Just got this from facebook
A Page you like, “Air Cadets”, is changing its name to “Royal Air Force Air Cadets” on 29 December.
Are we being rebranded from the Air Training Corps to the RAFAC?
[quote=“the silverback” post=14429]Just got this from facebook
A Page you like, “Air Cadets”, is changing its name to “Royal Air Force Air Cadets” on 29 December.
Are we being rebranded from the Air Training Corps to the RAFAC?[/quote]
Did that not happen years ago?
I’m sure we’ve been the RAF Air Cadets for a while.
We’ve had this discussion before. I don’t think it’s intended as a rebranding exercise (at least I hope not), I just think that the effect of the full logo hasn’t been fully considered. The corporate ROYAL AIR FORCE logo is used for lots of other parts of the Service and its support areas, Reserves, Association and Families’ Association are but three, and I think the intent is simply to show us as another part of the RAF. Arguably, they should have had the corporate ROYAL AIR FORCE bit with just ‘CADETS’ as the qualifier underneath, which would be a similar effect to the others I have mentioned.
My comment on a previous thread was the ‘AIR’ bit is slightly pointless as what other sort of cadets would the RAF have anyway? If we need a rebranding, why not call ourselves the Royal Air Force Cadet Corps?
Rebranding…
It ain’t broke
…so they’ll fix it until it is !
There’s no such thing as ‘Royal Air Force Air Cadets’.
There is such a thing as the Air Cadet Organisation’s logo, which happens to say, in a stylised manner: ‘Royal Air Force: Air Cadets’
[quote=“tango_lima” post=14436]There’s no such thing as ‘Royal Air Force Air Cadets’.
There is such a thing as the Air Cadet Organisation’s logo, which happens to say, in a stylised manner: ‘Royal Air Force: Air Cadets’[/quote]
Which is pretty much what I said, although in a much more succinct way!
Unfortunately, some people seem to have ‘decided’ that we are now the Royal Air Force Air Cadets!
The sad thing is, I think it will effectively become ‘true’.
In the same way that people now talk about the ‘RAF Reserves’ rather than the RAuxAF (not to be confused with the RAF Reserve).
I actually think that the RAF logo looks quite good and the separate ‘qualifiers’ underneath are a good extension of the theme. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people don’t seem to be able to differentiate between the colours and assume the whole thing runs into one sentence. Although it’s probably the intent of how it should be read, it would look odd with a colon after the Royal Air Force though!
I do get irritated when I see “1234 (Anywhere) Squadron Royal Air Force Air Cadets”.
No matter what the ACO logo is, we are still the Air Training Corps, and the other is still the CCF(RAF).
^^^
Absolutely agreed.
Nothing has changed yet, except perhaps peoples’ interpretations of what the logo says. So until we are officially told we are no longer the ATC, we should not be branding ourselves as anything different. Fair enough, it’s often easier to explain to civvies that we are simply ‘Air Cadets’, but not the RAF Air Cadets.
I think the need to stick ‘Air Cadets’ on the logo is a bit sad really.
It’s like the Army having to write ‘SOLDIERS’ on their letterheads in case people get confused.
insert jokes about ‘combat human resources specialists’ here
Actually, using the same approach as the RAF Air Cadets logo, I guess it would be
ARMY
Army Cadets
(Still very silly)
Actually a favourite of the Army is to refer to the CCF(A) and ACF as
“the Army’s Cadet Forces”…
Now that gets confusing!!
Like all re-branding exercises this is a purely money wasting cosmetic exercise. The company I work for has undertaken several rebranding exercises over the years, new logos mainly, that are absolutely pointless an meaningless to everyone, except some management bod(s) who are looking to ascend the greasy pole and spend money on new badges, signs, embroidered clothing, packaging etc etc. Which are in reality something that is needed about as much as a kettle made out of chocolate.
