Uniform as branding element

[Smithsonia]

The British Army is changing their camo pattern. The reasons are enclosed in the story. Play the video and you'll hear a rather straight forward pitch for uniforms as a "Branding Element."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8422942.stm

With our multiplicity of uniforms, for whatever reasons, we are missing an important and potent branding element. My suggestion has always been 1-Combined Flight and Field Uniform (this would be the same uni, BBDUs for instance) 1- Dress Uniform (CSU and Service Dress combined into one single uniform) 1-Dress casual (allowing for tie, sweaters, outdoor coats, etc) And use our uniforms as a branding element and all be dressed in the same basic color pallet and distinctive pattern. What that uniform looks like is not the purpose of this thread. Using the uniform as a branding element and in all missions and services required is the purpose of this thread. Discuss...

[Ned]

The cadet program has always enjoyed success with uniforms as a branding element.

Of course, cadets in a typical unit wear USAF-style uniforms well over 99% of the time, and have done so pretty much continuously since WWII.

Seems to work fine.

Your suggestion, however, would seem to call for a major shift in a successful branding element.  I'm not sure what changing the uniforms (again) would improve.

Could you quantify how much more successful we might be if we changed some or all of our uniforms?

[Hawk200]

What that uniform looks like is not the purpose of this thread. Using the uniform as a branding element and in all missions and services required is the purpose of this thread. Discuss...

Not our branding to go changing in the first place. Lot of people are forgetting that you cannot modify, incorporate, even eliminate an Air Force uniform without Air Force approval.

We are not the British Army, and we are not autonomous. Your suggestions indicate an unfamiliarity with what Civil Air Patrol is.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

If our uniforms are our branding, then we're in big trouble, as much diddling as we do with it....

That said, it's the Air Force uniforms that define us. It's the uniform that requires the least explanation as to what CAP is if someone asks (and therefore should be the de rigeur uniform for all PAs). If it ain't broke, why fix it? Take your CSU and Guyabera shirts to Goodwill, already....

[cap235629]

Looks like Multicam to me. So much for branding, the U.S. Army is changing to Multicam!

[Eeyore]

I think we should work on solidifying simple organizational branding, such as logos, before we even think about something like this.

[flyguy06]

Looks like Multicam to me. So much for branding, the U.S. Army is changing to Multicam!

The Army isnt changing to anything. we have had ACU's for five years now. There are soldiers that know nothing except the ACU. Its already been here for years

[cap235629]

Looks like Multicam to me. So much for branding, the U.S. Army is changing to Multicam!

The Army isnt changing to anything. we have had ACU's for five years now. There are soldiers that know nothing except the ACU. Its already been here for years

Might want to research that a little, I have it on good authority that this is happening, ACU is very poor performer in Afghanistan which prompted a review and change of direction. Though it may not be a true "Multicam" it takes the multicam color palette and the acu digital pixelation and comes up with a better mousetrap

[Pylon]

We have somewhere between six to eight organizational logos in current use, at least three different names we call ourselves currently out there on everything from vehicles, letterhead and promotional items to nametags and patches, no such thing as a corporate brand or style guide, no cohesive professional integrated mktng communications plan, nothing even close to uniformity on our uniforms (we have in some instances as many as three different parallel uniform sets fulfilling the same role; and then there's the dozen or so uniform changes or additions we experience each year), not even a consistent paint and labeling job across our vehicle and plane fleet still, at least nine different web URLs at the National level, and a change of our "main" website address at least three times in the past five years, regulations that haven't had NB changes incorporated or ICLs published covering the changes in more than five years in some instances, and a bi-monthly magazine that hasn't been published since the May-July issue.   I don't think I need to go on to prove my point, but CAP's National Leadership is far from organized and long-range thinking enough to incorporate something like a cohesive organizational identity that incorporates a uniform organizational uniform.  We don't have any of the elements inherent in something like that.  And while using the uniform as an extension of ones advertising and marketing efforts has been met with great success by the U.S. Army (see what a real style guide is here: http://www.usaac.army.mil/sod/download/brand/U.S.ArmyMiniBrandGuide_print.pdf), we're just not that well organized, not that well led, and not that mature of an organization to have something that sophisticated and effective.  Sorry.

[Smithsonia]

Thanks Pylon. That is the precisely topic I was hoping to provoke, not a discussion of which Multi-pat people like.

For the rest of you here is a discussion about "elements of branding" -
http://www.inpex.com/Newsletter/2007-04-01-exhibitor-branding.aspx

I think there are still something like 50 acceptable uniform combinations available to us. That's crazy. Or at least it is rather inconsistent. The reasons for this are internal and therefore worthless as branding is external. Branding is for purpose. Branding is bigger than any one General, President, or otherwise.

