Uniform as branding element

[Gunner C]

Ed, I've gotta agree with you.  Uniforms ARE a branding element.  It's not everything, but it's an element.

Before the movie, Navy SEALs were just called SEALs (they refer to "the teams").  Green Berets, before the song and the movie, were just called Special Forces or SF (they referred to themselves as "Group").  But the branding as "Navy SEALs" and "Green Berets" became part of the national vernacular.  Folks don't know what either group does, but they know the brand - the Trident and the floppy green hat.

CAP doesn't have a real brand.  There's nothing visual, no word that when you say CAP, a slide doesn't pop up in your head.  Think of Coke - the most widely known brand in the world.  When someone says it, an image immediately comes to mind.  We've tried to do this with the paint scheme on the AC, the new silly tri-prop,  with the golf shirt, and on and on.  No joy.

When I first tried to join CAP in early 1967, my mother forbade it.  She had seen CAP cadets at the encampment at Sheppard AFB, TX, standing around in khakis.  She thought that they were being mistreated.  That's what the CAP brand meant to her.  What it meant to me was cadets in khakis flying gliders (as I saw in the recruiting posters).

We need a brand that brings up that mental slide in America's mind.  We've missed it for about three generations so far.

[Smithsonia]

Gunner;
You bring up a good point about Coke. They also sell Sprite. Sprite is it's own brand. That brand has distinct branding elements. It all goes to Coke's bottom line.

The same would be true if we had different colored uniforms (say all CAP Senior members in blueBDUs)
The Air Force would get as much credit as before. Doing good in their name would be as good as doing good in their uniform... which
can't be worn by all of us. AND for CAP it would be a big (or at least bigger) branding possibility.

[RiverAux]

We've got a real world experiment in uniform-based branding going on in the armed forces right now.  Most of the services were using the BDU and lately they've gone off in their own direction for no apparent reason other than an attempt at branding. 

The Army and Marines, at least, have no logical operatational reasons for having distinctive uniforms, but they do. 

[FARRIER]

http://www.uniformsmag.com/issues/0107/feat2.htm

Applying the above reference to our corporate uniform, the aviators, our uniforms resemble something you would see a corporate pilot wear, but it doesn't really scream aviation like the CSU did. Some people thought it looked like an airline uniform, but at least there was a highly visible link with aviation. Throw the blazer on top of the aviator's and you look like...nothing aviation related. Polo's, are the worst thing for branding. Every corporation uses them, and thus the distinguishing effects of it are diluted.

Thank you for your hardwork on the Flight 217 article.

In regards to not being recognized by the rescuers and media, would focusing on more of a standard cold weather/outer-garment to be worn by all SAR personnel been more effect in this case?


As far as going to one ClassA/B uniform, one Utility uniform for seniors, unless the Air Force forces it, its going to be a long time before its accepted voluntarily.

Respectfully,

[NCRblues]

We've got a real world experiment in uniform-based branding going on in the armed forces right now.  Most of the services were using the BDU and lately they've gone off in their own direction for no apparent reason other than an attempt at branding. 

The Army and Marines, at least, have no logical operatational reasons for having distinctive uniforms, but they do.

I guess the air force supplying In-lue of positions to the army, AF Security Forces having more outside the wire patrols and missions (like combat convoys and supply line security) AF medics supplied to army units, Af EOD handling the majority of IED instances for the Iraq war and not to mentioned the several special forces units the air force deploys were not important in the designee of the new uniform.

Another reason for the change was to lessen to amount of uniforms that the air force possessed. Having Bdu's and DCU's was a waste, so combining them into a uniform that not only closely matched the army (since thousands of airman are fighting right along soldiers, and I think the airman would stand out just slightly in dcu's compares to the army's digital) but allowed the air force to issue one style, usable in all areas.

I can't speak for the navy or any other branch, but the ABU was designed more for usability, than what bob or Joe thinks about them in the local Wal-Mart. Branding is important I agree but please don't say the military has no reason (other than branding) to move on to a bigger and better uniform.

[lordmonar]

We can blame the Marines for the ACU/ABU and Navy's new uniform.

They decided unlaterally that they needed something new and adopted a new uniform.  That opened the flood gate for the Army's ACU (who went with gray to eliminate the need for multiple camo options).  Of course the USAF had to follow suit.

I would not point to what the DoD is doing with uniforms as an example of good branding through uniforms.  In fact they are going to what CAP has....multiforms which creates barriers in working together.

