CAF Logo

[ZRX61]

KEErist, they really made a balls up with the Bobcat..

[Taylor Stevenson]

Okay, please re-read what was stated before. All your items have been addressed. First, it's up to the sponsors of the aircraft to make the final decision on color and placement. They are given information on size and recommended colors from HQ and take that into consideration. As well, no one said anything about it being readable. It was also said that they must be distinguishable in photos. There is a huge difference between those two words. The point being that the wings just need to be clearly wings in the picture and clearly the CAF wings. If they aren't clearly that image, then there is no point in having them to enhance marketing.

Guys, it's really getting on my nerves to keep hearing the words "some serious thought should be given" when there have been several posts stating that part of the process is giving serious thought to how these decals are done and where they are placed. Just because you don't agree with where they're placed doesn't mean that serious thought wasn't given. It is demeaning of those who are trying to do something good for our organization and to keep these planes flying by making it clear that these planes are part of the CAF.

BTW, the other thing that is being harped on is also alluded to in this post - how units are identified. It's not the "Southern California Wing of the CAF". It's the "CAF Southern California Wing". CAF is first always. That is part of the problem that has existed with the CAF. The whole has been subjugated to the part. You only continue to hinder things when you do not make all your efforts work together and it's something that a lot of people are fighting hard to get rid of those hindrances.

Very, very well said!

[Jack Cook]

Here's the formula used to determine the size colr and placement of each banner.

[k5083]

Fair enough, but FWIW, I am no arm chair marketing wannabe...

http://www.redorchestracreative.com

I know you're not, but most of the people who are on here aren't.

In addition, I kinda don't like August's post becuase it intimates that those people at HQ who have degrees in marketing and Steve Brown don't know what they're doing because he doesn't like the logo.

Well, that's fair. I have survey research experience, frequently help design, assess and litigate market studies and am currently building a brand for a nonprofit, but I readily admit to being an amateur compared to the likes of Mr Brown and happily accept Django's title of Arm Chair Marketing Wannabe. I only offer my comments for what they are worth. I can express hopes and concerns, but only the marketplace can tell us whether HQ knows what it's doing.

I think it would be an absolutely fascinating challenge to examine the needs of a unique organization like the CAF, and I envy those charged with doing it (which I guess is where the "wannabe" comes in). All of the questions, from identification of the target audience to how to reach and pull them in, to how to retain them while still satisfying the traditional base, are interesting, critical and without easy answers.

I will say that although I don't regularly monitor the CAF web site, it is looking pretty good these days, and the daily Oshkosh updates focusing on CAF participation are a great idea.

Anyway, I'm a little conflicted on the logo subject since I always wish the CAF well, but since I don't care for the logos on the planes, I guess I'd prefer not to see that part of the campaign succeed -- especially to the point where other organizations decide to copy it! So if I've said anything intelligent or useful on that subject, please disregard it.

August

[Tulio]

It would probably defeat the "visibility" purposes, but . . . how about a "subdued" logo, that could be seen by those close by, but would not stand out on most photos?

That defeats one of the purposes stated earlier for why the aircraft are being branded - so they'll be recognized as CAF aircraft in photographs.

Kinda ridiculous theory-
Robbie

It " wadn't" a theory. It was a suggestion : )


Saludos,


Tulio

[Second Air Force]

Seeing it on Ol 927, and it is not that bad. I think that is a good placement.

However on the Gunfighter, and the Bamboo Bomber (?) where it is right there at the cockpit, I really don't care for it at all.

How about moving it about eight feet aft and up a little on the B-24?

[ww2John]

A small moment of your time, if I may.
...sheesh...

Rule #1 - It's their plane and they can paint it as they wish.
Rule #2 - Ain't it great we have some really rare flying examples to enjoy in the air and on the ground at air shows around the USA.
...logo, shmogo...
And since at least one unkind person slammed Collings for their sponsorships painted on the a/c...I would suggest that more people have seen, flown-in and enjoyed these Collings birds than any you have worked on or supported...it takes $$$ and I can "put up with" names & logos on the a/c so I can see them - in the air - where they belong.
But this is the USA and WIX and you are entitled to your opinion, as am I.
A Most Sincere Thanks CAF & Collings for trying to keep 'em flying.
FYI - Not sure if it means a gosh-darn thing, but I drive a 22 year old, low mileage, classic car that I intentionally keep "all original" (paint, top, interior, etc.) and it does not have sponsors names painted on it, nor any logos...because I can afford to do that...and I like an original look.


Just out of curiosity...Exactly How many angels are on the head of that Pin?

[krlang]

A small moment of your time, if I may.
...sheesh...

Rule #1 - It's their plane and they can paint it as they wish.
Rule #2 - Ain't it great we have some really rare flying examples to enjoy in the air and on the ground at air shows around the USA.
...logo, shmogo...

I agree Johnny,
I would much rather see the airplane than worry about the logo getting in my pictures. I think it is a nice piece of artwork, although the color of the one on the Bobcat makes me cringe a little. Can I get one of those for the back of my toolbox?

Let them be recognized, possibly make some money, spend it on a bunch more of those decals and put them on some airplanes we havent seen in a while.

Management changes bring up some interesting topics on here, like the "Air Force Museum" name change. That is what they do, try to make it look like they are doing something, no matter how bad, it has to be obvious enough to be noticed. A big one where I work is that they modernized their corporate image by changing the shade of blue in the logo?


BTW, I still dont drink Red Bull!