[Rotorhead]

We have somewhere between six to eight organizational logos in current use, at least three different names we call ourselves currently out there on everything from vehicles, letterhead and promotional items to nametags and patches, no such thing as a corporate brand or style guide, no cohesive professional integrated mktng communications plan, nothing even close to uniformity on our uniforms (we have in some instances as many as three different parallel uniform sets fulfilling the same role; and then there's the dozen or so uniform changes or additions we experience each year), not even a consistent paint and labeling job across our vehicle and plane fleet still, at least nine different web URLs at the National level, and a change of our "main" website address at least three times in the past five years, regulations that haven't had NB changes incorporated or ICLs published covering the changes in more than five years in some instances, and a bi-monthly magazine that hasn't been published since the May-July issue.   I don't think I need to go on to prove my point, but CAP's National Leadership is far from organized and long-range thinking enough to incorporate something like a cohesive organizational identity that incorporates a uniform organizational uniform.  We don't have any of the elements inherent in something like that.  And while using the uniform as an extension of ones advertising and marketing efforts has been met with great success by the U.S. Army (see what a real style guide is here: http://www.usaac.army.mil/sod/download/brand/U.S.ArmyMiniBrandGuide_print.pdf), we're just not that well organized, not that well led, and not that mature of an organization to have something that sophisticated and effective.  Sorry.

Great summary.

Until we address these issues, we're our own worst enemy when it comes to PA.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

In summary of Pylon's statement: We can't reach out to others until we get our act together. Makes sense to me.

By the way: Volunteer isn't spelled Valunteer, but with that horrible new "logo" on the magazine, it sure looks that way.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

We are our own worst enemy in a lot of ways, not just in uniforms.

We shot ourselves in the foot with the last National CC, but hopefully we took the bullet out by giving him the boot.

There are a lot of people in CAP, including probably the majority of my own squadron (both seniors and cadets), who just want to get on with doing what we do.

I am proud of my uniform, but it hasn't done any of the myriad paperwork I have to do.

[Smithsonia]

CAP is headed different places to do different things. We are talking to Sheriffs, Homeland Security, FEMA, Salvation Army, National Guard, CERT, etc. These people may not know us. First impressions count. Branding is important as we become more retail in our operations... remember the customer?

So I think instead of picking apart uniforms as to personal taste, we should consider them branding elements. The military does. We need to think this through from the beginning and quit repeating the same old refrains of what WE like. We need to see ourselves from the outside in.

In this I do not mean to give up anything. Or let some one else decide for us. I mean that CAP should have control of its own future but will need to be more external (read global/citizen/customer point of view) in our considerations. These considerations are then practical, because the presentation is complete, uniform, trusted, valued, understood, and most of all reproducible over time, distance, and mission. Everyone who does good, builds credibility to everyone in the uniform. Every good work builds reliance. Every uniform speaks of a mission accomplished. Give it a decade or two and our uniform could have a power of its own.

I once worked as an actor on a movie (Astroid its on DVD). I played a member of the Joint Chiefs. I wore the Navy's CNO uniform. I was Adm. Jones, if I remember right. I was working at the Broadmoor Hotel. People were there to play golf and lounge at the pool.

I walked through the lobby in this uniform as i went to the set. I was saluted. The way was cleared reflexively. It was, for a moment, like being a prince or a god. That is the power that a uniform can have. Oh by the way... I had kleenex sticking out of my neck so as not to dirty the shirt with make-up... and still the uniform made ex-military, wives, and just plain folks... react. The Navy has invested a lot into those dress blues with rings of gold braid. I'm just saying that kind of investment pays dividends.

I'll give up my CSU but the Corporate Blazer isn't the replacement, not when viewed externally. It is a completely different thing as a first impression. It is a completely different type of corporate branding.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Ed, the Air Force uniforms define us best. Otherwise, to the public, we're another Red Cross or Salvation Army, but we happen to fly. What sets us apart is our military heritage and connection. Otherwise, we have a bunch of cadets begging for money via fund raising, but they don't ring bells at Christmastime.

Our branding isn't just the uniform, though. We need a consistent identity, not one that changes slogans as often as many people trade in cars (what ever happened to "new every two," anyway?). The last potentially effective slogan we had was "Eyes Of The Home Skies." And we didn't capitalize on that... heck, we didn't even let it sink in. Instead, we flipped to slogans that have been more than a mouthful and are less than memorable, let alone inspiring.

And then we have individual wings and regions adopting marketing slogans that don't underpin the national strategy, whatever that is this year. What a mess.

