CAP's Brand Image

[Alaric]

I understand the need for branding in an organization, but before you can brand, you need to know what you are branding.  I would think we'd work on better defining our mission, and then worry about how social media plays into it

What don't you understand about our mission?

As SAR declines, and DR photographic missions are lessening (except for major disasters) what will be our role in ES in 5 years?, 10?  As society changes, how do we make CP more relevant and improve on the 35% 1st year retention rate for cadets?  How do we determine if our money is being spent wisely in enhancing those missions.  How do we bring relevance to AE, especially for the school age, where STEM education is now being funded by the actual education system (to greater or lesser extent depending on where they are)

[lordmonar]

I understand the need for branding in an organization, but before you can brand, you need to know what you are branding.  I would think we'd work on better defining our mission, and then worry about how social media plays into it

What don't you understand about our mission?

As SAR declines, and DR photographic missions are lessening (except for major disasters) what will be our role in ES in 5 years?, 10?  As society changes, how do we make CP more relevant and improve on the 35% 1st year retention rate for cadets?  How do we determine if our money is being spent wisely in enhancing those missions.  How do we bring relevance to AE, especially for the school age, where STEM education is now being funded by the actual education system (to greater or lesser extent depending on where they are)

We want those things to decline.    But we will always be there to do the job.   
Improving how we do our mission is not better defining our mission.   

We don't need to better define our mission.....just look for ways of doing them better.

[Alaric]

I understand the need for branding in an organization, but before you can brand, you need to know what you are branding.  I would think we'd work on better defining our mission, and then worry about how social media plays into it

What don't you understand about our mission?

As SAR declines, and DR photographic missions are lessening (except for major disasters) what will be our role in ES in 5 years?, 10?  As society changes, how do we make CP more relevant and improve on the 35% 1st year retention rate for cadets?  How do we determine if our money is being spent wisely in enhancing those missions.  How do we bring relevance to AE, especially for the school age, where STEM education is now being funded by the actual education system (to greater or lesser extent depending on where they are)

We want those things to decline.    But we will always be there to do the job.   
Improving how we do our mission is not better defining our mission.   

We don't need to better define our mission.....just look for ways of doing them better.

We want to continue having retention issues?  We want to continue duplicating STEM efforts handled by the schools (you know professional educators)?  We want the ES mission to decline (please explain why we still need to train and have biannual evaluations, not to mention all the money the AF is spending on planes, vans and comms equipment)?  We want to continue spending money unwisely?  Please elucidate.

[lordmonar]

Retention problems are not a mission issue.
Duplication of effort is not a mission issue.
We want ES missions to decline...because that means we are not losing people in the woods, planes falling out of the sky, etc.   We want to be ready to respond....but your "as SAR Declines" lament.....is not because they are not calling us....just that there are not as many missing aircraft and those that do go down are being found quicker.     
We do need to make sure that we are wisely spending our money....but that is Techniques, Training and Practices (TTP)....not a mission issue.

We still do ES.
We still do CP.
We still do AE.

Those are missions.

Using STEM or not using STEM is a TPP within the CP and AE missions.
Training and evaluation frequency and equipment levels are readiness and availability issues within ES Mission.

I'm calling you out on using your terms correctly.  We do need to continuously improve our TTPs and readiness in all our mission areas.   We always need to be good stewads of taxpayer's money.

But I don't see any need to better define our missions so we can start issuing instructions on how to brand CAP better.

[Alaric]

Retention problems are not a mission issue.
Duplication of effort is not a mission issue.
We want ES missions to decline...because that means we are not losing people in the woods, planes falling out of the sky, etc.   We want to be ready to respond....but your "as SAR Declines" lament.....is not because they are not calling us....just that there are not as many missing aircraft and those that do go down are being found quicker.     
We do need to make sure that we are wisely spending our money....but that is Techniques, Training and Practices (TTP)....not a mission issue.

We still do ES.
We still do CP.
We still do AE.

Those are missions.

Using STEM or not using STEM is a TPP within the CP and AE missions.
Training and evaluation frequency and equipment levels are readiness and availability issues within ES Mission.

I'm calling you out on using your terms correctly.  We do need to continuously improve our TTPs and readiness in all our mission areas.   We always need to be good stewads of taxpayer's money.

But I don't see any need to better define our missions so we can start issuing instructions on how to brand CAP better.

Retention problems are not a mission issue?  Who do you think will perform the missions if we can't keep people.  We lose more than 2/3s of cadets in their first year, year over year our cadet retention is a little over 50% how is that not a mission issue?  Our senior retention rates are better at approximately 75% but that still means we are losing 1/4 of our senior members every year

I do not equate ES = SAR, what I am saying is that as SAR declines we need to redefine how we will use those assets that we have been given by the AF to fulfill our mandated ES mission, whether that's more CD, Damage Assessment, sheltering or something else.

