CAF Wings "Brand" problem?
Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:52 am
Here's a first for me, so far. I had been waiting for a reply from the Texas Air Museum in Slayton, TX. I had sent airshow appearance agreement proposals to them for the P-39 and B-25 Yellow Rose, but hadn't heard anything from them yet. The show is June 6th, so I gave a follow up call this morning. Seems someone dropped the ball who was tasked to get an answer back to us earlier.
They decided to pass on our planes because they were "branded". Seems a lot of their people had a problem "paying for someone's billboard" to sit on their ramp.
Any other CAF aircraft ran into this problem yet?
They decided to pass on our planes because they were "branded". Seems a lot of their people had a problem "paying for someone's billboard" to sit on their ramp.
Any other CAF aircraft ran into this problem yet?
Wed Apr 15, 2009 10:25 am
Let me get this straight...............they did not want CAF airplanes because of the logo? I believe I would have to tell them 
Just keep that in mind when at the last minute they have aircraft cancel, & are calling you begging for a "fill in". 
Robbie
Just keep that in mind when at the last minute they have aircraft cancel, & are calling you begging for a "fill in".
Robbie
Wed Apr 15, 2009 10:31 am
Texas Air Museum folks are ok, but haven't impressed me so far with their own marketing abilities. There's MUCH to be desired - especially the one across the field.
Ryan
Ryan
thats amazing to me...
Wed Apr 15, 2009 10:32 am
I would also tell them but only IF they ask you for a last minute fill in. I haven't seen a p-39 fly in a few years so bring it to Reno!
but only IF they ask you for a last minute fill in. I haven't seen a p-39 fly in a few years so bring it to Reno!
Wed Apr 15, 2009 2:39 pm
They also indicated they had lost a major sponsor, due to the economy, and had to cut back on planes. The "branding" on our planes, which they didn't like, made us at the top of the cut list.
Wed Apr 15, 2009 3:31 pm
I never was a big fan of the "Branding" idea.
Hope we're able to get rid of it some day.
My two cents.
TonyM.
Hope we're able to get rid of it some day.
My two cents.
TonyM.
Wed Apr 15, 2009 3:32 pm
Ober.....
Wed Apr 15, 2009 3:40 pm
If it's any consolation, we'd be happy to have any of your "branded" aircraft out that can land at Cannon next Saturday! Or if you just want to do a flyby.
Ryan
Ryan
Wed Apr 15, 2009 4:05 pm
Sounds like an excuse to me. Budget probably had more to do with it.
?????
Wed Apr 15, 2009 4:06 pm
Has a acrediated museum I'm sure the CAF follows 3 simple standards.
1. Preserve
2. Honor
3. Education
Not applying an accurate paint schemes is a failure of at least 2 of those mandates. The big ugly decals fit no where in that definition.
To be fair all "museums" should be following these 3 simple goals with their a/c but most fail.. IMHO Jerry Yagen has done the best job of achieving that.
Flame suit on 
1. Preserve
2. Honor
3. Education
Not applying an accurate paint schemes is a failure of at least 2 of those mandates. The big ugly decals fit no where in that definition.
To be fair all "museums" should be following these 3 simple goals with their a/c but most fail.. IMHO Jerry Yagen has done the best job of achieving that.
Flame suit on
Well....
Wed Apr 15, 2009 4:46 pm
I am a CAF member and dislike the branding as well. I do not mind the logo versus just writing "Commemorative Air Force" in block print, but if it were appropriately sized and placed under the horizontal stabilizer on all aircraft I would be fine with it. I do not like the size of the logo and the fact that it is prominently splattered differently on each type of plane.
But then, I'm not running out to buy an $40 CAF shirts and khaki pants to wear at airshows when I service an A26 either. My own feeling that is I am a member of the Ranger Wing of the CAF. The plane comes first, then the Wing, then the CAF. People at airshows remember that big black plane from Waco. Not the spiffy CAF-dressed people taking care of it or giving tours. It's about the plane and the history it represents; that's the product and take care of that and the CAF will take care of itself.
