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...
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?
Quote from: Smithsonia on December 21, 2009, 04:11:21 PMWhat 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.
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....
Looks like Multicam to me. So much for branding, the U.S. Army is changing to Multicam!
I think we should work on solidifying simple organizational branding, such as logos, before we even think about something like this.
Quote from: cap235629 on December 21, 2009, 06:58:57 PM
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
Quote from: flyguy06 on December 21, 2009, 08:09:36 PM
Quote from: cap235629 on December 21, 2009, 06:58:57 PM
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
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.
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.
Quote from: Pylon on December 21, 2009, 08:31:00 PM
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Smithsonia on December 23, 2009, 08:04:13 AM
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."
Quote from: Ned on December 23, 2009, 05:18:00 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Smithsonia on December 23, 2009, 07:27:08 PM
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?
Its not so much WHAT the uniform looks like its that the multiplicity of uniforms CAP has that are in everyday use and likely to be seen by other organizations that we're working with hurts us, and certainly doesn't help us any. In that context, its the "field" uniforms that are most important.
Ned;
Then we must agree to disagree - I suppose. Branding elements are important. I've given the references above - All uniforms are subject to these style/culture/branding elements in the Military and CAP. The same is true for the signature branding of cars (does it look like a Mercedes? Does it look like a Cadillac?) the same is true about Marine and Navy Uniforms. The same is true about the Navy going more khaki. A few good uniforms with CAP branding elements are better than a plethora of this and that.
In this I have stated a personal preference. I don't think that my preferences should prevail. Just let's find the answer (s) and end the arguing and use the elements to move CAP forward. Three uniforms with additions to accommodate weather (gloves, hats, sweaters, jackets) should do us fine.
Right now there are nearly 50 acceptable uniform combinations in CAP, maybe more. Take the Grays and Whites. Long sleeve, short sleeve with tie, without tie, covered by Sport Coat, Green Flight Jacket, Blue Flight Jacket, Light blue jacket, Black Wind breaker, Leather Jacket, All weather coat, wearing a ball cap, not wearing the flight cap, with a sweater, with a cardigan, with a battle sweater, with a battle sweater with a tie, with the blue cardigan without a tie, etc etc. And that just does the whites and grays.
Add several flight suits, several jacket combos, polo shirts, then we get to the service dress, mess dress and we get another diverse set of acceptables. then go for the BDU/BBDUs and you actually have more combinations than any service organization of which I am aware. So as a branding element this many uniforms is like a diluting solvent. No on knows who we are. So, no one can tell what we do. Because no one recognizes the person who did it as a CAP member, just a person in a blue shirt.
Of course we can always recognize each other, as we know these combinations, or the wearer by face. BUT, those that we work with cannot be expected to know this amount of variety. Not a member of the public, the Air Force, or the FEMA/Sheriff/Salvation Army customer. If we get rid of all uniforms - I think that is throwing out the baby with the bath water. In this analogy, I think throwing out some of the water makes sense. Because right no the baby is drowning in an olympic sized swimming pool of clothes. Let us get one Dress uniform, one Field/Flight uniform, and one casual uniform. Have each built with layers for comfort in all conditions then lets hang onto these for 30 years.
If I was made God-All-Mighty for a day, I'd solve the Middle East tensions in an hour. I'd then go to work on our uniforms... that would take another 23 hours and 30 minutes and I am no longer God, as my shift is over.
Quote from: Smithsonia on December 23, 2009, 10:29:33 PM
Ned;
Then we must agree to disagree - I suppose. Branding elements are important.
And I don't mean to imply that branding is not important. It is. But it does not need to have anything to do with uniforms, or at least we should not make uniform decisions with branding as a significant factor.
QuoteRight now there are nearly 50 acceptable uniform combinations in CAP, maybe more.
This seems a little overstated, but depending on how you count (you seem to count each different outergarment as a different uniform combination), this may be so.
But as others have pointed out, our military services have as many - if not more - combinations as we do. Simply because they need all of their uniforms to do their job.
Maybe they have branding issues because of that. But they seem to be meeting their recruiting goals nonetheless.
QuoteNo on knows who we are. So, no one can tell what we do. Because no one recognizes the person who did it as a CAP member, just a person in a blue shirt.
Many people keep saying that, but there seems to be little - if any - evidence that our customers and stakeholders really care one way or another. Just a lot of stories about how "some guy" thought we looked bad because of the number of authorized uniform combinations.
Again, such apocryphal tales are hardly compelling evidence to scrap several hundred thousand dollars worth of uniform investments by our members to start over.
QuoteLet us get one Dress uniform, one Field/Flight uniform, and one casual uniform. Have each built with layers for comfort in all conditions then lets hang onto these for 30 years.
Easy enough to say, but I can't think of a single organization in the world that has been able to accomplish this. Given our diversity of members (12-92 years old; 80-350 pounds; varying facial hair; disabilities. etc) and our diversity of missions (office work; ground teams; flying; color guards; CD work; etc.) in environments ranging from the Sierras in winter to the Everglades in summer, our current uniform suite is a reasonable attempt to balance utility and costs to our members.
The reason we have so many uniform combinations is simply because we
need that many combinations to do our job. Reasonable minds can certainly differ about a few of them (whatever the current color of the flight suit, CSU, Guayaberra shirt) but the great majority of the uniform combinations will remain.
But there are certainly windmills still out there, so feel free to keep tilting . . . .
Ned Lee
It is amazing how most of the hot threads (uniforms, vehicle wrapping, logo, etc) all relate to the same thing – who we (CAP) are and what exactly do we do.
Since its' inception, it has always been pretty clear – SAR & DR, assist the military, cadets, and pushing air power in the civilian population. But modern times have changed that. In the era of GPS ELTs, real-time – unclassified – satellites, expanded local (law enforcement, fire) resources, particularly in the wake of 9-11, and two Gulf Wars (especially GW 1) that showed what air power can do, about 85% of what our approach to "missions" is archaic. We haven't changed to reflect the changing environments & 21st century missions.
It is hard to "brand" us when we don't know who we are – hence the turmoil of the last few years. Uniforms in, uniforms out, the "Slogan of the Month," do this – no, wait – don't do that, etc. These are essentially not the problems, they are symptoms of the problem – lack of identity.
Back to this thread – any regular of the board knows there were 898 posts and 17,420 views (at time of this post) on just ONE thread regarding the NEC & CSU. Plus, numerous uniform threads were spawned. That shows the interest and passion of the members.
I think we need to go to one senior member dress uniform, completely departing from the current AF style and the polos. Make a corporate-style dress uniform that everyone can wear; one that is military in appearance but won't be "indistinguishable" from AF. Do it with a long phase-in date so members can "wear-out" the AF style and switch over. If members leave because they can't wear the AF style, then we know where their motivation was. Doing this will also eliminate the "second class" members who are not afforded the same privileges as those that can wear the AF style. I also think we should go to exclusive BBDUs for seniors. They are readily available as the majority of LE that wears BDU-style wear the BBDU. They will not got out of stock anytime soon.
This uniform will help visually brand CAP. The public will not see 5 different CAP members with 5 different non-utility uniforms, they will see only one; one that everyone can wear. By being a military-style, the uniform would help keep our military heritage alive. Seniors would have three options to wear for CAP events: a version of the dress uniform, a utility uniform (BBDUs) or a blue flight suit. For formal events, take a page from our past and put a bow-tie on the service uniform. No mess-dress.
The cadets will stay in AF-style; this is a huge part of the CAP brand for youth.
Actually, if uniforms were not about branding, the services would not be spending a zillion dollars developing their own uniforms – every branch would wear the same thing with different insignia representing their branch. Think about when Gen. MacPeak did away with shoulder rank and went to sleeve rank. So many people complained that that made the AF look like Navy / airline pilots / Coast Guard that one of the first things they did when he left office was to halt the phase-in of his uniforms. That was so totally a branding issue. Think about the Marines – why have they not substantially changed their dress uniform for a couple hundred years? Because there is not a person in the U.S. that doesn't know their uniform. With the Army having changed their dress uniform, they are going to get a lot of "Who are you?" Uniforms are very important to branding, as well as esprit de corps.
That brings up a whole ancillary issue: what about uniforms for branding ourselves? The Marines are masters at that. How many people have joined the Marines to wear that uniform? Once they are in, they discover other factors to keep them, but they are still fiercely proud of that uniform. It is the Marine brand. People feel part of a team, part of purpose higher than oneself. They know when they are dressed, there is no question who they are, they are Marines!
** Disclaimer: I am not, nor related to, any Marines **
Napoleon said "A man will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon." If that colored ribbon is worn on clothing, it is just a bit if colored cloth. But if it is worn on a uniform, that colored ribbon is more than a bit of colored cloth; it becomes a deed, an action, a moment or period of time that he (she) shaped history, small or large. It becomes an achievement of sacrifice. It is the uniform that makes the difference between recognition of someone for what they have done, what they have contributed versus a colored bit of cloth to decorate someone's clothes.
CAP split when the USAF said that "fat & fuzzies" couldn't wear AF style. CAP split again when a former commander added another uniform combo. It's not that the uniform caused the disharmony, but further visualized the splits that were in progress.
CAP needs to redefine itself for the 21st century and then find itself. The mission for our leadership, all of our upper leadership, is to accomplish that. The recent threads have shown that we desire a common uniform, that we desire to be recognized, that we desire to move forward – united. That is part of the reasons for a uniform – for unity. And goodness knows we need to find unity once again.
It is sad that apparently none of the CAP organizational leadership have taken a class (usually involved in MBA and sometimes undergrad Marketing programs) on Branding. If they would just take such a course and then apply the information, so many issues could be resolved.
CAP is indeed at a point where it needs to re-define itself for the 21st century, figuring out where it is going and what it is going to be doing rather than appearing like a disorganized mess in so many ways.
Quote from: Ned on December 23, 2009, 09:41:39 PM
But we should never make uniform decisions based on how we think we might look to others. That way lies madness.
:clap: :) :clap: :) :clap: :)
It is time for us to start defining
ourselves. That is the best "branding element" we can have.
We are what we are: a volunteer organisation with roots pre-dating both the independent Air Force and (just) the U.S. involvement in World War II.
If/Until someone with a very poor sense of judgement finally cuts us loose from the Air Force completely (which would destroy CAP), we are "an auxiliary of the U.S. Air Force," and we should not run from that fact.
If we look like the Air Force, wearing an
authorised uniform properly, behaving like CAP members, being
ourselves and not trying to "act as if" we are in the AF, and we are mistaken for AF personnel,
it is not our fault. You only have so much control over how others perceive you.
If an E-1 fresh out of Lackland doesn't know what a CAP member is, who is to blame? To give instruction on CAP could take just an hour (if that) at BMT. Airmen are already educated on other components of the Air Force, like the ANG and AFRES. We are a non-combatant volunteer component of the Air Force. Lackland itself hosts CAP units.
If a SNCO doesn't know what a CAP member is, who is to blame? Someone with that kind of career and knowledge should know better, especially if s/he is in an instructional/supervisory role (MTI, first shirt) and has ever set foot on Maxwell AFB.
The only thing under our control is how we present ourselves, and how we do the job at hand.
If someone else is confused about who/what we are, we should make an honest effort to educate them, not wring our hands and say "we have to look more distinctive!"
If someone else wants to grumble about us wearing something with blue cloth from 100 yards away, if they're in the military, they should either make a formal complaint up the chain or else live with it.
That sounds harsh, but I am no fan of CAP having to apologise for what we are.
I see references to the past, but only ones that suit a particular point. The majority of our history is an auxiliary of military aviation branches. Yes, we did start out of the Civil Defense Corps, but changed over when it became clear the military was better suited for organizing and calling on CAP. People also joined CAP when they couldn't join the military. CAP was all but an enlistment when it came to service. Granted, the same benefits weren't available to CAP members, but I have a feeling that many people were proud to join, and honored by those who knew them.
Now, I'm also seeing a great deal of talk that amounts to "CAP is it's own entity, and needs to look and be treated as such". It's also dead wrong. We do have a corporate side, but it's a workaround that allows us to do things that we couldn't do under AFAM's. It wasn't intended to make CAP independent.
The idea that we should make all attempts to remove any appearance of association is very common here, it simply takes different forms. For one, the idea of seniors clothed separately from cadets is problematic.
If a change to a different uniform occurs, I probably wouldn't stick around. Many people will show the ignorance and hubris of claiming to know my reasons. They'd be wrong. One, it will be a sign to me that this organization is so severely whacked that it's about to fall apart. Two, I'm not purchasing any more uniforms. There's other reasons, but those are foremost.
Would I abandon a sinking ship? You better believe it. Even rats are smart enough to move on in such a case.
I think that a realignment back under the Air Force, with exemptions to the issues that restrict us under the military umbrella, would be more beneficial. Take it to Congress, push for the freedom to do a job well, not accept the hobbling that we suffer from having a schizophrenic organization.
What this organization needs is an emphasis on leadership, accountability, and ethics. Sadly, it's not happening. CAP would do well to apply the Air Force values. Unfortunately, I see many people lack the honor to do so.
FWIW, the US Army has noted that its uniform inventory is bloated and is phasing out the green Class "A" and Class "B" uniforms and the dress white uniform in favor of one, only-slightly (thank God) modified Dress Blue uniform (which, contrary to a post above, is not new in that it dates back to at least the days of the Cavalry and the Indian Wars of the 19th century).
The rationale for this move was that the uniform variations and permutations were nearly unmanageable, mostly unnecessary and extremely expensive.
IMHO, I would be for the limited uniform inventory advocated above (3 main uniforms with appropriate accessories as necessary for climate and occasion) for the same reasons the Army is reducing its options. I would personally go with a neutral gray color palette for all three as I tend to believe that in the not-too-distant future CAP will become more affiliated with the Dept. of Homeland Security and less affiliated with DoD/USAF, but this is outside the scope of the OP thread.
Quote from: FlyTiger77 on December 24, 2009, 05:48:04 AM
FWIW, the US Army has noted that its uniform inventory is bloated and is phasing out the green Class "A" and Class "B" uniforms and the dress white uniform in favor of one, only-slightly (thank God) modified Dress Blue uniform (which, contrary to a post above, is not new in that it dates back to at least the days of the Cavalry and the Indian Wars of the 19th century).
I would add also that not only is the Blues uniform not new, but the original mostly uniform combination of the Army.
An organization like ours only really needs three types of uniforms...
1) Dress- in layers with the shirt (long and short sleeves) and tie for class/office wear, and Service Coat for business activity. CAP really does not need Mess Dress, our banquets could go just fine in service coat. This is the one we should be seen in by the public at normal time.
2) Field Dress- BDUs and all their "layering," coats, parkas etc.
3) Flying Attire- A flight suit for Flight activities.
Ideally one of each for all should be enough.
QuoteI think we need to go to one senior member dress uniform, completely departing from the current AF style and the polos. Make a corporate-style dress uniform that everyone can wear; one that is military in appearance but won't be "indistinguishable" from AF. Do it with a long phase-in date so members can "wear-out" the AF style and switch over. If members leave because they can't wear the AF style, then we know where their motivation was. Doing this will also eliminate the "second class" members who are not afforded the same privileges as those that can wear the AF style. I also think we should go to exclusive BBDUs for seniors. They are readily available as the majority of LE that wears BDU-style wear the BBDU. They will not got out of stock anytime soon.
Getting rid of USAF style uniforms for even just our Senior Officers has got to be the worst idea of the century. I believe you're NB appointment is probably in the mail. (Just a little joke, lighten up)
I get it. The whole TPU issue really stinks, but come on. Having one uniform will only make us look a little sharper when Senior Officers stand in formation (I won't make a snarky comment here). And you think people don't know what we are now? Just wait until all of our Senior Officers look only "not indistinguishable" from the Air Force...
As a cadet Programs officer, I believe I should wear what my cadets wear. In fact, thats what I do. when the cadets wear BDU's, I wear BDU's. When the cadets wear blues, I wear blues. The only uniform I have that cadets dont have is the flight suit.
** Note - I apologize for not being more clear. I meant "new" Army uniforms as for the general public who are used to seeing the Army in the green, it will be new to them.
flyguy06: I am a cadet programs officer too - but am not allowed to wear what the cadets wear. So I wear the corporate equiv. Does that mean that I am less effective at my job then you because I don't match the cadets? Instead of BDUs, I'm in BBDUs?
Back to the branding - There is no question that we are an AF auxiliary. This question would not even be under discussion had the AF not one day said ‘fat people cannot wear our uniform because that is not the image (brand) that we want to project.’ It is the AF that put the distance between us and them, not CAP. Even in a distinctive CAP uniform, there would be no denying our military (AF) heritage and affiliation. If it is for the betterment of CAP, why would anyone leave just because they are not allowed to wear the AF uniform any more?
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on December 24, 2009, 04:03:08 PM
flyguy06: I am a cadet programs officer too - but am not allowed to wear what the cadets wear. So I wear the corporate equiv. Does that mean that I am less effective at my job then you because I don't match the cadets? Instead of BDUs, I'm in BBDUs?
I am also in CP, but I, like flyguy06, wear the af style uniforms. Those happen to be the uniforms that I have. I do not own a single corporate style uniform. Does that mean that I'm more effective than anybody else due to the uniform I wear? No! You are matching what they are IAW the regs of CAP.
It comes down to maintaining the standards that you hold the cadets to. It's a bit hypocritical in my mind to expect Cadets to always be in a uniform that takes more than a wash to be ready when you are always in a polo. That says that I want you to spend a lot of time, but I can't be bothered to do the same thing. I understand that occasionally that happens, and its ok; they understand that. Not when its all the time.
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 24, 2009, 05:09:26 AM
If a change to a different uniform occurs, I probably wouldn't stick around. Many people will show the ignorance and hubris of claiming to know my reasons. They'd be wrong. One, it will be a sign to me that this organization is so severely whacked that it's about to fall apart. Two, I'm not purchasing any more uniforms. There's other reasons, but those are foremost.
That's two of us. I am proud of our Air Force heritage.
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 24, 2009, 05:09:26 AM
I think that a realignment back under the Air Force, with exemptions to the issues that restrict us under the military umbrella, would be more beneficial. Take it to Congress, push for the freedom to do a job well, not accept the hobbling that we suffer from having a schizophrenic organization.
BUMP.
BUMP.
BUMP.
:clap: :clap: :clap:
I must point out that the Army Chief of Staff Gen. Casey attended the Ft. Hood Memorial Service in his Battle Dress and Combat Boots. Nearly every other soldier was dressed the same. It seems to me that the Army is attempting to strip-down their variety of uniforms as a memorial like this would normally be a ClassA/ClassB uniform event.
This change could not be attributed to a change in duty, as there wasn't a combat alert or these people were in a war zone (I know that there is a discrepancy in this conclusion and given how these soldiers died, don't go there out of respect please), but there is a change, a simplification in branding/culture/style.
Battle Dress is becoming iconic, in the same way that the 50 mission cap became iconic in WW2. The 50 mission cap was a regular service cap broken down by wearing headsets. By 1943 they were making service caps just that way. (To look broken down out of the box) Kind of like Levi brand fading jeans.
We need an iconic (branding) uniform. We have several to pick from.
Quote from: Smithsonia on December 24, 2009, 07:07:11 PM
Battle Dress is becoming iconic, in the same way that the 50 mission cap became iconic in WW2. The 50 mission cap was a regular service cap broken down by wearing headsets. By 1943 they were making service caps just that way. (To look broken down out of the box)
As a historical footnote, all that was done to create the look was to remove the internal stiffener. If you have a service cap, look inside it. There's a metal ring inside a plastic sleeve that gives it the rounded shape placed in the top. Pull it out, and then try it on.
