I got these brochure-like things from National. What the heck?
I need recruiting brochures that I can put in an envelope and mail. What am I supposed to do with these giant things? Does someone have a professionally-designed brochure that could be printed locally (a tri-fold)?
I can't do anything with these! I need a tri-fold. Besides, these won't fit in any brochure holder I've seen. Of all the conferences, conventions, and the like where I've been and picked up brochures, I've never seen something like this used for anything but for doorknob-hanging literature on political campaigns for which I've worked.
To add insult to injury, they have The Triangle Thingy on them.
In addition to maybe getting something serious that I can get printed, can someone with the proper pull get these things sent away?! I was talking about brochures over the past couple weeks, everyone was whining, and I couldn't understand until I got them. AGH. Please - someone make these go away!
There is a standard size brochure. They don't fit into a size 10 envelope, never have, never will. The CAP brochures are standard size and fit into brochure holders. I do it all the time. I also mail them along with other info (8.5x11), but I use a 9x12 envelope.
The triangle thing is a CAP used seal/emblem/patch: get over it. http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/public_affairs/cap_pao_toolkit/seals_emblems_and_patches.cfm
There are lots of things you can print out and fold into a standard envelope, see here:
http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/public_affairs/
I love the CAP brochures. I use them all the time. I hope they don't go away. Brochures are not "mailers".
What do you mean they don't fit? I mailed over 200 at least of the old brochure.
Quote from: Thrash on August 27, 2011, 01:59:22 PM
The triangle thing is a not an official CAP-used seal/emblem/patch and violates CAPR 900-2
Fixed that for you.
I am not mailing 9x12 envelopes. That is absurd. It costs too much, I have nothing to put in them, and they get messed up.
OK, its an "unofficial" emblem. Either way, who cares? Get a life.
If CAP uses it, then so can I.
Quote from: Thrash on August 27, 2011, 03:33:53 PM
OK, its an "unofficial" emblem. Either way, who cares? Get a life.
If CAP uses it, then so can I.
and that is the problem folks. NHQ does not follow the rules, so no one else should right? ::)
Quote from: NCRblues on August 27, 2011, 04:35:14 PM
Quote from: Thrash on August 27, 2011, 03:33:53 PM
OK, its an "unofficial" emblem. Either way, who cares? Get a life.
If CAP uses it, then so can I.
and that is the problem folks. NHQ does not follow the rules, so no one else should right? ::)
That sounds about right. It is not even consistently used by NHQ and some places like the website don't match the brochure. It's called branding. We have none. It matters. I had someone making graphics for me as a favor...he asked what the heck CAP's logo is since he couldn't figure out what to use.
It's not good that people would say "National has this on some brochures they made. Therefore I can ignore the regulations."
I'm sorry that I want CAP to have a professional marketing and branding setup. I'm sorry if I follow the regulations.
Quote from: JC004 on August 27, 2011, 03:28:28 PM
The triangle thing is a not an official CAP-used seal/emblem/patch and violates CAPR 900-2
The triangle thing (also called the "Citizens Serving Communities" logo on eServices) is unsightly.
However, that said, it
is an "official" emblem because the National Headquarters uses it frequently on publications. I believe the term that applies here is "de facto.'
This image
does not violate CAPR 900-2, since the 900-2 restricts the use of the Seal and the Emblem, but does not forbid the use of other images.
I will continue to discourage others from using it, and I will refrain from including it in any documents or information I produce for CAP, but I have also stopped fighting the fruitless fight against the use of it on publications from NHQ. If anyone is going to continue fighting the use of this logo, I recommend not generating falsehoods and submitting them as evidence.
Official implies approved. They SOUGHT approval for this and it was SHOT DOWN (at least on a temporary basis). Why would they have sought approval for this to officiate it if it were already official?
NEC Minutes:
QuoteThat the National Executive Committee approve the use of the triangle/propeller logo as an
optional alternative to the CAP seal, patch and emblem
I run the non-clinical operations of a non-profit. If I or a staff member gets brochures printed with a new logo, it does NOT make it official because it was done by the organization's headquarters staff because our procedures and requirements were not followed. We actually DID have a staff person make a logo of their own liking and print (bad) brochures. They were not official because they were done by a staff member. The individual was counseled in proper procedures for approval of identity standards changes.
