Uniform as branding element

[BuckeyeDEJ]

I must point out that the Army Chief of Staff Gen. Casey attended the Ft. Hood Memorial Service in his Battle Dress and Combat Boots. Nearly every other soldier was dressed the same. It seems to me that the Army is attempting to strip-down their variety of uniforms as a memorial like this would normally be a ClassA/ClassB uniform event.

This change could not be attributed to a change in duty, as there wasn't a combat alert or these people were in a war zone (I know that there is a discrepancy in this conclusion and given how these soldiers died, don't go there out of respect please), but there is a change, a simplification in branding/culture/style.

Battle Dress is becoming iconic, in the same way that the 50 mission cap became iconic in WW2. The 50 mission cap was a regular service cap broken down by wearing headsets. By 1943 they were making service caps just that way. (To look broken down out of the box) Kind of like Levi brand fading jeans.

We need an iconic (branding) uniform. We have several to pick from.

Ed, the reason for the ACU wear is to reinforce the Army's image as a warfighting organization. That said, the ACU is highly inappropriate for ceremonies or for testifying before Congress. When the President spoke at West Point, there wasn't an ACU in the building, and that's as it should be. It's a sign of respect for the occasion and for those involved, like him or not.

The Air Force had the good sense not to do what the Army did for very long, though senior leaders never went as far as wearing a work uniform to a Congressional hearing (and being chastized by a congressman for doing so). Blues Mondays!

We have the uniforms to brand with — the service uniform and the flight suit. Why do we keep trying to fix something that isn't broken? Our military heritage boldly and simply identifies us without much explanation. The Air Force is our parent organization, and we should be proud to stand with them, not run from them when it suits our purpose. If you can't wear the Air Force uniforms, fine, no problem — there's the white-and-grays and the blazer, so you don't have a reason to stay home.

As for people in cadet programs who wear the appropriate Air Force uniform the cadets wear, good on you. You should always wear the uniform of your troops. Lead by example, not by the lack thereof. (For those of you who wear a CAP combination instead because of weight or facial hair issues, no one's looking down on you.)

[High Speed Low Drag]

We have the uniforms to brand with — the service uniform and the flight suit. Why do we keep trying to fix something that isn't broken? Our military heritage boldly and simply identifies us without much explanation. The Air Force is our parent organization, and we should be proud to stand with them, not run from them when it suits our purpose. If you can't wear the Air Force uniforms, fine, no problem — there's the white-and-grays and the blazer, so you don't have a reason to stay home.
(For those of you who wear a CAP combination instead because of weight or facial hair issues, no one's looking down on you.)

No, we don't have a service uniform.  We have a business blazer with a nametag that we can't wear ribbons, qual badges, etc on. 

As for people in cadet programs who wear the appropriate Air Force uniform the cadets wear, good on you. You should always wear the uniform of your troops. Lead by example, not by the lack thereof.(For those of you who wear a CAP combination instead because of weight or facial hair issues, no one's looking down on you.)

Really?? Do you think that there is not a double standard?  Even your comment was biased. 

[Hawk200]

We have the uniforms to brand with — the service uniform and the flight suit. Why do we keep trying to fix something that isn't broken? Our military heritage boldly and simply identifies us without much explanation. The Air Force is our parent organization, and we should be proud to stand with them, not run from them when it suits our purpose. If you can't wear the Air Force uniforms, fine, no problem — there's the white-and-grays and the blazer, so you don't have a reason to stay home.
(For those of you who wear a CAP combination instead because of weight or facial hair issues, no one's looking down on you.)

No, we don't have a service uniform.  We have a business blazer with a nametag that we can't wear ribbons, qual badges, etc on. 

So lobby to put them on the blazer. Simple solution.

Now, who's gonna be the first to say "We can't do that!", and then whine about not having military finery?

[arajca]

We have the uniforms to brand with — the service uniform and the flight suit. Why do we keep trying to fix something that isn't broken? Our military heritage boldly and simply identifies us without much explanation. The Air Force is our parent organization, and we should be proud to stand with them, not run from them when it suits our purpose. If you can't wear the Air Force uniforms, fine, no problem — there's the white-and-grays and the blazer, so you don't have a reason to stay home.
(For those of you who wear a CAP combination instead because of weight or facial hair issues, no one's looking down on you.)