The manufacturers just ceased to add the stiffener, and probably charged more for the "modification". It wasn't a matter of popularizing the appearance, just a mod that allowed the headsets to be worn more comfortably. Today, it's a moot point, we don't wear service caps while flying.
Hawk 200;
Don't change the context of my writing to make your point. I said, "Battle Dress is becoming iconic in the same way that the 50 mission cap did in WW2." That doesn't mean I want to bring back the crush cap. You need to read for com-pre-hension, please.
I think Battle Dress is becoming the Iconic uniform. I think this is a decision vetted through every layer of the Pentagon. I think we should simplify, we should notice, we should pay attention, to what the military is doing.
Quote from: RogueLeader on December 24, 2009, 04:48:31 PM
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on December 24, 2009, 04:03:08 PM
flyguy06: I am a cadet programs officer too - but am not allowed to wear what the cadets wear. So I wear the corporate equiv. Does that mean that I am less effective at my job then you because I don't match the cadets? Instead of BDUs, I'm in BBDUs?
I am also in CP, but I, like flyguy06, wear the af style uniforms. Those happen to be the uniforms that I have. I do not own a single corporate style uniform. Does that mean that I'm more effective than anybody else due to the uniform I wear? No! You are matching what they are IAW the regs of CAP.
It comes down to maintaining the standards that you hold the cadets to. It's a bit hypocritical in my mind to expect Cadets to always be in a uniform that takes more than a wash to be ready when you are always in a polo. That says that I want you to spend a lot of time, but I can't be bothered to do the same thing. I understand that occasionally that happens, and its ok; they understand that. Not when its all the time.
That's not what I said. When the cadets are in BDUs, I'm in BBDUs. When they are in blues, I'm in White/Grays. Am I less effective because of that?
If I am, why? If I am not, then does that not wash the entire "we have to be in AF style to mirror the cadets" theory?
We had the iconic uniform at one point, the light blue coveralls (smurf suit). It may have been hated by some, but was at one point the most worn work uniform.
Quote from: Smithsonia on December 24, 2009, 07:07:11 PM
We need an iconic (branding) uniform. We have several to pick from.
Ed,
I honestly think your premise is greatly oversimplified.
Sure, the "50-mission crush" hat was iconic in WWII.
But so were the GI "steel pot" helmet, "tucked" flight cap, leather flying helmets, and white "popeye" sailor hats. Not to mention B-10 jackets, Ike jackets, and sheepskin bomber jackets. And the USMC camo uniform, Army leggings, and boondockers.
Come to think of it, so was a three-day growth of beard on a dogfaced soldier (as popularized by Mauldin's famous Willie and Joe.)
Each of these icons instantly evokes the era and mood of WWII.
That's why they are icons.
But just like the AAF had multiple uniform "icons" in WWII, why can't CAP have multiples as well?
But most importantly, it's not like Eisenhower and crew set out to make the 50-mission crush a branding item. It just happened from the natural confluence of media and events. Indeed, I suspect if some Pentagon types had deliberately set out to make one item or another a branded icon, they would have achieved the opposite effect.
Ned;
The number of photos, newsreels, Life Magazine covers etc, turned these various WW2 uniforms into Iconic images. Images that came to the 10s of millions, over and over for many years. These images were daily burned into the consciousness of the American Public. These images were inescapable. In CAP - We don't get that kind of coverage. To have something become a signature - an Icon - it must be repetitively associated with those that wear it.
Right now you have your wish in that we have a multiplicity of uniforms but a diffused and confused image. If that's OK with you, that's OK with others too. If that isn't all right and you'd like to change it - I am proposing a solution that saves money, makes a bolder and repeating statement, delivers the message in a redundant fashion, and helps build our PA/PIO/History/operations/fund-raising/CAP identity/branding/images. And it is a practical solution in that we don't have to get new uniforms, we have to have fewer uniforms.
THIS IS CAP - I don't care how we get there. I care that we get there. I would suggest to some of the commentators on this thread do some research into branding, both military branding and commercial branding. It'll help move this discussion along.
In this way, the Air Force/Army and most of the military (I've been told) now requires General Officer Candidates to take Graduate Courses in business/marketing/public relations/public administration.
I used to fill in with study courses at various Staff Colleges, twenty years ago. Now getting that public relations information is left to General Officer Candidates themselves, in their post graduate training. Show me a 2 to 4 star that has gotten those stars in the last 10 years and I'll bet this discussion is completely relevant and easy to understand. All General Officers are now required to get a post graduate degree... "usually" outside of the military colleges or contract schools. There is a reason. Part of this discussion about marketing/public relations/keeping the citizens on your side, is the reason.
Quote from: Smithsonia on December 24, 2009, 09:00:39 PM
Ned;
The number of photos, newsreels, Life Magazine covers etc, turned these various WW2 uniforms into Iconic images. Images that came to the 10s of millions, over and over for many years. These images were daily burned into the consciousness of the American Public. These images were inescapable. In CAP - We don't get that kind of coverage.
Agreed.
QuoteTo have something become a signature - an Icon - it must be repetitively associated with those that wear it.
This is where we differ. Most icons having little or nothing to do with uniforms. An "icon" is simply an image or representation of a person or thing. Some uniforms can indeed become iconic, but most uniforms do not.
For example, CAP branding could (and I think does) focus on non-uniform icons like "little yellow airplanes" , propellers, or cadets in USAF-style uniforms.
Trying to "make" a uniform become an icon is putting the cart before the horse. I think we agree that Eisenhower never intended to make the 50-mission crush an icon, nor did Time Magazine attempt to do so. It just happened for the reasons you described.
Uniforms are simply a tool to allow us to perform our missions. Nothing more or less. When you talk about trying to take time-tested and successful tools (our uniforms) and change them simply because some people think we might get better publicity (branding) by doing so, you simply distort the purpose of the uniform beyond all recognition.
QuoteRight now you have your wish in that we have a multiplicity of uniforms but a diffused and confused image. If that's OK with you, that's OK with others too.
Gosh, for a guy who speaks up when he thinks he is being misquoted or taken out of context, that mischaracterization of my position is a little surprising coming from you.
My position is that in the world of CAP uniforms, "form follows function." Restated, we have a bunch of different uniform combinations precisely because we
need a bunch of different uniforms to do our jobs, given the diversity of missions, environments, and members.
And you have yet to substantiate your oft-repeated assertion that we have a "diffused and confused image" because of our current uniform structure.
Can you point to a significant number of letters, emails, etc. from any one of our customers or stakeholders that suggest that this is true? (Or a single one, for that matter?)
Is there a marketing study or other document prepared by an MBA or outside consultant that makes that claim?
Any news accounts where reporters or anchors claim confusion caused by the uniforms at the search base?
Remember, if we were to adopt your suggestion and simply go with three non-USAF uniforms for utility, dress, and flying, this would mean that literally hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of member's current uniforms paid for out of their own pockets would be wasted.
I'm just saying that before we start solving the "problem" that multiple uniforms create that it would be reasonable to firmly establish the "problem" we are trying to solve with credible evidence for all to see.
So, again, please tell me that you have more than apocryphal stories about how "some people think we have too many uniforms" for our own good before we kill too many electrons trying to solve the unproven "problem."
Quote
I am proposing a solution that saves money [ . . .]
Strong non-concur.
First, you will be consigning hundreds of thousands of dollars of current uniforms to the scrap heap. That doesn't sound like much of a savings to me.
Second, even if we could find "three uniforms", we have no idea whether these "three uniforms" would be any cheaper for the members than our current choices. Indeed, it is hard to imagine any uniform combination that would be less expensive than mass-produced USAF items available at the government price or even plain white aviator shirts and readily-available commercial grey slacks. (or even a polo shirt). I'm not normally a wagering man, but I'd be happy to buy the first round of drinks if you can come up with uniform combinations that cost less than our current choices.
Even using your specific suggestions, BBDUs are more expensive than BDUs, the CSU coat is far more expensive than the USAF-style, and let's not even think about trying to come up with CAP-specific outergarments for rain, wind, and snow.
,
Quote[ . . .] makes a bolder and repeating statement, delivers the message in a redundant fashion, and helps build our PA/PIO/History/operations/fund-raising/CAP identity/branding/images.
Again, I'm not saying that a strong, positive PA image isn't desirable and important. It clearly is. But there is nothing to suggest that uniforms are or should be a critical piece of the message.
Ned;
Go with that form follows function idea. Then you must talk about all uniforms and all the functions. If planes will fall from the sky because the pilot wears a Dark Blue Flight Suit rather than a Green Bag then I guess I could take the discussion down that road.
The Air Force has plenty of people in precisely the same Dark Blue Flight bag. They are called astronauts and the Air Force seems OK with them. The discussion you and I are working on - is not about form - following - function. The BBDU handles every function just fine (except when dress is absolutely the only appropriate alternative). It may have to do with what members like to wear. What they will do if commanded not to wear it. Those are silly and repetitive complaints without solution. Sixty-six thousand variations is not the solution. Camo- is silly as I don't hide from anyone on mission, except the IC, so camouflage performance isn't an issue. Sewn in night friend/foe recogs aren't an issue. Comfort, field performance, and durability are the practicality/functional issues. We'll be moving the the ABUs in a few years. That would be a good time to go all BBDU. But this is a friendly suggestion, not anything more.
I am stating my personal preference. FOR SENIORS - I think the BBDU is the way to go. It is ours. Everybody can wear it. Everybody can fly with it. Everybody can work in an office with it. Everybody can go on Ground Team with it. If has layers. It looks military. It makes sense. We can go around with the Nomex fire proofing, but I think that's a silly discussion given that we fly Skylanes, seldom get shot at, and never eject... you do know the primary reason for the Nomex protection is because of the rocket engine on the modern ejection seat. That said. I won't stake my CAP Career on it and be upset if others disagree. I do believe this should be a rational conversation about the uniforms. It should get around, or at least identify prejudices that will just continue the old arguments. Those arguments are not about CAP. Those arguments are about YOU/ME not us, we, CAP.
Icons and Branding should be discussed in all of the various places that our images exist. In patches, car stickers, airplane paint schemes, letterhead, etc, etc. When did I ever say that it shouldn't? However this is about Uniforms as Brands. So I am attempting to keep drift at a minimum. Drift, misquotes, and ignorance is common and often used to diffuse the topics to triviality. So where you feel that has been done to you, I apologize. On we go.
The Red Cross has an image. IT IS THE RED CROSS. They don't wear a uniform but they do have a RED CROSS. You can't miss it. You know what it means. You don't question what they do. They are there to help. The Red Cross repeats that image without fail. Without fear. Without regard to any other partner/customer ideas on the matter (FEMA, HS, Sheriff, Fire Dept, Social Services) No one messes with the Red Cross. FEMA Administrators or even the President of the United State would NOT mess with that symbol. That's an Icon. That's a Brand. CAP? Not so much...
So - Give it some thought. Look at it from the outside in. Turn it in your mind. Come up with an argument for doing what we do until the triviality is obvious to every 12 year old cadet, if you like. That I promise you can and will happen. It is fine with me. I'm not telling us what to do. I am attempting to elevate the conversation and come at it from the idea of Branding. Which I think is a novel angle.
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on December 24, 2009, 07:54:46 PM
Quote from: RogueLeader on December 24, 2009, 04:48:31 PM
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on December 24, 2009, 04:03:08 PM
flyguy06: I am a cadet programs officer too - but am not allowed to wear what the cadets wear. So I wear the corporate equiv. Does that mean that I am less effective at my job then you because I don't match the cadets? Instead of BDUs, I'm in BBDUs?
I am also in CP, but I, like flyguy06, wear the af style uniforms. Those happen to be the uniforms that I have. I do not own a single corporate style uniform. Does that mean that I'm more effective than anybody else due to the uniform I wear? No! You are matching what they are IAW the regs of CAP.
It comes down to maintaining the standards that you hold the cadets to. It's a bit hypocritical in my mind to expect Cadets to always be in a uniform that takes more than a wash to be ready when you are always in a polo. That says that I want you to spend a lot of time, but I can't be bothered to do the same thing. I understand that occasionally that happens, and its ok; they understand that. Not when its all the time.
That's not what I said. When the cadets are in BDUs, I'm in BBDUs. When they are in blues, I'm in White/Grays. Am I less effective because of that?
If I am, why? If I am not, then does that not wash the entire "we have to be in AF style to mirror the cadets" theory?
Thats not what I was saying either. I was agreeing w/ you in wearing the same 'level" of dress. My big thing is when cadets are asked to spend more time getting uniforms ready when the SM's in CP will not do the same (ie polo all the time). Thats all, If you wear corresponding uniforms as the cadets for a mojority of the time. I don't care.
part of the other was just a statement is that all th uniforms I have are the AF style. I do not own a single corprate one. Why would I spend more of my e-3 pay to buy additional uniforms when I don't need to.
Quote from: Smithsonia on December 24, 2009, 07:29:11 PM
Hawk 200;
Don't change the context of my writing to make your point. I said, "Battle Dress is becoming iconic in the same way that the 50 mission cap did in WW2." That doesn't mean I want to bring back the crush cap. You need to read for com-pre-hension, please.
I think Battle Dress is becoming the Iconic uniform. I think this is a decision vetted through every layer of the Pentagon. I think we should simplify, we should notice, we should pay attention, to what the military is doing.
I didn't change a single thing concerning the context of your writing, I simply explained how the cap ended up looking the way it did. It was not intended as an appearance item,
at all. You wanted to make a point that the mod was for appearance purposes, when in
reality it was not.
By the way look up the word "icon" from a reputable source. I think you'll be a little surprised by what you read.
Hawk200;
Definition of Icon:
i·con (kn)
n.
1. also i·kon (kn)
a. An image; a representation.
b. A representation or picture of a sacred or sanctified Christian personage, traditionally used and venerated in the Eastern Church.
2. An important and enduring symbol: "Voyager will take its place ... alongside such icons of airborne adventure as The Spirit of St. Louis and [the] Bell X-1" (William D. Marbach).
Your point?
Quote from: Smithsonia on December 25, 2009, 01:33:08 AM
Hawk200;
Definition of Icon:
i·con (kn)
n.
1. also i·kon (kn)
a. An image; a representation.
b. A representation or picture of a sacred or sanctified Christian personage, traditionally used and venerated in the Eastern Church.
2. An important and enduring symbol: "Voyager will take its place ... alongside such icons of airborne adventure as The Spirit of St. Louis and [the] Bell X-1" (William D. Marbach).
Your point?
If you don't see it, don't worry about it.
Hawk200;
If you can't be specific there is no reason to "see it." Whatever it is.
Quote from: Smithsonia on December 25, 2009, 01:57:35 AM
Hawk200;
If you can't be specific there is no reason to "see it." Whatever it is.
The point was in the definition. Apparently, you don't see it, or choose not to. There is no way to simplify it any further if you don't, and pointless if you're choosing not to. Either way, it's a waste of my time.
So back to what I said: "Don't worry about it".
Hawk200;
You eluded to a point that you can either not make or refuse to make. Should I make it for? Hardly a fair thing to ask.
Your concession is noted. Sorry to waste your time.
Quote from: Smithsonia on December 25, 2009, 02:32:54 AM
Hawk200;
You eluded to a point that you can either not make or refuse to make. Should I make it for? Hardly a fair thing to ask.
Your concession is noted. Sorry to waste your time.
I made the point, and I think you're choosing not to see it. So, don't worry about it.
Quote from: RogueLeader on December 25, 2009, 01:05:16 AM
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on December 24, 2009, 07:54:46 PM
That's not what I said. When the cadets are in BDUs, I'm in BBDUs. When they are in blues, I'm in White/Grays. Am I less effective because of that?
If I am, why? If I am not, then does that not wash the entire "we have to be in AF style to mirror the cadets" theory?
Thats not what I was saying either. I was agreeing w/ you in wearing the same 'level" of dress. My big thing is when cadets are asked to spend more time getting uniforms ready when the SM's in CP will not do the same (ie polo all the time). Thats all, If you wear corresponding uniforms as the cadets for a mojority of the time. I don't care.
That's what I am trying to get people to see. There are a lot of folks that use the "we can't go corporate because we have to match the cadets" excuse why we can't have only one uniform for seniors. I agree that polos aren't good leadership example. I would love to do away with them and go with 3 CAP only uniforms for seniors; I would fight tooth & nail against taking Cadets out of AF Style.
Quote from: Ned on December 24, 2009, 10:20:18 PM
My position is that in the world of CAP uniforms, "form follows function." Restated, we have a bunch of different uniform combinations precisely because we need a bunch of different uniforms to do our jobs, given the diversity of missions, environments, and members.
Quote from: Ned on December 24, 2009, 10:20:18 PMFirst, you will be consigning hundreds of thousands of dollars of current uniforms to the scrap heap. That doesn't sound like much of a savings to me.
Second, even if we could find "three uniforms", we have no idea whether these "three uniforms" would be any cheaper for the members than our current choices. Indeed, it is hard to imagine any uniform combination that would be less expensive than mass-produced USAF items available at the government price or even plain white aviator shirts and readily-available commercial grey slacks. (or even a polo shirt). I'm not normally a wagering man, but I'd be happy to buy the first round of drinks if you can come up with uniform combinations that cost less than our current choices.
Even using your specific suggestions, BBDUs are more expensive than BDUs, the CSU coat is far more expensive than the USAF-style, and let's not even think about trying to come up with CAP-specific outergarments for rain, wind, and snow.
We have too many style of uniforms. Form indeed follows function, but how does a BBDU work differently from a BDU?
First – A long phase-out date will change that. I think a 4 year phase-in will allow members to get plenty of usage from the uniforms. When they need replacing, members will buy the CAP style instead of the AF style.
Second – I'll take your wager. Uniform costs – Lets take a look at the statement that AF-Style is cheaper. Here is a uniform version that kd8gua, myself, and others have been talking about on a different thread.
(http://captalk.net/MGalleryItem.php?id=84)(http://captalk.net/MGalleryItem.php?id=98)
Breakdown of costs (w/o insignia): (Since Vanguard is official CAP supplier, I will use them (as much as I dislike them) for all items unless the item is not offered by VG)
CAP Style:Charcoal Gray Trousers (65 poly/35 cotton): $29 - Edwards Garment & Uniform
White Aviator shirt: $25
Black Tie: $8
Black Web Belt: $14
Black Flight Cap: $15 – Lighthouse Uniform Co.
Service Coat (Flying Cross 38800 - LAPD Blue): $ 149 – T&T Uniforms
Service Hat: $ 46 – Galls Uniforms
Total: $286 AF-Style:Trousers: $55
Blue shirt: $44
Blue Tie: $10
Blue web belt: $14
Flight Cap: $17
Service Coat (Male): $195 – Hock Shop
Service Hat: $72
Total: $ 407 Total for CAP Corporate $286 vs Total AF style $407. I realize that the AF style can be found cheaper in other venues, but so can some elements of the CAP style. By using public safety and industry uniform companies, we enjoy larger cost savings because the market is larger.
Woodland Camo BDUs at BDU.com: $20
LAPD Blue BDU at BDU.com: $20
Use the army black outerwear (as have aslready been authorized by NB for wear with CSU) with the CAP-style.
This issue is about branding CAP in the eyes of the public. We have to have our image together before we start marketing CAP to the public. So, actually, we are not puttign the cart before the horse, we are loading the cart to be pulled by the horse.
Thank you for your thoughtful response, but I think you made my points for me.
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on December 25, 2009, 03:13:14 PMWe have too many style of uniforms.
Personal opinion noted. But I repeat my invitation for any evidence to support this assertion beyond your personal preference. After all, you admit that you are consigning hundreds of thousands of hard-earned member's dollars to the scrap heap by summarily "dis-authorizing" their uniforms.
