The Beginnings of a Style Guide

[JC004]

This insanity of the logos and other identity crisis crap must end. 

We need one, cohesive, recognizable visual identity.

I'd like to put together the beginnings of a draft style guide. 

I propose:
1.  Keep the corporate seal for certain things.  One black and white version, one color.  When should this be used?

2.  The triangle logo GOES.  It has NO purpose.  It dies.  NOW.  That's the thing up top here.

3.  Kill either the emblem or command patch.  Keep ONE for use as the main logo. 

4.  Standard Pantone colors.  Anybody wanna pick 'em?

5.  Need standardized layout of the logos with any other elements (taglines, unit logos, etc.)

6.  What to do with the Air Force symbol being used with CAP logos?  Keep it?  Kill it?  If we keep it, we should restrict it to ONE logo standard with the symbol (command patch or seal).  When would it be appropriate for use?

The usage of the logos (seal, command patch, and any others) need to be defined in how they are used on:
- letterhead, envelopes, business cards, etc.
- web sites
- publications (including marketing collateral - posters, brochures, fact sheets, etc.)
- clothing items (including uniforms such as the golf shirt)
- signage
- aircraft and ground vehicles

The colors, typeface, placement with other elements, size, etc. need to be defined.  Usage of "U.S. Air Force Auxiliary" (and any variations) should be addressed in the style guide as well.

Second tier logos should also be addressed.  That is, logos like we have for DDR, the NOC, etc.

[NC Hokie]

I suggest starting here:

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=6670.msg123688#msg123688

[JC004]

If we could fold the start in that thread in and go for the whole visual identity beyond the emblem, we'd be in business.

It must end:

[a2capt]

I might just add, in quick- if this were one of those tests, "pick the one least like the others".

The Triangle thing would have to be it.  It does need to go. I agree there.

But, wow. Never realized there were so many variants of what amount to the same thing.

[JC004]

It's not that these are just a bunch of member-generated images either.  I've seen many of these variations on National-produced stuff over the years (yes, I even paid attention to branding as a wee cadet). 

Heck, Greenhut's marketing guide that is on the National web site...that has 3 different logos in it.  (it also violates text/logo placement for letterhead in 10-1, but ya know...)

Then there's 900-2...don't get me started...

Look!  We can't even decide on black stars or white stars on the b/w seal!  WTH?!

[ZigZag911]

The "triangle thing" is deeply rooted in CAP's history, from our origins in the Office of Civil Defense during World War 2.

Eliminating it strikes me as throwing our heritage out the window.

Defining & limiting its use seems more reasonable. Perhaps it should be used only within CAP, not in public relations or recruiting type venues.

[a2capt]

The "Triangle thing" as it stands alone, without any other features - and having the words imprinted in the triangle, further distorting it. It's hard to read, it's unnecessary, and our roots and heritage are displayed in a fine manner in the already existing logo/seal.

The Identity Crisis Needs to Stop. Here. and Now.

Overly graphic, so-busy-you-think-a-UFO-crashed van wraps, crap on a race car, logos that look like spelling changes when used in a mast head.

Ugh.

[JC004]

Maybe I was not clear about the "triangle thing."

I mean that red prop with gray triangle, "Civil" (prop piece) "Air" (prop piece) "Patrol"

That is not deeply rooted.  That showed up on the scene suddenly and started going on Annual Reports and other crap.  The triangle with prop is in EVERY logo here and I do not propose that we eliminate that.  I propose (perhaps should demand) that we eliminate this random thing that showed up and EVERYBODY HATES. 

[a2capt]

^^^ Exactly, thats the one I mean, too.

[Spaceman3750]

IMHO we should standardize our domain as well. EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE goes under cap.gov. Period. Wing websites could be, for example:

il.cap.gov

Squadrons, a bit longer but better from a branding and management perspecitve:

[charter number].il.cap.gov

Eservices: members.cap.gov or eservices.cap.gov

Our web identity needs to be standardized. Squadron and wing websites should have the same look and feel of the national one. We need to start looking like one organization online, not several hundred with coincidental naming.

[WheelsUp]

The "triangle thing" is deeply rooted in CAP's history, from our origins in the Office of Civil Defense during World War 2.

Eliminating it strikes me as throwing our heritage out the window.

Defining & limiting its use seems more reasonable. Perhaps it should be used only within CAP, not in public relations or recruiting type venues.

I personally like some of the older logos/graphics - it's our history! What we have now are too many corporate seals (the round ones), as posted toward the top of this discussion. Those can certainly go through a consolidation process...1 color, 1 BW.

Keep one (and only one) of the several command patch versions (without the Pineda-era "U.S." on it)...and if people really, really want to use the newer USAF blue bird/star device for local wings and such, the regs must be standardized throughout.

It can be done...it is possible to go from the 20 logos seen earlier to about 4 or 5.

Question is, will CAPNHQ do that?

[JC004]

IMHO we should standardize our domain as well. EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE goes under cap.gov. Period. Wing websites could be, for example:

il.cap.gov

Squadrons, a bit longer but better from a branding and management perspecitve:

[charter number].il.cap.gov

Eservices: members.cap.gov or eservices.cap.gov

Our web identity needs to be standardized. Squadron and wing websites should have the same look and feel of the national one. We need to start looking like one organization online, not several hundred with coincidental naming.

Absolutely!  That is part of my plan.  I wanted to start with logos and colors.  Join us?

Please, folks.  Support the cause.  It's for the children.  Do you want our cadets growing up learning bad marketing practices that they'll take into business with them? 

Add the KILL logo to your profile!