[skymstr02]

The membership is the CAF, Mr Brown is not the CAF. He provides direction to the membership, but he is not the driving force behind the CAF. Midland does not restore or maintain aircraft, the individual members do.
Its not important in the grand scheme of things to be able to say "Thats a CAF airplane". If the person that notices an airplane, and is a warbird nut, he'll know if its a CAF airplane or not. Many regular people, ie, not warbird nuts, already associate all warbirds as the CAF anyway.

[Obergrafeter]

Finally soneone got it! Thanks DZ.................I don't know how it is in the rest of the world, but here in Texas anyway even people with a little historical knowledge see a WWII airplane think of the CAF whenever they see a "WARBIRD". Everytime I take a privately owned bird to an airshow I hear people say "That Confederate Air Force Plane". Never do I try to explain the difference, much less try to explain the difference in the C word.

[RyanShort1]

Everytime I take a privately owned bird to an airshow I hear people say "That Confederate Air Force Plane". Never do I try to explain the difference, much less try to explain the difference in the C word.

Yep, some of us down here still have a hard time not saying the dreaded C word!

Ryan

[k5083]

Reading between the lines of some of the posts, people who have already heard of the CAF may not be the main target audience here. I don't know how big is the universe of people who have never heard of the CAF yet who might be induced to pony up $200/yr to be Colonals, but maybe the idea is to attract them as associate members and hope some step up to Col later. The CAF no doubt has data on this and I don't, but that progression seems logical to me. I certainly agree that they need to reach beyond people who know what CAF means (i.e. enthusiasts and perhaps a broader cross-section of Texans).

August

[rwdfresno]

Okay, please re-read what was stated before. All your items have been addressed. First, it's up to the sponsors of the aircraft to make the final decision on color and placement. They are given information on size and recommended colors from HQ and take that into consideration. As well, no one said anything about it being readable. It was also said that they must be distinguishable in photos. There is a huge difference between those two words. The point being that the wings just need to be clearly wings in the picture and clearly the CAF wings. If they aren't clearly that image, then there is no point in having them to enhance marketing.

Guys, it's really getting on my nerves to keep hearing the words "some serious thought should be given" when there have been several posts stating that part of the process is giving serious thought to how these decals are done and where they are placed. Just because you don't agree with where they're placed doesn't mean that serious thought wasn't given. It is demeaning of those who are trying to do something good for our organization and to keep these planes flying by making it clear that these planes are part of the CAF.

BTW, the other thing that is being harped on is also alluded to in this post - how units are identified. It's not the "Southern California Wing of the CAF". It's the "CAF Southern California Wing". CAF is first always. That is part of the problem that has existed with the CAF. The whole has been subjugated to the part. You only continue to hinder things when you do not make all your efforts work together and it's something that a lot of people are fighting hard to get rid of those hindrances.

Well first of all I have been defending the use of the logos from point one so maybe you could get your emotions under control if you are going to be an ambassador promoting the use logos for the organization in a public forum.

Secondly, you can put the logos anywhere you please, CAF owns the aircraft, that doesn't mean I have to like it.

Thirdly, the logo on the Bobcat takes away from the overall appeal of the aircraft in my opinion. If the goal of the marketing campaign is to place branding the aircraft as of higher importance than the general aesthetic value of the aircraft (even to someone who knows nothing of proper markings) then I'd say that was accomplished in the case. It is highly visible.

I don't have a responsibility to make you or anyone else feel good about what you are doing. Good intentions and bad results aren't what you are after. If my daughter had good intentions painting the side of my car with finger paint to make it look pretty that doesn't mean it looks good. Perhaps the placement, size color, shouldn't be left in the hands of a sponsor or volunteer. Sure they have a real investment in the aircraft and it makes sense to get their opinions but shouldn't a graphic artist or someone who understands aesthetics be placing and sizing the logos?

Frankly, I think giving my honest opinion about the logos is the most respectable thing I can do. I certainly am not the only one who feels this way about the placement, size, color of some of those logos. Wouldn't you rather have some honest opinions or would you rather just get a pat on the back for doing a good job and I talk smack behind your back. I frankly respect anyone who gives me their honest opinion whether I like it or not. Jack, August, Mustang Driver, JDK, BDK, EDowning, T33Driver, Django these are all people I have agreed with and disagreed with on various topics but I respect the fact that each one of them has an opinion. Much better than sticking your wet finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing. Why is it that each time a topic with any sort of debate comes along if everyone doesn't join hands around the fire, dance and sing praise to unity everyone gets their panties in a knot and decries the integrity of the unit has been forever tarnished.

Why don't you please re-read my posts and see that I don't have a problem with the logos, I just don't happen to like the fact that they are placed on some aircraft in a way that I think actually makes the product less marketable. I have defended the use of the logos. Just because I support the idea of using logos doesn't mean I have to like the placement of each individual logo. You seem to be unable to separate those 2 concepts.

Ryan

[Robbie Roberts]

Here's the formula used to determine the size colr and placement of each banner.

Forgot to carry the 2, account for wind direction, and scale against the Galactic Imperium Chronotexture sizing chart. Once you get those numbers figured in, you'll be fine.

Robbie

[sgt hawk]

I recall a recent thred where we all "waxed nostalgic" over the old Confederate Air Force's red, white and blue livery of the 70's. Certainly, it brought back some memories, however the predominant opinion seemed to be that the Warbirds of today be painted as they were in WWII, as respect to the Veterans that flew them. Hey! I'll go along with that! But, we also know that the amount of $$ it takes today to keep, maintain and fly these birds is "a bunch". If presenting the CAF logo helps in anyway with fundraising, I can accept the logo on their airplanes. I don't have to like it, but if it helps in raising money I can accept it. You need to prove it though! I haven't voted yet.