Don't you think they deserve some justification beyond "because I think we would look better if we did"?
Seriously, if this is such a huge problem, shouldn't the advocates of change be able to point to
something - a letter from the AF, DHS, Cessna, somebody saying "hey, you guys have too many uniforms. We can't figure out who is who."
Or a study done by an outside consultant who tells us that uniform overlap is a recruiting problem. Or that we could achieve a 14% public recognition increase by focusing on uniforms as our key branding element.
Something. (Crickets chirping.)
Until then, keep your hand out of my wallet and don't force me to spend hundreds of dollars of my hard-earned money to satisfy someone's personal fashion sense.
Quote
Form indeed follows function, but how does a BBDU work differently from a BDU?
Great question. As you recall, my position is that "we have a bunch of CAP uniforms precisely because we need a bunch of uniforms to do our job."
As you know, we have the professional-looking BBDus simply because the BDU is unavailable to some of our members for reasons beyond our control (the AF rules). And the BBDU is a reasonable accomodation to the minority of members who cannot wear the BBDU. It allows us get the job done.
Given the externally imposed AF rule, we need the BBDUs to allow some of our members a professional appearing utility uniform. If the AF changed the rule, the need for the BBDU would disappear. But until then, form follows function.
Quote
First – A long phase-out date will change that. I think a 4 year phase-in will allow members to get plenty of usage from the uniforms. When they need replacing, members will buy the CAP style instead of the AF style.
Respectfully, this is a non-sequitor. If the less-expensive AF-uniform has any wear left in it, it is a huge waste of member's money to toss it out today, or four years from now. I don't think my rather expensive AF overcoat is going to be worn out by 2013. (I might be, but that's another issue.)
QuoteSecond – I'll take your wager.
Coolness. Will you be at the Winter Boards? I feel thirsty already.
Quote
Uniform costs – Lets take a look at the statement that AF-Style is cheaper.
OK, let's.
But let's compare apples to apples, shall we?
Rather than using artificially inflated VG prices for AF uniforms, let's use the real AAFES prices.
My point was that it would be essentially impossible for any off-the rack or custom uniforms for CAP to beat the mass-produced government prices for the AF-style uniforms worn by the majority of our members.
But in the pursuit of fairness, I'll let you shop where you want to for your uniform, and I'll shop at AAFES for mine. Then let's compare. IOW, I don't get to send you to some overly-priced Rodeo Drive shop for your items, but you don't get to send me to one, either.
Fair?
OK, I'll adopt your $286 dollar figure.
Here are the AAFES prices for the items you specified:
trousers: $34.96 (poly-wool)
shirt: $14 (long sleeve)
tie: $4 (OK, it's a clip-on, but still . . .)
belt + buckle: $2.25
Service Coat: $87.50
Service Hat: $42.95 (Joe, back me up here . . .)
Total:$185.95 - roughly 65% cheaper than your best price.
Guinness, please. 8)
Quote
This issue is about branding CAP in the eyes of the public. We have to have our image together before we start marketing CAP to the public.
Yeah, you and Ed keep saying that. The problem remains that you are advocating a hugely expensive change without being able to back up your premise beyond your personal opinions.
The irony here is incredible. Everyone on this board seems put out of joint because the NEC changed the uniforms in a way that cost some of us money, and argued that the only reason they did so was because they thought we "had too many uniforms."
You are urging the same action for the same reasons. But your suggestion would waste multiple thousands of dollars more of members' money than the NEC's action did.
The lack of ourtrage is amusing.
Merry Christmas!
Quote from: Ned on December 25, 2009, 04:43:42 PM
The lack of ourtrage is amusing.
Merry Christmas!
:clap:
Thanks Ned.
Ned;
Small minds desperately need the validation of the marketing survey. (sorry, but you're gonna love this one and since you are actually asking me to prove a negative then I must present the following) Those of us that do Marketing surveys for a living realize that these things and the people that like them so, are the easiest to manipulate, both our results and their minds. This is a Dirty little secret, that since I am retiring, I'll now admit. If you can't think without a marketing survey, you can't think. This is easier to prove than you might imagine.
Let me give you an instance. Now think of yourself as a Caveman of 10,000 BC. I'll ask you the survey question: "what do you need to make your life better, easier, happier?" I'll give you whatever you want. First you must tell me what you "NEED". I have a rifle, a car, a house with air conditioning, I have a jet plane... you are welcome to them all. However, your response to my survey will be that you'd like a "harder rock". This is because you can't think past what you don't know. Jet, scary. Rifle, scary, air Conditioning, scary. Rock, hard. Rock, good. "Me pick Rock"!!!
That's why we use other methods to lead. We monitor progress by survey. We use surveys to adjust direction, never to lead. And most of all, we don't allow monitoring to replace leadership. Those who can not act without survey validation are doomed to become Congressmen. When head hunting this is a specific limiting factor in the value a candidate will eventually be to my client.
So I make this little discussion part of all of my interviews to every applicant.
Survey's are reactive mostly, sometimes predictive, almost never conclusive, that's why there needs to be analysis. That's how the New Coke, the financial crisis of last year, and Republican Party 2008 Election results occurred. All real surveying, no real leadership.
Potency of messages and repetition of branding elements, - Those are the standards. However, these do not replace leadership either. These do cover while leadership organizes and new and innovative missions await unrevealed. Branding is potential. If the product is lacking - then it is lipstick on the pig.
The methods described have worked for all of the brands that I have spoken about in this thread. They worked to rectify the New Coke issue (Coke sales eventually went up) These items will eventually help the Republicans get back on their feet too. These items are actually elemental marketing 101. But leadership is even better. With the right words, the best ideas, progress is made. Asking that CAP become a potent brand is probably a bad idea on my part. Showing how easy it would be to take advantage using some well understood guide posts (Red Cross) and upcoming opportunities (change over to ABUs) was a waste of all of our time. I apologize.
So Ned/Hawk -all the best to every one of you. Merry-Merry Happy-Happy and to all a good night.
Ned -
I don't have access to AAFES. It takes an act of congress to get on to the base. I agree that Vanguard inflates prices, but how many of our members do not have access to AAFES and have to pay Vanguard prices. (Or shop at other well known outlets to save some money). Granted, I can only knock off about $40 more dollars by taking Vanguard out of the pic and going with other less costly vendors, but it is still cheaper than the official supplier of AF uniforms.
Also, you admit that BBDU does the same job as the BDU. Why not mandate in JAN 2014 only BBDUs will be worn by senior members. They cost the same as regular BDUs and we would all be in the same unifrom. Seniors are supposed to pay for our BDUs anyway, so instead of spending $20 on BDU shirt, spend $20 on a BBDU shirt.
I just do not understand why you are so against phasing out the AF-style in favor of a CAP style. And it can't be all money, approximately 49% (based on the poll by GunnerC) already wear the CAP-style. If national was so concerned with member's money, they wouldn't have thrown out the CSU as is (or done the many other things that have cost members money over the years).
Quote from: Smithsonia on December 25, 2009, 06:44:33 PM
Ned;
Small minds desperately need the validation of the marketing survey.
Cheap personal shots aside, you've convinced me that marketing folks lie and manipulate data. Fine.
I'll give you that one.
So, by any chance to you have any other support for your assertion other than "I'm an expert in this field and I'm telling you so"?
I'm still waiting.
But let's suppose you are right and poor unwashed "small-minded" people like me (and the other 55,998 members) are having trouble following your wisdom.
Before you have a realistic chance of convincing us that we should throw several hundred thousand dollars of our hard-earned money onto the trashheap based solely on your say-so, you're gonna need to convince us.
Your caveman tale is condescending and seems to put little faith in the wisdom and judgment of your fellow members. Maybe we aren't Marketing Professionals, but we do represent a fair amount of hard-won experience and common sense.
And rather than spinning stories about New Coke, tell us about an organization - any organization - that turned itself around by changing their clothing.
Surely out of all the marketing textbooks in the world you could find us just one example of a successful rebranding based on clothing to help make your point.
QuoteThose who can not act without survey validation are doomed to become Congressmen.
How odd that we can look at the same fact and draw entirely different lessons. Personally, I criticise Congress for reaching into my pocket for some new enterprise without any research or study to suggest that it will work, not the other way around.
But to each his own.
Ed, you started this thread with the assumption that uniforms can and do play a significant role in branding, and asked us to discuss it.
I disagree with your basic premise and have asked several times for any data or information that you have that would support the statement.
Just show us a few organizations that has made significant progress because they changed their clothing. Have the Brits noticed recruitment gains because they changed their camo? Has American Airlines ever noticed an increase in business because they changed the flight attendants' attire?
You might ask the American Cadet Alliance what happended to their numbers when they reduced the variety of uniforms worn by their members (when they went all-Army/all the time.)
You want to discuss leadership as the better path than gathering data to make decisions. Fine. Go ahead and lead me. Inspire me to follow your path. As a CP guy, I'm all about applied leadership.
But you're gonna need more than what you've shown so far to convince me.
And somehow I don't think I'm alone.
I return your festive holiday greetiings and hope that health and prosperity accompany you into the New Year.
Ned Lee
Apparently Small Minded
Quote from: Ned on December 25, 2009, 08:15:12 PM
You might ask the American Cadet Alliance what happened to their numbers when they reduced the variety of uniforms worn by their members (when they went all-Army/all the time.)
Ned, ACA's change was not just in uniform, they combined three programs based on three different branches of service. Your analogy, be it intentional or not, suggests that you assume that the US ARMY, US MARINES and US NAVY, only have worth defined by a uniform. It is much more complicated than that and you know it.
The fact is, and I have said this before to the chagrin of Pylon and the others on marketing; Marketing is designed to use "smoke and mirrors" to sell products beyond their inherent worth and to a lesser degree "get the word out."
Ginsu knives were made in Ohio, we don't really all NEED a Snuggie and who can forget the clapper? The most worthy products are those that have inherent worth aside from packaging, catchy theme music or other things that make mountains out of anthills and gems out of turds.
Thus, marketing aside, the Civil Air Patrol has to focus more on the execution of its missions...instead of the cut of a tailor or tailoring some bogus image of CAP that is "smoke and mirrors" to sell CAP to people who, once here, can't stay because smoke and mirrors are annoying and confusing.
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on December 25, 2009, 07:48:30 PM
Ned -
I don't have access to AAFES.
Respectfully, asking this as part of the discussion. Has any of our members shopped primarily through AAFES on-line? And as to the cost of the Aviators, the they can get prohibitive also. If you don't have a significant other that is or you are not handy with a needle yourself, getting the trousers tailored so they look professional can be as much as the original purchase cost itself.
Having been a Wing Supply Officer at one point, where we had a facility stocked with the blues uniforms, I remember spending many Saturdays open with Squadron Supply officers bringing there memebers in to get outfitted. I'm not sure if this is still done by any of the Wings, but by any of the estimations provided in this thread, members would be saving money.
And as a thought to the iconic uniform, wouldn't that be new Utility Uniform, (that replaced the Smurf Suit). That is what people will see on the news when they see footage of missions.
Merry Christmas.
When the NEC sent the CSU away, outrage flowed, and anger flowed through the fingertips of those that had or were thinking about the CSU.
Now that some threads have talked about possibly changing our uniforms, there are those on here that say take away the AF style. So it's outrageous of the leadership to take away your uniform, but when it comes to mine your ok with it? I have spent hundreds, if not thousands of dollars (some that I didn't have at the time) on AF style uniforms, but my money is not important compared to someone who spent theirs on the CSU?
Getting rid of the AF style is simply not the answer cap needs at the moment. I just don't seem to be able to grasp the hypocrisy that is coming from members of this board. Can someone tell me a real reason that taking away (even long phase out dates) the AF style that makes sense?
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on December 25, 2009, 07:48:30 PM
Ned -
I don't have access to AAFES.
Of course you do. Evern members without access to a brick-and-mortar AAFES clothing sales can do the mail order thing. And get genuine AAFES GI prices. It may not be as quick or convenient. But is cheaper. See CAPM 39-1, para 1-8.
And although this just an educated guess, I'll bet that most CAP members - statistically speaking - live within a two hour drive of a MCSS.
QuoteAlso, you admit that BBDU does the same job as the BDU. Why not mandate in JAN 2014 only BBDUs will be worn by senior members.
Again, a fair question. And I'll even grant that it would not be the end of the world if it happened. But to answer your question:
1. There is some value in allowing most of the members of the Air Force Auxiliary to appear in AF-styled uniforms. Reasonable minds can (and do) disagree on exactly how much that is worth, and whether that value is outweighed by all the angst and fussing. But it is at least one good reason. (Remember, BDUs are unavailable to only a minority of our members.) A variation of this is that there is some value in having as many CP seniors as possible wear the same uniform as our cadets. (Leadership by example, modeling uniform appearance excellence, making it easier to for CP seniors to know the standards, etc.) Again, people differ as to how valuable it is, but there seems to be wide agreement that there is at least some value here.
2. At least some seniors get better prices on BDUs than BBDUs. There are still surplus stocks of BDUs as the military completes their BDU drawdown, and used BDUs will continue to be available in the surplus market for the forseeable future, unlike BBDUs. There is no known discount BBDU market.
3. BBDU quality is still problematic with many members having fading and appearance issues. Long term durability (which directly impacts member costs) is still unproven.
4. Thousands of members have considerable investment in BDUs, field jackets, etc. that would be wasted by tossing out servicable uniforms in 2014. I still have servicable BDUs over 15 years old. (They have wingpatches, but at least those are still optional for me.)
There's at least four. I'm sure there are others.
Let me turn the question around: other than your personal opinion that we somehow "look bad" by having both the BDU and BBDU, what would we gain if we tossed our BDUs on the fire 1 JAN 14?
QuoteI just do not understand why you are so against phasing out the AF-style in favor of a CAP style. And it can't be all money, approximately 49% (based on the poll by GunnerC) already wear the CAP-style. If national was so concerned with member's money, they wouldn't have thrown out the CSU as is (or done the many other things that have cost members money over the years).
I guess I'm just against expensive change without a good reason.
Even if "NHQ" (actually it was our volunteer leaders, not the professional NHQ staff) wrongly changed our uniforms, your proposal is exactly the same.
If it was wrong for "them" to do it, it must be equally wrong for you to do it. Only your change would result in many more hundreds of thosands of wasted member dollars than anything the NEC has done.
Look, I understand uniforms change over time. I have a closet full of green fatigues, 1549 shirts, smurf jumpsuits, shade 1505 khakis, and even a guyaberra shirt. Each of those changes cost me money personally. I fully understand that some changes were necessary and justified (like when the USAF changed their uniforms and we had to follow along), but some changes were silly and just based on some individual's fashion sense - smurf suits and guyaberra shirts.
Here, since you seek to change the existing system, the burden should be on you to show why the expensive change you propose would benefit CAP and the membership.
And so far all we have is "I think it would look nicer if we all wore exactly the same uniform."
Quote from: NCRblues on December 25, 2009, 08:44:11 PM
When the NEC sent the CSU away, outrage flowed, and anger flowed through the fingertips of those that had or were thinking about the CSU.
Now that some threads have talked about possibly changing our uniforms, there are those on here that say take away the AF style. So it’s outrageous of the leadership to take away your uniform, but when it comes to mine your ok with it? I have spent hundreds, if not thousands of dollars (some that I didn’t have at the time) on AF style uniforms, but my money is not important compared to someone who spent theirs on the CSU?
Getting rid of the AF style is simply not the answer cap needs at the moment. I just don’t seem to be able to grasp the hypocrisy that is coming from members of this board. Can someone tell me a real reason that taking away (even long phase out dates) the AF style that makes sense?
You are finally starting to see that concepts I initially was talking about en re the waste of members time/money and the placing of personal agenda and preference above the need to run the organization in an efficient manner.
I should point out that when the "shoe was on the other foot" your reply to the end of the CSU was...
QuoteI cant stop smiling ;D :clap: thank god
Which was Post #26 on: November 07, 2009, 08:59:14 PM.
To which you provided the justification that...
QuoteThe current leadership is just trying to bring cap back into good standing after the past "leadership" fiasco
Reply #64 on: November 07, 2009, 11:56:12 PM
Fact is, people need to think more "globally" about CAP. Not just in one's compartmental understanding of things. Every argument, the slippery slope, used to nix the CSU can apply to nixing the USAF style uniform...maybe even moreso.
So, as a normally objective observer, I can fully understand the hypocrisy for what it is. The clatter of one side over another. When people insert their speculation and opinion into the matter that "suddenly" becomes FACT.
Short of switching to an all-pink uniform {never seen one of those anywhere), there is nothing on the market that we could use as a uniform that would be so unique to CAP, that it would be considered a CAP "brand". As is pointed out regularly, the BBDU is pretty darn close to the CG and CGAux ODU uniform (even more so with the untucked version) and looks like a SWAT uniform.
Our "brand" is being the AF Auxiliary and wearing AF-style uniforms supports that brand more than anything else. The non-AF style uniforms go against our brand. We do have a choice about the non-AF style uniforms. If "branding" was super duper important we could just reduce our senior membership to those able and/or willing to only wear AF-style uniforms. I'm not recommending that, but we could do that.
Quote from: RiverAux on December 26, 2009, 01:00:07 AMAs is pointed out regularly, the BBDU is pretty darn close to the CG and CGAux ODU uniform (even more so with the untucked version) and looks like a SWAT uniform.
I'm digging my tucked ODUs with the rigger belt and new spec fabric strip insignia. They look much better than the CAP Field Uniform IMO. Matching blue t-shirt, insignia etc is a dead giveaway.
Once again the actual uniform is not that important. That discussion is for later. But that discussion is about personal preference. What this particular thread is about is the Branding elements. Uniform - consistency and constancy... which are different things, are more important, brand-wise.
EXAMPLE -- Because everyone plays the same 3 or 4 Osama Bin Laden tapes over and over, and your brain has seen those same videos hundreds of time... Osama's visage from those few videos is your instant recallable (branded) impression of Osama.
(Long beard, long face, long fingers, light colored Arab clothes, AK47, sandals, quiet yet emphatically precise hand gestures, etc.)
There was an attempt to mess with Osamas Branding several years ago. The CIA released doctored photos of Osama in a business suit, clipped beard, with a modern zippy wink and grim. This visual was to make Osama seem insincere, on the run, and queue you to his possible new look. However the CIA was attempting to break Osama's branding elements. To use those elements against him. Right now there is a BMW commercial attempting to do the same thing with the Christmas Bow/ribbon used in the Lexus December to Remember Commercial. This "counter-branding" is routine. This is standard advertising/marketing techniques. This "game' is part of you everyday experience and you may not know it.
Branding is easy to do. Branding requires discipline. It is visual queues tied consistently, repetitively, redundantly, and without fail to one thing, idea, concept, person, business, or product. That is the branding basics.
You might have a preference in a uniform - the concept of branding cares more about how many times it witnesses you in this uniform, what you are doing, and when the video will be played again. Uniform! Brand! Repeat! Uniform! Brand! Repeat!
Ned -
I actually agree with you that the AF-style uniform would be best as the "brand image" of CAP. And, at one time it was. I can remember BG Cass showing up to Blue Beret (Yeaaa India Flight) in 1985 with a flight suit and a service hat. Gen Cass certainly did not meet the H/W requirements, but back then everybody wore the AF uniform. But that option has been taken away from us BY THE AIR FORCE.