I personally would have less issue with a corporate sponsor's logo being on the aircraft. If a company wants to pony up the donation, I'm fine with that. Maybe the CAF should come up with some 'guidelines' as to uniformly place the logo and sponsor recognition symbols on the aircraft in a discrete and tasteful manner. I thought the reason if was changed from Confederate was that corporate sponsors couldn't be PC and support it. I haven't heard or seen an inrush of companies throwing money into the CAF to sponsor aircraft, even before the economy went south. Instead the CAF will milk it's(declining in numbers, and aging) member base with having to buy logos, clothing, etc. Not going to save the ship.
While I'm on my soapbox, why do I get a 'magazine' from the CAF monthly that is 75% advertisement to buy stuff, 20% history stuff that is informative, and 5% about status of aircraft/wings/status/etc; it's mainly easy to produce (from a research standpoint) glossy fluff that looks good to anyone that is not a CAF member and has little warbird knowledge. The inaccuracies I see in the magazine floor me. It's like nobody with any history or knowledge of warbirds is producing it, and NOBODY is checking it before printing. I would more enjoy the stories in newsprint with more coverage and relevant news, and one or two pages of pictures of the latest restoration progress, milestones, etc.
OK, I'm done now. I respect the CAF's (original) mission and am thankful for getting me started in warbirds. That happened in ~1982 when I toured Texas Raiders and Diamond Lil at an airshow in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, at age 10. But I think we're worrying about the wrong stuff now.
Please forgive the spelling/typos, not the best at it.
John Hahne
But then, I'm not running out to buy an $40 CAF shirts and khaki pants to wear at airshows when I service an A26 either. My own feeling that is I am a member of the Ranger Wing of the CAF. The plane comes first, then the Wing, then the CAF. People at airshows remember that big black plane from Waco. Not the spiffy CAF-dressed people taking care of it or giving tours. It's about the plane and the history it represents; that's the product and take care of that and the CAF will take care of itself.
I personally would have less issue with a corporate sponsor's logo being on the aircraft. If a company wants to pony up the donation, I'm fine with that. Maybe the CAF should come up with some 'guidelines' as to uniformly place the logo and sponsor recognition symbols on the aircraft in a discrete and tasteful manner. I thought the reason if was changed from Confederate was that corporate sponsors couldn't be PC and support it. I haven't heard or seen an inrush of companies throwing money into the CAF to sponsor aircraft, even before the economy went south. Instead the CAF will milk it's(declining in numbers, and aging) member base with having to buy logos, clothing, etc. Not going to save the ship.
While I'm on my soapbox, why do I get a 'magazine' from the CAF monthly that is 75% advertisement to buy stuff, 20% history stuff that is informative, and 5% about status of aircraft/wings/status/etc; it's mainly easy to produce (from a research standpoint) glossy fluff that looks good to anyone that is not a CAF member and has little warbird knowledge. The inaccuracies I see in the magazine floor me. It's like nobody with any history or knowledge of warbirds is producing it, and NOBODY is checking it before printing. I would more enjoy the stories in newsprint with more coverage and relevant news, and one or two pages of pictures of the latest restoration progress, milestones, etc.
OK, I'm done now. I respect the CAF's (original) mission and am thankful for getting me started in warbirds. That happened in ~1982 when I toured Texas Raiders and Diamond Lil at an airshow in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, at age 10. But I think we're worrying about the wrong stuff now.
Please forgive the spelling/typos, not the best at it.
John Hahne
Wed Apr 15, 2009 6:01 pm
An excellent post John - and it applies to so many commercial magazines, I'm sorry to say.
Wed Apr 15, 2009 6:13 pm
Loud and Clear John...
Keep on keeping on with Spirit of Waco.
The airplanes are the thing.
I'm not going to bash HQ because I understand what they are trying to do.
I'm not going to flame anybody who doesn't like it.
I think I'll go have a cup of tea and work on the B17.
SPANNER
Keep on keeping on with Spirit of Waco.
The airplanes are the thing.
I'm not going to bash HQ because I understand what they are trying to do.
I'm not going to flame anybody who doesn't like it.
I think I'll go have a cup of tea and work on the B17.
SPANNER
Re: CAF Wings "Brand" problem?
