Triangle thingy spottings

[JeffDG]

I've asked this question in some other threads and nobody has yet answered directly.

Putting aside the intelligence (or obvious lack thereof) of diluting your brand, what regulation is violated by the use of TTT?  As I see it, 900-2 only deals with allowed use of official logos, which TTT is not, so is not covered by 900-2.

Is there another reg that I'm missing?

[RiverAux]

I don't know if it violates a regulation or not and frankly I don't really care.  The fact remains that this is not one of our official symbols (which are perfectly fine as is) and we should not be using it even if doing so isn't "illegal".  Using such non-standard symbols dilutes a brand we have been building since WWII and makes it harder for folks to get the job done.

[JeffDG]

I don't know if it violates a regulation or not and frankly I don't really care.  The fact remains that this is not one of our official symbols (which are perfectly fine as is) and we should not be using it even if doing so isn't "illegal".  Using such non-standard symbols dilutes a brand we have been building since WWII and makes it harder for folks to get the job done.

Hence my comment about setting aside the intelligence (or obvious lack thereof) of diluting your brand.

But reading many comments, people seem to take it as a given that it violates the regs, and I'm trying to understand where that impression comes from, as I cannot find a prohibition in the regs WRT to this.

[BillB]

The TTT says "Civil Air Patrol around the three edges, thus CAP Inc holds the trademark rights.  Major brands often change their logos or symbols to bring them into the 21st century. But I see no reason for CAP to drop a 69 year emblem for the TTT

[JeffDG]

The TTT says "Civil Air Patrol around the three edges, thus CAP Inc holds the trademark rights.  Major brands often change their logos or symbols to bring them into the 21st century. But I see no reason for CAP to drop a 69 year emblem for the TTT

That depends on where the TTT is spotted.  There are a number of places where 900-2 permits the use of the name "Civil Air Patrol". including "All official CAP publications (through squadron level)", "Stationary of any CAP unit or authorized committee", "Signs identifying CAP units at all levels", and "Posters and other informational or recruiting materials issued by National Headquarters".

The use of the name is actually permitted pretty broadly, with the only prohibition being "will not be used for personal gain"

[JC004]

RiverAux summed it up pretty nicely.  We have been saying that:

1.  The Triangle Thingy is fail.
2.  There is a big identity problem that spans many topics.  This includes the lack of a style guide, disregard for the EXISTING regulation (900-2), inconsistency in usage of symbols as a whole, etc.  The problem is more that than the actual logo that is currently in use often (but no always). 

As far as the issue of 900-2 prohibiting the production of new logos without them being official, I take RiverAux's position as well as the position that the spirit of the regulation is to provide guidance on the identity of the corporation in name and symbols.  The Triangle Thingy goes outside that.

I don't know why there has to be some strict prohibition since that isn't the issue.  It's not like someone is calling for the firing of NHQ staff members for creating or using the Triangle Thingy and therefore there must be a rule that was broken.  The main issue is the identity crisis.  After that, the issues of the Triangle Thingy sucking, its lack of official status, etc.  For some, there is a conspiracy theory about an organized effort to distance us even further from the AF but since they haven't organized themselves enough to pick a corporate color scheme...yeaaaaah.  I've seen it as, and tried to communicate it as an ongoing identity issue that spans many years and many commanders, staff people, and National Boards.  I don't even think that any of the current wing commanders were in their positions on the NB when this started.

[a2capt]

Since JC004 is having some kind of issue with hosts/providers/registrars as the domain has a parking page, ... and is expired-

You can change your signature here:

http://captalk.net/index.php?action=profile;area=forumprofile

..and change the TT Logo:

http://17500mph.com/CAPTalkKTTT.png

I've always had my own on there since I redrew it in the early hours of it's debut-

[JC004]

My domain is fixed now.  People can use whichever.  Whatever you do, take a stand against the destruction of the CAP brand.  ...Or more correctly, stand for having SOME brand instead of just random logos and slogans that change constantly. 

[Spaceman3750]

It has invaded the NESA site. Sorry folks, I don't think it's going away...

[sardak]

The traingle thingy is the only logo or symbol that appears on the handouts to be given out on this week's Legislative Day in DC.

http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/cap_reports/

Mike

[EMT-83]

It has invaded the NESA site. Sorry folks, I don't think it's going away...

I think sarflyer could get that fixed.

[JC004]

Well, you don't want to be using official stuff for national materials.  That's silly.

[Fubar]

The traingle thingy is the only logo or symbol that appears on the handouts to be given out on this week's Legislative Day in DC.

Anybody know why NVWG's report was removed?

[a2capt]

Probably contained information about Area 51.

Jeeze, whats going on at NHQ? Crummy CMS systems, 'CAP Cares' graphics, un-official logos being slapped all over stuff? What next?

[billford1]

I really miss the round Corporate Seal we used to have on our vehicles. How much will be spent to switch to the triangle? That thing looks ridiculous.

[a2capt]

If they switch to the triangle I'm tearing up my '75 and not driving corporate vehicles.

[RiverAux]

They do not appear to be looking at authorizing its use on vehicles since the proposal supposedly has zero cost associated with it.  Producing and changing decals would cost money.

[a2capt]

I submitted a question via the KB. Lets see what I get back.

What is the history behind the "Citizens Serving Communities" emblem? When was it approved, and for what purpose was it done?
What guidelines are in place for the use of this graphic?
The item in question is available from:
https://www.capnhq.gov/CAP.SealsEmblems.Web/Default.aspx - Currently in the bottom row, left-most item.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Ack.  The CAC has it too.

http://cac.cap.gov/

In addition to that, they're making their own seals:



I think we're teaching them wrong about branding.   

OK, that's just a big ego trip. No cadet needs his or her own logo or seal. No wing or region directorate needs one, either. UNITS get them, and special missions might, but that should be it. We have so many goofy logos floating around, we don't know what to do with them. And then we have units that are direct reports to others -- like the NOC -- that should be hewing closer to their mother unit's insignia. If they need one of their own.

As for the "triangle thingy"? It's lousy. It's unnecessary. It's illegal. But apparently, the silo that is National Headquarters is perfectly fine doing their own thing, separate from the volunteers who live under a different set of guidelines. So much for being on the same team.

[JeffDG]

Anyone notice, it's on the agenda for the NEC to adopt TTT later this month.