You said that there is a minority of people that can't wear the AF-style uniform. Check out the results of this poll by Gunner C. http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=8907.msg165496#msg165496 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=8907.msg165496#msg165496) I would say that almost 45% (which I actually suspect is a little low) admit to being above H/W requirements for AF-style. That would equate to almost (using the Aug 09 Fact Sheet) 16,000 senior members (out of 37,000) are prohibited from wearing the AF-style uniform. {If anyone has access to eServices database that can pull the H/W of every senior member for more accurate stats, that would be wonderful}
So, the question becomes: Is it more important from the perspective of branding to continue to have our senior members wear two complete different styles of uniforms; or is it more important to have all of our senior members wear one style of uniform? (Style as in AF-style vs. CAP-style, not types of uniforms.) The position that I, and others, is that from a branding perspective, it is more important to have ONE style of uniform that is identified with CAP.
Ned, we are in agreement about a lot of cadet programs stuff. However, the whole "we must be identical to cadets" doesn't hold up. If I show up in a BBDU, with all the same patches in all of the same places that you show up in BDUs with, and we are twins other than I'm large, you're not and my BDUs are a different color than yours, how does that make me a less-effective CP guy? I'm starched, my boots are shined, etc, etc. Please explain the difference. And if there is one, does that mean that the Cadet Programs Track should be amended to read "Only those senior members that meet the CAP H/W requirements are allowed to achieve these ratings?
To all - I agree that uniforms are not the only key to branding. As I said in my first post on this thread, CAP has to re-define it's missions and re-define itself BEFORE any attempt at branding should be made. But this thread was started by Smithsonia (BTW - Nice pic in the mag, Ed) specifically regarding how important we thought that uniforms were to the overall branding of CAP.
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on December 26, 2009, 04:23:10 PM
Ned -
I actually agree with you that the AF-style uniform would be best as the "brand image" of CAP. And, at one time it was. I can remember BG Cass showing up to Blue Beret (Yeaaa India Flight) in 1985 with a flight suit and a service hat. Gen Cass certainly did not meet the H/W requirements, but back then everybody wore the AF uniform. But that option has been taken away from us BY THE AIR FORCE.
You said that there is a minority of people that can't wear the AF-style uniform. Check out the results of this poll by Gunner C. http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=8907.msg165496#msg165496 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=8907.msg165496#msg165496) I would say that almost 45% (which I actually suspect is a little low) admit to being above H/W requirements for AF-style. That would equate to almost (using the Aug 09 Fact Sheet) 16,000 senior members (out of 37,000) are prohibited from wearing the AF-style uniform. {If anyone has access to eServices database that can pull the H/W of every senior member for more accurate stats, that would be wonderful}
So, the question becomes: Is it more important from the perspective of branding to continue to have our senior members wear two complete different styles of uniforms; or is it more important to have all of our senior members wear one style of uniform? (Style as in AF-style vs. CAP-style, not types of uniforms.) The position that I, and others, is that from a branding perspective, it is more important to have ONE style of uniform that is identified with CAP.
Ned, we are in agreement about a lot of cadet programs stuff. However, the whole "we must be identical to cadets" doesn't hold up. If I show up in a BBDU, with all the same patches in all of the same places that you show up in BDUs with, and we are twins other than I'm large, you're not and my BDUs are a different color than yours, how does that make me a less-effective CP guy? I'm starched, my boots are shined, etc, etc. Please explain the difference. And if there is one, does that mean that the Cadet Programs Track should be amended to read "Only those senior members that meet the CAP H/W requirements are allowed to achieve these ratings?
To all - I agree that uniforms are not the only key to branding. As I said in my first post on this thread, CAP has to re-define it's missions and re-define itself BEFORE any attempt at branding should be made. But this thread was started by Smithsonia (BTW - Nice pic in the mag, Ed) specifically regarding how important we thought that uniforms were to the overall branding of CAP.
Guys, I wouldn't be depending on Gunner C's poll. I think he would be the first one to admit that it was hardly a valid poll because the data used was so limited. (i.e. just CAPTalk users who actually responded.)
In lieu of official stats, we gotta use the data we have on hand. Would love to be able to generate a report out of eServices with H/W stats. Besides, just from seeing folks in my wing, it looks pretty close.
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on December 26, 2009, 04:40:52 PM
In lieu of official stats, we gotta use the data we have on hand. Would love to be able to generate a report out of eServices with H/W stats. Besides, just from seeing folks in my wing, it looks pretty close.
It's only a "ballpark" number. But I do think it's in the neighborhood. Nevertheless, let's say it's off by 10%. That would still tell us that at least 35% of the force doesn't qualify for the AF style uniform. That's (37,000 SMs) about 12,950 members who are outside of what the AF would like to see. I'd say the number would be between that and the 45% suggested by the survey.
Height/Weight in eServices is not a mandatory field unless the member orders a photo ID card.
Regardless, military style uniforms like the AF uniform, CSU, and the uniform proposed in this and other threads are not appropriate for all Senior Members and CAP missions. Putting everyone in a single military style uniform will cause more harm to our brand than having multiple options that are appropriate for different members and missions.
Wear what's authorized and appropriate and wear it correctly and the uniform's impact on CAP's brand will be fine!
Gunner;
I would suggest that 10-20percent of Senior Members who wear the AF uniform, are not within the Air Force weight standards but push past it by 10-20 lbs. You know who you are. So figure on extra numbers of Fats and Fuzzys. I am looking at a picture taken at our Squadron Dinner, this year. These are my friends. I know what they weigh, roughly.
Of the 10 of us in the picture.
a) 2 of us are in Corporate and should be.
b) 2 to 3 more are in Air Force and are overweight by 10-20lbs.
c) 2 are in corporate and do not have AF. They fit the standards and could wear AF uniform if they wanted.
d) 3 are in Air Force and are within Standards.
My general impression is that this group is more or less representational. Feel free to add or subtract 1 member to each of these categories.
Quote from: Smithsonia on December 26, 2009, 05:49:16 PM
Gunner;
I would suggest that 10-20percent of Senior Members who wear the AF uniform, are not within the Air Force weight standards but push past it by 10-20 lbs. You know who you are. So figure on extra numbers of Fats and Fuzzys. I am looking at a picture taken at our Squadron Dinner, this year. These are my friends. I know what they weigh, roughly.
Of the 10 of us in the picture.
a) 2 of us are in Corporate and should be.
b) 2 to 3 more are in AIr Force and are overweight by 10-20lbs.
c) 2 are in corporate and do not have AF. They fit the standards and could wear AF uniform if they wanted.
d) 3 are in Air Force and are within Standards.
My general impression is that this group is more or less representational. Feel free to add or subtract 1 member to each of these categories.
That might be your area, but I think that its hardly nation-wide. If so, I'd like to see your stats for it.
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on December 26, 2009, 04:23:10 PMSo, the question becomes: Is it more important from the perspective of branding to continue to have our senior members wear two complete different styles of uniforms; or is it more important to have all of our senior members wear one style of uniform? (Style as in AF-style vs. CAP-style, not types of uniforms.) The position that I, and others, is that from a branding perspective, it is more important to have ONE style of uniform that is identified with CAP.
Well, that certainly is the issue. You and Ed are arguing that having a single uniform for seniors would help branding. And that having a good consistent uniform branding is somehow better for CAP overall.
So good for CAP, in fact, that it is worth thousands of members sacrificing hundreds of thousands of dollars of their hard-earned money to change over to pure corporates with good branding attributes.
My position is that such a bald assertion is unsupported by any data that would suggest that it is true, and certainly nothing that would outweigh the very real sacrifice caused by changing a successful system of uniform choices to accomodate all members.
Ed has gone on to say that requiring data before tossing all the USAF uniforms into the trashbin is the sign of a "small mind." That we should accept the self evident argument that one uniform is better than two and "agree to disagree."
My response is that we certainly disagree, but keep your hand out of my wallet until you convince me that I need to spend more money to satisfy your branding preferences.
Is that a fair summary?
Let me add a few reasons why I think a "one uniform - one brand" image is unlikely to help CAP in any measurable way.
- Before the AF imposed the H/W restrictions, CAP effectively had a "one uniform - one brand" situation. I'm certainly getting old, but I don't really remember those days as producing any iconic images (to use Ed's term) of CAP members in uniform. IOW, it was not exactly the highwater mark of our PA branding. How will it be any different now?
- Outside of CAP (more specifically outside of CAPTalk) no one seems to care about our uniforms. Really. Nobody seems to be able to point to a single letter or email from a customer or stakeholder complaining about it. All we have is a lot of hearsay about some guy who sneered at us. (Honest, I heard it from a friend of a friend . . .). And if nobody cares that we have some different uniforms, then they aren't magically gonna care if we have only a couple.
- Even if we were to adopt your suggestion and go corporate only (or some other "three uniform" suite), we're still gonna have three uniforms. Why aren't three different uniforms still a branding problem? We're gonna have pictures from the field of heroic pilots and GT members in BBDUs, but the PAO on TV is in the CSU. And the cute photogenic cadets at encampment are in some different uniform that looks like the Air Force.
- No one has been able to point to a single organization that made any sort of branding/PA turnaround because they changed the clothing worn by members. I'm having a hard time thinking of any organization besides the Playboy clubs that made a big deal out of how their employees are dressed (talk about an "iconic look" ), and where are they now?
Again, I'm not against branding. I support a strong, vibrant PA program because it supports CAP overall. But shedding proven uniforms to support branding is at best unproven, and at worst a financial disaster for members of unprecedented scope.
Well, not exactly unprecedented. Let me remind you of another occasion where CAP made a branding decision designed to make bold, memorable, and repetative branding messages - the infamous NASCAR debacle.
There, in the name of branding, we accepted the word of marketing professionals and invested a boatload of money. On the surface, it made some sense: the NASCAR demographic in many ways is our core recruiting target.
But it turned out badly - expensive with no measurable return.
So let me ask you - how is this decision any different? I'm sure at least some NB members asked for some data to support the assertion that this expensive NASCAR branding experiment would measureably help CAP. And were undoubtedly told that only "small minds" need marketing surveys; or that such data would be useless because marketing surveys can and are manipulated by the same marketing professionals that are busy trying to sell you a racecar sponsorship.
So the NB bit - on the basis of "trust me, I'm a marketing professional who knows branding" - and we lost our shirts in the deal.
Tell me again, how is this different?
QuoteHowever, the whole "we must be identical to cadets" doesn't hold up.
You are mischaracterizing me again. I certainly never said that. I said that there is value to having as many CP seniors in the same uniform as the cadets as possible. And acknowledged the very issue you raise - that some terrific CP officers cannot wear the AF style uniforms. (BTW, some cadets cannot wear them, either.)
At the risk of repeating myself, this issue (among others) is why we have the fairly large number of uniforms that we do - because of the very real need to have a professional-looking corporate alternative for CP seniors who cannot wear the AF-style. That is the reasonable accomodation we have made to ensure that these deeply appreciated and irreplaceable seniors can work with our cadets.
And thank you again for your contributions to our program.
Finally, it is an interesting question how to authoritatively determine how many seniors do not meet H/W and wear corporates.
We'd have to start by trying to define what we mean, because a lot of seniors may meet H/W and choose corporates. I suspect that a fair number of folks hover at the borderline and choose to wear corporates to avoid any appearance of an issue.
And simply harvesting the eServices data is unikely to be very helpful because much of the data is old and inaccurate (I've done a weigh-in at an NCSA and can verify it is often inaccurate.), many folks simply haven't entered the data, and even if it was accurate would be biased by the many inactive members on he rolls. (Who I would guess tend to be older and larger than more active members.)
So I think it would be difficult to come up with meaningful numbers.
But suppose for the moment that you are right and the number of seniors who exceed H/W limits is close to, or even the majority of members, what does that say about us? (This should probably be a different thread.)
Ned;
There are Branding Strategies and Branding Tactics. I am interested in "strategy." I'll argue tactics latter. To that point.
1. Name: Civil Air Patrol and CAP mean something USCAP doesn't (USCAP is gone - I know - I think that that NHQ feels the same)
2. Symbols - The Tri-Prop means something - everything else means less - or nothing
3. Uniform - Should mean something in branding and right now doesn't (externally) because of too many varieties.
I don't care which uniform we pick. Let's pick a couple and go with that. 50 varieties is too many for such a small organization.
When I was in the Air Force I had Fatigues, Flight Suit, Class A Blues, PT and that was it. I packed everything I owned in one bag and my laundry bag and left on a 6 month deployment. In CAP now, I'd need several bags and a locker to do the same. Everybody in my AF wing wore the same 3 uniforms. (Officers, enlisted, non-comms) There were many more AF uniforms available including all white tropicals. We didn't wear those. We had 14,000 people wearing the same 3 basic uniform sets. Because our flight lines were secure we were to accost anyone in a different or no uniform. That was part of my job. I challenged, accosted, and checked ID on Generals and Admirals too. Nobody got a pass. The reasons for this will become apparent for security if we want more HSD jobs or work at closed bases and big (TSA Controlled) airports. However, for our own external purposes it works also for marketing, promotions, publicity, security, operations, etc,.
Uniform Phase in timing - Is tactics/execution. That would be for a later topic. You were talking form follows function for awhile. If one, two, or three uniforms is best for CAP, everybody can do their job in one of those 3 uniforms, and that is the discussion (branding), then phase in period is execution (tactics). Right now, I am trying to get you and Hawk200 to either say Uniforms are Branding Elements, or not.
If uniforms are branding elements then we go one direction and that direction is rather clear. The rules are straight performa. The guidelines are clear. If uniforms should not be branding elements then we just go with the flow and continue with the multitude we have now. Or, we drop the uniform all together, as it means nothing externally.
I urge everyone interested in this topic to get a bit of a background in Branding. There are plenty of references online. A little study will help for drift and to keep this moving forward, not caught in the this and that. (tactics)
1. No argument
2. We need to fall back to the original 2 - the seal for official stuff and the emblem for everything else. MAYBE include the majcom as it closely resembles the emblem. Maybe not.
3. The uniform is not a branding element in and of itself. It becomes one through repetition, like the bdu for years was THE Army uniform in the minds of the public, and the flightsuit is the AF uniform to most people. Pick a uniform suite, set rules, and ENFORCE THEM! That is the largest problem we have in regards to uniforms. Too many of our leaders are afraid to offend someone be suggesting they follow the rules.
Quote from: Smithsonia on December 26, 2009, 07:15:07 PM
Ned;
There are Branding Strategies and Branding Tactics. I am interested in "strategy." I'll argue tactics latter. To that point.
Sure, let's go with that:
Quote
1. Name: Civil Air Patrol and CAP mean something USCAP doesn't (USCAP is gone - I know - I think that that NHQ feels the same)
Concur.
Quote2. Symbols - The Tri-Prop means something - everything else means less - or nothing
Maybe, but I think our aircraft with distinctive paint scheme and perhaps a generic image of a cadet also have significant public recognition and branding value.
Quote3. Uniform - Should mean something in branding and right now doesn't (externally) because of too many varieties.
Whoops. Lost you here.
I still don't understand why you think this is so. Please explain this strategic assertion.
Quote
When I was in the Air Force I had Fatigues, Flight Suit, Class A Blues, PT and that was it. I packed everything I owned in one bag and my laundry bag and left on a 6 month deployment. In CAP now, I'd need several bags and a locker to do the same.
Why? Even in CAP you could make the same sensible choices. You could choose simpy to wear either the corporate or AF-style utility uniform, flight suit, and "class A's." Just because there are other choices doesn't mean you have to wear them.
QuoteEverybody in my AF wing wore the same 3 uniforms. (Officers, enlisted, non-comms) There were many more AF uniforms available including all white tropicals. We didn't wear those.
Thanks for making my point. The Air Force has dozens of uniform choices (to meet specfic needs in certain situations), but you didn't need to wear more than just a limited subset of the authorized uniforms.
In your professional opinion, is the Air Force as much of a "branding failure" as you view us to be because they have not chosen to simplify their uniform choices?
QuoteRight now, I am trying to get you and Hawk200 to either say Uniforms are Branding Elements, or not.
I'll answer your question directly as I know how. Everything we do, wear, or say in CAP is a potential Branding Element. If our current uniforms contribute positively to branding, that's great. But we should not make decisions about any of our time-honored and currently successful tools - including our uniforms - for the sole reason that such a change might somehow improve our branding.
Quote
If uniforms are branding elements then we go one direction and that direction is rather clear. The rules are straight performa. The guidelines are clear. If uniforms should not be branding elements then we just go with the flow and continue with the multitude we have now. Or, we drop the uniform all together, as it means nothing externally.
Non-sequitor. Uniforms are a tool that we need to get our job done effectively. Even if the public never saw us in uniform, that fact would remain.
QuoteI urge everyone interested in this topic to get a bit of a background in Branding. There are plenty of references online. A little study will help for drift and to keep this moving forward, not caught in the this and that. (tactics)
Ed, I have done my best to answer your questions as directly as I know how. Please do me the same honor.
Again, can you point to any organization that has measureably improved in mission performance because they changed the way they dressed?
IOW, please list one or more successful organizations that consciously use uniforms as a Branding Element and make uniform choices with that as a predominant criterion.
After all, "There are plenty of references online."
QuoteRight now, I am trying to get you and Hawk200 to either say Uniforms are Branding Elements, or not.
Not. Doesn't fit the definition.
Second, CAP would be foolish to try to differentiate itself from it's asociated branch. Remove the visual association, and then other problems start. And in many cases, it already has.
I said it before, we are not an autonomous organization. We don't have any place to try presenting ourselves as one.
Ned/Hawk Some light reading on branding
http://www.uniformsmag.com/issues/0107/feat2.htm
http://www.fool.com/portfolios/rulemaker/2001/rulemaker010502.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logo
I've been speaking on this topic in the abstract. Let me now be specific. Look in your latest Volunteer, look for the Flight 217 story.. Yes it is a story about me. That's not my point. This is:
A CAP Ground Team found the plane, initiated the rescue, organized the followup teams, held on in terrible conditions for hours and saved the day. I read 200 plus articles from this plane crash. It was a big deal in 1978. A very big deal. In all of those articles the CAP is mentioned in only 6-10 articles. Our guys were bundled against the cold. They had on ski hats, big civilian parkas, and heavy snow boots. Everybody looked alike. The Sheriff's Patrol, Snowmobile Club, Park Service, and a State Patrol Officer who showed up 2 hours later got more credit than our CAP team. These people were all telling the truth by the way when they thought that their individual group had been the rescuers. Everybody pitched in. Everybody helped. But the CAP found the plane and brought the Cavalry!!!
It took me months of digging. Months of research to figure out that CAP (through some luck but mostly through rigorous training) saved the day. Would this news been been better for CAP recruiting, if we'd gotten more initial credit. Probably. However the CAP team was double busy with the evacuation, didn't talk much to the press, and did their duty until they were too exhausted to think. By that time the press was clearing out to go to the hospitals for briefings... and our guys went home to sleep.
It wasn't until 30 years later that the whole story was known to the CAP team, the other rescuers, and the rescued. Most of the rescued had no idea the CAP was even involved. I talked to them all. Not one was aware of the full story that night. In this one case alone a CAP uniform would have been a help. (of course I am not suggesting they should have done different and shed their parkas)
I worked 15 months on this project. Again, this isn't about me. This is about what the finest SAR team ever fielded by the CAP did. (by the way this team had 300 finds, 50 saves, and 500 pus Air Force Missions) AND, what that could have meant to CAP at the time. So there's as good a literal example that I've got.
Ed, I've gotta agree with you. Uniforms ARE a branding element. It's not everything, but it's an element.
Before the movie, Navy SEALs were just called SEALs (they refer to "the teams"). Green Berets, before the song and the movie, were just called Special Forces or SF (they referred to themselves as "Group"). But the branding as "Navy SEALs" and "Green Berets" became part of the national vernacular. Folks don't know what either group does, but they know the brand - the Trident and the floppy green hat.