Code Select Expand

[img]http://colganmarketing.com/kill.png[/img]

[NC Hokie]

I think we should start with what Ma Blue has here: http://www.af.mil/art/mediagallery.asp?galleryID=5187

From there, do the following:

1) Add the B&W seal with white stars to the mix, as it most closely resembles the color version.

2) Forbid the creation of any other logo using the Hap Arnold wings, and reserve the one on that page for CAP-USAF use only.  Those wings are a trademarked property of the USAF, and we have no business using them as long as CAP maintains any corporate identity apart from the Air Force.

3) Add the roundell, and restrict its usage to aircraft only.

4) Determine the pantone colors and RGB equivalents for each logo so that they can be reproduced accurately on all publications, web documents, decals, etc.

5) Ruthlessly eliminate the usage of any other logos besides approved unit and activity logos.  Facilitate this by creating an official letterhead in both MS Word and PDF formats, with elements spaced according to CAPR 10-1.  The MS Word format should be a template, with a predefined location for adding a unit or activity logo to the right of the address.

That would be a good start.

[WheelsUp]

Our web identity needs to be standardized. Squadron and wing websites should have the same look and feel of the national one. We need to start looking like one organization online, not several hundred with coincidental naming.

There are units out there with Yahoo pages. This has to end.  It looks like doodoo and makes CAP look like...Yahoos.

[JC004]

There are units out there with Yahoo pages. This has to end.  It looks like doodoo and makes CAP look like...Yahoos.

:clap:  An army (air force?) of members supporting proper branding and marketing, we can get there together!

[WheelsUp]

So is there a contact at NHQ who would take interest in such a suggestion? Or would it most likely find its way to File 13?

[JC004]

So is there a contact at NHQ who would take interest in such a suggestion? Or would it most likely find its way to File 13?

I have a secret support structure building up in the background.  Birds.  If others can get your birds to help too, please do!

[WheelsUp]

I may be just a voice in the woods at my location...perhaps several letters from members nationwide would clue in NHQ.

Or get us all kicked out.

[a2capt]

The web domain/server/hosting issue is a whole lot more involved. There's cites of "we can't do it and comply with whatever it is to be a .gov TLD" or anemic IT staff makes you just say screw it and get your own hosting, and of course, you can't get DNS changed because then you have to deal with potentially similar attitudes at that point, etc. Thats a whole 'nother thread.

Right now, I've got the same problem. After waiting nearly 5 years for PHP/MySQL, I'm going to just use something else and combine both what we get from Wing with a commercial provider. Every time I offer to help, it falls on deaf ears. They put out another PA appointing someone to assist, help, whatever, nothing ever happens. Life goes on. Even Geocities was more flexible in some ways.

[jeders]

I think we should start with what Ma Blue has here: http://www.af.mil/art/mediagallery.asp?galleryID=5187

From there, do the following:

1) Add the B&W seal with white stars to the mix, as it most closely resembles the color version.

2) Forbid the creation of any other logo using the Hap Arnold wings, and reserve the one on that page for CAP-USAF use only.  Those wings are a trademarked property of the USAF, and we have no business using them as long as CAP maintains any corporate identity apart from the Air Force.

3) Add the roundell, and restrict its usage to aircraft only.

4) Determine the pantone colors and RGB equivalents for each logo so that they can be reproduced accurately on all publications, web documents, decals, etc.

5) Ruthlessly eliminate the usage of any other logos besides approved unit and activity logos.  Facilitate this by creating an official letterhead in both MS Word and PDF formats, with elements spaced according to CAPR 10-1.  The MS Word format should be a template, with a predefined location for adding a unit or activity logo to the right of the address.

That would be a good start.

+1

Have to agree with pretty much everything there. Unfortunately it all makes sense, so it'll never be done.

[Spaceman3750]

The web domain/server/hosting issue is a whole lot more involved. There's cites of "we can't do it and comply with whatever it is to be a .gov TLD" or anemic IT staff makes you just say screw it and get your own hosting, and of course, you can't get DNS changed because then you have to deal with potentially similar attitudes at that point, etc. Thats a whole 'nother thread.

Right now, I've got the same problem. After waiting nearly 5 years for PHP/MySQL, I'm going to just use something else and combine both what we get from Wing with a commercial provider. Every time I offer to help, it falls on deaf ears. They put out another PA appointing someone to assist, help, whatever, nothing ever happens. Life goes on. Even Geocities was more flexible in some ways.

Yeah, I figured that's how it was. The problem is, it's not horribly expensive for the IT folks to add PHP/MySQL support to servers running squadron/wing websites. Even if you look at it from a security perspective, those risks can be mitigated.

By the way, when did gocivilairpatrol.com spring up? WIWAC we were using cap.gov and when I came back it pointed to that. It just doesn't make sense to me, we don't need to be mimicking armed forces recruiting because we aren't the armed forces and 99% of recruiting is done at the local level.

[JC004]

I think we should start with what Ma Blue has here: http://www.af.mil/art/mediagallery.asp?galleryID=5187

From there, do the following:

1) Add the B&W seal with white stars to the mix, as it most closely resembles the color version.

2) Forbid the creation of any other logo using the Hap Arnold wings, and reserve the one on that page for CAP-USAF use only.  Those wings are a trademarked property of the USAF, and we have no business using them as long as CAP maintains any corporate identity apart from the Air Force.

3) Add the roundell, and restrict its usage to aircraft only.

4) Determine the pantone colors and RGB equivalents for each logo so that they can be reproduced accurately on all publications, web documents, decals, etc.