One fight.....one uniform. 

[Ned]

Ned/Hawk Some light reading on branding
http://www.uniformsmag.com/issues/0107/feat2.htm
http://www.fool.com/portfolios/rulemaker/2001/rulemaker010502.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logo

Ed,

Thank you for the "references."  No, really, thank you.  My wife is out of state at a CAP activity, so any illustrated article that features Hooter Girls' uniforms is deeply appreciated.

That aside, let's take a look at what they add to the discourse.

First, let's look at the article in Uniforms magazine.  Initially we should note that Uniforms magazine is hardly an academic source of enlightenment.  It is a specialty trade magazine put out by and for the very people who profit from selling folks new uniforms.  I'm sure the uniform industry thinks Uniform Branding is Very, Very Important.  ("Sign here, please.")

But more importantly, the article doesn't even support your position.  Sure, Hooters deliberatley markets the sex appeal of their waitresses uniforms.  (Thanks again for the link.)  But there is no claim that the lycra tops, spandex shorts, and pantyhose increased their business one cent.  Better yet, the article points out that Hooters has a bunch of different uniforms for managers, kitchen crew, hostesses, etc.  Repeat after me: "Form follows function." 

Second, the Motley Fool article about Fedex and others does not even mention clothing as a branding element.  Certainly Fedex doesn't market their uniforms.

Third, the Wikipedia (really, Wikipedia???) also fails to mention clothing in any way in their superfical discussion of logos.  What was the point?

I've been speaking on this topic in the abstract. Let me now be specific. Look in your latest Volunteer, look for the Flight 217 story.. Yes it is a story about me. That's not my point.
[ . . .]

Ed, are you seriously suggesting that the point of the article was that if the heroic CAP rescue crew had had snazzy uniform parkas that CAP would have enjoyed substantially better publicity?

You did the research.  Are you saying that the snowmobile club got more publicity than they deserved because they had better looking uniform parkas?

Really, was that the point of the article?  I missed that somehow.

By all accounts this was a highly successful mission, performed at great personal risk by some genuine CAP heroes.

I didn't see any shortcomings on our part.  But looking at it through your lens, maybe the PA crew could have been more successful at getting our message out.

But I'm still not seeing how Flight 217 ties to this topic (Uniforms as branding elements) in any way.


Sir, I have been trying to have a genuine discussion on your topic, but for some reason you do not want to respond to my questions.  You kind of skip over them entirely.  Please consider engaging with us directly in this area so we can continue the discussion.

So, again, can you point us to any organizations that have turned themselves around or significantly increased their mission performance because they changed their uniforms?  (Engaged in Uniform Branding?)

If Hooters is really your best example, by all means let's discuss it.  I suspect it is going to be a tough comparison since we by and large do not market our members like Hooters markets the sex appeal of their young women.  But using your paradigm, explain to us how the Hooters example could work for CAP.

Please.


Ned Lee

[RiverAux]

I guess the air force supplying In-lue of positions to the army, AF Security Forces having more outside the wire patrols and missions (like combat convoys and supply line security) AF medics supplied to army units, Af EOD handling the majority of IED instances for the Iraq war and not to mentioned the several special forces units the air force deploys were not important in the designee of the new uniform.

You missed the entire point of my message.  There is no reason other than branding that each and every service needs ITS OWN uniform to work in the same exact environment.  This obviously makes no sense from a logistical or money-saving point of view, so the only reason for each service to have its own is branding.

Is that a bad thing?  No, not necessarily.  I was just pointing out that we're now seeing each service trying to distinguish itself from the others based on the uniform it has chosen for field work (and pretty much everything else except Monday in the AF, if reports are to believed). 

Is this branding working?  I'm probably better than most civilians and I'm not sure I could tell the difference between the uniforms worn by the AF/Army/Marines without looking at the service strips (if even visible). 

Some of the services other uniforms (such as the Marine dress uniform) are certainly distinctive and likely to be recognized by many, but I don't see a whole lot of potential CAP members who would be so excited to wear any CAP version of the service uniform, that it would make much of a difference what it looks like. 

[Hawk200]

Lot of people think that having a uniform they designed is going to solve all of CAP's problems.

We've got problems to solve, and the uniform isn't one of them. One is the lone business mentality which is becoming more predominant. Civil Air Patrol as a wholly independant corporation is a failure in concept that just doesn't seem to register to people. Our existance is tied to being an auxiliary, and wearing the uniform of a military branch.