CAP doesn't have a real brand. There's nothing visual, no word that when you say CAP, a slide doesn't pop up in your head. Think of Coke - the most widely known brand in the world. When someone says it, an image immediately comes to mind. We've tried to do this with the paint scheme on the AC, the new silly tri-prop, with the golf shirt, and on and on. No joy.
When I first tried to join CAP in early 1967, my mother forbade it. She had seen CAP cadets at the encampment at Sheppard AFB, TX, standing around in khakis. She thought that they were being mistreated. That's what the CAP brand meant to her. What it meant to me was cadets in khakis flying gliders (as I saw in the recruiting posters).
We need a brand that brings up that mental slide in America's mind. We've missed it for about three generations so far.
Gunner;
You bring up a good point about Coke. They also sell Sprite. Sprite is it's own brand. That brand has distinct branding elements. It all goes to Coke's bottom line.
The same would be true if we had different colored uniforms (say all CAP Senior members in blueBDUs)
The Air Force would get as much credit as before. Doing good in their name would be as good as doing good in their uniform... which
can't be worn by all of us. AND for CAP it would be a big (or at least bigger) branding possibility.
We've got a real world experiment in uniform-based branding going on in the armed forces right now. Most of the services were using the BDU and lately they've gone off in their own direction for no apparent reason other than an attempt at branding.
The Army and Marines, at least, have no logical operatational reasons for having distinctive uniforms, but they do.
Quote from: Smithsonia on December 26, 2009, 10:22:41 PMhttp://www.uniformsmag.com/issues/0107/feat2.htm
Applying the above reference to our corporate uniform, the aviators, our uniforms resemble something you would see a corporate pilot wear, but it doesn't really scream aviation like the CSU did. Some people thought it looked like an airline uniform, but at least there was a highly visible link with aviation. Throw the blazer on top of the aviator's and you look like...nothing aviation related. Polo's, are the worst thing for branding. Every corporation uses them, and thus the distinguishing effects of it are diluted.
Thank you for your hardwork on the Flight 217 article.In regards to not being recognized by the rescuers and media, would focusing on more of a standard cold weather/outer-garment to be worn by all SAR personnel been more effect in this case?
As far as going to one ClassA/B uniform, one Utility uniform for seniors, unless the Air Force forces it, its going to be a long time before its accepted voluntarily.
Respectfully,
Quote from: RiverAux on December 26, 2009, 10:52:42 PM
We've got a real world experiment in uniform-based branding going on in the armed forces right now. Most of the services were using the BDU and lately they've gone off in their own direction for no apparent reason other than an attempt at branding.
The Army and Marines, at least, have no logical operatational reasons for having distinctive uniforms, but they do.
I guess the air force supplying In-lue of positions to the army, AF Security Forces having more outside the wire patrols and missions (like combat convoys and supply line security) AF medics supplied to army units, Af EOD handling the majority of IED instances for the Iraq war and not to mentioned the several special forces units the air force deploys were not important in the designee of the new uniform.
Another reason for the change was to lessen to amount of uniforms that the air force possessed. Having Bdu's and DCU's was a waste, so combining them into a uniform that not only closely matched the army (since thousands of airman are fighting right along soldiers, and I think the airman would stand out just slightly in dcu's compares to the army's digital) but allowed the air force to issue one style, usable in all areas.
I can't speak for the navy or any other branch, but the ABU was designed more for usability, than what bob or Joe thinks about them in the local Wal-Mart. Branding is important I agree but please don't say the military has no reason (other than branding) to move on to a bigger and better uniform.
We can blame the Marines for the ACU/ABU and Navy's new uniform.
They decided unlaterally that they needed something new and adopted a new uniform. That opened the flood gate for the Army's ACU (who went with gray to eliminate the need for multiple camo options). Of course the USAF had to follow suit.
I would not point to what the DoD is doing with uniforms as an example of good branding through uniforms. In fact they are going to what CAP has....multiforms which creates barriers in working together.
One fight.....one uniform.
Quote from: Smithsonia on December 26, 2009, 10:22:41 PM
Ned/Hawk Some light reading on branding
http://www.uniformsmag.com/issues/0107/feat2.htm
http://www.fool.com/portfolios/rulemaker/2001/rulemaker010502.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logo
Ed,
Thank you for the "references." No, really, thank you. My wife is out of state at a CAP activity, so any illustrated article that features Hooter Girls' uniforms is deeply appreciated.
That aside, let's take a look at what they add to the discourse.
First, let's look at the article in Uniforms magazine. Initially we should note that Uniforms magazine is hardly an academic source of enlightenment. It is a specialty trade magazine put out by and for the very people who profit from selling folks new uniforms. I'm sure the uniform industry thinks Uniform Branding is Very, Very Important. ("Sign here, please.")
But more importantly, the article doesn't even support your position. Sure, Hooters deliberatley markets the sex appeal of their waitresses uniforms. (Thanks again for the link.) But there is no claim that the lycra tops, spandex shorts, and pantyhose increased their business one cent. Better yet, the article points out that Hooters has a bunch of different uniforms for managers, kitchen crew, hostesses, etc. Repeat after me: "Form follows function."
Second, the Motley Fool article about Fedex and others does not even mention clothing as a branding element. Certainly Fedex doesn't market their uniforms.
Third, the Wikipedia (really, Wikipedia???) also fails to mention clothing in any way in their superfical discussion of logos. What was the point?
Quote
I've been speaking on this topic in the abstract. Let me now be specific. Look in your latest Volunteer, look for the Flight 217 story.. Yes it is a story about me. That's not my point.
[ . . .]
Ed, are you seriously suggesting that the point of the article was that if the heroic CAP rescue crew had had snazzy uniform parkas that CAP would have enjoyed substantially better publicity?
You did the research. Are you saying that the snowmobile club got more publicity than they deserved because they had better looking uniform parkas?
Really, was that the point of the article? I missed that somehow.
By all accounts this was a highly successful mission, performed at great personal risk by some genuine CAP heroes.
I didn't see any shortcomings on our part. But looking at it through your lens, maybe the PA crew could have been more successful at getting our message out.
But I'm still not seeing how Flight 217 ties to this topic (Uniforms as branding elements) in any way.
Sir, I have been trying to have a genuine discussion on your topic, but for some reason you do not want to respond to my questions. You kind of skip over them entirely. Please consider engaging with us directly in this area so we can continue the discussion.
So, again, can you point us to any organizations that have turned themselves around or significantly increased their mission performance because they changed their uniforms? (Engaged in Uniform Branding?)
If Hooters is really your best example, by all means let's discuss it. I suspect it is going to be a tough comparison since we by and large do not market our members like Hooters markets the sex appeal of their young women. But using your paradigm, explain to us how the Hooters example could work for CAP.
Please.
Ned Lee
Quote from: NCRblues on December 26, 2009, 11:36:53 PMI guess the air force supplying In-lue of positions to the army, AF Security Forces having more outside the wire patrols and missions (like combat convoys and supply line security) AF medics supplied to army units, Af EOD handling the majority of IED instances for the Iraq war and not to mentioned the several special forces units the air force deploys were not important in the designee of the new uniform.
You missed the entire point of my message. There is no reason other than branding that each and every service needs ITS OWN uniform to work in the same exact environment. This obviously makes no sense from a logistical or money-saving point of view, so the only reason for each service to have its own is branding.
Is that a bad thing? No, not necessarily. I was just pointing out that we're now seeing each service trying to distinguish itself from the others based on the uniform it has chosen for field work (and pretty much everything else except Monday in the AF, if reports are to believed).
Is this branding working? I'm probably better than most civilians and I'm not sure I could tell the difference between the uniforms worn by the AF/Army/Marines without looking at the service strips (if even visible).
Some of the services other uniforms (such as the Marine dress uniform) are certainly distinctive and likely to be recognized by many, but I don't see a whole lot of potential CAP members who would be so excited to wear any CAP version of the service uniform, that it would make much of a difference what it looks like.
Lot of people think that having a uniform they designed is going to solve all of CAP's problems.
We've got problems to solve, and the uniform isn't one of them. One is the lone business mentality which is becoming more predominant. Civil Air Patrol as a wholly independant corporation is a failure in concept that just doesn't seem to register to people. Our existance is tied to being an auxiliary, and wearing the uniform of a military branch.
Ned;
Academics usually don't do uniforms. Academics don't do PA that much, they do study it. It is a craft. None of the major practitioners of the art have Doctorates. BUT, neither do most all of the people who practice advertising, public relations, marketing, publicity, film, television, journalism, or brand building. I also can't think of someone with a doctorate in flying. I know lot's of Aerospace folks with doctorates but not that many are pilots. Flying? It is just another thing you do. Regarding PA etc.. If you spend the time to write a text book... likely it'll be out of date by the time it is published. You learn through the doing. You learn by practicing.
There were more references for you. I figured you'd get stuck at Hooters. So to help you further, logos are part of branding too. The Nike swoosh is an obvious and inescapable logo that works on boots, athletic shoes, golf wear, bags, NBA Jerseys, and socks.
I added the Hooters element, which is only a portion of that article, for levity. The article you speak of, does explain uniforms and branding. I guess you didn't read that article. It's actually to the point. Uniforms are uniform no matter who wears them or how skimpy the uniforms are.
Right now our logos are primary blue with white and red elements. There's not much green. The Air Force Signature blue isn't there either. Our latest paint jobs are primary dark blue. Aligning all of our logos and branding items makes sense. Hooters Bright Orange is used for the same reason. If you think about it - you can recall the exact color, even if you've never attended the establishment.
I wasn't in the CAP when the 1978 event occurred. I used it in this thread, as I can speak about it authoritatively. I did the research, know the issues, found all the members of both the CAP team and those I could locate that had been rescued, organized the commemoration and did about half of the exhibit work myself. I can therefore be trusted to go outside the Volunteer article and explain other points which are represented in the entire project. There are about 30 articles mentioning CAP in a positive fashion that comes from revisiting the wreck site, the 30 year commemoration, and museum exhibit unveiling. Those can be found on another thread. Most of those are posted here http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=6642.0
It is a real world example. I can't explain the reason that the PA ball was dropped in 1978. I have no information on that. Explore if you like. Repeat your complaints too. It all helps explain the issue from the ground up.
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 27, 2009, 12:48:16 AM
Lot of people think that having a uniform they designed is going to solve all of CAP's problems.
..but Smithsonia isn't one of them. He's talking about uniforms as one of several elements we need to consider.
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 27, 2009, 12:48:16 AM
We've got problems to solve, and the uniform isn't one of them. One is the lone business mentality which is becoming more predominant. Civil Air Patrol as a wholly independant corporation is a failure in concept that just doesn't seem to register to people. Our existance is tied to being an auxiliary, and wearing the uniform of a military branch.
I'm with Hawk on this one.
Ed,
I guess we're done here. I had though that you honestly wanted to have a discussion about using uniforms as part of any CAP branding initatives, but I was wrong.
You have consistently refused to answer a single one of my questions and taken cheap ad-hom shots at me and others who disagree with you.
All I have asked from you is some support for your assertion that our current uniform choices negatively affect any potential CAP branding initiative.
And you have declined to support your postion, except by saying - in essence - that we should trust you based on your civilian experience.
You provided some some generic links to articles that do not support your position, and which you now seem to suggest were provided as some sort of joke. You then proceded to change the subject and talk about logos (swooshes and the colors used in our own logos), which really has nothing to do with your topic - the use of CAP uniforms as branding elements.
And finally you brought up the Volunteer article about the 1978 saves and said that was your point. I'm still scratching my head over that one.
(Even you if don't want to publicly explain how that heroic mission supports your notion that we have too many uniforms, please just PM me. I'm dying to know.)
At this point it is just too painful to watch you dodge legitimate discussion.
You win. CAP has too many uniforms, and we should scrap most of them because that will make outsiders love us more. And our new uniforms should probably be orange. Thank you for your professional guidance on this issue.
Ned Lee
P.S. Apparently a lot of B-schools do think of marketing as an academic discipline. You can get a PhD in marketing from Wharton, and several dozen other b-schools. And if all of those disertation and thesis writing folks have never in the history of b-schools written on clothing as branding elements in the nonprofit arena, there may be a good reason for that.
Quote from: Rotorhead on December 27, 2009, 01:45:54 AM
..but Smithsonia isn't one of them. He's talking about uniforms as one of several elements we need to consider.
No, he's talking about uniforms as branding. A commercial concept that doesn't have any place in CAP. Uniforms shouldn't even be on the radar when it comes to the issues CAP has. At all.
Looking good is completely irrelevant if you can't tell your tail end from a hole in the ground. Too many people make this mistake. Appearance and performance are not linked in any way, shape or form. You may have gear or uniforms that look cool, but it doesn't mean you can do the job. I can dress up like Special Forces all day long, but I don't have the skills and people will know it eventually.
I still think that one reason (among many) too many people want to do away with the military uniforms is because they won't have to worry about being held to the standard that goes with it. People expect more of them than they're capable of.
Quote from: lordmonar on December 26, 2009, 11:48:35 PM
We can blame the Marines for the ACU/ABU and Navy's new uniform.
Actually, we can blame the Canadians.
The CADPAT uniform was the first digital camouflage uniform used operationally.
http://www.hyperstealth.com/CADPAT-MARPAT.htm
What's in it is still classified by Her Majesty's Canadian Government to the point that Canadian troops separating from service are not allowed to keep theirs.
Uniforms are one element of an intelligent branding initiative. Period. Are uniforms the most important part of branding? No. In fact, you can have effective branding without any uniforms. That said, the instant you have a uniform it becomes part of your brand, for better or worse.
Why does CAP need branding? Because we are repeatedly told we are a well-kept secret. That's lousy for recruiting and funding. The next time Congress decides where the money goes; we want them to have instant recognition, coupled with warm fuzzy feelings about CAP. We also want improved relationships with the HLS types we are beginning to work for.
The American Red Cross is a great example of good branding. Like us, they are not a commercial enterprise. They don't even wear uniforms, but when you see their vests and vehicles you know exactly who they are. People fall all over themselves to donate money to the Red Cross and sing their praises. CAP can't say that.
When people see a CAP uniform, it should evoke positive images: professionalism, excellent service, etc. We dilute those positive vibes by scattering our brand into the wind. Obviously it can go the other way if we don't have our act together.
The image we present, including the way we dress, absolutely means something. If we have a crummy public image we lose opportunities to demonstrate our skills. A slob in uniform may make a parent think twice before allowing their kids in the cadet program.
We don't need everyone in the exact same uniform to accomplish the uniform portion of branding. We DO need readily identifiable visual elements across the board. Currently, you can put several different CAP uniforms in a row with no clue they belong to the same organization. The polo uses the CAP shield, the blazer uses the CAP crest, the flightsuit and VSAF shirt use the MAJCOM emblem, the AF uniform has no patches, and there is no consistent color scheme. It's only a matter of time until someone put that dammed prop in a triangle logo on a uniform. This situation is terrible for branding. If we were smart about such things we would do something to tie our various uniforms together. Simply requiring a common visual element on every single CAP uniform would improve matters. This could be accomplished without major expense.
It's true there are other issues in CAP that need attention. However, we DO have public affairs and marketing staff who SHOULD be working on this. Instead they insist on creating new logos, slogans, and vehicle markings. Every time they do that they dilute our meager brand. Instead they should be working to strengthen our brand and name recognition. We have every reason to expect better of them.
Branding has power. We ignore it at our own peril.
Ned;
Certainly you are done. I'm sorry you found the references unsatisfying. References were for your education. Not for your approval. The same is true for all study material, from text books to dictionaries. Additionally if you fail to read these sources. I can do little to help you. You asked for references. You received references. In return you provided no reference material for your point of view. Nothing of support. No material, not once. Only solipsistic replies of dissatisfaction.
The quick answer is "everything in its way is Branding." From the cable knit sweater and blue jeans you wear around the house, to the business suit you wear to work, to the gentleman's ranch wear boots, the high fashion couture fancied by the chic'... it is all branding. Afterall, all clothing only covers ones body for warmth and modesty. But the choice of color and style also says this is what is preferred. Choices are made. Statements are made. If you routinely wear, whatever it is you wear... you say something about you. You make a choice. You brand you.
In the interstitial moments between a fixed image and a large deed (big missions in our case) - That is the time to ask the question "who are we?" and "what image do we want?" Hence the conversation. You and Hawk have aided me in many good and presumed noble ways. I thank you for it. It has been sincere privilege.
Good day!
Quote from: FARRIER on December 27, 2009, 01:54:09 AM
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 27, 2009, 12:48:16 AM
We've got problems to solve, and the uniform isn't one of them. One is the lone business mentality which is becoming more predominant. Civil Air Patrol as a wholly independant corporation is a failure in concept that just doesn't seem to register to people. Our existance is tied to being an auxiliary, and wearing the uniform of a military branch.
I'm with Hawk on this one.
I actually agree with both of you. However - - - -
1. The AF took that option away from us. If we could all wear the AF uniform, then we wouldn't have this discussion.
2. The current governing matrix is not working; our mission focus is like a 16mm high school projector. We have things to fix. But when things start to focus and we try to work a coordinated marketing program, uniforms are an
element of branding.
Ned -
Uniforms will not turn marketing around. Uniforms will not solve all CAP's problems. Uniforms are a tool, nothing more, nothing less. It is how that tool is utilized that makes it an effective one or not. {End to Ned}
To everyone: We all have had to use a wrench as a hammer, a Vise-Grip
® as a screwdriver, or a key as a knife. Are these the correct tools for the job – no. But can we use them in lieu of a more appropriate tool – yes. Form follows function.
In our uniform tool box, we have AF-style and CAP-style. The AF-style has dress uniforms in different combinations, dependent on what needs to be done (think box wrenches), a utility uniform (think hammer), and flight suits for specialized use (think wood plane). But in that same tool box, we have CAP-style uniforms. The CAP-style dress uniforms have some combinations, but not very many (think yellow box wrenches with half missing), a utility uniform (think hammer, identical to the other hammer except it has a blue handle instead of wood), flight suits (think wood plane), and polos (think Gerber multi-tool, jack of all trades, master of none).
Now, CAP needs to rebuild an airplane. Some senior members can reach in and pull out the correct tool for the job, or even have a choice of tool to use. Other senior members reach in to get a tool, only to be told they can't use that tool because its' use is restricted by the tool's owner based on their appearance. So they have to use a CAP-style tool, but the correct one is missing. They end up having to use the Gerber, because nothing else fits and that affects the quality of work. And yet other senior members only use the Gerber because it is a whole lot easier to carry it around then the complete tool box. Furthermore, while we were working on the airplane, the public was invited to watch from another room. They didn't know what was happening, but they noticed that only certain people could only use certain tools, while others used all the tools, while yet others used only one tool. When CAP is done, would you fly in it? Not all the members had the right tool for the job, while others just used one tool for everything. Would the public or other pilots fly in it?
What we are proposing is to unify the CAP tool box. When members reach for a tool, they all have the same tool, the same color, to do the same job.
** While I was writing this, wuzafuzz & smithsonia posted. Good post, sirs!!
Quote from: Smithsonia on December 27, 2009, 05:09:48 PM
Ned;
Certainly you are done. I'm sorry you found the references unsatisfying. References were for your education. Not for your approval. The same is true for all study material, from text books to dictionaries. Additionally if you fail to read these sources. I can do little to help you. You asked for references. You received references. In return you provided no reference material for your point of view. Nothing of support. No material, not once. Only solipsistic replies of dissatisfaction.