5) Ruthlessly eliminate the usage of any other logos besides approved unit and activity logos.  Facilitate this by creating an official letterhead in both MS Word and PDF formats, with elements spaced according to CAPR 10-1.  The MS Word format should be a template, with a predefined location for adding a unit or activity logo to the right of the address.

That would be a good start.

Good start.  I am actually not opposed to doing away with usage of the Air Force symbol.  I am very, very-pro Air Force/CAP closeness, but that thing is annoying and probably unnecessary.  It also takes up A LOT of space with a cradled logo.  I am concerned about so many sub-logos (any logos that violate the flag code AND CAPR 900-2 - hint to NOC - should probably go first).  We should look at that later.  Templates are exactly part of my plan.  I can do DOC, PDF, whatever - letterhead, envelopes, business cards, etc.  BTDT. 

I may be just a voice in the woods at my location...perhaps several letters from members nationwide would clue in NHQ.

Or get us all kicked out.

We must build our numbers, create our plan, and tell them to make it so. 

The web domain/server/hosting issue is a whole lot more involved. There's cites of "we can't do it and comply with whatever it is to be a .gov TLD" or anemic IT staff makes you just say screw it and get your own hosting, and of course, you can't get DNS changed because then you have to deal with potentially similar attitudes at that point, etc. Thats a whole 'nother thread.

Right now, I've got the same problem. After waiting nearly 5 years for PHP/MySQL, I'm going to just use something else and combine both what we get from Wing with a commercial provider. Every time I offer to help, it falls on deaf ears. They put out another PA appointing someone to assist, help, whatever, nothing ever happens. Life goes on. Even Geocities was more flexible in some ways.

We have to look at this for sure. 

...
+1

Have to agree with pretty much everything there. Unfortunately it all makes sense, so it'll never be done.

We can take 'em!

...
By the way, when did gocivilairpatrol.com spring up? WIWAC we were using cap.gov and when I came back it pointed to that. It just doesn't make sense to me, we don't need to be mimicking armed forces recruiting because we aren't the armed forces and 99% of recruiting is done at the local level.

CAP found out about domain registrations and started buying whatever they could think of.  There are A LOT now.  Too many.  This will end.  We will see to it.

[WheelsUp]

We must build our numbers, create our plan, and tell them to make it so. 

Sounds like Dr. Klahn in Kentucky Fried Movie: "We are building and army of extraordinary magnitude..."

(For those of you who've never seen KFM, go rent it somewhere or get it from Netflix. It is truly a classic)

But in all seriousness, I've got a half a mind to see what NHQ plans on doing logo/web-wise.

I'll hit them up on uniform issues at another time, perhaps after a few belts of a good drink.

[JC004]

Pretty much.  Wait until you see the lasers that I ordered for this.

Haven't you SEEN their plan?!  Make new logos, throw them out there, buy new domain names, use them inconsistently. 

[JC004]

Umm...wow.  So I've been hearing from a lot of people on the thread here, by PM, and such.  I knew there were a number of us who were really on this issue, but I didn't realize that there were so many. 

I appreciate the fun/humor people are having with it as well, especially The Triangle Thingy.      I'm glad we can have some fun with it.  In all seriousness, we need to address this issue.  CAP is one of the biggest (maybe the biggest) organization that I know of personally with such an identity crisis. 

The format of the forum makes it somewhat difficult to do some of this stuff here, so I think people should discuss it, as well as discuss/work on it off the forum.  My plan is to work on some drafts with the people who have expressed interest (and others who may express interest later), then post stuff here as it gets rolling.  People can and certainly should contribute ideas as it goes.  I'd like to see a full style guide proposal that addresses all that we've mentioned here and we need your help getting National Board members behind it.

I'll leave you with this photo that I took in Florida last year:

[Major Carrales]

The "triangle thing" is deeply rooted in CAP's history, from our origins in the Office of Civil Defense during World War 2.

Eliminating it strikes me as throwing our heritage out the window.

Defining & limiting its use seems more reasonable. Perhaps it should be used only within CAP, not in public relations or recruiting type venues.

I disagree on one point here.  the White triangle...to represent CAP traditions...must be within a blue circle or in the MAJCOM type shield.

Civil Defense was the letters "CD" with in a white triangle surrounded by/within a blue circle.  Much like our overseas patch and the center of the CAP roundel.

[JC004]

Hi, Joe.  I feel like maybe that was just a result of not being totally clear which triangle thing that I meant.  (I could be wrong, though)

[Major Carrales]

Hi, Joe.  I feel like maybe that was just a result of not being totally clear which triangle thing that I meant.  (I could be wrong, though)

The device you are truely referring to (the one you have "slashed out" in your signature) has no origin in any CAP history I am familiar with.  I suspect, and this is speculation, that some one made it up for the magazine and then, like so many times happens in our resource depirved units, people picked it up and ran with it.

Has there been any discussion at any of the governing bodies regarding it?  Or was it an editorial descision by the "CAP VOLUNTEER?"

That makes a world of difference.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

For what it's worth, there IS a style guide being formulated, and it takes 900-2 and the Institute of Heraldry color palette into account, but that's all I can say right now. Stay tuned....

[a2capt]

I hope the Triangle People are not involved in it.. ;-)

Triangle man beats person man.. they have a fight, triangle wins ...

Say it isn't so!!

[BuckeyeDEJ]

I hope the Triangle People are not involved in it.. ;-)

Triangle man beats person man.. they have a fight, triangle wins ...

Say it isn't so!!

Why did Constantinople get the works?

[a2capt]

Why did Constantinople get the works?

That's nobody's business but the Turks'

But maybe they can relay a message for us ..   Triangle wins no more.

