Warbird Information Exchange

I regret to say, but the recent times have proven, that we are reaching a point in the warbird community where only those with extremely deep pockets (The Weeks, Collings, and Cavanaughs of the world) can afford to own or operate these priceless artifacts... In many cases appearance fees, a free hotel room, and a BBQ coupon doesn't cut it anymore. Therefore the CAF, which has no large financial backing besides that of our wonderful volunteers, must do something to be a recognizable force in the Warbird Arena. Anyone who knows me or has seen my L-5 knows that I am an authenticity nut much like the members of this forum, BUT I am willing to sacrifice some originality for visibility, uniformity, and the potential of large donations / sponsorships. The way I see it, and this is my opinion alone, unless you have ponied up and spent $$$, not time but $$$, on these CAF birds then you should have no real justification for any negativity towards this logo campaign. People, I fear we are soon reaching an era where we must understand that it is the airplane in the air that is the true tribute to the veterans who flew them, and not the fact that it is restored to mil-spec. I would rather see, and I'm not saying it will come to this, a warbird flying with a Ford logo on it than see a 100% authentic restoration doomed to a static fate.

My 2 cents.

Taylor Stevenson
Member of the “Air Force you’ve never heard of…” soon to be the “Air Force everyone’s heard of…”

_________________
Taylor Stevenson

Huh, The angle of the dangle is equal to the mass of the ass and the heat of the meat provided the motions is constant?

Isn't this the formula for the Pizza rolls?


Sorry guys, this is getting too serious.

Uh...generally correct regarding the equation, except the variable "cube of the tube" wasn't integrated as we know is always should be

And "hear hear" to what Taylor says!

--Tom

Well that certainly is a short sided view. I would think that any potential "customer" of the CAF would be who you would be most concerned about. If the whole point of the campaign is to spread the word in an effort to gain further support for the organization you think the most important opinions would be that of spectator (potential future supporters) and those who are currently involved in supporting the aircraft. You don't want to lose those who support now and you want to gain those who will support ongoing. A large part of marketing is noticing the reaction of your target audience. Many a marketing campaign was later pulled because it turned off the audience. I think the most practical approach to something of this sort is to read the reaction to the target audience. If it is doing what you want it to I guess it was successful. Perhaps taking under consideration some of the merits of debate from people critical to the campaign is wise other than just shutting down the debate.

Ryan

I think what you're missing is that those on this board aren't a target of this campaign and never were. Those on this board know who the CAF is, knows how to join, knows people with it, etc. The CAF's marketing campaign is to get out the world of who we are to the 90% of the population who embody the slogan we repeat - "The Air Force you never knew existed."

The marketing (overall) has been successful at Sun'N'Fun, it's so far looking good for Oshkosh, and the final test this year will be Wings Over Houston. I don't include AirSho for the simple reason that it's the CAF's show and there's no question who's putting it on or who's aircraft are flying in it, although if we see a marked increase in attendence this year, I'm sure some of it will be due to the increased marketing done.

I was just giving my 2 cents. I was referring to those who are voicing highly negative opinions about this campaign on WIX, not the general public. Personally, the vast majority of the general public won't know the difference between a 100% mil-spec aircraft and one that is accurate but has it's owners logo on the side. As said earlier our target audience isn't the 1% of the authenticity freaks on this board, including myself, (although we do appreciate and need that 1%s support) rather it is the general public and specifically those individuals, groups, companies that can make out big checks once they see how strong of an organization we, the CAF, are. In order to survive we must grow in both numbers and visibility.

Once again, this is my personal understanding / opinion.

_________________
Taylor Stevenson

Exactly CAPFlyer...

_________________
Taylor Stevenson

No one is being negative about the campaign. Just the uglying up of the airplanes
Can you imagine Miss Mitchell with that big thing on the side or stop the presses.....The Red Tail P-51B Mustang!!
I'd bet those MN wing boys aren't happy about it!!

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

Actually Jack, the ones at the Summer Staff Conference seemed to like it.

I find it funny that you talk about it not being negative about the campaign but yet use the phrase "uglying up" which is negative to describe it not a sentence later. Yes, you and many others are being negative about it because you think that because either it wasn't done the way you wanted it to or it's not "authentic" that it's a bad thing. You keep using phases like "need to take into consideration" or "need to have serious thoughts" or whatever to describe how it should be done, and that putting them there "uglies" the airplane or "detracts" from its appearance.

That's all negative. Ryan was right, we shouldn't discourage valid discussion, but at the same time, when you say how it's not historically accurate, or how the CAF is being hypocritical, or imply that it was done hastily and without consideration for multiple factors, it is not constructive and it is most definitely negative.

I sort of agree with Ryan K's perspective http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/p ... c&start=30

I fully understand what the CAF is trying to do. However, if the purpose of the marketing campaign is to increase memberships and awareness then, they need to lower the cost of a membership. For example, to be a colonel, you need to dish out $200 a year. I understand the CAF needs to pay bills, but come on $200 a year? I think they need to make membership a bit more attractive. Not everybody can dish out $200 a year to reap the most benefits of a membership.

--Question, are you allowed to join a Wing/ Squadron as an Associate member?

_________________
"Keep 'em Flying!"

Growing up in Texas it's hard to miss the Confed..err Commemorative Air Force's aircraft. Every airshow small, medium and large, has a contingent from one of the local wings. Most of the people here even moderately interested in aviation have heard of the CAF, not to mention the devotee's of classic aircraft.
However, the average joe that goes to the show usually doesnt care who owns or operates the planes, just that they are there to be seen. Many of them also aren't aware of the increasing costs of owning and operating a warbird, they just know that they paid the event's entrance fee, and figure that's enough. For those who cared enough to ask questions, the name was there under the tail.
Whether or not the new emblem will draw in new members remains to be seen, personally I prefer it the way it was before, but I'm not going to cease enjoying the CAF aircraft, or supporting them where I can. That being said, I would not think it wise to sacrifice any of the current base for the potential gain of a few others...