Duplication of effort is certainly a mission issue, because a) it means we are being poor stewards of the taxpayer's money and b) it means that people will not bother with us for AE if they can get it somewhere else for free.

40 years ago, we did ES, we did CP, and we AE.  If you were to transport a member from that time to now, without experiencing the intervening years they would not recognize the organization.  My point is we need to know how we are going to remain a relevant and thriving organization before we worry about how to brand ourselves.  I believe they call that "truth in advertising"

[lordmonar]

Retention problems are not a mission issue?  Who do you think will perform the missions if we can't keep people.

No....retention is a retention issue.   We are not losing people because they don't know what the mission is.   We are losing people because of poor leadership, lack of training, too much bureaucracy, etc.

We lose more than 2/3s of cadets in their first year, year over year our cadet retention is a little over 50% how is that not a mission issue?  Our senior retention rates are better at approximately 75% but that still means we are losing 1/4 of our senior members every year

Not a problem that can be fixed by clearly defining/redefining our mission. 

I do not equate ES = SAR, what I am saying is that as SAR declines we need to redefine how we will use those assets that we have been given by the AF to fulfill our mandated ES mission, whether that's more CD, Damage Assessment, sheltering or something else.

That's a TTP issue not a mission issue.  You are using the terms wrong.

Duplication of effort is certainly a mission issue, because a) it means we are being poor stewards of the taxpayer's money and b) it means that people will not bother with us for AE if they can get it somewhere else for free.

Again you are using the terms wrong.  The AE mission is to teach Aerospace and aerospace related subjects to our members and the general public to encourage them get involved in Aerospace industry or to support Aerospace initiatives. 
CP's mission it so to build good citizens for our nation, state and community.
Teaching STEM or not teaching STEP, or duplicating the efforts of some other organization are all TTPs on how do to these missions not the missions themselves.   While yes if we are in competition with other organizations we need to be as good as we can be...to attract more people to our program.   But if you are saying "if someone else already does it, we need to do something else"....then CAP would not exist at all.   
CAP grew out of a lot of local programs.

ROTC, BSA, GSA, BC/GC, YMCA....all have well established youth programs.  I guess we don't need one.
GSAR......lots and lots of agencies do that just like most of all the other ES capabilities.

But again...we are not talking about redefining our missions but redefining how we do those missions....and that is TTPs not missions.

40 years ago, we did ES, we did CP, and we AE.  If you were to transport a member from that time to now, without experiencing the intervening years they would not recognize the organization.  My point is we need to know how we are going to remain a relevant and thriving organization before we worry about how to brand ourselves.  I believe they call that "truth in advertising"

Yes....exactly....the missions have not changed.   The ways we do those missions have.   And we do need to improve how we do those mission.  But we don't need to redefine or better define our mission before we start branding CAP.

[Alaric]

Retention problems are not a mission issue?  Who do you think will perform the missions if we can't keep people.

No....retention is a retention issue.   We are not losing people because they don't know what the mission is.   We are losing people because of poor leadership, lack of training, too much bureaucracy, etc.

We lose more than 2/3s of cadets in their first year, year over year our cadet retention is a little over 50% how is that not a mission issue?  Our senior retention rates are better at approximately 75% but that still means we are losing 1/4 of our senior members every year

Not a problem that can be fixed by clearly defining/redefining our mission. 

I do not equate ES = SAR, what I am saying is that as SAR declines we need to redefine how we will use those assets that we have been given by the AF to fulfill our mandated ES mission, whether that's more CD, Damage Assessment, sheltering or something else.

That's a TTP issue not a mission issue.  You are using the terms wrong.

Duplication of effort is certainly a mission issue, because a) it means we are being poor stewards of the taxpayer's money and b) it means that people will not bother with us for AE if they can get it somewhere else for free.

Again you are using the terms wrong.  The AE mission is to teach Aerospace and aerospace related subjects to our members and the general public to encourage them get involved in Aerospace industry or to support Aerospace initiatives. 
CP's mission it so to build good citizens for our nation, state and community.
Teaching STEM or not teaching STEP, or duplicating the efforts of some other organization are all TTPs on how do to these missions not the missions themselves.   While yes if we are in competition with other organizations we need to be as good as we can be...to attract more people to our program.   But if you are saying "if someone else already does it, we need to do something else"....then CAP would not exist at all.   
CAP grew out of a lot of local programs.

ROTC, BSA, GSA, BC/GC, YMCA....all have well established youth programs.  I guess we don't need one.
GSAR......lots and lots of agencies do that just like most of all the other ES capabilities.

