Uniform as branding element

[FARRIER]

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.

[NCRblues]

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?

[Ned]

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. 

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.   

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?

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).

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."

[Major Carrales]

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...

I cant stop smiling :clap: thank god

Which was Post #26 on: November 07, 2009, 08:59:14 PM.

To which you provided the justification that...

The 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.

[RiverAux]

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. 

[MIKE]

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.

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.

[Smithsonia]

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!

[High Speed Low Drag]

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   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.

[PHall]

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   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.)

[High Speed Low Drag]

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.

[Gunner C]

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.

[FlyingTerp]

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!

[Smithsonia]

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.

[RogueLeader]

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.

[Ned]

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.

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?

However, 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.)

[Smithsonia]

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)

[arajca]

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.

[Ned]

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:

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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

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.

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.

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?

Right 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.

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.

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)

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."

[Hawk200]

Right 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.

[Smithsonia]

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.