[Smithsonia]

Ned;
Academics usually don't do uniforms. Academics don't do PA that much, they do study it. It is a craft. None of the major practitioners of the art have Doctorates. BUT, neither do most all of the people who practice advertising, public relations, marketing, publicity, film, television, journalism, or brand building. I also can't think of someone with a doctorate in flying. I know lot's of Aerospace folks with doctorates but not that many are pilots. Flying? It is just another thing you do. Regarding PA etc.. If you spend the time to write a text book... likely it'll be out of date by the time it is published. You learn through the doing. You learn by practicing.

There were more references for you. I figured you'd get stuck at Hooters. So to help you further, logos are part of branding too. The Nike swoosh is an obvious and inescapable logo that works on boots, athletic shoes, golf wear, bags, NBA Jerseys, and socks.

I added the Hooters element, which is only a portion of that article, for levity. The article you speak of, does explain uniforms and branding. I guess you didn't read that article. It's actually to the point. Uniforms are uniform no matter who wears them or how skimpy the uniforms are.

Right now our logos are primary blue with white and red elements. There's not much green. The Air Force Signature blue isn't there either. Our latest paint jobs are primary dark blue. Aligning all of our logos and branding items makes sense. Hooters Bright Orange is used for the same reason. If you think about it - you can recall the exact color, even if you've never attended the establishment.

I wasn't in the CAP when the 1978 event occurred. I used it in this thread, as I can speak about it authoritatively. I did the research, know the issues, found all the members of both the CAP team and those I could locate that had been rescued, organized the commemoration and did about half of the exhibit work myself. I can therefore be trusted to go outside the Volunteer article and explain other points which are represented in the entire project. There are about 30 articles mentioning CAP in a positive fashion that comes from revisiting the wreck site, the 30 year commemoration, and museum exhibit unveiling. Those can be found on another thread. Most of those are posted here  http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=6642.0

It is a real world example. I can't explain the reason that the PA ball was dropped in 1978. I have no information on that. Explore if you like. Repeat your complaints too. It all helps explain the issue from the ground up.

[Rotorhead]

Lot of people think that having a uniform they designed is going to solve all of CAP's problems.

..but Smithsonia isn't one of them. He's talking about uniforms as one of several elements we need to consider.

[FARRIER]

We've got problems to solve, and the uniform isn't one of them. One is the lone business mentality which is becoming more predominant. Civil Air Patrol as a wholly independant corporation is a failure in concept that just doesn't seem to register to people. Our existance is tied to being an auxiliary, and wearing the uniform of a military branch.

I'm with Hawk on this one.

[Ned]

Ed,

I guess we're done here.  I had though that you honestly wanted to have a discussion about using uniforms as part of any CAP branding initatives, but I was wrong.

You have consistently refused to answer a single one of my questions and taken cheap ad-hom shots at me and others who disagree with you.

All I have asked from you is some support for your assertion that our current uniform choices negatively affect any potential CAP branding initiative.

And you have declined to support your postion, except by saying - in essence - that we should trust you based on your civilian experience.

You provided some some generic links to articles that do not support your position, and which you now seem to suggest were provided as some sort of joke.  You then proceded to change the subject and talk about logos (swooshes and the colors used in our own logos), which really has nothing to do with your topic - the use of CAP uniforms as branding elements.

And finally you brought up the Volunteer article about the 1978 saves and said that was your point.  I'm still scratching my head over that one. 

(Even you if don't want to publicly explain how that heroic mission supports your notion that we have too many uniforms, please just PM me.  I'm dying to know.)

At this point it is just too painful to watch you dodge legitimate discussion.

You win.  CAP has too many uniforms, and we should scrap most of them because that will make outsiders love us more.  And our new uniforms should probably be orange.  Thank you for your professional guidance on this issue.


Ned Lee

P.S. Apparently a lot of B-schools do think of marketing as an academic discipline.  You can get a PhD in marketing from Wharton, and several dozen other b-schools.  And if all of those disertation and thesis writing folks have never in the history of b-schools written on clothing as branding elements in the nonprofit arena, there may be a good reason for that.

[Hawk200]

..but Smithsonia isn't one of them. He's talking about uniforms as one of several elements we need to consider.

No, he's talking about uniforms as branding. A commercial concept that doesn't have any place in CAP. Uniforms shouldn't even be on the radar when it comes to the issues CAP has. At all.