But again...we are not talking about redefining our missions but redefining how we do those missions....and that is TTPs not missions.

40 years ago, we did ES, we did CP, and we AE.  If you were to transport a member from that time to now, without experiencing the intervening years they would not recognize the organization.  My point is we need to know how we are going to remain a relevant and thriving organization before we worry about how to brand ourselves.  I believe they call that "truth in advertising"

Yes....exactly....the missions have not changed.   The ways we do those missions have.   And we do need to improve how we do those mission.  But we don't need to redefine or better define our mission before we start branding CAP.

We'll agree to disagree, I believe we should be utilizing our resources in improving our performance and your concerned with advertising.  The usual sizzle versus steak argument, but just for my own edification what is TTP?

[lordmonar]

Tactics, Techniques and Procedures.

And you can agree to disagree all you want. 

As you yourself pointed out....the mission has not change in over 40 years.   Only the TTPs have changed.

And I agree we always need to be improving our TTPs.

[Alaric]

Tactics, Techniques and Procedures.

And you can agree to disagree all you want. 

As you yourself pointed out....the mission has not change in over 40 years.   Only the TTPs have changed.

And I agree we always need to be improving our TTPs.

When you advertise "brand" then you generally not only talk about the mission, but how you do them.  Saying we do ES, with no further definition is not really going to bring people to our door.  To me this worry about branding is just another way for us to divert from making the hard decisions on what we should be doing and how we should be doing it operationally. 

[lordmonar]

Tactics, Techniques and Procedures.

And you can agree to disagree all you want. 

As you yourself pointed out....the mission has not change in over 40 years.   Only the TTPs have changed.

And I agree we always need to be improving our TTPs.

When you advertise "brand" then you generally not only talk about the mission, but how you do them.  Saying we do ES, with no further definition is not really going to bring people to our door.  To me this worry about branding is just another way for us to divert from making the hard decisions on what we should be doing and how we should be doing it operationally.

I agree.  But your original comment was about redefining the mission before we started a branding campaign.   We don't need to redefine the mission.   We need to understand where we are with that mission and where we are going with that mission.   

Again...the mission is clearly defined.  The TTPs may not be be clearly defined and by their very nature are constantly changing.  Don't get the two confused.

Sure "we do ES" is a poor branding campaign.   Kind of like the Army saying "We shoot guns".  But "We do ES" is not our only definition of that one mission.   What about our current mission definition don't you understand?  We still do aerial and ground SAR.  We still do Disaster Relief Support.  We still do counter drug support.  We still do Homeland Security support.  We still do USAF training support.   None of that has changed, nor is it very likely to change in the future.

Who we do it has changed and will continue to change.
That we are not out every other day chasing down ELTs in hangers is a good thing. 
That GA aircraft are much safety then 20 years ago is a good thing.
That we don't have to do real life DR missions is a good thing.

But none of those changes requires a redefinition of the ES mission.

Same is true for the other missions.  TTPs have changed...but the mission is still the same.

[Alaric]

Tactics, Techniques and Procedures.

And you can agree to disagree all you want. 

As you yourself pointed out....the mission has not change in over 40 years.   Only the TTPs have changed.

And I agree we always need to be improving our TTPs.

When you advertise "brand" then you generally not only talk about the mission, but how you do them.  Saying we do ES, with no further definition is not really going to bring people to our door.  To me this worry about branding is just another way for us to divert from making the hard decisions on what we should be doing and how we should be doing it operationally.

I agree.  But your original comment was about redefining the mission before we started a branding campaign.   We don't need to redefine the mission.   We need to understand where we are with that mission and where we are going with that mission.   

Again...the mission is clearly defined.  The TTPs may not be be clearly defined and by their very nature are constantly changing.  Don't get the two confused.

Sure "we do ES" is a poor branding campaign.   Kind of like the Army saying "We shoot guns".  But "We do ES" is not our only definition of that one mission.   What about our current mission definition don't you understand?  We still do aerial and ground SAR.  We still do Disaster Relief Support.  We still do counter drug support.  We still do Homeland Security support.  We still do USAF training support.   None of that has changed, nor is it very likely to change in the future.

Who we do it has changed and will continue to change.
That we are not out every other day chasing down ELTs in hangers is a good thing. 
That GA aircraft are much safety then 20 years ago is a good thing.
That we don't have to do real life DR missions is a good thing.

But none of those changes requires a redefinition of the ES mission.

Same is true for the other missions.  TTPs have changed...but the mission is still the same.

I believe you are making a distinction without a difference whether we need to redefine the mission or the method that needs to be done before advertising. Steak not sizzle