The cynic in me sees it as the RAF senior management, knowing that the RAF is shrinking, finding a way of extending “the RAF” into areas that it hasn’t actually got to make any provision for. I know people at RAFA are wondering why now they are considered as part of the RAF family, given that in their opinion the RAF does little or nothing to actively encourage membership among those that leave the RAF.
The RAF have not been overly bothered about us in terms of identifying us with the parent organisation since 1938, other than platitudes over the years. With maybe the exception of WW2 and only then as it was seen, until towards the end a ready source of recruits. IIRC before mid/late-1944 being an Air Cadet almost guaranteed joining the RAF. Makes you wonder why it has in the last couple of years. The only thing I can see coming from it is more grief for us as volunteers have to become “more RAF/MOD” and have similar controls and working practices imposed, without the support in order to do this. I feel some of this started.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=14594]Like all re-branding exercises this is a purely money wasting cosmetic exercise. The company I work for has undertaken several rebranding exercises over the years, new logos mainly, that are absolutely meaningless to everyone, except some management bod(s) who are looking to ascend the greasy pole and spend money on something that is needed about as much as a kettle made out of chocolate.
The cynic in me sees it as the RAF senior management, knowing that the RAF is shrinking, finding a way of extending “the RAF” into areas that it hasn’t actually got to make any provision for.
It makes little or no difference to us as an organistion.[/quote]
How can it be this? It cost nothing as the designs were done in-house and the media/stationary changed on expiry of stock. As a brand, i’ve found it easier in getting things done than using the last logo. If i ever used to send anything off using the old stationay (and i’m talking Sqn/ATC crest then the bit of sick just come up thing about this thr tutor logo, companies would never take anything at face value and want the "n"th degree on something. Now, with the current brand i hardly get any come back and they are much willing and quicker to oblige.
Anway, don’t be so cynical in life. 2014 is nearly upon us, try looking for the positive in situations. Either that or just stop whining.
[quote=“Plt Off Prune” post=14595][quote=“glass half empty 2” post=14594]Like all re-branding exercises this is a purely money wasting cosmetic exercise. The company I work for has undertaken several rebranding exercises over the years, new logos mainly, that are absolutely meaningless to everyone, except some management bod(s) who are looking to ascend the greasy pole and spend money on something that is needed about as much as a kettle made out of chocolate.
The cynic in me sees it as the RAF senior management, knowing that the RAF is shrinking, finding a way of extending “the RAF” into areas that it hasn’t actually got to make any provision for.
It makes little or no difference to us as an organistion.[/quote]
How can it be this? It cost nothing as the designs were done in-house and the media/stationary changed on expiry of stock. As a brand, i’ve found it easier in getting things done than using the last logo. If i ever used to send anything off using the old stationay (and i’m talking Sqn/ATC crest then the bit of sick just come up thing about this thr tutor logo, companies would never take anything at face value and want the "n"th degree on something. Now, with the current brand i hardly get any come back and they are much willing and quicker to oblige.
Anway, don’t be so cynical in life. 2014 is nearly upon us, try looking for the positive in situations. Either that or just stop whining.[/quote]
I have to agree here, when the rebrand was announced, (YEARS AGO) the same cost arguments were raised, and were similarly debunked. We already had branded stuff, it was used up, new branded stuff was bought. Cost was the same as before.
What we do need rebranding is that awful trapezoid of doom. It’s so out of date, half my cadets don’t even know what a tutor is.
Nor does whoever wrote AP1358C apparently…a Viking Glider it is not. 
I’ve always said that we should all wear the diagonal TRF, in normal size (preferably) without any writing on it.
It looks good, it actually looks like a TRF and it’s RAF-y, but without actually being the same as the RAF TRF.
I’d agree.
…and preferably a woven version like the RAF TRF - not this heavy-embroidered ‘coaster’ that we have got.
The logical step of course will be to wait and see what the RAF finally release as an ‘at home’ replacement for the TRF and go with something similar.
We’ve heard that it’s going to be the white “Royal Air Force” Op Olympic badge, but of course, the headsheds change their mind far too often to believe it until it’s out.