Looking good is completely irrelevant if you can't tell your tail end from a hole in the ground. Too many people make this mistake.  Appearance and performance are not linked in any way, shape or form. You may have gear or uniforms that look cool, but it doesn't mean you can do the job. I can dress up like Special Forces all day long, but I don't have the skills and people will know it eventually.

I still think that one reason (among many) too many people want to do away with the military uniforms is because they won't have to worry about being held to the standard that goes with it. People expect more of them than they're capable of.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

We can blame the Marines for the ACU/ABU and Navy's new uniform.

Actually, we can blame the Canadians.

The CADPAT uniform was the first digital camouflage uniform used operationally.

http://www.hyperstealth.com/CADPAT-MARPAT.htm

What's in it is still classified by Her Majesty's Canadian Government to the point that Canadian troops separating from service are not allowed to keep theirs.

[wuzafuzz]

Uniforms are one element of an intelligent branding initiative.  Period.  Are uniforms the most important part of branding?  No.  In fact, you can have effective branding without any uniforms.  That said, the instant you have a uniform it becomes part of your brand, for better or worse. 

Why does CAP need branding?  Because we are repeatedly told we are a well-kept secret.  That's lousy for recruiting and funding.  The next time Congress decides where the money goes; we want them to have instant recognition, coupled with warm fuzzy feelings about CAP.  We also want improved relationships with the HLS types we are beginning to work for.

The American Red Cross is a great example of good branding.  Like us, they are not a commercial enterprise.  They don't even wear uniforms, but when you see their vests and vehicles you know exactly who they are.  People fall all over themselves to donate money to the Red Cross and sing their praises.  CAP can't say that.

When people see a CAP uniform, it should evoke positive images: professionalism, excellent service, etc. We dilute those positive vibes by scattering our brand into the wind.    Obviously it can go the other way if we don't have our act together. 

The image we present, including the way we dress, absolutely means something.  If we have a crummy public image we lose opportunities to demonstrate our skills.  A slob in uniform may make a parent think twice before allowing their kids in the cadet program. 

We don't need everyone in the exact same uniform to accomplish the uniform portion of branding.  We DO need readily identifiable visual elements across the board.  Currently, you can put several different CAP uniforms in a row with no clue they belong to the same organization.  The polo uses the CAP shield, the blazer uses the CAP crest, the flightsuit and VSAF shirt use the MAJCOM emblem, the AF uniform has no patches, and there is no consistent color scheme.  It's only a matter of time until someone put that dammed prop in a triangle logo on a uniform.  This situation is terrible for branding.  If we were smart about such things we would do something to tie our various uniforms together.  Simply requiring a common visual element on every single CAP uniform would improve matters.  This could be accomplished without major expense.

It's true there are other issues in CAP that need attention.  However, we DO have public affairs and marketing staff who SHOULD be working on this.  Instead they insist on creating new logos, slogans, and vehicle markings.  Every time they do that they dilute our meager brand.  Instead they should be working to strengthen our brand and name recognition. We have every reason to expect better of them.

Branding has power.  We ignore it at our own peril.

[Smithsonia]

Ned;
Certainly you are done. I'm sorry you found the references unsatisfying. References were for your education. Not for your approval. The same is true for all study material, from text books to dictionaries. Additionally if you fail to read these sources. I can do little to help you. You asked for references. You received references. In return you provided no reference material for your point of view. Nothing of support. No material, not once. Only solipsistic replies of dissatisfaction.

The quick answer is "everything in its way is Branding." From the cable knit sweater and blue jeans you wear around the house, to the business suit you wear to work, to the gentleman's ranch wear boots, the high fashion couture fancied by the chic'... it is all branding. Afterall, all clothing only covers ones body for warmth and modesty. But the choice of color and style also says this is what is preferred. Choices are made. Statements are made. If you routinely wear, whatever it is you wear... you say something about you. You make a choice. You brand you.

In the interstitial moments between a fixed image and a large deed (big missions in our case) - That is the time to ask the question "who are we?" and "what image do we want?" Hence the conversation. You and Hawk have aided me in many good and presumed noble ways. I thank you for it. It has been sincere privilege.
Good day!

[High Speed Low Drag]

We've got problems to solve, and the uniform isn't one of them. One is the lone business mentality which is becoming more predominant. Civil Air Patrol as a wholly independant corporation is a failure in concept that just doesn't seem to register to people. Our existance is tied to being an auxiliary, and wearing the uniform of a military branch.