The quick answer is "everything in its way is Branding." From the cable knit sweater and blue jeans you wear around the house, to the business suit you wear to work, to the gentleman's ranch wear boots, the high fashion couture fancied by the chic'... it is all branding. Afterall, all clothing only covers ones body for warmth and modesty. But the choice of color and style also says this is what is preferred. Choices are made. Statements are made. If you routinely wear, whatever it is you wear... you say something about you. You make a choice. You brand you.
In the interstitial moments between a fixed image and a large deed (big missions in our case) - That is the time to ask the question "who are we?" and "what image do we want?" Hence the conversation. You and Hawk have aided me in many good and presumed noble ways. I thank you for it. It has been sincere privilege.
Good day!
You spent most of your time arguing with Ned and Hawk. To answer the others, you had to be under a rock not to realize that CAP has been a best kept secret. The rules, as you have been giving examples of through the links, the CSU was that experiment, even if it wasn't intened to be. Didn't it get peoples attention?
If you look at the airlines in this country, thier uniforms are either blue or black. Thats the color associated with aviation. The Working Statement of 2001 and the Constitution and Bylaws express the word aerospace many times.
Your idea has been listened to, and in fact, other threads this redesign of the uniform has been attempted. What is your solution? Your only three sets of uniforms is understood.
Respectfully,
QuoteWhy does CAP need branding? Because we are repeatedly told we are a well-kept secret. That's lousy for recruiting and funding.
Actually that is a line that has been actively discouraged in CAP public affairs for a while.
Quote from: Smithsonia on December 24, 2009, 07:07:11 PM
I must point out that the Army Chief of Staff Gen. Casey attended the Ft. Hood Memorial Service in his Battle Dress and Combat Boots. Nearly every other soldier was dressed the same. It seems to me that the Army is attempting to strip-down their variety of uniforms as a memorial like this would normally be a ClassA/ClassB uniform event.
This change could not be attributed to a change in duty, as there wasn't a combat alert or these people were in a war zone (I know that there is a discrepancy in this conclusion and given how these soldiers died, don't go there out of respect please), but there is a change, a simplification in branding/culture/style.
Battle Dress is becoming iconic, in the same way that the 50 mission cap became iconic in WW2. The 50 mission cap was a regular service cap broken down by wearing headsets. By 1943 they were making service caps just that way. (To look broken down out of the box) Kind of like Levi brand fading jeans.
We need an iconic (branding) uniform. We have several to pick from.
Ed, the reason for the ACU wear is to reinforce the Army's image as a warfighting organization. That said, the ACU is highly inappropriate for ceremonies or for testifying before Congress. When the President spoke at West Point, there wasn't an ACU in the building, and that's as it should be. It's a sign of respect for the occasion and for those involved, like him or not.
The Air Force had the good sense not to do what the Army did for very long, though senior leaders never went as far as wearing a work uniform to a Congressional hearing (and being chastized by a congressman for doing so). Blues Mondays!
We have the uniforms to brand with — the service uniform and the flight suit. Why do we keep trying to fix something that isn't broken? Our military heritage boldly and simply identifies us without much explanation. The Air Force is our parent organization, and we should be proud to stand with them, not run from them when it suits our purpose. If you can't wear the Air Force uniforms, fine, no problem — there's the white-and-grays and the blazer, so you don't have a reason to stay home.
As for people in cadet programs who wear the appropriate Air Force uniform the cadets wear, good on you. You should always wear the uniform of your troops. Lead by example, not by the lack thereof. (For those of you who wear a CAP combination instead because of weight or facial hair issues, no one's looking down on you.)
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on December 28, 2009, 12:32:57 AM
We have the uniforms to brand with — the service uniform and the flight suit. Why do we keep trying to fix something that isn't broken? Our military heritage boldly and simply identifies us without much explanation. The Air Force is our parent organization, and we should be proud to stand with them, not run from them when it suits our purpose. If you can't wear the Air Force uniforms, fine, no problem — there's the white-and-grays and the blazer, so you don't have a reason to stay home.
(For those of you who wear a CAP combination instead because of weight or facial hair issues, no one's looking down on you.)
No, we don't have a service uniform. We have a business blazer with a nametag that we can't wear ribbons, qual badges, etc on.
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on December 28, 2009, 12:32:57 AM
As for people in cadet programs who wear the appropriate Air Force uniform the cadets wear, good on you. You should always wear the uniform of your troops. Lead by example, not by the lack thereof.(For those of you who wear a CAP combination instead because of weight or facial hair issues, no one's looking down on you.)
Really?? Do you think that there is not a double standard? Even your comment was biased.
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on December 28, 2009, 03:18:25 AM
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on December 28, 2009, 12:32:57 AM
We have the uniforms to brand with — the service uniform and the flight suit. Why do we keep trying to fix something that isn't broken? Our military heritage boldly and simply identifies us without much explanation. The Air Force is our parent organization, and we should be proud to stand with them, not run from them when it suits our purpose. If you can't wear the Air Force uniforms, fine, no problem — there's the white-and-grays and the blazer, so you don't have a reason to stay home.
(For those of you who wear a CAP combination instead because of weight or facial hair issues, no one's looking down on you.)
No, we don't have a service uniform. We have a business blazer with a nametag that we can't wear ribbons, qual badges, etc on.
So lobby to put them on the blazer. Simple solution.
Now, who's gonna be the first to say "We can't do that!", and then whine about not having military finery?
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 28, 2009, 04:52:06 AM
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on December 28, 2009, 03:18:25 AM
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on December 28, 2009, 12:32:57 AM
We have the uniforms to brand with — the service uniform and the flight suit. Why do we keep trying to fix something that isn't broken? Our military heritage boldly and simply identifies us without much explanation. The Air Force is our parent organization, and we should be proud to stand with them, not run from them when it suits our purpose. If you can't wear the Air Force uniforms, fine, no problem — there's the white-and-grays and the blazer, so you don't have a reason to stay home.
(For those of you who wear a CAP combination instead because of weight or facial hair issues, no one's looking down on you.)
No, we don't have a service uniform. We have a business blazer with a nametag that we can't wear ribbons, qual badges, etc on.
So lobby to put them on the blazer. Simple solution.
Now, who's gonna be the first to say "We can't do that!", and then whine about not having military finery?
We're going to argue that it looks unprofessional (actually, it looks like crap)
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on December 28, 2009, 03:18:25 AM
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on December 28, 2009, 12:32:57 AM
We have the uniforms to brand with — the service uniform and the flight suit. Why do we keep trying to fix something that isn't broken? Our military heritage boldly and simply identifies us without much explanation. The Air Force is our parent organization, and we should be proud to stand with them, not run from them when it suits our purpose. If you can't wear the Air Force uniforms, fine, no problem — there's the white-and-grays and the blazer, so you don't have a reason to stay home.
(For those of you who wear a CAP combination instead because of weight or facial hair issues, no one's looking down on you.)
No, we don't have a service uniform. We have a business blazer with a nametag that we can't wear ribbons, qual badges, etc on.
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on December 28, 2009, 12:32:57 AM
As for people in cadet programs who wear the appropriate Air Force uniform the cadets wear, good on you. You should always wear the uniform of your troops. Lead by example, not by the lack thereof.(For those of you who wear a CAP combination instead because of weight or facial hair issues, no one's looking down on you.)
Really?? Do you think that there is not a double standard? Even your comment was biased.
The double standard exists because there's a non-military option. It's not a personal bias. S'members who work with cadets are supposed to wear a uniform; the wear of the uniform cadets wear sets a good example, but if a member can't wear it, the professional wear of the non-military uniform is acceptable. Cadets can smell a bad senior member several miles away, whether he/she is wearing the Air Force uniforms or the non-military combinations.
I can't think of a better "branding element" than this:
http://www.caphistory.org/images/museum_store/poster.jpg
Update it with the photo of one of our birds and a Thunderbirds F-16.
Just saw a new (to me) Marine commercial where they take a bunch of recruits, run them through Basic, and the commercial ends with a line of Marines in their dress uniforms spinning rifles by a lighthouse. I think this is a clear illustration of using the uniform as a branding element. Actually, if you think about it, almost every Marine commercial has images of their dress uniform in it.
Uniforms are definitely a branding element. If you were to do a CAP commercial, what uniforms would you have the members in?
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on December 31, 2009, 04:31:10 PM
Just saw a new (to me) Marine commercial where they take a bunch of recruits, run them through Basic, and the commercial ends with a line of Marines in their dress uniforms spinning rifles by a lighthouse. I think this is a clear illustration of using the uniform as a branding element. Actually, if you think about it, almost every Marine commercial has images of their dress uniform in it.
Uniforms are definitely a branding element. ]
Exactly!
Questions:
1. Don't the Marines have as many or more uniform combinations than any of the other services? Did they discontinue any in order to improve their branding?
2. Hasn't the Marine dress uniform remained essentially the same for over a half-century? IOW, did they change it just to make it more suitable for branding?
Nobody had been objecting to using our uniforms as branding elements. The opposition has been against ill-conceived and expensive proposals to change our uniforms simply because that
might somehow improve our branding.
Your example supports the principal that highly effective branding can be done in an organization with many different uniforms without having to make changes.
Thank you.
Has anyone actually looked a the definition of "branding (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/branding)"? Somehow it doesn't seem to apply. The Air Force is not a "brand". Civil Air Patrol is not a "brand". A uniform represents an organization. Calling it something else doesn't alter what it is.This commercial marketing term is not even related.
This little marketing bandwagon catch term is another lame attempt to be something other than what we are. Changing the uniform for commercialization is not going to help us in the least bit, and is just gonna be another fiasco, resulting in lost time, money, and members.
Hawk – your link says: "the promoting of a product or service by identifying it with a particular brand." The MW dictionary then defines brand as: "to impress indelibly"
So you are 100% wrong – We are discussing the promotion of CAP's missions (services) by identifying them with Civil Air Patrol, and CAP is what we are trying to impress indelibly upon America.
The Air Force is a "brand" of service, just as Tide is a brand of detergent. There are several different "brands" of military service in the U.S. (Army, Navy, etc) Look at the millions of dollars the various branches have spent to impress their image indelibly upon the public. The United States is even a "brand." In many parts of the world, our "brand" image is freedom, hope, and opportunity.
The poster that CyBorg linked to is a perfect example of co-branding, which MW states is: "to market or issue... in conjunction with another company so that the product bears the name of both." In that poster, we are co-branding with USAF. In this case, the product we are "selling" is that CAP is not a civilian flying club, but part of a larger purpose, a larger organization – USAF and by extension, the USA.
Ned,
True to an extent. The difference is that every Marine has the famous dress blues and wears them as directed. In fact EVERY Marine has their uniforms and when they show up some where, they are all dressed the same. Example, (if they were us), everyone would be at the SAR in MARPATs, at the Wing Conference Banquet, everyone would be in the famous dress blues, in an office environment, they would be in greens. The point is that everyone would be in the same thing for the same activity.
Their uniform has been the same. We haven't had the ability to do that. If we change to a CAP-style, then we can bring stability to the uniform chaos.
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on December 31, 2009, 05:52:39 PM
Hawk – your link says: "the promoting of a product or service by identifying it with a particular brand." The MW dictionary then defines brand as: "to impress indelibly"
So you are 100% wrong – We are discussing the promotion of CAP's missions (services) by identifying them with Civil Air Patrol, and CAP is what we are trying to impress indelibly upon America.
The Air Force is a "brand" of service, just as Tide is a brand of detergent. There are several different "brands" of military service in the U.S. (Army, Navy, etc) Look at the millions of dollars the various branches have spent to impress their image indelibly upon the public. The United States is even a "brand." In many parts of the world, our "brand" image is freedom, hope, and opportunity.
The poster that CyBorg linked to is a perfect example of co-branding, which MW states is: "to market or issue... in conjunction with another company so that the product bears the name of both." In that poster, we are co-branding with USAF. In this case, the product we are "selling" is that CAP is not a civilian flying club, but part of a larger purpose, a larger organization – USAF and by extension, the USA.
Semantics. This is bringing stupid commercialization where it's unnecessary.
You can think I'm wrong, but I can also think that you're one of the deluded people who believes that marketing ploys is actually gonna do something for us, instead of actually dealing with the issues. I can also think that you're gonna rationalize anything that supports your viewpoint.
"Hey, this horse has a broken leg. Let's put a Band Aid on it, it'll be alright".
Yes Hawk200 many of us know this topic well. We do it for a living. In all cases, even if there isn't a brand assertion - All organization get branded. I offer as a test: FEMA. Think about the name. Let it roll in your head for a second before you continue.
FEMA has never had much of a brand. Most people don't know what they do and how they do it. So, even though they did amazing work Post 9-11 at the World Trade Center, Katrina and Rita are the first thing that pops into the heads of most folks. We can argue if the criticism they received with Katrina was justified, that is not the point here. Without a clear statement of THIS IS FEMA AND THIS IS WHAT WE DO... Then people filled in what they liked and in a most unambiguous way. Branding is not just to sell THINGS. It also to sells concepts, services, ideas, and even the Meta-physical. (Almost all churches: Evangelical, Traditional, Conservative, Reformed, etc. carry a brand concept.
Ultimately THE Boss: Isn't your commander, National Commander, or the Air Force... it is the American Public. Branding helps our ultimate boss with their considerations and positive reaction to funding requests and missions. This is a rather standard concept. So far we seem to not be addressing this fully and in a potent, cogent, consistent manner. Uniforms as branding elements... is a partial discussion of that concept.
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on December 31, 2009, 05:52:39 PM
Their uniform has been the same. We haven't had the ability to do that. If we change to a CAP-style, then we can bring stability to the uniform chaos.
Uniform issues are caused by unclear and unenforced standards on uniform wear and not the multiple options our members have depending on the activity and meeting height, weight and grooming. Putting everyone in a military style uniform, like the one proposed in other threads, will harm our brand. Military style uniforms are not appropriate for everyone, and having height/weight and grooming standards protect our brand. For those that cannot or choose not to meet height/weight and/or grooming standards, there should be a standardized non-military (possibly aviation) style uniform. Not providing a standardized and professional non-military style uniform for those who cannot or choice not to wear the AF uniform is a serious oversight by our leadership. CAP's association with the US Military and status as the USAF Auxiliary strengthens our brand and adds credibility to our organization and mission. It is appropriate that those that meet the standards have the ability to wear the AF uniform.
For most of my CAP career as a SM, I was unable to wear the AF uniform due to height/weight. I bought the CSU, minus the coat (thankfully), and honestly, it looked ridiculous. I wore it only once because I felt it was not appropriate to wear a military style uniform and not be in shape. My grooming was within standards, shoes shined, and uniformed pressed, but it didn't feel right. Did I feel like a second class member? no Did I limit my participation? no I wore white/grays/blazer or the polo. Even though I couldn't wear it, I was proud that CAP members are authorized to wear the AF uniform. It an honor that many on this board don't seem to understand or appreciate, even if
you cannot wear it.
Flame away...
Quote from: Smithsonia on December 31, 2009, 06:13:29 PM
Yes Hawk200 many of us know this topic well. We do it for a living.
For someone that claims to know it so well, you're not convincing me. If you do, show me. So far, you're a failure at that. The only thing you've done is say "I'm an expert at this". You haven't proved it to me.
All I'm seeing here is "Let's make a new uniform so the public knows what CAP is". The concept is a failure. Another new uniform is actually gonna make that worse.
Second, in the video, I sounds like the individual is using the term "branding" in it's original sense, not as the commercial aspect. It's placing an identifiable pattern on something (in this case people) and creating an association. The original "brand" was a mark burned into livestock to show who the owner was.
The concept of branding being discussed here is a commercial one. One I'm quite familiar with. I work for Domino's in the evenings. I take a product (a pizza) and deliver it (providing a service). That's the same aspect that I'm seeing here, marketing. CAP abilities should not be marketed in this fashion. If you can't tell someone "The Civil Air Patrol brand provides superior services compared to other Search and Rescue brands" without them laughing, it doesn't belong. I think that is the point that a number of people here are missing.
Quote from: Smithsonia on December 31, 2009, 06:13:29 PM(Almost all churches: Evangelical, Traditional, Conservative, Reformed, etc. carry a brand concept.
No, those are
denominations, not brands. The application is insulting to those of faith.
Quote from: Smithsonia on December 31, 2009, 06:13:29 PMUltimately THE Boss: Isn't your commander, National Commander, or the Air Force... it is the American Public. Branding helps our ultimate boss with their considerations and positive reaction to funding requests and missions. This is a rather standard concept. So far we seem to not be addressing this fully and in a potent, cogent, consistent manner. Uniforms as branding elements... is the partial discussion of that concept.
The boss makes the choices based on our missions and abilities, not our clothes. Any president that sends a certain branch instead of another because he likes their clothes better would be a complete fool. We don't market our services with our clothing.
The Marine Corps tends to go in pretty quick on anything. They are a lethal branch of service that is small and mobile. Their size and training allows them to do that. That's not marketing, it's
ability.
Is this viewpoint clear?
But it is that ability that has created the Marine Corps brand. The uniform is a branding element.
And if you don't think we are selling something - you're seriously deluded. We are selling first, our existance, second, our services.
Many agencies have alternate sources of what we sell. Want youth programs - take a choice of BSA, B&G Clubs, sport programs, etc, etc. Want SAR - check out the local SAR clubs, Sheriff SAR Teams, etc. Want flying - check out your local flying club.
We are competing for people, we are competing against numerous other volunteer organizations. So yeah, just like the AF is competing against other military branches for quality recruits, we are competing for people. We are competing for our organization's very existance.
Brands are (according to your source) indelible images. Southern Baptist has a different brand from Catholic. Is it demeaning - no. Even the commericals each group runs are different. You have an opinion that anyone over H/W requirements should not be in a military style uniform. That is YOUR oipinion. I agree, we do not need to be in the AF uniforms because the AF doesn't want us ruining their brand by being in them. But that does not mean that we should not be in a military style unifrom. Cops are and a lot of us are overweight. By your statement, opverweight cops should not be in a military-style uniform.
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on December 31, 2009, 07:30:28 PM
Brands are (according to your source) indelible images. Southern Baptist has a different brand from Catholic. Is it demeaning - no. Even the commericals each group runs are different. You have an opinion that anyone over H/W requirements should not be in a military style uniform. That is YOUR oipinion. I agree, we do not need to be in the AF uniforms because the AF doesn't want us ruining their brand by being in them. But that does not mean that we should not be in a military style unifrom. Cops are and a lot of us are overweight. By your statement, opverweight cops should not be in a military-style uniform.
No, my opinion has nothing to do with police departments, just CAP. They can control their own brand.
I'm not trying to pick a fight. There is far from any consensus on any uniform issue on CAPTALK. Like you, I'm just expressing my opinion that others may or may not share.
Quote from: cap235629 on December 21, 2009, 08:12:48 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on December 21, 2009, 08:09:36 PM
Quote from: cap235629 on December 21, 2009, 06:58:57 PM
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
Look what I found:
Army's "new" uniform (http://www.military.com/news/article/army-to-field-new-uniforms-for-afghanistan.html)
Also, a new study has named Multi-Cam as the best "overall" choice if the Army decides to go with a universal all environment uniform. You can read the study here:
Camouflage Test (http://www.scribd.com/doc/19823845/Photosimulation-Camouflage-Detection-Test)
It also looks like we may go back to 2 distinct uniforms, go figure!
Apparently, there are people stuck on using this marketing term. Fine, I'll play.
Answer me this: What is creating a new uniform for Civil Air Patrol going to solve?
The CSU was first seen at an Armed Services Hearing. It wasn't even recognized. How did that help "market" CAP?
Another aspect of "branding" is advertising. Products are commonly advertised as "better" than something else. What is it that makes CAP better because of our "brand"?