Wed Apr 15, 2009 6:25 pm
bluehawk15 wrote:Here's a first for me, so far. I had been waiting for a reply from the Texas Air Museum in Slayton, TX. I had sent airshow appearance agreement proposals to them for the P-39 and B-25 Yellow Rose, but hadn't heard anything from them yet. The show is June 6th, so I gave a follow up call this morning. Seems someone dropped the ball who was tasked to get an answer back to us earlier.
They decided to pass on our planes because they were "branded". Seems a lot of their people had a problem "paying for someone's billboard" to sit on their ramp.
Any other CAF aircraft ran into this problem yet?
That museum has horrendous communication skills. I've attempted to contact them going on a year now without a single word from them. They won't answer emails either. My interest in their museum is because I'm trying to get some information on the history of the aircraft I have that was once at thier museum. Not a peep back from them even about an aircraft that was once a part of their inventory.
Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:59 pm
I'm going to go out on a limb and get on my own soapbox... bear with me.
I agree that communication is top for any organization, and I will admit that I get ticked off from historical inaccuracies as well... but I am at least glad that their magazine is getting out there. It may be 75% advertising, but even then I am sure that the total of that advertising can only "perhaps" cover one salary of the person putting it together. I am sure that part of the frustration is the fact that CAF members pay a far higher premium for their membership than most museums charge, but then again... collectively... the CAF has a far larger fleet of flying aircraft too.
As for the folks at TAM getting a bit miffed over the "branding" idea... I wish them luck in the coming years. I bet they, as well as many other shows, haggle and complain about the appearance fee too. The long and the short is that if it isn't the CAF "Wings" brand on the side of the plane -- promoting membership -- then IF you even see the plane in a few years, it might be branded with a whole other, more blatant, brand. The money isn't there in warbirds anymore (was there any to begin with?) and operations aren't getting any cheaper either. The ONLY way some of these aircraft are going to keep flying is with the money of the companies that use their visibility to help promote their company... and I'd take the CAF "brand" over "Orthosport" (Sea Fury, remember?), "Red Bull" or "Crunchie" (you UK folks know that one). Everyone complains about the Collings Foundation "names" on the side of the B-17 & B-24... but they are still out there and flying aren't they? If it weren't for the Plane Sponsors and DFC members, CF would have quit flying by 1995... rides didn't start defraying the cost until about 1998.
If the TAM folks want to be so picky, then perhaps they would like to get used to losing sponsors and eventually the show... for companies to take the risk and monetarily support an event, then the organizers for that event have to make concessions that equal that risk. Period.
The views expressed by me don't reflect WIX, WRG or the rogue state of Arizona.
Ryan
I agree that communication is top for any organization, and I will admit that I get ticked off from historical inaccuracies as well... but I am at least glad that their magazine is getting out there. It may be 75% advertising, but even then I am sure that the total of that advertising can only "perhaps" cover one salary of the person putting it together. I am sure that part of the frustration is the fact that CAF members pay a far higher premium for their membership than most museums charge, but then again... collectively... the CAF has a far larger fleet of flying aircraft too.
As for the folks at TAM getting a bit miffed over the "branding" idea... I wish them luck in the coming years. I bet they, as well as many other shows, haggle and complain about the appearance fee too. The long and the short is that if it isn't the CAF "Wings" brand on the side of the plane -- promoting membership -- then IF you even see the plane in a few years, it might be branded with a whole other, more blatant, brand. The money isn't there in warbirds anymore (was there any to begin with?) and operations aren't getting any cheaper either. The ONLY way some of these aircraft are going to keep flying is with the money of the companies that use their visibility to help promote their company... and I'd take the CAF "brand" over "Orthosport" (Sea Fury, remember?), "Red Bull" or "Crunchie" (you UK folks know that one). Everyone complains about the Collings Foundation "names" on the side of the B-17 & B-24... but they are still out there and flying aren't they? If it weren't for the Plane Sponsors and DFC members, CF would have quit flying by 1995... rides didn't start defraying the cost until about 1998.
If the TAM folks want to be so picky, then perhaps they would like to get used to losing sponsors and eventually the show... for companies to take the risk and monetarily support an event, then the organizers for that event have to make concessions that equal that risk. Period.
The views expressed by me don't reflect WIX, WRG or the rogue state of Arizona.
Ryan