We need to scale back on logos. We have a seal and an emblem, and then we added a MAJCOM emblem. That should be quite enough to do what we need. This triangular botch job on the front of the Valunteer (hey, a triangle replacing a letter must mean there's an A, right?) is a travesty.

We need to figure out what our Internet marketing presence is. Changing the URL every other year is confusing and renders existing collateral obsolete. Our Internet presence is important because it frames what we are and who we are to potential members and decisionmakers alike. Is the existing portal what we want others to see? Heck, it loads slowly and doesn't even identify CAP as the Air Force's civilian auxiliary. You have to dig for that. And the site really doesn't do an explanation of our three main missions much justice.

Even the URL — gocivilairpatrol.com — may be weak. Why do we shy from our military heritage? What's so wrong with directing people to cap.af.mil, then bouncing them to the recruiting home page? If we want to keep the "go" domain, fine, but let's have an official portal, too, not unlike the Air Force's airforce.com for recruting and af.mil for official news and information. They can link together, but one's for recruting and one's for inside baseball (including e-services, pubs and forms, etc.).

We need to think about what we are, what defines us, what puts us in the best light, and stick to it.

[Smithsonia]

Buckeye;
I don't disagree with you one bit. However, the Air Force is trying to figure their brand out at the same moment too. Selling hot fighter jocks in mortal combat over enemy territory is easy - UAV driving from a shack in Hawaii is less so. So, to be or not to be Air Force is not the question, really. I am for being Air Force. That said, without a High Value Mission we will be old guys meeting every other Thursday at IHOP for pancakes.

Metaphorically speaking, we are in an interim phase, peacetime if you will. We will eventually need a high value mission to raise public consciousness. That said, investment in the details of branding can't wait for the new mission. It should be addressed now... or the new high value public conscious raising mission should be launched immediately!!! Well, since we are in a lull, now is a good time to examine the brand.

As an example from history - Between WW1 and 2 the hot look was the Army's Cavalry Uniform. High boots, jodhpurs, Sam Brown Belts, Bloused tunic, Service Cap with working chinstrap. In 1940/41 they went to the stripped down, khakis for summer and Pinks and Greens for Winter. The Cavalry look was out. A modernization of uniforms from scratch with less a British appearance preceded the build up for war. (in our case the big mission) Of course this in an imperfect analogy to then and now. However, it does seem to me to be worth provoking the discussion.  In this I am not for talking about more uniform choices, just detailing what the uniform is for and how best to utilize it.

[Ned]

So I think instead of picking apart uniforms as to personal taste, we should consider them branding elements. The military does.

Non-concur.

First, the military does not start out with any grand branding designs.  Nor should we.

The military sets out to field a functional uniform that allows service members to do their jobs as comfortably as possible while complying with international law.

IOW, uniforms are a tool to help the wearer do her/his job.

If they also serve as a recruiting/branding tool, so much the better.

But the focus of any uniform discussion has to be the utility value of the uniform as a tool to allow us to perform our missions.

Most CAP members are involved with the cadet program, where the uniform is a training tool that facilitates leadership instruction.  For CAP's entire existence, that function has been best served by adopting a modified version of our parent service, the USAF.

If you think that needs to change, the burden is on you to show why change would be beneficial.  And so far, all I've seen in this thread and others is that "we have a lot of different uniforms for seniors which in my personal opinion is unprofessional, so we need to change."

However often it is repeated, personal opinions without substantiating evidence is not a compelling reason to change our uniforms.

Even if we speculate that such a change might improve our "branding."

[BuckeyeDEJ]

And so far, all I've seen in this thread and others is that "we have a lot of different uniforms for seniors which in my personal opinion is unprofessional, so we need to change."

Sorry, Ned, but that's a shallow reading of this thread. There's more than uniforms in this thread, though certainly the basis of the thread is, well, uniforms.

[Smithsonia]

Ned;
You have changed the context of my quote. Field performance of the BDU is another topic. I never said that Branding is the exclusive reason for picking uniforms. Besides CAP doesn't test for performance specifically, the military does the testing and we rely upon their results. The subject is Branding - Uniform. It is a simple and straight forward premise.

[Ned]

Ned;
You have changed the context of my quote. Field performance of the BDU is another topic. I never said that Branding is the exclusive reason for picking uniforms.

True enough.  My point is that it should not even be in the top 30 reasons.  We could have an outstanding branding program without uniforms.  If the uniforms help, that's a bonus.  But we should never make uniform decisions based on how we think we might look to others.  That way lies madness.  Heck, we have about 1000 posts in the other thread simply because that is what many people believe -- that the NEC just didn't like the way the CSU looked (or even that the NEC thought other people didn't like the way that the CSU looked.)

See how that turned out?