.
The CAF is one of the founders of the modern Warbird movement, and were some of the first operators to put flying ex-military aircraft back into wartime colourschemes, and the one of the very few to take on the burden of returning heavy bombers to the air.

They have done so for many years, against many obsticles and entertained and educated many "joe publics" along the way.

If the "cost" of getting corporate donations for the engine changes to FIFI, the restoration of Diamond Lil and the ongoing operation of the CAF is some CAF branding to show how much the CAF actually contribute and achieve I have no problem with that.

Otherwise the CAF aircraft, other than the headliners, are invisible and not recognised as part of the CAF efforts and achievements.

I read comments on wix all the time arguing "if you own the plane, you can paint it as you please" its interesting to see such a different attitude being applied to the CAF?

I am not a member of the CAF, and only know of this issue from what I am reading, but it seems that even privately owned member aircraft are voluntarily adopting the wings, and I assume this is because those members are proud to be members, and to show their support.

I note there is some debate about the size and positioning of the CAF wings, and I would agree that there is no need to make it "readible" in photos, so "recogisable" , and that might be achievable with smaller and more matched colour versions.

But it is clear this is working as a marketing device, we are all talking about it, so its achieved its first goal of being "recognisable" and identifying particular aircraft as being part of the CAF.

Some operators are promoting their aircraft as the "only flying B24" to achieve public support and donations, I dont have a problem with the CAF using these markings to promote their existance and activities, its far better than adopting "Red Bull" paint schemes to keep an aircraft operational, as has been required elsewhere.

If sticking the CAF wings on the side of an aeroplane would help attract funds for Gary to do his magic I would happily do it.

If some people dont like the CAF aircraft wearing the CAF Logo, I guess they reach in the pockets and buy the aircraft, and operate them without it, or any sponsorship funding?

regards

Mark Pilkington

_________________
20th Century - The Age of Manned Flight
"from Wrights to Armstrong in 66 years -WOW!"

Cost won't go down. As it is, the $200 barely pays for your benefits as it is. Remember, your national membership affords you liability insurance when participating, helps pay the bills for the HQ staff at Midland to have offices, helps pay their salaries, and gives them money to do the advertising. Annual dues is their primary form of funding, so as the insurance policy cost goes up and the bills to keep the offices open go up, then the price has to go up. It also hadn't increased in almost 20 years. It was $160 when I was growing up, and it was $160 when I joined 2 years ago. However, that first year, I had to pay a $40 initiation fee that new Colonels don't have to pay.

Again, why is it that $200 seems so expensive? How many of you are paying more than $20 a month for your cellphone? Guess what - for that same $20 a month, you could be a CAF Colonel. How many have a monthly membership to a gym, a website, a newspaper, or anything else that has monthly memberships that is more than $20/month? Again, for that same price, you could be a CAF Colonel.

Why does the CAF need to lower the cost when it's cost isn't that high?! You're talking less than $1/day. I wish we had an electronic version of the new membership brochure. It really does explain the benefits that that $200 gets you. But since we don't, anyone who hasn't seen it and wants to see it, send me a PM and I'll mail you one. I personally think that the $200 I pay is more than worth it just in being able to go to AirSho for free and see what a spectacular production is put on for me (BTW, where do you think much of the AirSho budget comes from? )

Day 3 images are now online of the CAF at AirVenture at

http://www.commemorativeairforce.org/gallery/airventure2008/

also, I'm working on adding another small gallery along with a report of the Air Group One SNJ's crew's trip to AirVenture. It even includes the fuel used and costs if anyone is interested. Stay tuned - online shortly.

Randy

From the sounds of it, the purpose of the CAF logo is to increase CAF's brand recognition as a means to an end. The end being an increase in CAF's revenue stream from donors (probably small $$$ donors?).

I don't see how having two or three individuals point out that they've noticed the logo is anywhere near a large enough sample to make a determination that the branding effort "is working". Even if the sample were expanded it would still be looking at the wrong thing - since the true measure of success isn't whether people are noticing the logo, but rather whether more donations flowing into CAF's bank account(s).

rwdfresno's comments are well-taken. The classic example of the situation he desribes is New Coke, which highlights almost perfectly what happens when an established entity decides to make visible changes to components of its brand.

The difference, of course, is that Coca-Cola is a multi-billion dollar, global company. When they screwed up they were still able to recover. For small businesses and not-for-profits messing around with their brand images (especially if the brand is well-established) ends up being a much riskier venture. The unfortunate thing (as I think rwdfresno pointed out in an earlier post) is that small businesses/not-for-profits are significantly imparred when it comes to being able to conduct thorough market research prior to a branding change (and beyond that, remember that the market impact of New Coke *was* thoroughly researched before the switch was announced). So changing brand image ends up being much more of an art than a science.

CAF has established its brand based on increasing the authenticity of its aircraft. The work done on Diamond Lil/Old 927 last year being a case in point. So the decision to put the CAF logo onto its aircraft in very prominant and visible locations is something that doesn't necessarily complement or expand the branding, but can certainly undermine it.

Setting aside all the "authenticity" related arguments, I think that it's fair to hold a deep concern that this was a risky move to make given the circumstances and unknowns involved.