No, we don't have a service uniform.  We have a business blazer with a nametag that we can't wear ribbons, qual badges, etc on. 

So lobby to put them on the blazer. Simple solution.

Now, who's gonna be the first to say "We can't do that!", and then whine about not having military finery?

We're going to argue that it looks unprofessional (actually, it looks like crap)

[BuckeyeDEJ]

We have the uniforms to brand with — the service uniform and the flight suit. Why do we keep trying to fix something that isn't broken? Our military heritage boldly and simply identifies us without much explanation. The Air Force is our parent organization, and we should be proud to stand with them, not run from them when it suits our purpose. If you can't wear the Air Force uniforms, fine, no problem — there's the white-and-grays and the blazer, so you don't have a reason to stay home.
(For those of you who wear a CAP combination instead because of weight or facial hair issues, no one's looking down on you.)

No, we don't have a service uniform.  We have a business blazer with a nametag that we can't wear ribbons, qual badges, etc on. 

As for people in cadet programs who wear the appropriate Air Force uniform the cadets wear, good on you. You should always wear the uniform of your troops. Lead by example, not by the lack thereof.(For those of you who wear a CAP combination instead because of weight or facial hair issues, no one's looking down on you.)

Really?? Do you think that there is not a double standard?  Even your comment was biased.

The double standard exists because there's a non-military option. It's not a personal bias. S'members who work with cadets are supposed to wear a uniform; the wear of the uniform cadets wear sets a good example, but if a member can't wear it, the professional wear of the non-military uniform is acceptable. Cadets can smell a bad senior member several miles away, whether he/she is wearing the Air Force uniforms or the non-military combinations.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I can't think of a better "branding element" than this:

http://www.caphistory.org/images/museum_store/poster.jpg

Update it with the photo of one of our birds and a Thunderbirds F-16.

[High Speed Low Drag]

Just saw a new (to me) Marine commercial where they take a bunch of recruits, run them through Basic, and the commercial ends with a line of Marines in their dress uniforms spinning rifles by a lighthouse.  I think this is a clear illustration of using the uniform as a branding element.  Actually, if you think about it, almost every Marine commercial has images of their dress uniform in it. 

Uniforms are definitely a branding element.  If you were to do a CAP commercial, what uniforms would you have the members in?

[Ned]

Just saw a new (to me) Marine commercial where they take a bunch of recruits, run them through Basic, and the commercial ends with a line of Marines in their dress uniforms spinning rifles by a lighthouse.  I think this is a clear illustration of using the uniform as a branding element.  Actually, if you think about it, almost every Marine commercial has images of their dress uniform in it. 

Uniforms are definitely a branding element.  ]

Exactly!

Questions:

1.  Don't the Marines have as many or more uniform combinations than any of the other services?  Did they discontinue any in order to improve their branding?

2.  Hasn't the Marine dress uniform remained essentially the same for over a half-century?  IOW, did they change it just to make it more suitable for branding?


Nobody had been objecting to using our uniforms as branding elements.  The opposition has been against ill-conceived and expensive proposals to change our uniforms simply because that might somehow improve our branding.

Your example supports the principal that highly effective branding can be done in an organization with many different uniforms without having to make changes.

Thank you.

[Hawk200]

Has anyone actually looked a the definition of "branding"? Somehow it doesn't seem to apply. The Air Force is not a "brand". Civil Air Patrol is not a "brand". A uniform represents an organization. Calling it something else doesn't alter what it is.This commercial marketing term is not even related.

This little marketing bandwagon catch term is another lame attempt to be something other than what we are. Changing the uniform for commercialization is not going to help us in the least bit, and is just gonna be another fiasco, resulting in lost time, money, and members.

[High Speed Low Drag]

Hawk – your link says: "the promoting of a product or service by identifying it with a particular brand."   The MW dictionary then defines brand as: "to impress indelibly"

So you are 100% wrong – We are discussing the promotion of CAP's missions (services) by identifying them with Civil Air Patrol, and CAP is what we are trying to impress indelibly upon America.

The Air Force is a "brand" of service, just as Tide is a brand of detergent.  There are several different "brands" of military service in the U.S. (Army, Navy, etc)  Look at the millions of dollars the various branches have spent to impress their image indelibly upon the public.  The United States is even a "brand."  In many parts of the world, our "brand" image is freedom, hope, and opportunity.

