Uniform as branding element

[Ned]

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.

[Smithsonia]

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.

[Ned]

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.

To 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.

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.

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."

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.

,

[ . . .] 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.

[Smithsonia]

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.

[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.

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.

[Hawk200]

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.

[Smithsonia]

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?

[Hawk200]

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.

[Smithsonia]

Hawk200;
If you can't be specific there is no reason to "see it." Whatever it is.

[Hawk200]

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".

[Smithsonia]

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.

[Hawk200]

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.

[High Speed Low Drag]

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.

[High Speed Low Drag]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Ned]

Thank you for your thoughtful response, but I think you made my points for me.

We 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.

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.

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.)

Second – I'll take your wager. 

Coolness.  Will you be at the Winter Boards?  I feel thirsty already.

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. 

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!

[FlyingTerp]

The lack of ourtrage is amusing.
Merry Christmas!

:clap:

Thanks Ned. 

[Smithsonia]

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.

[High Speed Low Drag]

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).

[Ned]

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.

Those 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

[Major Carrales]

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.