CAF Logo

[rwdfresno]

I think that the best solution is that the aircraft are only owned by the very rich and they spend most of their time in private hangars so none of us can see them. When they do go flying they can pull them out of their hangar and all those in the cheap seats can see their perfect markings through binoculars behind the chain linked fence and barbed wire.

For all of you that love warbirds so much you think you would be happy that an organization is able to keep them flying all these years. If a logo is enough to turn you off to a warbird or an organization then I'd hate to be your wife when she gets old and wrinkly. There will be a time one day I promise you that at least 75% of these aircraft will not be flying. Why don't you enjoy it while you can and stop sweating the small stuff.

[Randy Wilson]

The second day of images of the CAF at AirVenture is now online at

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

and, FYI, there are some more examples of the CAF branding applied to different aircraft.

Randy

[Sasquatch]

I dunno...don't really see the wings logos as problems; just as something the CAF is doing now to inform the public and increase membership. I think they'll be successful at that, and I don't think the logos will last forever. Most of them in the photos appear to be nicely done.

--Tom

[Django]

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.

[TonyM]

Many of us in our wing think it is a stupid idea. I differ slightly: I think it's a really stupid idea. We are trying to raise money to paint our airplane right now. We certainly don't want to ruin our paint job by doing this. Mr. Brown's "great idea" came to him at Sun N Fun in this incredible fashion:

"As people strolled by the first line of aircraft, furthest from the tent,
you could see that they couldn't tell if it was a CAF aircraft or not."

How Mr. Brown was able to surmise this by observing people from a couple hundred yards away is anyone's guess. He must be a mind reader. What were the people doing? Scratching their heads in confusion? The "Brand our Aircraft" idea is stupid. What is next? Budweiser? Coca Cola? McDonalds?

TonyM.

Last edited by TonyM on Wed Jul 30, 2008 3:29 pm, edited 3 times in total.

[Lynn Allen]

I think they should blend in with the paint job like on the modern day military a/c like the F-22,etc. and not yell out who I itz..

Lynn

[CAPFlyer]

I'd love to try and convince those of you who believe that what's being done is wrong or an aberration, or whatever, but I know that it'd not do me any good. This forum is unfortunately a group of people who are in the VAST minority of people who see these planes (less than 1%). Thus, while you guys have a lot of knowledge, I tend to believe what a guy (Steve Brown) who's background is running major non-profits successfully and 4 employees with marketing backgrounds more than you guys when they tell me it'll be successful.

However, I don't just blindly believe them. I want proof as much as anyone else and as a result, here's some proof from today's CAF E-mail from Steve -

Dave Anderson had an interesting experience when a gentleman walked up and said; “WOW, you guys sure have a lot of airplanes here.” Dave said, “No more than last year… you can just tell who they belong to!” Bob Simon, from Air Group 1 had their SNJ-5 judged and the judge commented “You know the CAF logo doesn’t add anything in the judging, but it doesn’t take anything away either!”… The CAF Aircraft Branding Program is working!

[Django]

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

http://www.redorchestracreative.com

[Nathan]

I guess I really dont care if the logo is on it or not. But I voted "no" cause my taste has always been orginality. Glad the planes are flying.

[CAPFlyer]

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.

[michaelharadon]

Those CAF logos are like the porta potties at air shows: one more thing to try to hide when I'm taking pictures of the aircraft.

[rwdfresno]

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.

I'm defiantly not going to argue with you on that basis. The one on the Bobcat looks pretty bad. I think if the logo is going t be on the aircraft some serious thought should be given to the color, size and location of the logo on each aircraft on a per aircraft basisi. I think the criteria for having the logo readable in the photos is a bit on the extreme especially when nearly every magazine image is going to have a caption says "blah, blah, blah, from the Southern California CAF..." I think having the ma bit more subtle is key to not making the logo inhibit the ascetic qualities of the aircraft. Frankly even if the logo on the Helldiver was a shade of blue it might look much better. Part of marketing is to not distract from the quality of the product and in this case the product and a large part of that to the general public is how "cool" the airplane looks. Now if you look at the DC-3 with the logo on the tail it looks actually looks pretty decent.

It seems to me having the logo visible to those on the ramp would be more important than actually having it readable in the air. In this case we aren't talking about a sponsor looking for some good press we are talking about the owner branding the aircraft which is actually a bit different affair.

That Bobcat really looks bad in my opinion.

[Sasquatch]

We're all assuming WE are the target for the wings logo. We're not. The target is folks who haven't a clue about who owns the planes, and how they might connect with them. These folks also generally don't have a clue as to what insigna is accurate or what paint livery is "correct". As a female acquaintance once said upon spying the space shuttle "Enterprise" on the back of it's 747 carrier jet at Scott AFB, "Tom, what's that missile-thingy (pronounced "miss-aisle") on that airliner?". I told her it was a space shuttle, and she said, "oh, like a space ship?". Trust me guys...we're all waaaaay ahead of the average Joe's (or Joan's) power curve when it comes it identifying planes and owners, much more so, livery accuracy.

[Django]

You are exactly right, WE are not the target for the new campaign. That came up in the Warbird Digest thread when the "Air Force you've never heard of" tagline was introduced.

[CAPFlyer]

I'm defiantly not going to argue with you on that basis. The one on the Bobcat looks pretty bad. I think if the logo is going t be on the aircraft some serious thought should be given to the color, size and location of the logo on each aircraft on a per aircraft basisi. I think the criteria for having the logo readable in the photos is a bit on the extreme especially when nearly every magazine image is going to have a caption says "blah, blah, blah, from the Southern California CAF..." I think having the ma bit more subtle is key to not making the logo inhibit the ascetic qualities of the aircraft. Frankly even if the logo on the Helldiver was a shade of blue it might look much better. Part of marketing is to not distract from the quality of the product and in this case the product and a large part of that to the general public is how "cool" the airplane looks. Now if you look at the DC-3 with the logo on the tail it looks actually looks pretty decent.

It seems to me having the logo visible to those on the ramp would be more important than actually having it readable in the air. In this case we aren't talking about a sponsor looking for some good press we are talking about the owner branding the aircraft which is actually a bit different affair.

That Bobcat really looks bad in my opinion.

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.