It's not like we produce a better person just because they were a CAP cadet instead of a JROTC one. Considering how many dual enrollees are out there, apparently we don't produce something better just because we're CAP, or else they wouldn't be in both.
We obviously don't produce better SAR personnel, because there are plenty of times we aren't alone in missions, and we wouldn't be working jointly with anyone else if were better.
As to Aerospace, what are we producing that is so much better than all those schools/colleges that teach even more than we do?
So it seems to me that our clothes don't make us experts in all aspects. What is a new uniform going to do to change that?
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 31, 2009, 05:07:50 PM
Has anyone actually looked a the definition of "branding (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/branding)"? Somehow it doesn't seem to apply. The Air Force is not a "brand". Civil Air Patrol is not a "brand". A uniform represents an organization. Calling it something else doesn't alter what it is.This commercial marketing term is not even related.
This little marketing bandwagon catch term is another lame attempt to be something other than what we are. Changing the uniform for commercialization is not going to help us in the least bit, and is just gonna be another fiasco, resulting in lost time, money, and members.
The definition you link to absolutely applies. Whether it's ES, cadet programs, or AE, CAP provides a service, a work product. Brand is the public identity and reputation that "says" CAP and in turn makes people think of the services or "product" we provide. Branding is the efforts made by the organization to affect their reputation. Image. It encompasses visual elements (yes, including uniforms), print media, speech, and behavior. All coordinated, hopefully, to project the positive image and value of that organization's products or of membership. It's not lame and if done right would not be a waste.
I've said it before, uniforms are not the most important part of branding, but a lousy appearance can definitely derail other efforts. Minimal efforts could make our uniforms look like they represent the same organization. We don't need new ones, but changing a few "accessories" and looking less like a meeting of different groups would help. There is more important work to be done with other aspects of our public persona.
Excerpted from my company's Intranet:
What is "brand"?
"Brand is how our customers, our associates, and the community experience ______ on an everyday basis. What we say and what we do, along with our visual identity, demonstrate our values and make up this experience. Experiences consistent with our values build confidence and trust. People trust and value our brand when their ______ experiences consistently meet or exceed their expectations."
Digging
WAY back to about 1975, sitting in my third year advertising (or something) class . . .
- We need a product
- The service has to fill a need
- We need something that visually (and aurally) identifies the product - packaging
Honest, I'm doing this from cloudy memory - be patient.
Products:
- Cadet training
- Emergency services and related stuff
- Aerospace Education
Need?
- What/where is the need for a cadet program?
- What/where is the need for emergency services and all of its permutations?
- What/where is the need for aerospace education?
Packaging (The topic of this thread):
- Myriad logotypes
- Myriad uniforms
- Most aircraft look the same
QuoteFor someone that claims to know it so well, you're not convincing me. If you do, show me. So far, you're a failure at that. The only thing you've done is say "I'm an expert at this". You haven't proved it to me.
Just because you don't know a correct principle when you see one doesn't mean you didn't see one. :P
Hawk200;
You stated that Denomination (different religious sects or affiliations) is not branding. It is precisely branding.
De - Nom - in -a - tion is the act of distinguishing one thing from another. As in, to denominate money into the various orders of value.
n.
1. A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy.
2. One of a series of kinds, values, or sizes, as in a system of currency or weights: Cash registers have compartments for bills of different denominations. The stamps come in 25¢ and 45¢ denominations.
3. A name or designation, especially for a class or group.
denominational de·nom'i·na'tion·al adj.
denominationally de·nom'i·na'tion·al·ly adv.
We're sort of talking about two different aspects of the same general topic:
1. The symbology (uniforms) associated with an organization and the role that they may play in promoting the image of the organization, bringing in recruits, etc.
2. The overall "reputation" of the organization as it has developed in the mind of the public. Depsite the efforts of our public affairs folks, the evidence is clear that among the general public our brand is "who? Never heard of them", however with local and state agencies we work with as well as the AF it is person-to-person contacts and experiences that have built our brand/reputation.
But as far as uniforms go as a symbol of CAP, I think the baddest rap we hear isn't that CAP members show up in 5 different uniforms to a mission or that we're a bunch of old fatties, it is the "They're all Colonels" belief. Now, this is demonstrably untrue (even if we bring it down to Lt. Cols.), but that reputation is sort of bolstered by the fact that even if we're not all Colonels, we're (for all practical purposes) all officers in the senior program.
Obviously that manifests itself on the uniforms in the grade insignia.
So long as we continue with an officer-based program this rap will continue even if we send every single CAP officer to OCS. The outside people will never have any real idea what training our officers have and even if every single one was the best trained officer ever seen in a military style uniform, the bad rap of "they're all Colonels" will continue.
No, I'm not saying that we should change our whole system around just to avoid this bad rap. I'm just pointing out that it is one element of the CAP "brand" among people who know much about us.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 01, 2010, 02:57:19 AM
The outside people will never have any real idea what training our officers have and even if every single one was the best trained officer ever seen in a military style uniform, the bad rap of "they're all Colonels" will continue.
John Q. Public likely has no idea of what it takes to be Colonel in the Armed Forces either. Many ordinary people seem to think that a NCO with a lot of "stripes" is high ranking and likely wonder why a guy with a silver "flower" on his shoulder is not called MAJOR.
I don't buy the arguments brought forth citing what people think and do not think of us. I should point out that most CAP Officers I know don't even consider the "heated topics" on this forum to be of relevance to their service.
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 01, 2010, 05:22:56 AMI should point out that most CAP Officers I know don't even consider the "heated topics" on this forum to be of relevance to their service.
Thanks, Sparky. I needed that.
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 01, 2010, 05:22:56 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on January 01, 2010, 02:57:19 AM
...the bad rap of "they're all Colonels"...
John Q. Public likely has no idea of what it takes to be Colonel in the Armed Forces either. Many ordinary people seem to think that a NCO with a lot of "stripes" is high ranking and likely wonder why a guy with a silver "flower" on his shoulder is not called MAJOR.
I don't buy the arguments brought forth citing what people think and do not think of us. I should point out that most CAP Officers I know don't even consider the "heated topics" on this forum to be of relevance to their service.
River is correct. I heard that exact quote used about us almost 20 years ago by my instructor in my Aircraft Accident Investigation class when I was in college.
Quote from: FARRIER on January 01, 2010, 05:47:22 AM
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 01, 2010, 05:22:56 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on January 01, 2010, 02:57:19 AM
...the bad rap of "they're all Colonels"...
John Q. Public likely has no idea of what it takes to be Colonel in the Armed Forces either. Many ordinary people seem to think that a NCO with a lot of "stripes" is high ranking and likely wonder why a guy with a silver "flower" on his shoulder is not called MAJOR.
I don't buy the arguments brought forth citing what people think and do not think of us. I should point out that most CAP Officers I know don't even consider the "heated topics" on this forum to be of relevance to their service.
River is correct. I heard that exact quote used about us almost 20 years ago by my instructor in my Aircraft Accident Investigation class when I was in college.
Yes, an some of those Colonels have been in CAP service for 25-30 years and may do so until they die. They do not pull in any money from it and their rank reflects their service and their ribbons their accomplishments. I, and my contemporaries of my unit, represent the farthest extent of Professional Development thus far as Majors.
Now, I have Lt Cols in my unit, they are retired military. Should I have denied them that rank since were "have too many Lt Cols?"
I thought we long ago understood that a CAP Lt Col means that, nothing more and nothing less. Lt Cols in CAP represent the end of a Professional Development cycle and the rank is an internal mechanism of CAP. I wish more education of the fact was made.
CAP is also mostly "local" in its application and the logical end to professional development is Lt Col. Thus, many units with longevity will have at least one Lt Col.
Now, to turn the tables on that ridiculous statement...I've been to San Antonio. It seems to me that every person in the USAF seems to be a Senior Airman...(gasp)...there goes the neighborhood.
QuoteNow, I have Lt Cols in my unit, they are retired military. Should Ihave denied them that rank since were "have too many Lt Cols?"
No one suggested anything of the sort and this has absolutely nothing to do with separate discussions we've had here about our PD program.
QuoteNow, to turn the tables on that ridiculous statement...
Whether you think it is ridiculous or not, it is what some people think of CAP. They are, of course, wrong, but we have to recognize that this is something we have to deal with.
QuoteI don't buy the arguments brought forth citing what people think and do not think of us.
When we're talking about branding, we're talking about what people think of us, for good or ill and trying to reshape it to the better.
It was once said to me by an Air Force Officer - "Ya'll got more half baked Colonels than a bag of popcorn"
While funny - I have no point to make here - Just a good joke. And of course kernels is spelled differently. Just as a comparison...
AND to a point. There has been inflation of both uniform choices and ranks. Here's the Staff and Ratings for NHQ Staff in '42. You'll see that Gil Robb Wilson was a Captain. Earle Johnson - A Major. Among the Highest Rank in CAP National Command Staff - Ms. Jackie Cochran PAO and was a Lt. Col.
Blee, Harry H. NHQ N/A Training & Ops Officer April 1942 Colonel
Broom, James F. NHQ N/A Ops Director May 1942 1Lt
Cochran, Jacqueline NHQ Washington, DC Pilot, PAO Jan 1942 Lt Col
Hawgood, Henry NHQ N/A Fiscal Officer May 1942 1Lt
Johnson, Earle NHQ New Jersey NC April 1942-47 Major
Leigh, Gilbert NHQ Arkansas Supply Officer May 1942 1Lt
Smith, Oscar C. NHQ N/A Finance Officer May 1942 1Lt
Vilas, Jack NHQ Illinois Executive Officer May 1942 1Lt
Wilson, Gill Robb NHQ New Jersey Chief Consultant May 1942 Captain
NHQ New Jersey Executive Officer Dec 1941-Apr 1942 Captain
Quote from: RiverAux on January 01, 2010, 03:30:38 PM
QuoteNow, I have Lt Cols in my unit, they are retired military. Should Ihave denied them that rank since were "have too many Lt Cols?"
No one suggested anything of the sort and this has absolutely nothing to do with separate discussions we've had here about our PD program.
QuoteNow, to turn the tables on that ridiculous statement...
Whether you think it is ridiculous or not, it is what some people think of CAP. They are, of course, wrong, but we have to recognize that this is something we have to deal with.
QuoteI don't buy the arguments brought forth citing what people think and do not think of us.
When we're talking about branding, we're talking about what people think of us, for good or ill and trying to reshape it to the better.
You can spend millions on "branding" and get absolutely nowhere. As all CAP is local, the better effort would involve local units getting out to their community. That is the "branding element" what would get results. Plus, if local units get "on the air" or "in print" in their various markets they can actually present an image of themselves that is in line what the reality of their situation.
What good would a 30 sec spot about CAP do when it shows GA-8s, flight lines of CAP aircraft and other "cool" images when most units never even see that? Suppose your unit is a senior one and the message from National is Cadet Heavy? You suddenly get 20 cadets that want to join and none of your people want anything to do with it. Then suppose the opposite, you are a Cadet effort with little ES function (and even less flying) and suddenly you get people coming in for ES and you are so ill prepared to deal with that that the reverse effect (bad rap) is generated. What do you do?
Fancy logos, clever catchphrases and 30 second "Super Bowl type" spots will not get the results.
As for "we have too many Colonels," what else can you be insinuating? The idea is "we have too many Colonels," my reply is the rank is well deserved. The only logical conclusion would be to deny the grade to people.
Sparky;
I am not talking about spending millions in a snake oil sales pitch. I am talking about aligning what we've got for more effective branding. Simplify!!!! Alignment. Top to bottom - Bottom to top.
As far as being local. I agree to a point. Local Branding is important. Vital Missions on site, with local folks doing their best in trying times. That is hurricane relief and border patrolling for you guys. Good, great, well done, bravo! In Colorado we don't get that many hurricanes or border missions, so we adapt to the local requirements. We find lost cattle and sojourners in snow storms, go to tornado sites, look for lost hikers and planes. We do good where we can. Including sending crews and planes to Texas when the heat is on and the water is up.
That stated, the diffused, confused, vacuous, inane, uncontrolled, desperate, or foolish use of our precious resources is a waste by any measure. Which is why alignment of National goals with local priorities is important, heck it is vital - and serves us all.
So everything National does reflects positively upon local. Everything that helps Texas, helps Colorado, etc. When you do good... there is some benefit passed on to us. When we hit the papers with a positive... it makes Texas feel good too. It should we are all in this together. I suggest, we should look like it. We should act like it. We should do it. In this way we get more bang for fewer bucks. Which is my point about branding.
This from your Denver Correspondent.
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 01, 2010, 06:59:24 PM
As for "we have too many Colonels," what else can you be insinuating? The idea is "we have too many Colonels," my reply is the rank is well deserved.
Not a thing. Just stating the fact that some people think that about CAP because of what they see on our uniforms. As I've said several times, they're wrong, but we don't get to control what people think of us.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 01, 2010, 07:36:22 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 01, 2010, 06:59:24 PM
As for "we have too many Colonels," what else can you be insinuating? The idea is "we have too many Colonels," my reply is the rank is well deserved.
Not a thing. Just stating the fact that some people think that about CAP because of what they see on our uniforms. As I've said several times, they're wrong, but we don't get to control what people think of us.
"No one can guarantee the actions of another." This is a quote from Mr Spock of Star Trek fame that people in advertising and marketing fail to take into account. I am forever perplexed that people seem to think that the human mind can adhere to formulas as if we were discussing science or mathematics.
I have friends who are economists that debate issues with me using "economics" as an "exact science." They quote professors and statistics against my contentions citing Keynesian this and Mercantile that. Then the housing bubble burst followed by the collapse of the Mortage market, which I contented was going to happen, but that their models did not even account for. Out went all that...
The same occurs with marketing. People assume that there are formulae that dictate what to do. That a television show or album will make it because it meets certain Nielsen or marketing conventions for music play instead of the quality of the show or the talent of the musicians. Notice that there are no Sinatra's or Elvis' in our current culture and how your favorite television show "jumps the shark" when they try to "make it better" or move its time slot for MARKETING purposes.
Or how our public schools try to apply business models to education. After all, Donald Trump's methodology made him millions, therefore, we can use it to guide "production" of student success. This is applied failing to take into account that in business production you discontinue unproductive elements (like students displaying recidivism). You just can't tell a failing child "your fired."
I see this with certain people in this thread en re branding. Trying to apply elements of branding and marketing that may work for their sphere of understanding but who are detached from how CAP operates.
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 01, 2010, 07:59:37 PMI see this with certain people in this thread en re branding. Trying to apply elements of branding and marketing that may work for their sphere of understanding but who are detached from how CAP operates.
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Hawk and Sparky;
1. You'd like the elements of branding to fit the province of science. It is an aesthetic practice. That said, you will both use Gravity today without knowing how or why it works. There is no elemental scientific supporting fact of the principle that makes gravity work. String Theory aside... as it is a theory. Many theories have been proposed but no one knows. That said, there is plenty of science using it. Additionally, The largest accumulation of stuff in the universe is Dark Matter, and that is indescribable but it can be measured. That's why we know it the biggest.
In branding we can measure it too. However, we aren't always certain why it is memorable or taken to the heart.
2. Dozens of ephemeral (if well meaning) substitutes will not satisfy the need for focused branding. Either you try to do it on your own, or suffer when it is done by others. Please remember the FEMA example I gave earlier. (Gieco Insurance of Course has the Gecko, Caveman, and Bug-eyed pile of money but that is supported by a huge public advertising campaign. We don't have that level of exposure.)
3. It is easy to talk about branding in the specific case (which has direct application to us) of "Serve and Protect." This very well known and understood branding has never been part of some large or expensive advertising campaign, at least that I am aware. It was instituted over a 30 year period, placed mostly on Patrol car's signage, has measurable results, encompasses many people, forces, constabularies, services, and societies. It is a good brand model.
When this branding came out in the mid-seventies, like you many were sceptical. However the police were "The Cops; The Fuzz; The Man, The Pigs" - Badge Heavy's with Dirty Harry "make my day" threats. The American Association of Peace Officers offered this as a combating instrument of identity change. Simultaneously - Training procedures were oriented toward more service and better protection.
In the 80s the number of police killed in the line of duty peaked. As of a week ago when the latest research was posted, Officers Killed in the line of duty is down to the same per' cap as 1959. In other words down to the level before thr turbulent 60s. Did Serve and Protect do this - in a way yes, but as an element of a large and thorough program of professional policing.
Branding isn't one thing -- it is all things. It is mission (Serve and Protect) it is a recruitment tool (The Few The Proud the Marines) it is a social short hand reference (When Duty Calls) it is aspirational (Rangers Lead the Way) it is caring (Never Leave a buddy behind) it is character building (you gotta go but you don't have to come back) it is symbolic (We Bring Good Things to Life) it is basic (Mmmm... Good) but makes you think (with a name like Schmuckers it has to be Good.)
It works because it builds loyalty the same way you do. With actions that match your words over years and years. AND, at a certain point you are your brand.
Well, I would have to say that if we have ever been "branded" then it would look something like this... "Civil Air Patrol: United States Air Force Auxiliary." However, as you know, there is a lot of controversy behind that.
Another is "Civil Air Patrol: Always Vigilant." People wanted more than that, they wanted it to say what we did which led to the question "what do we do?" which, in turn, yielded to the answer, "we do a lot of stuff and in different places to different people." That presents a major problem. Unless every unit is doing the same things Nationwide, a ONE SIZE FITS all brand will not work unless it is vague.
I was at the 2007 PAO Academy and the matters were made clear. All CAP is local, don't use "America's Best Kept Secret," and stress your best sides in public. Money was spent to a marketing firm that came up with "More than Meets the Skies." This was met with ridicule. After all that was said and done, I was of the conclusion that "snappy" one liners were not gonna do it for CAP.
Its about leg work. Our local unit brand is "Keep 'em Flying and Keep the Momentum going." It means not being a stranger to local officials and media. It means getting out in a service coat once and a while at a non-CAP specific activity, like building dedications at Airports. It means turning CADET O-Flights into something special at the local FBO and maintaining a friendly presence in the GA community.
It means you help the local Flotilla, Scout Troop, Rotary so they know you..more than the catch phrase.
It means you do not be the curmudgeons who perch on purlins in the hangar waiting to pounce on newbies, guests and visitors. There is no substitute for getting out into the community...personally.
Sparky;
It must be vague? Really... no it must be potent and consistent - However, if you mean, it must be all things to all people. It must be open enough so that your mind, the audiences mind, the members minds - even subconsciously - invests in it. Then True. But, that is a BIG difference, from vague.
I am not suggesting any particular line. I am not suggesting anything at all but identifying the branding elements that we have. I am for getting rid of some of the rif-raff things that don't help us... in the same way we retired the wide band radios. There are better tools available for CAP, these are right at our finger tips, and all it takes is a little education and lots of thinking.
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 01, 2010, 09:03:00 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 01, 2010, 07:59:37 PMI see this with certain people in this thread en re branding. Trying to apply elements of branding and marketing that may work for their sphere of understanding but who are detached from how CAP operates.
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
While all CAP is local, we are also part of a national organization. There isn't a reason in the world our folks can't sing their local praises while staying within a defined sandbox that ties us
all together. You can meet your local marketing needs while still doing right by CAP as a whole.
The fact that some people understand the concept of branding, and how CAP could benefit from it, is not indicative of a failure to understand CAP. I seem to recall a previous thread in which Major Carrales insisted CAP members should wear their uniforms whenever possible. (Just noticed he mentioned it again a few posts after the one I'm responding to.) That's one element of flying the CAP colors, marketing us, displaying our brand.
