Uniform as branding element

[RiverAux]

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. 

[Smithsonia]

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.

[Ned]

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.

Right 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[High Speed Low Drag]

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 & 21^st 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 21^st 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.

[DBlair]

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.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

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.

[Hawk200]

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.

[FlyTiger77]

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.

[Hawk200]

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.

[Major Carrales]

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.   

[Fuzzy]

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.

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...

[flyguy06]

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.

[High Speed Low Drag]

** 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? 

[RogueLeader]

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.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

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.

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:

[Smithsonia]

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.

[Hawk200]

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.

[Smithsonia]

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. 

[High Speed Low Drag]

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?

[FARRIER]

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.