I'm with Hawk on this one.

I actually agree with both of you.  However - - - -
1.  The AF took that option away from us.  If we could all wear the AF uniform, then we wouldn't have this discussion.
2.  The current governing matrix is not working; our mission focus is like a 16mm high school projector.  We have things to fix.  But when things start to focus and we try to work a coordinated marketing program, uniforms are an element of branding.

Ned -

Uniforms will not turn marketing around.  Uniforms will not solve all CAP's problems.  Uniforms are a tool, nothing more, nothing less.  It is how that tool is utilized that makes it an effective one or not. {End to Ned}

To everyone:  We all have had to use a wrench as a hammer, a Vise-Grip^® as a screwdriver, or a key as a knife.  Are these the correct tools for the job – no.  But can we use them in lieu of a more appropriate tool – yes.  Form follows function. 

In our uniform tool box, we have AF-style and CAP-style.  The AF-style has dress uniforms in different combinations, dependent on what needs to be done (think box wrenches), a utility uniform (think hammer), and flight suits for specialized use (think wood plane).  But in that same tool box, we have CAP-style uniforms.  The CAP-style dress uniforms have some combinations, but not very many (think yellow box wrenches with half missing), a utility uniform (think hammer, identical to the other hammer except it has a blue handle instead of wood), flight suits (think wood plane), and polos (think Gerber multi-tool, jack of all trades, master of none).

Now, CAP needs to rebuild an airplane.  Some senior members can reach in and pull out the correct tool for the job, or even have a choice of tool to use.  Other senior members reach in to get a tool, only to be told they can't use that tool because its' use is restricted by the tool's owner based on their appearance.  So they have to use a CAP-style tool, but the correct one is missing.  They end up having to use the Gerber, because nothing else fits and that affects the quality of work.  And yet other senior members only use the Gerber because it is a whole lot easier to carry it around then the complete tool box.  Furthermore, while we were working on the airplane, the public was invited to watch from another room.  They didn't know what was happening, but they noticed that only certain people could only use certain tools, while others used all the tools, while yet others used only one tool.  When CAP is done, would you fly in it?  Not all the members had the right tool for the job, while others just used one tool for everything.  Would the public or other pilots fly in it?

What we are proposing is to unify the CAP tool box.  When members reach for a tool, they all have the same tool, the same color, to do the same job.

** While I was writing this, wuzafuzz & smithsonia posted.  Good post, sirs!!

[FARRIER]

Ned;
Certainly you are done. I'm sorry you found the references unsatisfying. References were for your education. Not for your approval. The same is true for all study material, from text books to dictionaries. Additionally if you fail to read these sources. I can do little to help you. You asked for references. You received references. In return you provided no reference material for your point of view. Nothing of support. No material, not once. Only solipsistic replies of dissatisfaction.

The quick answer is "everything in its way is Branding." From the cable knit sweater and blue jeans you wear around the house, to the business suit you wear to work, to the gentleman's ranch wear boots, the high fashion couture fancied by the chic'... it is all branding. Afterall, all clothing only covers ones body for warmth and modesty. But the choice of color and style also says this is what is preferred. Choices are made. Statements are made. If you routinely wear, whatever it is you wear... you say something about you. You make a choice. You brand you.

In the interstitial moments between a fixed image and a large deed (big missions in our case) - That is the time to ask the question "who are we?" and "what image do we want?" Hence the conversation. You and Hawk have aided me in many good and presumed noble ways. I thank you for it. It has been sincere privilege.
Good day!

     You spent most of your time arguing with Ned and Hawk. To answer the others, you had to be under a rock not to realize that CAP has been a best kept secret. The rules, as you have been giving examples of through the links, the CSU was that experiment, even if it wasn't intened to be. Didn't it get peoples attention?

     If you look at the airlines in this country, thier uniforms are either blue or black. Thats the color associated with aviation. The Working Statement of 2001 and the Constitution and Bylaws express the word aerospace many times.

     Your idea has been listened to, and in fact, other threads this redesign of the uniform has been attempted.  What is your solution? Your only three sets of uniforms is understood.

Respectfully,

[RiverAux]

Why does CAP need branding?  Because we are repeatedly told we are a well-kept secret.  That's lousy for recruiting and funding.

Actually that is a line that has been actively discouraged in CAP public affairs for a while.