The poster that CyBorg linked to is a perfect example of co-branding, which MW states is:  "to market or issue... in conjunction with another company so that the product bears the name of both."  In that poster, we are co-branding with USAF.  In this case, the product we are "selling" is that CAP is not a civilian flying club, but part of a larger purpose, a larger organization – USAF and by extension, the USA.

Ned,
True to an extent.  The difference is that every Marine has the famous dress blues and wears them as directed.  In fact EVERY Marine has their uniforms and when they show up some where, they are all dressed the same.  Example, (if they were us), everyone would be at the SAR in MARPATs, at the Wing Conference Banquet, everyone would be in the famous dress blues, in an office environment, they would be in greens.  The point is that everyone would be in the same thing for the same activity.
Their uniform has been the same.  We haven't had the ability to do that.  If we change to a CAP-style, then we can bring stability to the uniform chaos.

[Hawk200]

Hawk – your link says: "the promoting of a product or service by identifying it with a particular brand."   The MW dictionary then defines brand as: "to impress indelibly"

So you are 100% wrong – We are discussing the promotion of CAP's missions (services) by identifying them with Civil Air Patrol, and CAP is what we are trying to impress indelibly upon America.

The Air Force is a "brand" of service, just as Tide is a brand of detergent.  There are several different "brands" of military service in the U.S. (Army, Navy, etc)  Look at the millions of dollars the various branches have spent to impress their image indelibly upon the public.  The United States is even a "brand."  In many parts of the world, our "brand" image is freedom, hope, and opportunity.

The poster that CyBorg linked to is a perfect example of co-branding, which MW states is:  "to market or issue... in conjunction with another company so that the product bears the name of both."  In that poster, we are co-branding with USAF.  In this case, the product we are "selling" is that CAP is not a civilian flying club, but part of a larger purpose, a larger organization – USAF and by extension, the USA.

Semantics. This is bringing stupid commercialization where it's unnecessary.

You can think I'm wrong, but I can also think that you're one of the deluded people who believes that marketing ploys is actually gonna do something for us, instead of actually dealing with the issues. I can also think that you're gonna rationalize anything that supports your viewpoint.

"Hey, this horse has a broken leg. Let's put a Band Aid on it, it'll be alright".

[Smithsonia]

Yes Hawk200 many of us know this topic well. We do it for a living. In all cases, even if there isn't a brand assertion - All organization get branded. I offer as a test: FEMA. Think about the name. Let it roll in your head for a second before you continue.

FEMA has never had much of a brand. Most people don't know what they do and how they do it. So, even though they did amazing work Post 9-11 at the World Trade Center, Katrina and Rita are the first thing that pops into the heads of most folks. We can argue if the criticism they received with Katrina was justified, that is not the point here. Without a clear statement of THIS IS FEMA AND THIS IS WHAT WE DO... Then people filled in what they liked and in a most unambiguous way. Branding is not just to sell THINGS. It also to sells concepts, services, ideas, and even the Meta-physical. (Almost all churches: Evangelical, Traditional, Conservative, Reformed, etc. carry a brand concept.

Ultimately THE Boss: Isn't your commander, National Commander, or the Air Force... it is the American Public. Branding helps our ultimate boss with their considerations and positive reaction to funding requests and missions. This is a rather standard concept. So far we seem to not be addressing this fully and in a potent, cogent, consistent manner. Uniforms as branding elements... is a partial discussion of that concept.

[FlyingTerp]

Their uniform has been the same.  We haven't had the ability to do that.  If we change to a CAP-style, then we can bring stability to the uniform chaos.

Uniform issues are caused by unclear and unenforced standards on uniform wear and not the multiple options our members have depending on the activity and meeting height, weight and grooming.  Putting everyone in a military style uniform, like the one proposed in other threads, will harm our brand.  Military style uniforms are not appropriate for everyone, and having height/weight and grooming standards protect our brand.  For those that cannot or choose not to meet height/weight and/or grooming standards, there should be a standardized non-military (possibly aviation) style uniform.  Not providing a standardized and professional non-military style uniform for those who cannot or choice not to wear the AF uniform is a serious oversight by our leadership.   CAP's association with the US Military and status as the USAF Auxiliary strengthens our brand and adds credibility to our organization and mission.  It is appropriate that those that meet the standards have the ability to wear the AF uniform. 

