Is TA a brand we need to get rid of?

Discussion in 'Army Reserve' started by mongoose9, Mar 24, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. A genuine RFI. There seems to be little debate that the logo and brand TA has stuck in peoples mind......but there is concern that the brand means gareth from the office, piss ups in green at weekends etc etc. Therefore:
    1) We seem to have a recognised brand name, something that in the civy sector is the holy grail of advertising campaigns
    2) Is the brand so irredeemabley damaged (by 'the office', 'all quiet on the preston front' and general cold war image) that we need to get rid of it and start afresh since it has been around for the last twenty (?) years whilst the TA has actually changed radically.

    I veer to the second but would be very interested to know what people think. Thoughts?

  2. A good point and well made.
    Get the feeling you'll get crucified by some (regs),but ignore the children, it's just jealousy . Some TA units have a longer history than present reg units and it hurts their pride.
    I personally think it'd be money wasted to re-brand the unrebrandable(?)
    Fundamentally it's still going to be the TA. No amount of money can ever change it.
  3. A good question. IMHO the fact that many people now know a member of a TA regiment or corps who has been called to serve in the sand pit has helped to change the public perception of the TA. Furthermore, the requirement to be ready to serve in the said sand pit has meant that the walts, knackers and wasters have left.

    I believe that the image of the TA in the eyes of the public is far stronger than it has been for many years. In the 70's & 80's most people saw it as 'playing soldiers' and a good excuse for a p1ss up but no longer.
  4. It has come up a few times in the recent past but always gets marked up as a deck chair re-organisation.
  5. should be something like UKRF :)
  6. This is very interesting. A good point about the public seeing it serve in the snd pit now. To expand on this a known brand such as TA is not to be discarded lightly and if it is to be as aptly put 'a shuffle of deckchairs' it is not worth doing.

    So is the perception of what the TA is changing in the public's mind (in which case it should be retained) or is the brand (like Ratner's Jewellry) now FUBAR (F***** up beyond all redemption) and perception will never really change so it should be changed perhaps to as suggested UKRF.
    Tks for info
  7. Fcuk changing the name,lets change the public!

    UKRF,excellent then we can really Walt it :D

    On a serious note why change the name, just re-educate JP.
  8. UKRF it does sound a bit more dynamic and go getting compared to just TA. You know where you saw it first:)
  9. Welcome back Frenchie, learned anything yet ?
  10. The nail was hit on the head with the change the publics attitude comment. The TA is exactly that, Territorial, and as such it should remain the TA.

    Going by the public perception, we are looked apon by the 30+ public as plastic soldiers. I was eves-dropping on a conversation between a part time fire fighter and a lad of about 32, the lad of 32 was telling the part time fire fighter that he wasn't a real fireman only playing at it, "just like the TA" he said. Now I know the part time fire fighter has been on many a shout and attended many a RTA and in his 15 years of service he has no doubt saved or helped save many a life.
    After the "TA" comment I felt I had to butt in and defend not only TA soldiers but the fire fighter aswell(the lad is a bit a bit of a gobsh!t).
    I pointed out that 25% of all the soldiers currently in Iraq are TA, this didn't stop him though, he refered back to the 1st gulf war and pointed out that countless numbers of TA left or refused to deploy and that was his gripe, taking the queens shilling all those years and then when the crunch came they all jumped ship. I told him times have changed, our role has changed, the TA has changed, but he was hell bent on running down the TA at every oppertunity. I asked him if he had ever considered joining, his reply "fcuk that, no way I'm going out to some back water country to get shot at", I had to laugh at this point and pointed out to him that he had just proved my point, if he thinks we are just playing soldiers then what was he talking about getting sent somewhere to get shot at? He looked a bit flustered at this point so I asked him if he still thought we were plastic soldiers, his reply "only the ones that go out at the weekends". I walked away shaking my head.

    Simply put, he, and many others, have a stereotypical image of the TA, one which probably cannot be shed, but it is those under that age gap that can be influenced by the new and, dare I say, improved TA. They are the future of our units, they are the ones we need to join.

    So fcuk Mr. 30 something and his ilke, they don't understand and probably never will.
  11. Apparently how to stoke Devlish's fire :D
    Get in there d!!
  12. Well that proves he knew fa, the TA in the 90's was organised to protect this country, unlike today where we carry out US Foreign Policy.
  13. No worries Frenchie, just fighting our corner...
  14. Has anyone thought of the cost of re-branding? It has been considered by the powers that be and as yet, is not considered a requirement. There was some discussion about re-naming/branding when FAS was introduced. That was the last I heard of it.

    I understand the arguements on both sides. Do we shed the old image of 'weekend warriors'? Or do we continue with the good work of those in the know (ie. serving TA members) to change public opinion about what we are.

    Sounds like we need a poll.

    FUBAR = F***** Up Beyond All Recognition
  15. I know and you know that he knows fcuk all but that doesn't stop him believing his bent thinking and influencing others to believe it too. Like I said, fcuk the over 30's, they don't understand change and probably never will.