[JC004]

For what it's worth, there IS a style guide being formulated, and it takes 900-2 and the Institute of Heraldry color palette into account, but that's all I can say right now. Stay tuned....

This is classified?

[Spaceman3750]

Classified secret squirrel stuff most likely...



I wish some wing somewhere would put out a 39-1 supplement authorizing that patch . Just kidding.

[JC004]

Secret is good.  That way, we can have a slogan like "TRANSFORMERS! More Than Meets the Eyes Skies!"

[BuckeyeDEJ]

I personally liked "Eyes of the Home Skies." That's memorable. So's "Flying Minutemen." Whatever it is, if we change it, it needs to fit on a bumpersticker, be action-oriented, forward-thinking, and not be a mouthful.

And I'd add that it can't be something that only certain words are highlighted in -- you read the whole thing at a glance, or you don't read any of it.

[JC004]

I don't mind the new one, other than being long.  TRANSFORMERS, I minded.  Along with everyone else.  That went away REAL quick after it hit here.   

I'm not sure that the style guide HAS to have the slogan.  Just AT LEAST how the spacing and all is done of it around logos.  The slogan can be part of the comprehensive marketing strategy document that's available for download here...err...err...Alright, we'll get to that.  We got this!   

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Color and type specs, too, though that won't be too hard -- they're all in the Institute of Heraldry palette.

[JC004]

Of course.  I had that in the first part.  I figured logos, colors, and typeface were a good place to start, then move in on details. 

What I'm starting to wonder about is the emblem vs. the command patch...I've been giving that some thought...dunno...

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

All seals, crests, etc. must conform to Air Force Heraldry standards:

One seal for correspondence:
http://www.af.mil/shared/media/ggallery/webgraphic/AFG-080407-024.jpg

One insignia for vehicles and aircraft doors:
http://hiwg.cap.gov/kauai/SqdrnMedia/CAPAF_TR.gif

Keep the three-blade prop for the aircraft roundel:
http://www.military-graphics.com/CAP-ROUNDEL.png

One style for Group/Wing crests:
http://www.pawingcap.com/gp1/images/gp1logo.png

One style for Squadron crests (from what I know, all are being redesigned to conform to this circle/two rockers format):
http://scwg.cap.gov/sumter/images/Sumter%20Composite%20Squadron%20Patch.gif

Return this MAJCOM crest! If our Seal says that we are the USAF Auxiliary, the Command crest should too:
http://www.loraincountycap.org/Images/Cap%20Logo.jpg

Adopt this for CAP-wide use, not just for overseas units:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/CAP_Overseas.jpg

I would like to see this approved for us, but it ain't happenin':
http://www.ner.cap.gov/images/graphics/Cap-Usaf_Logo.Gif

This would go a long way toward uniformity and the K.I.S.S. method (no, I'm not talking about Gene Simmons).

[JC004]

On the whole, I agree except that I'm not sure about which vehicle/aircraft symbol I support and while I like/miss the "U.S. Air Force Auxiliary"-style patch, it doesn't say our legal, primary name, which is a marketing problem, identification problem, and kinda silly.  So for PRIMARY use, I couldn't really support that unless we figured out how to fix it.  Ideas?  The advantage of the emblem is that it displays both.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

On the whole, I agree except that I'm not sure about which vehicle/aircraft symbol I support and while I like/miss the "U.S. Air Force Auxiliary"-style patch, it doesn't say our legal, primary name, which is a marketing problem, identification problem, and kinda silly.  So for PRIMARY use, I couldn't really support that unless we figured out how to fix it.  Ideas?  The advantage of the emblem is that it displays both.

The MAJCOM emblem as it is now works just fine. Horse dead, bats put away.

[pixelwonk]

This thread reminds me of this shirt:

[A.Member]

I agree with the basic premise of this thread.

The issue on emblems can simply end here:
http://www.af.mil/art/mediagallery.asp?galleryID=5187

(of course, I'll pile on with the fact that I still think this should be our command patch, but I digress.)

There is no need for any other emblems/symbols, with the exception of the aircraft roundel:


Now have National legal enforce it as vigorously as they enforce the other trademark issues.

[WheelsUp]

A. Member: You nailed it. I'm with you on that.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

I agree with the basic premise of this thread.

The issue on emblems can simply end here:
http://www.af.mil/art/mediagallery.asp?galleryID=5187

(of course, I'll pile on with the fact that I still think this should be our command patch, but I digress.)

It would end there if the emblems on that site were of better quality. And better quality versions exist!

[A.Member]

It would end there if the emblems on that site were of better quality. And better quality versions exist!

That's humor, right?!

[BuckeyeDEJ]

No, that's not humor. More accurate renderings of the seal and MAJCOM emblem ("shield") do indeed exist. Stay tuned and you'll see them....

The seal NHQ gave AFNS is poorly out of proportion and the type is contorted, but to know that, you have to go back to the CAPR 10-1 and 900-2 from the mid-to-late 1980s to get the large-size, printed rendering to use for clip art.

Also, get this: Vanguard has a new version of the seal that uses serif type. Yes, serif type. I'd actually prefer it for tradition's sake, but the seal uses a Swiss sans serif unless the Powers That Be decide otherwise.

As for the MAJCOM emblem, there is a variant that not only has the accurate colors, but the type in the scroll's not screwed up. I can tell you Florida Wing has it, as well as a precise version of its new emblem as vector EPS files (you'll see the latter in the Web site's banner, though not the background).

[A.Member]

No, that's not humor. More accurate renderings of the seal and MAJCOM emblem ("shield") do indeed exist. Stay tuned and you'll see them....