For most of my CAP career as a SM, I was unable to wear the AF uniform due to height/weight.  I bought the CSU, minus the coat (thankfully), and honestly, it looked ridiculous.  I wore it only once because I felt it was not appropriate to wear a military style uniform and not be in shape.  My grooming was within standards, shoes shined, and uniformed pressed, but it didn't feel right.  Did I feel like a second class member? no  Did I limit my participation?  no  I wore white/grays/blazer or the polo.  Even though I couldn't wear it, I was proud that CAP members are authorized to wear the AF uniform.  It an honor that many on this board don't seem to understand or appreciate, even if you cannot wear it.

Flame away...

[Hawk200]

Yes Hawk200 many of us know this topic well. We do it for a living.

For someone that claims to know it so well, you're not convincing me. If you do, show me. So far, you're a failure at that. The only thing you've done is say "I'm an expert at this". You haven't proved it to me.

All I'm seeing here is "Let's make a new uniform so the public knows what CAP is". The concept is a failure. Another new uniform is actually gonna make that worse.

Second, in the video, I sounds like the individual is using the term "branding" in it's original sense, not as the commercial aspect. It's placing an identifiable pattern on something (in this case people) and creating an association. The original "brand" was a mark burned into livestock to show who the owner was.

The concept of branding being discussed here is a commercial one. One I'm quite familiar with. I work for Domino's in the evenings. I take a product (a pizza) and deliver it (providing a service). That's the same aspect that I'm seeing here, marketing. CAP abilities should not be marketed in this fashion. If you can't tell someone "The Civil Air Patrol brand provides superior services compared to other Search and Rescue brands" without them laughing, it doesn't belong. I think that is the point that a number of people here are missing.

(Almost all churches: Evangelical, Traditional, Conservative, Reformed, etc. carry a brand concept.

No, those are denominations, not brands. The application is insulting to those of faith.

Ultimately THE Boss: Isn't your commander, National Commander, or the Air Force... it is the American Public. Branding helps our ultimate boss with their considerations and positive reaction to funding requests and missions. This is a rather standard concept. So far we seem to not be addressing this fully and in a potent, cogent, consistent manner. Uniforms as branding elements... is the partial discussion of that concept.

The boss makes the choices based on our missions and abilities, not our clothes. Any president that sends a certain branch instead of another because he likes their clothes better would be a complete fool. We don't market our services with our clothing.

The Marine Corps tends to go in pretty quick on anything. They are a lethal branch of service that is small and mobile. Their size and training allows them to do that. That's not marketing, it's ability.

Is this viewpoint clear?

[High Speed Low Drag]

But it is that ability that has created the Marine Corps brand.  The uniform is a branding element.

And if you don't think we are selling something - you're seriously deluded.  We are selling first, our existance, second, our services.

Many agencies have alternate sources of what we sell.  Want youth programs - take a choice of BSA, B&G Clubs, sport programs, etc, etc.  Want SAR - check out the local SAR clubs, Sheriff SAR Teams, etc.  Want flying - check out your local flying club.

We are competing for people, we are competing against numerous other volunteer organizations.  So yeah, just like the AF is competing against other military branches for quality recruits, we are competing for people.  We are competing for our organization's very existance.

Brands are (according to your source) indelible images.  Southern Baptist has a different brand from Catholic.  Is it demeaning - no.  Even the commericals each group runs are different.  You have an opinion that anyone over H/W requirements should not be in a military style uniform.  That is YOUR oipinion.  I agree, we do not need to be in the AF uniforms because the AF doesn't want us ruining their brand by being in them.  But that does not mean that we should not be in a military style unifrom.  Cops are and a lot of us are overweight.  By your statement, opverweight cops should not be in a military-style uniform.

[FlyingTerp]

Brands are (according to your source) indelible images.  Southern Baptist has a different brand from Catholic.  Is it demeaning - no.  Even the commericals each group runs are different.  You have an opinion that anyone over H/W requirements should not be in a military style uniform.  That is YOUR oipinion.  I agree, we do not need to be in the AF uniforms because the AF doesn't want us ruining their brand by being in them.  But that does not mean that we should not be in a military style unifrom.  Cops are and a lot of us are overweight.  By your statement, opverweight cops should not be in a military-style uniform.

