAP member's utility uniform as a patch, as well as on our airplanes and vehicles, serves to reinforce a common brand image.   The Triangle image, on the other hand, simply does not and cannot provide this value.

The lack of consistency as it pertains to our brand image is an ongoing issue with the organization and is increasingly a source of frustration for a number of members.   The production of a style guide (standard industry practice - ex. Univ. of Pennsylvania) for approved graphical brand representations of Civil Air Patrol by NHQ would go a long way in addressing this issue of consistency.  Such a guide would provide a level of specificity around these images that is currently absent in regulations or publications.

I appreciate your time and dedication to the organization and look forward to your response.  Please feel free to contact me with any questions.

Best Regards,
A.Member

[Patterson]

My Reply received this afternoon

The Prop and Triangle has historically been associated with the CAP since the formation of the organization.  It is a branding moniker initiated by the former National Commander to instill a sense of pride and historical appreciation for the CAP, its members both present and prior.  Thank you for your interest in ........some more words follow......

I do not believe the "prop and triangle" looked like the one currently in use and I would sway away from using the word "moniker" in this context. 

I would imagine the replies others receive will be very similar. 

[A.Member]

^ It has not been used in the design that is currently being propagated.

[JC004]

I don't understand.  Unless something happened to Maj Gen Courter that they aren't sharing, the previous National CC initiated a lot of things (that's probably all that I have to say about that).  But under T.P., we got shields.  What does this Thingy have to do with anything(y)?

They also initiated "U.S." for one thing.  That went well.

The Triangle Thingy now replaces the official seal of Civil Air Patrol on Certificates of Appreciation, apparently.

Since members in the field need to produce things with logos - letterheads, web sites, etc., one would think they would state if they wished this new logo to be used.  Of course, NHQ is not even using this all the time and it remains off some things.  So...huh?  It's not even a question of the Triangle Thingy or any other such thing.  It's a question of branding strategy, consistency, lack of instructions, not following 900-2 - all that.

[A.Member]

Received the following reply to my inquiry from Julie DeBardelaben:
"I appreciate your taking the time to email this input. I will look into this matter and get back to you."

I view this response as encouraging and I'm very appreciative of her willingness to follow up further on this issue. 

[RiverAux]

Only if you are not a public affairs officer and like jumping the CAP chain of command.

The folks at NHQ are not in our chain of command and we aren't in theirs any more than the CAP-USAF folks are.

They are there to support the volunteers, not to support only the corporate officers.  How many times a day do people call NHQ with questions?  Hundreds, from the mundane "where do I order patches" to "I went to encampment in 1951 and want credit." 

People can call and ask questions, give comments, etc all day long without it being "jumping the chain."

This is a little different than having a question about how to process a membership application or some technical issue. 

I think we can assume that the paid NHQ staff did not come up with the triangle thingy and start using it without the approval of someone in the CAP chain of command.  If that is the case, then comments should be addressed through the CoC to get it changed.  They're not going to be able to change anything and going through them bypasses the proper channels. 

Now, if they did start using this without proper approval, thats a whole different story. 

[Major Carrales]

Only if you are not a public affairs officer and like jumping the CAP chain of command.

The folks at NHQ are not in our chain of command and we aren't in theirs any more than the CAP-USAF folks are.

They are there to support the volunteers, not to support only the corporate officers.  How many times a day do people call NHQ with questions?  Hundreds, from the mundane "where do I order patches" to "I went to encampment in 1951 and want credit." 

People can call and ask questions, give comments, etc all day long without it being "jumping the chain."

This is a little different than having a question about how to process a membership application or some technical issue. 

I think we can assume that the paid NHQ staff did not come up with the triangle thingy and start using it without the approval of someone in the CAP chain of command.  If that is the case, then comments should be addressed through the CoC to get it changed.  They're not going to be able to change anything and going through them bypasses the proper channels. 

Now, if they did start using this without proper approval, thats a whole different story.

How much autonomy, do you suppose, was given the editors of "The CAP Volunteer?"  It may be that this logo was developed as a "publication" instrument and simply "caught fire."

I would imagine that some of the "clip art" and other imagery found in the magazine might not fall under the guise of CAP Regs...no more than having a certain font, style of punctuation or writing style would.  The "Thingy" have got away from people who spawned it...it happened before.

[JC004]

How much autonomy, do you suppose, was given the editors of "The CAP Volunteer?"  It may be that this logo was developed as a "publication" instrument and simply "caught fire."

I would imagine that some of the "clip art" and other imagery found in the magazine might not fall under the guise of CAP Regs...no more than having a certain font, style of punctuation or writing style would.  The "Thingy" have got away from people who spawned it...it happened before.

That is where it originally was found and exclusively there for a while. As I've cited before...remember that the other things that got used heavily for a while like the race car-era stylized emblem (to some extent), the AF symbol with nested CAP logos (before the current 900-2 was approved), and the command patches just sort of popped up, then grew through various publications and such. 

The race car-era emblem was on the web site for a while.  (Ref: http://web.archive.org/web/20040113051106/http://www.cap.gov/).  This was not an approved CAP logo EITHER by regulation.  The command patches have never been approved as a logo.  This is why I say that this is not about the Triangle Thingy - this is about the lack of a standard - a style guide in particular.  Clearly NHQ does not have a style guide.  If they DO have one, they don't use it.  Either way, one needs to be approved by the entities authorized to approve such things (namely, the National Board) and distributed to the field because the subordinate units NEED to create things with the logo.

This is not a dream like some have of making the closest-to-AF style uniform possible, a fancy new expensive aircraft, or a new program/partnership.  It's an industry standard.

My concern is whether or not they (again, a general "they" - applied to subordinate units on up) can follow the standard.  It HAS to be enforced.  As we saw here, we have a wing letterhead with an Air Force emblem combo that violates Air Force and CAP standards for that.  Squadrons have produced many things that violated this standard.  NHQ has produced many things - from PPT presentations to printed publications that violate this standard.  All that and the Air Force CLEARLY defines usage of this symbol (http://www.trademark.af.mil/).

So there are SEVERAL issues here - not just that they have produced YET AGAIN another logo and are using it extensively.  The key issues here are:
- diluting the brand
- inconsistent usage of CAP logos
- lack of a standard, lack of adherence to industry standards
- lack of enforcement
- NOT following the already-approved written guidance (900-2)
- usage of unauthorized logos being an ongoing issue for many years as we can see with the link above, the former extensive use of the AF symbol combo, command patches, and many other examples

As a quick example of this, here is an analysis of Annual Reports to Congress since 2000 and what main logo was used in them:
- 2000: corporate seal
- 2001: corporate seal
- 2002: stylized race car emblem (unauthorized logo), seal on back cover
- 2003: corporate seal
- 2004: corporate seal on front cover, stylized emblem throughout (variance from 900-2 standard)
- 2005: authorized (!) emblem
- 2006: command patch with "U.S." (a patch, not a logo of course)
- 2007: command patch without "U.S." (a patch, not a logo of course)
- 2008 financial statement: Triangle Thingy
- 2009 financial statement: Triangle Thingy

This of course does not include the other publications used during those time periods.  With annual reports, it began in 2002.