CBC seems...upset...again. They even dug up a story from last year to page it and reference the smaller piece today. :lol:
Military's 'Royal' name change sparks royal ruckus (omfg)
Military's 'Royal' name change sparks royal ruckus - Politics - CBC News
'Royalizing' the military on a budget
Opinions have been split regarding the announcement that the 'Royal' will be put back into the names of Canada's Navy and Air Force. Some feel the move is an appropriate nod to the nation's rich military history while others see it as a regression to our colonial roots. One issue most can agree upon, though, is the need to keep the cost of this name change as low as possible.
When major corporations embark on rebranding their enterprises, costs are bound to skyrocket well into the millions of dollars. British Petroleum spent a whopping $220 million in 2001 on a massive overhaul of its brand, in order to distance itself from strict petroleum products. The Canadian Forces, however, could very easily 'royalize' itself and keep costs down at the same time.
'Royalizing' the military on a budget - Canada - CBC News
Comment section seems to quell any further hurt feelings:
Complaints about cost are the only thing more absurd than the call to maintain a discriminatory policy against two of three armed services (the Army regiments never lost 'Royal').
We already have crowns on all our trade badges (pilot's wings, engineer's badge, etc.) and emblems (Squadron, Wing, etc.). We keep the Queen's portrait in every Mess and Ward Room, office and hangar. We use the RCAF March Past on parade.
So the only thing changing will be a few websites and some national level letterhead (Squadron's use their own...hardly anybody uses generic air force letterhead). As for business cards, only a few carry them and we print them on inkjet printers in the office or at Staples from generic MS Word templates. And 10 mins of gas on any aircraft is probably more expensive than a Squadron's annual budget on all stationery. We don't get fancy Bay Street glossy bizcards.
That leaves aircraft and vehicle markings (nothing will change on ships...which are already HMCS xyz). And they will simply get the new logos in overhaul when they are repainted (which is a normal part of an overhaul). Airplanes will now say RCAF instead of CAF. The roundels, squadron and fleet markings will stay the same. And any changes will be some image tech Private's summer project.
So I'd really like some of those crowing about costs to explain to me how this will apparently cost a lot. I've seen organizations come and go in the military, and none of those 'rebranding exercises' seem to be any more burdensome than this one. There's not even a shuffling of staff or some new general getting a dozen aides as a result of a 're-organization'. I'd say the brass got lazy on this one!
Military's 'Royal' name change sparks royal ruckus (omfg)
Military's 'Royal' name change sparks royal ruckus - Politics - CBC News
'Royalizing' the military on a budget
Opinions have been split regarding the announcement that the 'Royal' will be put back into the names of Canada's Navy and Air Force. Some feel the move is an appropriate nod to the nation's rich military history while others see it as a regression to our colonial roots. One issue most can agree upon, though, is the need to keep the cost of this name change as low as possible.
When major corporations embark on rebranding their enterprises, costs are bound to skyrocket well into the millions of dollars. British Petroleum spent a whopping $220 million in 2001 on a massive overhaul of its brand, in order to distance itself from strict petroleum products. The Canadian Forces, however, could very easily 'royalize' itself and keep costs down at the same time.
'Royalizing' the military on a budget - Canada - CBC News
Comment section seems to quell any further hurt feelings:
Complaints about cost are the only thing more absurd than the call to maintain a discriminatory policy against two of three armed services (the Army regiments never lost 'Royal').
We already have crowns on all our trade badges (pilot's wings, engineer's badge, etc.) and emblems (Squadron, Wing, etc.). We keep the Queen's portrait in every Mess and Ward Room, office and hangar. We use the RCAF March Past on parade.
So the only thing changing will be a few websites and some national level letterhead (Squadron's use their own...hardly anybody uses generic air force letterhead). As for business cards, only a few carry them and we print them on inkjet printers in the office or at Staples from generic MS Word templates. And 10 mins of gas on any aircraft is probably more expensive than a Squadron's annual budget on all stationery. We don't get fancy Bay Street glossy bizcards.
That leaves aircraft and vehicle markings (nothing will change on ships...which are already HMCS xyz). And they will simply get the new logos in overhaul when they are repainted (which is a normal part of an overhaul). Airplanes will now say RCAF instead of CAF. The roundels, squadron and fleet markings will stay the same. And any changes will be some image tech Private's summer project.
So I'd really like some of those crowing about costs to explain to me how this will apparently cost a lot. I've seen organizations come and go in the military, and none of those 'rebranding exercises' seem to be any more burdensome than this one. There's not even a shuffling of staff or some new general getting a dozen aides as a result of a 're-organization'. I'd say the brass got lazy on this one!