I would be grateful for views about the effectiveness of advertising in recruiting. To avoid numerous red herrings, not exhaustively there are several general differences: 1. Region - e.g. unemployment, average earning levels, opportunity etc. 2. Area - e.g. Inner city, leafy suburb, sparsely populated rural, etc. 3. Arm or Service - e.g. the basic requirements for Int Corps and Inf differ. It would be very helpful if replies state 3 simple qualifications e.g. North England, Inner City, Corps. This can't really affect PERSEC. The AIM is to see if there is a fundamental difference in the way we need to approach local advertising and recruiting by looking at the whole. Also to see whether general advertising/recruiting is equally effective across different criteria. No attempt is intended to discuss retention. Questions 1. Is the recruit who joins the Regs and TA the same? What differences are there? 2. Is their motivation the same? What is it, and what (if any) are the differences? 3. Do large scale recruiting initiatives e.g. Army TV advertising: a. Hit the target market and radically influence it? b. Influence (and to the same degree) Reg and TA potential recruits? c. Have equal success - e.g. equal numbers of bums on seats? If not, what does this say about relevance? 4. Do large scale recruiting initiatives: a. Show what WE (collectively) think of OURSELVES? - (Emphasised only to make the meaning clear). b. Sell a dream? c. Sell the benefits? d. Other? Budgets are/will be when received, tight this year. Is the central message reaching the target market(s) effectively, and do we know what it is? Basically our small budgets must be spent to influence our local target market. Is the central message of benefit for the TA or is there a mismatch? Does it matter if there is one? Many thanks in advance for all views.