All some of us are recommending is that CAP make a more coherent effort to make us all look like the same team. How is that detached from the reality of CAP? Done right it's simpler than the marketing mess we are currently in, with too many apparently unrelated logos, slogans, disjointed ad campaigns, and uniforms. What is so awful about playing well with others?
Edited to add comment in parentheses.
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 01, 2010, 10:11:38 PM
Well, I would have to say that if we have ever been "branded" then it would look something like this... "Civil Air Patrol: United States Air Force Auxiliary." However, as you know, there is a lot of controversy behind that.
Another is "Civil Air Patrol: Always Vigilant." People wanted more than that, they wanted it to say what we did which led to the question "what do we do?" which, in turn, yielded to the answer, "we do a lot of stuff and in different places to different people." That presents a major problem. Unless every unit is doing the same things Nationwide, a ONE SIZE FITS all brand will not work unless it is vague.
Just because you have yet to see a branding slogan that works does not mean that one cannot be devised.
Also, I'd point out that "Keep 'em Flying and Keep the Momentum going" is not a branding slogan.
Quote from: Rotorhead on January 01, 2010, 11:35:05 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 01, 2010, 10:11:38 PM
Well, I would have to say that if we have ever been "branded" then it would look something like this... "Civil Air Patrol: United States Air Force Auxiliary." However, as you know, there is a lot of controversy behind that.
Another is "Civil Air Patrol: Always Vigilant." People wanted more than that, they wanted it to say what we did which led to the question "what do we do?" which, in turn, yielded to the answer, "we do a lot of stuff and in different places to different people." That presents a major problem. Unless every unit is doing the same things Nationwide, a ONE SIZE FITS all brand will not work unless it is vague.
Just because you have yet to see a branding slogan that works does not mean that one cannot be devised.
Also, I'd point out that "Keep 'em Flying and Keep the Momentum going" is not a branding slogan.
Wow, how quickly the tables can turn against a person here.
This is not about me or my seeing of branding slogans working in CAP, this is about the nature of the organization and how it cannot be summed up in "two words." When money has been applied to that effort, the results have been deemed horrible from within, not without.
I am speaking from experience on this matter when I talk about local media attention. It is not the job of CAPNHQ to do our leg work for us. Really, some of you are professionals in this field and really seem to think that the CAP has the money to run a multimedia campaign the like of which such branding would require. We are not like "Poptarts" which produces revenue justifying the cost. That is one of the realities not being faced.
All that CAPNHQ-PA can do is create the logos and slogans, they cannot pay to have it run in everyone's market and running it in a national market is too costly. That was another issue Maj Gen Courter talked about at that PAO Academy. The idea that Nation Wide CAP publicity does not justify the cost. Even 30 seconds spots in prime time market...equating to millions of dollars...is not worth it. Especially when you all know people dislike commercials and fast-forward them. I don't think a CAP spot would have the characteristics of well made Super Bowl commercials and that it would be spoken of around the water cooler the next day.
The true marketing of CAP is going to come from two areas 1) how well we execute the missions, and 2) local PAOs schmoozing local media.
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 02, 2010, 12:21:56 AM
This is not about me or my seeing of branding slogans working in CAP, this is about the nature of the organization and how it cannot be summed up in "two words." When money has been applied to that effort, the results have been deemed horrible from within, not without.
A decent branding effort is not summed up in "two words" and I don't think that's what is being proposed here. Can you sum American Red Cross in two words? Like us they have a variety of missions, not all of them well known, yet their brand is coherent. We can do it too. I see "brand" as nothing more than a buzzword for the things you do publicly to help control your reputation. While we can't control what others think of us, we can sure try to influence it.
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 02, 2010, 12:21:56 AM
I am speaking from experience on this matter when I talk about local media attention. It is not the job of CAPNHQ to do our leg work for us. Really, some of you are professionals in this field and really seem to think that the CAP has the money to run a multimedia campaign the like of which branding would require. We are not like "Poptarts" which produces revenue justifying the cost. That is one of the realities not being faced.
You are exactly right that local PAO's do the leg work. However, National SHOULD provide a decent, consistent framework for all local PAO's instead of breeding new visions faster than Tribbles. I'm not sure I've seen a National ad campaign proposed in this thread. What I've noticed is a desire for a coherent brand that makes sense. Local PAO's, myself included, can work construct our local programs within that structure.
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 02, 2010, 12:21:56 AM
All that CAPNHQ-PA can do is create the logos and slogans, they cannot pay to have it run in everyone's market and running it in a national market is too costly.
Agree. However we should expect the logos, slogans, and uniforms to be part of a coherent whole. Our local efforts can benefit by association with the national program. We'd be better off with only one or two logos, uniforms that are recognizable as belonging to the same organization, etc. It's the same concept as boilerplate text for press releases. We generally look, sound, and act the same. Change the details to fit, leave the rest for consistency.
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 02, 2010, 12:21:56 AM
The true marketing of CAP is going to come from two areas 1) how well we execute the missions, and 2) local PAOs schmoozing local media.
Agreed. I would add one thing though: we need to schmooze Congress if we want a budget. That is where our efforts for a consistent and quality brand on a national level can really pay off. My efforts on a local level can go back to The Hill via my local Congress-critters. Hopefully they jive with any of your efforts noticed by your local representative. With regard to local media, how many reporters bounce from market to market? Wouldn't it be nice to capitalize on their previous, and hopefully good, experience with other CAP squadrons?
I'm not sure this is pertinent to this discussion (if it's not, I'm sure someone will tell me), but I was at the airport today and the TSA people reminded me about how they changed their uniform from white shirts with cloth badges to blue shirts with metal badges. They still have airline looking shoulder boards. If I recall correctly, the TSA changed the uniform shirts because they felt people would respect their officers more if they looked more like police officers.
The TSA changed uniforms to change the perception of their officers. Does that pertain to this discussion? (I'm not a marketing guy, so I dunno).
Fubar;
There is an issue with the bright blue being readable at distance for security purposes as opposed to what they had before, white shirts. This came up after the cops ran down a gate jumper in New York City (If I remember) and the Police tackled a TSA man in pursuit of the real gate breecher. So security and accidentally beating up the wrong guy was part of the issue.
I am assuming the rest as it wasn't part of the public discussion - I think that they decided they wanted something "Cop-ish" Something that isn't as easy to fake. That particular blue harder to copy as it is not a standard dye. Something that looked a little (or more) snappy/stylish. Something that was readable at distance. Something that was easy to maintain. Something that was their (TSA's) unique look. There are lots of reasons for new uniforms. I am not suggesting that we need new uniforms. But, yes, it is relevant to this discussion.
Quote from: Smithsonia on January 02, 2010, 03:12:38 AM
Fubar;
There is an issue with the bright blue being readable at distance for security purposes as opposed to what they had before, white shirts. This came up after the cops ran down a gate jumper in New York City (If I remember) and the Police tackled a TSA man in pursuit of the real gate breecher. So security and accidentally beating up the wrong guy was part of the issue.
I am assuming the rest as it wasn't part of the public discussion - I think that they decided they wanted something "Cop-ish" Something that isn't as easy to fake. That particular blue harder to copy as it is not a standard dye. Something that looked a little (or more) snappy/stylish. Something that was readable at distance. Something that was easy to maintain. Something that was their (TSA's) unique look. There are lots of reasons for new uniforms. I am not suggesting that we need new uniforms. But, yes, it is relevant to this discussion.
You mean the big, embroidered "TSA" on the back of their shirts wasn't enough? I think the color was the only factor. There's a lot of businessmen in white shirts running around airports, and TSA agents blended in too much.
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 01, 2010, 07:59:37 PM
"No one can guarantee the actions of another." This is a quote from Mr Spock of Star Trek fame that people in advertising and marketing fail to take into account. I am forever perplexed that people seem to think that the human mind can adhere to formulas as if we were discussing science or mathematics.
Yyyyeah, except there's about a dozen fields of the social sciences that would entirely disagree with you there.
Quote from: Pylon on January 02, 2010, 04:12:39 AM
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 01, 2010, 07:59:37 PM
"No one can guarantee the actions of another." This is a quote from Mr Spock of Star Trek fame that people in advertising and marketing fail to take into account. I am forever perplexed that people seem to think that the human mind can adhere to formulas as if we were discussing science or mathematics.
Yyyyeah, except there's about a dozen fields of the social sciences that would entirely disagree with you there.
You can predict, but not garuntee. I was a Social Sciences major, and I have to agree with Maj Carrales. He's a history teacher in case people have forgoten. . .
Quote from: Pylon on January 02, 2010, 04:12:39 AM
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 01, 2010, 07:59:37 PM
"No one can guarantee the actions of another." This is a quote from Mr Spock of Star Trek fame that people in advertising and marketing fail to take into account. I am forever perplexed that people seem to think that the human mind can adhere to formulas as if we were discussing science or mathematics.
Yyyyeah, except there's about a dozen fields of the social sciences that would entirely disagree with you there.
Yyyyeah, and Human Beings are predictable...right.
Once humanity actually, arrogantly, thinks it can predict the actions of people based on generalization (you know like racism, sexism and other "-isms" where that happens already) we have opened the door for problems and tragedy. The biggest pratfall of our time is that people seem to think we are somehow "more evolved" and "advanced" than past humanity. That we have science.
That the Holocaust and War Atrocities could never happen again because we are evolved...well, the generation when that occurred is only about two back (our grandparents). We are no more evolved. Remember, these types of atrocities are often based in "social sciences," like eugenics, which were accepted institutions. Before the Nazi period, Germany was the intellectual/scientific capital of the world...remember.
I know this is a bit "deep" for this forum and that it might be "unexpected," since I'm after all, from a backwater part of the sticks; however, it remains true. Put your faith undying in these artificial "sciences" and you are following what amounts to a false god.
Never forget, these social sciences, my dear Michael, are the "beginning" of understanding of the human condition, not the "end."
Sparky;
If you truly believe what you just wrote. Then you'll need to display the mathematical or scientific formula detailing your meaning, and therefore your conclusion.
Writing is an aesthetic enterprise.
You engage in writing. But according to your posting - you must be doing so through some other application - which I'd love to know. In this I am not presenting an analogy. I am giving you the only logical progression to your premise.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 01, 2010, 02:57:19 AM
it is the "They're all Colonels" belief. Now, this is demonstrably untrue (even if we bring it down to Lt. Cols.), but that reputation is sort of bolstered by the fact that even if we're not all Colonels, we're (for all practical purposes) all officers in the senior program.
Obviously that manifests itself on the uniforms in the grade insignia.
So long as we continue with an officer-based program this rap will continue even if we send every single CAP officer to OCS. The outside people will never have any real idea what training our officers have and even if every single one was the best trained officer ever seen in a military style uniform, the bad rap of "they're all Colonels" will continue.
I remember not long after I joined CAP, my dad (SP4/Cpl, active Army and National Guard) asked me "how many enlisted and NCO's have you got in your unit?"
When I told him that we were mostly officers, he said, "sounds like you've got all chiefs and no Indians."
I do think River has a point, especially where all five branches of the military are concerned, not just the AF. A member of the military, who may or may not be acquainted with us, sees all the bars, leaves, chickens and stars, is probably perplexed, to say the least.
That will be the case regardless of uniform. I can't think of another agency that does rank the way we do.
I have seen old CAP insignia charts and remember seeing Airmen, Sergeants and Warrant Officers as well as "Commissioned" Officers.
I don't think it would be the worst idea to return to some form of that...a good part of a "branding element" would be the knowledge that it really takes a bit to work your way up from the bottom.
Quote from: Smithsonia on January 02, 2010, 04:39:21 AM
Sparky;
If you truly believe what you just wrote. Then you'll need to display the mathematical or scientific formula detailing your meaning, and therefore your conclusion.
Writing is an aesthetic enterprise.
You engage in writing. But according to your posting - you must be doing so through some other application - which I'd love to know. In this I am not presenting an analogy. I am giving you the only logical progression to your premise.
Ed,
I am engaged in "thought," to which "writing" is not. Writing is the "bi-product" of thought and best and at worst a "tool." Sometimes my thought is not expressed well by my writing and dialect (Southern...South Texan to be exact- with all the false cognates of a blended language of English and Spanish)
No, not even writing is an exact science. Yes, it has conventions and there are rules and standard dialect. But I know of no one that speaks the English taught in school nor any person that can speak or write without idiom, metaphor and other devise.
Hence, language is "the beginning" of expressing thought, "not the end" of it. To prove my point, you may question me on any of the above, to which I will reply with words that will be still, to a degree, imprecise.
If one needs someone with more "chutzpah" on the matter please read..."Politics and the English Language," 1946 by George Orwell.
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 02, 2010, 05:14:54 AM
I am engaged in "thought," to which "writing" is not. Writing is the "bi-product" of thought and best and at worst a "tool." Sometimes my thought is not expressed well by my writing and dialect (Southern...South Texan to be exact- with all the false cognates of a blended language of English and Spanish)
No, not even writing is an exact science. Yes, it has conventions and there are rules and standard dialect. But I know of no one that speaks the English taught in school nor any person that can speak or write without idiom, metaphor and other devise.
Hence, language is "the beginning" of expressing thought, "not the end" of it. To prove my point, you may question me on any of the above, to which I will reply with words that will be still, to a degree, imprecise.
Major, I am usually able to grasp what you write, but quite a lot of people do not write the way they talk, me included (actually, in person I really do not say much).
I am a product of a mostly German-English-Canadian Great Lakes environment and to a Texan, I would be the one who sounded strange.
I sometimes overthink what I write to the extent of unintended redundancy (a product of too many college-level writing courses, I suppose) - and that alone would make me unsuitable for the task of coming up with a "branding element" for CAP. I am incapable of short, pithy statements, which is usually what marketing requires, yes?
Sparky;
Let me give you the following idea. Science is built on the aesthetic. Aesthetics is the father of mathematics and science. To that point. Not the other way around.
1. Recurrent patterns are proved mathematically. BUT, recurrent patterns are initially recognized aesthetically. (as in insight)
2. The scientific answer is more or most often the simplest answer
3. The scientific answer can be arrived through various routes of discovery. At least one of will be an aesthetic elegance from which pleasure is derived.
4. The scientific answer expresses symmetry. What is added can be subtracted to returning you to the beginning. What is left out and remains correct was unnecessary.
5. Logic is seldom arrived at logically. Logic is most often an application that comes only after random examination becomes highly focused.
6. For every experiment there is analysis. After analysis there is a conclusion. In the analysis and the conclusion comes the expression of the scientist's aesthetic.
But now we are drifting a lot.
Quote from: Smithsonia on January 02, 2010, 05:47:45 AM
Sparky;
Let me give you the following idea. Science is built on the aesthetic. Aesthetics is the father of mathematics and science. To that point. Not the other way around.
I agree and rest assured that I am a man who believes in science and its methods. However I must point out how, in our times, science can be twisted and manipulated to meet and justify some less than noble activities.
But we are drifting a great deal.
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 02, 2010, 08:32:18 AM
But we are drifting a great deal.
Yeah, what he said! :clap: :clap: :clap:
The TSA uniforms are a good example of branding...gone bad. Arguably the overall perception of TSA isn't good. Not even close. Changing their uniform did little, if anything, to improve their image. Unlike CAP, they were already perfectly recognizable to those of us who were halfway conscious. Their publicly stated reasons for the change were something along the lines of "we want more respect" or "we want a more authoritative look." Hardly statements calculated to actually improve their image. It came off more like whining.
Unlike CAP, TSA already had a coherent brand. Unfortunately, their brand "speaks" of ineffective bureaucracy. They need to fix their core problems. Obsessing over their uniforms should have waited until the ship stops sinking. At the moment, they aren't popular or very respected. Changing their readily identifiable uniforms did nothing to improve that.
Granted they are fighting a very uphill battle...too many regular folks throw tantrums over reasonable security precautions. Further, not all TSA's policies seem reasonable. That's not the fault of the screeners in the airports.Having said that, their problems are very different than ours. CAP already has a fair to middlin' reputation but lacks a decent marketing strategy. We can make a few changes to improve that. It would actually cost very little.
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 02, 2010, 12:21:56 AM
Quote from: Rotorhead on January 01, 2010, 11:35:05 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 01, 2010, 10:11:38 PM
All that CAPNHQ-PA can do is create the logos and slogans, they cannot pay to have it run in everyone's market and running it in a national market is too costly. That was another issue Maj Gen Courter talked about at that PAO Academy. The idea that Nation Wide CAP publicity does not justify the cost.
NHQ doesn't have to run
anything in everyone's media market. That's a straw man argument.
NHQ just needs to come up with a solid brand and image--that stays the same for more than five minutes--that
we can promote.
Wuzafuzz:
You're going off on the TSA?... may earn you a body cavity search. They've got as thankless a job as the IRS, but it's got to be done.
Good Luck to you and I don't want to clear security in YOUR company. Other than that I am always happy to hang out with you.
QuoteUnlike CAP, TSA already had a coherent brand. Unfortunately, their brand "speaks" of ineffective bureaucracy. They need to fix their core problems. Obsessing over their uniforms should have waited until the ship stops sinking. At the moment, they aren't popular or very respected. Changing their readily identifiable uniforms did nothing to improve that.
I'm an intell guy supporting the Federal Air Marshal Service. FAMS is part of TSA so I have some inside information on this. Allow me to set the record straight and point out the similarities with CAP.
When Kip Hawley became DHS Assistant Secretary for Transportation Security and TSA Administrator, he inherited an agency that was almost built overnight. (One of my mottos:
"You can have it right or you can have it right now." The screeners had been federalized and the quality of training was poor, the pay was low, there was no real career progression, and they were universally disliked.
Kip set out to make correcting the problems his number one job. First, he got qualified as a screener (and remained qualified until the day he left). He rearranged the budget so they could increase their pay at the entry to attract better qualified employees and to raise morale. He changed the training regimen and raised the standards. He changed their job description from "screener" to "transportation security officer" and moved them into the TSA Office of Law Enforcement along with linking TSOs with other TSA Law Enforcement specialties to give them more upward mobility. He also convened a uniform board made up of TSOs from across the country. They felt that their uniform, a left-over from when TSA was part of the FAA, didn't give a professional image. This board came up with several options. After some field testing, they came up with the present uniform. All of these were part of a plan to improve the performance of the force and change the public perception.
Link to CAP? Yes. Like us, we have a self-image problem and a perception problem from the public at large (not to mention the AF). The uniform was part of a larger plan. He knew that people are more important than technology and he leveraged this resource. He made an investment in a combination of training and uniforms (along with better pay and work environment). Only the IRS is disliked more than TSA, but Kip changed a couple of things to improve the brand (if only slightly) and improve the self image of those folks who have to put up with the crap they get from the public.
The change of the uniform had nothing to do with being tackled by LEOs.
Quote from: Smithsonia on January 02, 2010, 07:24:09 PM
Wuzafuzz:
You're going off on the TSA?... may earn you a body cavity search. They've got as thankless a job as the IRS, but it's got to be done.
Good Luck to you and I don't want to clear security in YOUR company. Other than that I am always happy to hang out with you.
No, not going off on them. I used to be an airport ops and security guy at a podunk commercial airport. So I understand the need as well as the challenges they face. That doesn't mean I agree with
everything they've done, but I'm in their court. The public as a whole hasn't been. Many people would rather put their head in the sand instead of facing the fact there are some bad actors out there.
Gunner C explained some of the things that accompanied the uniform change. Those didn't get as much press as the new duds, so it looked like nitpicking while there was more serious work to be done. That's all I was getting at.
A BCS? :o I knew karma would get me; I've been teasing co-workers for years, anytime they went to court or the airport, that I'd call security to claim they are smuggling dope where the sun don't shine. >:D