The seal NHQ gave AFNS is poorly out of proportion and the type is contorted, but to know that, you have to go back to the CAPR 10-1 and 900-2 from the mid-to-late 1980s to get the large-size, printed rendering to use for clip art.

Also, get this: Vanguard has a new version of the seal that uses serif type. Yes, serif type. I'd actually prefer it for tradition's sake, but the seal uses a Swiss sans serif unless the Powers That Be decide otherwise.

As for the MAJCOM emblem, there is a variant that not only has the accurate colors, but the type in the scroll's not screwed up. I can tell you Florida Wing has it, as well as a precise version of its new emblem as vector EPS files (you'll see the latter in the Web site's banner, though not the background).

You know that .jpg images are 2100 x 2100, right?  And the EPS image is also available.  Not sure what more you're really looking for.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

That's not what I mean, A. On the seal, the rings around the white band are out of proportion and scale. The coat of arms (which the stars encircle) is too small and placed too high. The type sits wrong and is ill-proportioned.

On the emblem, the type is horribly set, and I'm not sure the colors are right, but I haven't sampled them.

Doesn't matter the size of the JPEG if the file content's not right.

[A.Member]

That's not what I mean, A. On the seal, the rings around the white band are out of proportion and scale. The coat of arms (which the stars encircle) is too small and placed too high. The type sits wrong and is ill-proportioned.

On the emblem, the type is horribly set, and I'm not sure the colors are right, but I haven't sampled them.

Doesn't matter the size of the JPEG if the file content's not right.

OK, I understand what you're saying.  Your concern is not really with the quality (ie resolution) but rather the accuracy of the images.

However, without a more detailed style sheet or specification document, how do we know these are inaccurate?  The answer is we don't...and that's one of the OP's points.  900-2 is not specific enough to address your concerns.   From what is stated in 900-2, it appears accurate.  You may not like the way it looks but that doesn't make it incorrect.  The seal's design is consistent with the design of the other Air Force seals on the official U.S. Air Force site...just sayin'.

That aside, do you agree the emblems listed are the only ones that should be used?

[JC004]

A. - the stuff we haven't doesn't technically comply with 900-2.  It isn't ultramarine blue:



BuckeyeDEJ - we need a graphics person.  Help?   

[SarDragon]

Not meaning to be snarky, but where's the official definition of ultramarine? I see that being as uncertain as answering the Q - What color is Navajo White?

[JC004]

Doesn't seem snarky...Are you talking about ultramarine or ultramarine blue?

Ultramarine (Hex: #120A8F)
Ultramarine Blue (Hex: #4166F5)

900-2 specifies ultramarine blue, which is that paint sample that I put up there^^^

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultramarine

It's our nametapes.   

[SarDragon]

Vewy, vewy intewesting.

Dave gets an 'F' in Wiki-foo today!

[JC004]

It is far past time for this to come to an end.  I cannot imagine running an organization of this size without a mean, comprehensive, kick-butt marketing plan like I would put into place, let alone BASIC branding guidelines and standard marketing practices.  We can get this done.  We have the resources.  We don't need to spend millions and we DON'T need to hire that woman who prepared the PowerPoint presentation on why we should BLOG.

[jimmydeanno]

Q - What color is Navajo White?

Tada! http://www.myperfectcolor.com/Benjamin-Moore-947-Navajo-White-p/mpc0006877.htm

Actually the color of all of the trim in my house.  That was an easy question 

[SarDragon]

But Glidden's is darker.



Back to square A!

[JC004]

That is why we will use Pantone and not Benjamin Moore.  Why Pantone and hex were not specified in 900-2 is totally beyond me. 

[WheelsUp]

That is why we will use Pantone and not Benjamin Moore.  Why Pantone and hex were not specified in 900-2 is totally beyond me. 

JC004, you beat me to it. Yes, we need to use the Pantone colors (sometimes called PMS, Pantone Matching System), which is pretty much the universal standard for anything printed these days. (Web color codes are a different system altogether) All the services have very specific color codes - I've had to research them for my job in the newspaper business. Someone at NHQ has to have those color codes; perhaps it just has not found its way to 900-2 yet.

Relying on paint company codes ain't gonna cut it - each has their own color criteria and codes, as we have seen on this thread.

[JC004]

I know - a lot of style guides that I see these days have hex now too.  I don't know if they track it at NHQ  or not.  The different symbols that I've downloaded from NHQ have had different colors and none seem to be as 900-2 specifies.

[a2capt]

Seeing as how when NHQ jumped onto the CMS bandwagon, they did it with such an awful solution ..  I wonder how bad HEX color referencing can be screwed up..  ;-)


(If there's something screwed up about it, they'll find it, given the track record)

[BuckeyeDEJ]

BuckeyeDEJ - we need a graphics person.  Help?   

What we call "ultramarine blue" is Air Force Blue -- PMS Reflex Blue. Air Force Yellow is PMS 116.

Complete color specs (from the Institute of Heraldry) exist for the CAP seal, and hence, the MAJCOM shield and the disc emblem. They also exist for the Florida Wing emblem. The specs cover PMS, CMYK, thread, RGB and Web color.

I wasn't going to say anything, and I was kinda dancing around it, but at the risk of blowing my cover, I'll say it: Florida Wing is developing a document that details those standards. Hopefully, it'll be adopted across CAP. And vector (not raster, so it's infinitely scaleable) EPS files of all the renderings will be available on the FLWG Web site's public affairs pages (it might be password protected, but don't get too excited yet).