No, my opinion has nothing to do with police departments, just CAP.  They can control their own brand.

I'm not trying to pick a fight.  There is far from any consensus on any uniform issue on CAPTALK.  Like you, I'm just expressing my opinion that others may or may not share.

[cap235629]

Looks like Multicam to me. So much for branding, the U.S. Army is changing to Multicam!

The Army isnt changing to anything. we have had ACU's for five years now. There are soldiers that know nothing except the ACU. Its already been here for years

Might want to research that a little, I have it on good authority that this is happening, ACU is very poor performer in Afghanistan which prompted a review and change of direction. Though it may not be a true "Multicam" it takes the multicam color palette and the acu digital pixelation and comes up with a better mousetrap

Look what I found:

Army's "new" uniform

Also, a new study has named Multi-Cam as the best "overall" choice if the Army decides to go with a universal all environment uniform. You can read the study here:

Camouflage Test

It also looks like we may go back to 2 distinct uniforms, go figure!

[Hawk200]

Apparently, there are people stuck on using this marketing term. Fine, I'll play.

Answer me this: What is creating a new uniform for Civil Air Patrol going to solve?

The CSU was first seen at an Armed Services Hearing. It wasn't even recognized. How did that help "market" CAP?

Another aspect of "branding" is advertising. Products are commonly advertised as "better" than something else. What is it that makes CAP better because of our "brand"?

It's not like we produce a better person just because they were a CAP cadet instead of a JROTC one. Considering how many dual enrollees are out there, apparently we don't produce something better just because we're CAP, or else they wouldn't be in both.

We obviously don't produce better SAR personnel, because there are plenty of times we aren't alone in missions, and we wouldn't be working jointly with anyone else if were better.

As to Aerospace, what are we producing that is so much better than all those schools/colleges that teach even more than we do?

So it seems to me that our clothes don't make us experts in all aspects. What is a new uniform going to do to change that?

[wuzafuzz]

Has anyone actually looked a the definition of "branding"? Somehow it doesn't seem to apply. The Air Force is not a "brand". Civil Air Patrol is not a "brand". A uniform represents an organization. Calling it something else doesn't alter what it is.This commercial marketing term is not even related.

This little marketing bandwagon catch term is another lame attempt to be something other than what we are. Changing the uniform for commercialization is not going to help us in the least bit, and is just gonna be another fiasco, resulting in lost time, money, and members.

The definition you link to absolutely applies.  Whether it's ES, cadet programs, or AE, CAP provides a service, a work product.  Brand is the public identity and reputation that "says" CAP and in turn makes people think of the services or "product" we provide.  Branding is the efforts made by the organization to affect their reputation.  Image.  It encompasses visual elements (yes, including uniforms), print media, speech, and behavior.  All coordinated, hopefully, to project the positive image and value of that organization's products or of membership.  It's not lame and if done right would not be a waste.

I've said it before, uniforms are not the most important part of branding, but a lousy appearance can definitely derail other efforts.  Minimal efforts could make our uniforms look like they represent the same organization.  We don't need new ones, but changing a few "accessories" and looking less like a meeting of different groups would help.  There is more important work to be done with other aspects of our public persona.   

Excerpted from my company's Intranet:
What is "brand"?

"Brand is how our customers, our associates, and the community experience ______ on an everyday basis. What we say and what we do, along with our visual identity, demonstrate our values and make up this experience. Experiences consistent with our values build confidence and trust. People trust and value our brand when their ______ experiences consistently meet or exceed their expectations."

[Gunner C]

Digging WAY back to about 1975, sitting in my third year advertising (or something) class . . .

• We need a product
• The service has to fill a need
• We need something that visually (and aurally) identifies the product - packaging

Honest, I'm doing this from cloudy memory - be patient. 

Products:

• Cadet training
• Emergency services and related stuff
• Aerospace Education

Need?

• What/where is the need for a cadet program?
• What/where is the need for emergency services and all of its permutations?
• What/where is the need for aerospace education?

Packaging (The topic of this thread):

• Myriad logotypes
• Myriad uniforms
• Most aircraft look the same

For someone that claims to know it so well, you're not convincing me. If you do, show me. So far, you're a failure at that. The only thing you've done is say "I'm an expert at this". You haven't proved it to me.

Just because you don't know a correct principle when you see one doesn't mean you didn't see one.