Here is a good example: NHQ used, for a long time, that stylized Air Force symbol with CAP command patch (or seal). The one that had the chrome. It did NOT meet standards. Because NHQ used it DOES NOT MAKE IT OFFICIAL. It violates 900-2 and violates the rules set forth by the Air Force. Yet NHQ used it on official CAP publications. Here is one example (with the seal):
http://www.martinsburgcap.com/images/headseal.gif
THIS IS NOT OFFICIAL DESPITE ITS USE BY NHQ. IT IS NOT AUTHORIZED. IT VIOLATES CAPR 900-2.Here is another example that is hosted ON AN OFFICIAL CAP NATIONAL WEBSITE. It is NOT authorized and it is NOT official because NHQ uses it.
http://www.cap.af.mil/images/capafnestsmall.gif
Another example is the Civil Air Patrol Monopoly House Logo. It is not official. NHQ used it on things. That doesn't make it an official CAP logo. There's good reason for having standards - because these things are freaking UGLY and they dilute our brand.
(http://www.colganmarketing.com/capfail.jpg)
(the vehicles aren't the only place it was used - I just have bad luck looking up "Civil Air Patrol monopoly house logo" on Google Images)
There is no de facto official. We have a BAD GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE. The NHQ falls into this strange category of some sort of equal weight to the national volunteer staff. That needs to be fixed. It causes issues like this and some very interesting/nasty issues that I heard about while working for FW's campaign.
900-2 provides some identity standards of the organization (not well).
The very idea of making RANDOM logos and logo variations in most organizations would make the marketing people FREAK. They have standards for a reason.
I understand your thinking and why you think that. It is just that the regulation is not that well written and that use by NHQ does NOT make something official
(why else would they have tried getting approval for it by the NEC?). See above example. If I recall correctly, you've been around a good while so you should remember the CHROME THING being used on official publications by NHQ despite its status as NOT official.
Quote from: JC004 on August 28, 2011, 02:33:27 PM
Here is a good example: NHQ used, for a long time, that stylized Air Force symbol with CAP command patch (or seal). The one that had the chrome. It did NOT meet standards. Because NHQ used it DOES NOT MAKE IT OFFICIAL. It violates 900-2 and violates the rules set forth by the Air Force. Yet NHQ used it on official CAP publications.
Are you referring to the "Organizational Emblem" which incorporates the USAF's Hap Arnold symbol with the CAP seal or other emblems? Because that is covered in 900-2.
I said that. The versions used extensively by NHQ and others, however, violated 900-2. Therefore, use by NHQ does not make something ok for use by the organization at large. This partly also goes back to CAP's governance issues. The people at the consulting firm who are looking at this are probably going CRAZY and their heads are probably spinning around and around and around.
Some say "well, NHQ staff are not subject to CAP regulations." This is probably technically true...except that they put out stuff that conflicts. That causes problems.
I've been trying to find another example, beyond CAP, of an organization of this size which has this craziness - issues like the governance, branding wackiness, etc. If anyone finds even one - let me know because I'd like to see some examples of how they deal with it, how they have fixed it, or some cases of issues it causes.
Quote from: NCRblues on August 27, 2011, 04:35:14 PM
Quote from: Thrash on August 27, 2011, 03:33:53 PM
OK, its an "unofficial" emblem. Either way, who cares? Get a life.
If CAP uses it, then so can I.
and that is the problem folks. NHQ does not follow the rules, so no one else should right? ::)
I thought you weren't playing anymore because the National Commander election "made you physically sick"?
Quote from: PHall on August 28, 2011, 05:02:33 PM
Quote from: NCRblues on August 27, 2011, 04:35:14 PM
Quote from: Thrash on August 27, 2011, 03:33:53 PM
OK, its an "unofficial" emblem. Either way, who cares? Get a life.
If CAP uses it, then so can I.
and that is the problem folks. NHQ does not follow the rules, so no one else should right? ::)
I thought you weren't playing anymore because the National Commander election "made you physically sick"?
If you read what i posted, i said, i did not know if i wanted to go on in CAP because of the election. After speaking with some trusted friends and Mr. wing commander, I decided to stay on and work more with CP. The election/politics/worthlessness of things at the national level still make me sick but ill try and work through it.
Quote from: JC004 on August 28, 2011, 02:33:27 PM
I understand your thinking and why you think that. It is just that the regulation is not that well written and that use by NHQ does NOT make something official (why else would they have tried getting approval for it by the NEC?). See above example. If I recall correctly, you've been around a good while so you should remember the CHROME THING being used on official publications by NHQ despite its status as NOT official.
I do remember that, and I understand your point on all of these things...
I still disagree about violating the Reg. The reg specifies how the emblem and seal are used, it doesn't address the use of other images.... which
is bad marketing and
is in poor taste because it shows that the folks working at NHQ aren't on the same page as the rest of the organization.
I wonder how many levels of the organization are facing this sort of problem with administrators who are paid to work in a supportive role are building empires and dictating to the volunteers when guidance should be flowing from the volunteers. I think that has a lot to do with the problem with the Triangle Thingy, in addition to the ugliness of the logo itself.