As for what someone said re: proportions of elements in the seal, just go back to the late-1980s version (not sure on the date, just dig for it) of either CAPR 10-1 or CAPR 900-2 and you'll see the official rendering -- it covers an entire page by itself, ideal for enlarging and reducing on a copier. (Of course, yes, that was before Illustrator and FreeHand.)

The EPS I rendered in 1993 comes from that very seal. A full-color variant took the outline off the eagle and added highlights to the wreath twists (though the colors aren't quite right). It's all over the place now, after I gave a copy in the late 1990s to the Air Force News Agency. You've probably seen it...



I updated the renderings a few months ago because the eagle and stars weren't rendering right in Illustrator 10, and I wanted to ensure the colors (especially the yellow vs. gold) are accurate. The shading on the feathers is different, and there's highlights around the cloud. One variant mimics Vanguard's serif type treatment.

Yeah, it's kinda neat to see my rendering all over the place.

[A.Member]

Why are the blue line sizes on the outer ring so thick?  Shouldn't that ring be mostly yellow, as opposed to mostly blue?

The only statement I know of to reference this is from 900-2, which states:

The wide encircling band will be white and surrounded by a small gold band edged in dark blue on the inside and two small gold bands edged in dark blue on the outside.

My interpretation of this statement is that the yellow/gold is the more dominant color, as opposed to the think blue lines.  Again, and I think we're all in agreement on this, the problem here is that the info we have is not sufficiently defined.

Also, when you remove the outline/definition around the eagle and cloud, you make the image problematic for production in monochrome/black and white.  It needs that definition.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Why are the blue line sizes on the outer ring so thick?  Shouldn't that ring be mostly yellow, as opposed to mostly blue?

The only statement I know of to reference this is from 900-2, which states:

The wide encircling band will be white and surrounded by a small gold band edged in dark blue on the inside and two small gold bands edged in dark blue on the outside.

My interpretation of this statement is that the yellow/gold is the more dominant color, as opposed to the think blue lines.  Again, and I think we're all in agreement on this, the problem here is that the info we have is not sufficiently defined.

Also, when you remove the outline/definition around the eagle and cloud, you make the image problematic for production in monochrome/black and white.  It needs that definition.

That's why you have a black-and-white line-art version and a full-color version.

As for the thick line: You'd think the gold/yellow would be more prominent, but this scheme is what the seal approved in 1985 or '86 had. At this point, it's been done so many different ways, the only way to know is go back and look at the original. I promise you, the black-and-white version of this file is indeed the original, digitized. The quote you cite from CAPR 900-2 actually is backward. The twin gold rings are on the inside.

[Chief2009]

Someone at NHQ has to have those color codes; perhaps it just has not found its way to 900-2 yet.

Heck, IL wing already has them in ILWG P1, our guide for creating unit insignia. Just pull it straight from there. http://ilcap.org/ilsups/ILWGP1.pdf

DN

[A.Member]

The quote you cite from CAPR 900-2 actually is backward. The twin gold rings are on the inside.

Agreed.  Like most of our documents, it's worded incredibly poorly.   

[JC004]

I am very happy to report that after creating the Wing Website gallery, I've determined that NONE of our wings are using the Triangle Thingy as their logo in their websites.  THANK YOU.   :clap:

Support our cause.  Help end CAP's identity crisis.  Add the "Kill The Triangle Thingy" banner to your CAPTalk signature.  Together, we can preserve our identity, our heritage of our existing (official) logos, and our future marketing plans.

[Capt Rivera]

It would end there if the emblems on that site were of better quality. And better quality versions exist!

Can you post a link to them? Thanks

[High Speed Low Drag]

I agree with everyone here.  Definitely need standardization.  My squadron has used the AF Wings / CAP Seal cradle as part of the T-shirt. 

FRONT                                                                  BACK
 
( Size of this shirt is 2XL )                                                             Emblem is 12" tall

The cadet LOVE it - they can wear it under the BDU as well as the large white-on-black rear gives high-vis. (Sq has sold over 100 of these shirts to members)  Last year at encampment (it had just come out), they wore them every day as a measure of unit pride.  We also had positive feedback from several AF NCOs & Officers who saw them.

It is part of the required PT uniform (with dark blue or black shorts).  The SQ also sells sweatshirts identical to this they wear in the winter.  I think it is a good use of that particular emblem.

[JC004]

but!  but!  they have a logo on the back!   

[High Speed Low Drag]

but!  but!  they have a logo on the back!   

What's wrong with that??  The emblem on the front does not exceed 5" in diameter - and the back does not show through the BDU.  Wing Commander approved.

[A.Member]

See, I'd argue that the image above ultimately contributes to the problem.

While the image probably adheres technically to 900-2, Section B (which incidentally does not reconcile 100% with the Air Force Trademark and Licensing Program), the regulation allows for too much discretion in it's use -- this, of course, is compounded by a lack of oversight on such matters.   

I'd argue that this should be the only allowed format and it should use the shield: 

[a2capt]

probably, technically?

That design is in fact used as an actual example of a permitted use, and to me, is a nice combination.

At least it's not a bunch of new stuff, never officially adopted.

[JC004]

Since the insignia is supposed to be on file with the AF folks...I wonder if either, both, neither are...   

[High Speed Low Drag]

Since the insignia is supposed to be on file with the AF folks...I wonder if either, both, neither are...   

http://www.arwingcap.org/Docs/Policyltr2009-17.pdf

Here is another example of the same logo in use - as the official Wing letterhead. CAPR 900-2, Section, B, Para 6, Sub-para e: Commanders may use the symbol effective immediately on “perishable” products and those involving limited expense, such as printed material, clothing,
coins, etc. The symbol should not be applied at this time to other “nonperishable” uses such as aircraft and vehicles. Commanders retain discretion to decide how the symbol is used in their organizations, consistent with these guidelines.

As I stated eariler - "Last year at encampment (it had just come out), they wore them every day as a measure of unit pride.  We also had positive feedback from several AF NCOs & Officers who saw them."  The base commander even saw it and liked it.

[A.Member]

Here is another example of the same logo in use - as the official Wing letterhead...

...The base commander even saw it and liked it.

The fact that it's being used or that someone "likes" it does not mean that it's been approved.

It's not uncommon to find internal misuse of the Air Force Symbol. If you are unsure if you or your organization's use of the Air Force Symbol meets the established guidelines, please don't hesitate to contact the Air Force Trademark & Licensing Office.

probably, technically?

That design is in fact used as an actual example of a permitted use, and to me, is a nice combination.

I wouldn't necessarily make that conclusion.  It's not listed on the Air Force Historical Research Agency site as required by U.S. Air Force regulation - which owns the trademark rights - nor is it listed in any of the art work on the U.S. Air Force site.  At best, I'd say it's use needs to be clarified.

[High Speed Low Drag]

Here is another example of the same logo in use - as the official Wing letterhead...

...The base commander even saw it and liked it.

The fact that it's being used or that someone "likes" it does not mean that it's been approved.

It's not uncommon to find internal misuse of the Air Force Symbol. If you are unsure if you or your organization's use of the Air Force Symbol meets the established guidelines, please don't hesitate to contact the Air Force Trademark & Licensing Office.

probably, technically?

That design is in fact used as an actual example of a permitted use, and to me, is a nice combination.

I wouldn't necessarily make that conclusion.  It's not listed on the Air Force Historical Research Agency site as required by U.S. Air Force regulation - which owns the trademark rights - nor is it listed in any of the art work on the U.S. Air Force site.  At best, I'd say it's use needs to be clarified.

This symbol is in CAPR 900-2 (as quoted above), so it is approved.  All CAP regulations are reviewed by CAP-USAF, so it HAS been approved by USAF.

[JC004]

Since the insignia is supposed to be on file with the AF folks...I wonder if either, both, neither are...   

http://www.arwingcap.org/Docs/Policyltr2009-17.pdf

Here is another example of the same logo in use - as the official Wing letterhead. CAPR 900-2, Section, B, Para 6, Sub-para e: Commanders may use the symbol effective immediately on "perishable" products and those involving limited expense, such as printed material, clothing,
coins, etc. The symbol should not be applied at this time to other "nonperishable" uses such as aircraft and vehicles. Commanders retain discretion to decide how the symbol is used in their organizations, consistent with these guidelines.
...

I was just wondering if we actually met the requirement...I don't know that we'll find that out.  I'm not sure that it's the biggest priority with it either.

I think it looks nice.  I designed a similar shirt once (non-uniform).  I was just wondering if NHQ did what they were supposed to.

On a side note, the wing letterhead violates 900-2 and the Air Force policy in terms of spacing/proportion.  *shrug*

[A.Member]

This symbol is in CAPR 900-2 (as quoted above), so it is approved.  All CAP regulations are reviewed by CAP-USAF, so it HAS been approved by USAF.

Again, that is an assumption, not fact.  Our regulations do not trump that of the Air Force or it's trademark rights. 

There are clearly discrepancies between statements in 900-2 and those by the Air Force Trademark & Licensing Office.

As JC004, indicates the other problems as well.   Just because something is used does not mean it's being used correctly or that it was ever reviewed and approved by the correct authority.

This specific issue was just an example to further illustrate the need.   I doubt we'll see resolution and it's not worth belaboring the point.

[JC004]

...
As JC004, indicates the other problems as well.   Just because something is used does not mean it's being used correctly or that it was ever reviewed and approved by the correct authority.
...

That's really the point of this thread.  It's not necessarily a unit's fault for using various logos and all because there is no official style guide and 900-2 is seriously lacking.  Now, the spacing/proportion issue IS addressed in 900-2 but this very same logo that is used on the Arkansas Wing letterhead has been personally sighted by me on various NHQ-produced items. 

Now NHQ is using the Triangle Thingy too (without any guidance to the field, but they have put it on the graphics page for us to use and MOCK).  Luckily, basically nobody else is using it (no wing web sites, as I've mentioned) and there is a pretty universal hatred of the Triangle Thingy by most anyone I mention it to, whether it's on the threads here, on PMs, by e-mail, in person...

We lack clear guidance on the issue as a whole and that's why I created this thread.  It is also very clear that NHQ has been part of the issue, especially by using things like on the wing letterhead here.  Maybe the person who made it took it RIGHT OUT OF one of the NHQ PowerPoints or something, figuring, "if NHQ uses it, it must be fine."

Here's another great example of the problem.  The CAPabilities guide thingy.  On the front, a Photoshopped version of the command patch, non-standardized.  On the back, the CAP emblem WITHOUT the Air Force Auxiliary wording.  There's something that is set in 900-2 and NHQ produces something different:
http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/Capabilities_Handbook_Low_.pdf

Here's a corporate seal used by NHQ which is also wrong:
https://ntc.cap.af.mil/ops/hls/resources.cfm

EDIT:  Here's one right here!  NHQ using the unauthorized variation of the symbol that we're talking about:
http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/cap_university/
Now what is Arkansas Wing supposed to think?

[RiverAux]

CAP-USAF has a chance to comment on all CAP regulations and I'm sure that if a CAP regulation was in serious violation of some applicable AF regulation, they would do something about it (just like they did with the TPU).

[JC004]

In this case, the reg is not in the wrong.  The PRACTICE that has been going on for many years is wrong.

so...LMAO...check this out...

Here were we have three CAP logos used randomly all in a line on the National web site.   BAHAHAHA

[smg id=178]

[High Speed Low Drag]

And here is the email that was sent out yesterday

[BuckeyeDEJ]

It would end there if the emblems on that site were of better quality. And better quality versions exist!

Can you post a link to them? Thanks

Lemme know if you have a problem accessing... and know this is VERY incomplete, but it's a start:
http://www.flwg.us/page63315224.aspx

So far, there are three seal variants and the FLWG emblem -- the seals are B/W, color and color with serif type (like Vanguard's using now).

[JC004]

You need a password to access the graphics?

[BuckeyeDEJ]

AHA! Apparently so. Some things are behind a password, while others aren't. I was thinking maybe the budding graphics page would be unprotected. I'll check into it.

[JC004]

Well if these graphics meet standards, we wouldn't want them floating out there, would we?  It would totally mess up the fun of looking for new and different graphics in use across everything - brochures, web sites, posters, cheesy graphics...

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Well if these graphics meet standards, we wouldn't want them floating out there, would we?  It would totally mess up the fun of looking for new and different graphics in use across everything - brochures, web sites, posters, cheesy graphics...

To quote Kim Jong-Il from "Team America: World Police," "you're breaking my...." You know the rest.

Besides, you guys like that triangle, don't you?

[JC004]

Well it is kind of fun, in a certain way, guessing what kinda logo is gonna be used next.   

[DakRadz]

http://www.vanguardmil.com/index.php?main_page=popup_image&pID=14506

Look at that. The very National Board, my friends..

I'm on the bandwagon, with all of you here!

Kill the daggum Triangle-Thingy- I'll do the time for it, if someone else can commit the act 

[JC004]

This one, of course, does not match the other.   :clap:

[DakRadz]

This one, of course, does not match the other.   :clap:

Wow. Already they've created a variation... When will it end?

You want to see branding? Check my signature. Most senior members should be able to pick out what I'm referring to 

[Smithsonia]

May I infect this conversation with some Ol' Pro ideas.

1. Write everyday. Not just twitter or facebook reactions but true writing. Put down on paper your thoughts, craft your emails, garner your opinions, substantiate your ideas, make powerful your expression, own your interior monologue, practice your writing, teach and converse
about your skills, husband your work over time for comparison, study in depth the writings of those you admire, perfect your own writers voice, and incorporate this knowledge into the best writing that you can accomplish.

2. Never underestimate the power of proper expression. Never write in a sloppy manner. Always strive to do better - to become the possessor of an editorially honed mind. It is the most powerful mind there is...

3. Write and read longer works. Suspend your opinions to a proper conclusion. Write actively and invite the reader down your path of story. Capture the minds of others with your narrative. AND, always know what you are doing.

[DakRadz]

May I infect this conversation with some Ol' Pro ideas.

1. Write everyday. Not just twitter or facebook reactions but true writing. Put down on paper your thoughts, craft your emails, garner your opinions, substantiate your ideas, make powerful your expression, own your interior monologue, practice your writing, teach and converse
about your skills, husband your work over time for comparison, study in depth the writings of those you admire, perfect your own writers voice, and incorporate this knowledge into the best writing that you can accomplish.

2. Never underestimate the power of proper expression. Never write in a sloppy manner. Always strive to do better and to ecome the possessor of an editorially honed mind. It is the most powerful mind there is...

3. Write and read longer works. Suspend your opinions to a proper conclusions. Write actively and invite the reader down your path of story. Capture the minds of others with your narrative. AND, always know what you are doing.

While this is good advice sir, I'm not sure how it affects branding. No offense intended, just seems... really off topic.

[DakRadz]

This one, of course, does not match the other.   :clap:

Wow. Already they've created a variation... When will it end?

You want to see branding? Check my signature. Most senior members should be able to pick out what I'm referring to 

Okay, so I had a phone number there- it was NOT mine. It was the number from the song "Jenny" with an attached Atlanta area code, which was not even my own...  :clap: Thanks for looking out for me though, Mods. Honestly appreciated, with no sarcasm.

I'm sure this has been discussed, but the earliest I can find of the Triangle thingy is March 2009- before, it was the seal, which is recognizable, accepted, traditional, and steady. And apparently the Thingy has disappeared from a recent issue only to reappear and/or be anticipated to reappear. How's that for inconsistency and brand confusion?

[Smithsonia]

^^^^^^
DakRadz;
Fair question... the topic is style guide. The subject includes branding. The solution is better minds put to the task of better expression (which includes branding). It eliminates confusion. It eliminates things that appear (and often are) written by committees. "Committee-fication" of expression is a major problem with what is now expressed inside CAP. Not that Committees can NOT participate. It just shouldn't look like they did. Corporate speak is not clear speak. Committee-fication occurs when everyone has an idea, wants to effect the work, but is a matter of ego stroking and not clear and potent expression.

More and better writers leads to less dithering and blathering by committee.

[JC004]

This one, of course, does not match the other.   :clap:

Wow. Already they've created a variation... When will it end?

You want to see branding? Check my signature. Most senior members should be able to pick out what I'm referring to 

...
I'm sure this has been discussed, but the earliest I can find of the Triangle thingy is March 2009- before, it was the seal, which is recognizable, accepted, traditional, and steady. And apparently the Thingy has disappeared from a recent issue only to reappear and/or be anticipated to reappear. How's that for inconsistency and brand confusion?

I think they might have done that because the name of the magazine is NOT "VALUNTEER" as others have pointed out here MANY times.