New Army recruitment campaign

You are confusing the old ASM (now SE AD), Major Haughton with the the new ASM, Captain Paton.
My mistake. I hadn't realised that Captain Sergeant Major Paton hadn't been promoted to Major Sergeant Major Paton yet. The novel use of local rank does rather sum up the current state of the Army, though, with a lot of those in key positions pretending that things aren't what they really are. Even themselves.
 
My mistake. I hadn't realised that Captain Sergeant Major Paton hadn't been promoted to Major Sergeant Major Paton yet. The novel use of local rank does rather sum up the current state of the Army, though, with a lot of those in key positions pretending that things aren't what they really are. Even themselves.
Sorry to keep appearing to be a pedant, but I think Captain Paton is a Serjeant Major.
 
I certainly wasn’t suggesting that people get roles because of their regimental tie any more. But the introduction gets people through the first sift from where they have to compete on merit in whatever selection process the company uses.

It is, however, undeniable that there are hotspots of ex officer employment, not just in the City, but in many other other industries. One that immediately comes to mind is ex-Sappers in Network Rail. I could name at least a dozen, Maj-Col in the rail industry. They didn’t get though the door because they were proven rail sectir engineers or project managers.....

On the whole, it’s a good thing. The former service network should be a place where those leaving can go for advice, help in opening doors etc etc. Good employment prospects for those leaving are vital if recruiting is to be strong.

Where I don’t think it’s right is when it becomes tribal.
Bob! Just thinking about you!

Neither was I suggesting that, as I thought I, and the Guardian article, and my quote from it made abundantly clear - it doesn't get you the job (or stop you getting it), it just opens the door and makes it easier (or makes it harder), which is why I'm still confused why @2pi was so dismissive of it. Maybe his version has different posts, as sometimes seems to happen here.

While it's worked to my advantage, though, I've never played the 'old boy' card and I strongly disagree that it's a good thing or healthy as it's open to far too much abuse. Look at the numbers getting into Oxford and Cambridge from schools like Eton and Harrow, for example, which has no relationship to the schools' academic records, or the number of OE MPs.
 
Sorry to keep appearing to be a pedant, but I think Captain Paton is a Serjeant Major.
You're probably right. Even his own regiment, he himself, and the Army get it wrong.
Commissioned as Captain on 23 July 2017 according to the London Gazzette, when he was Field Army Serjeant Major, so no doubt about it and no need to look at his pay statement (and according to the London Gazette WO1 GJ Haughton was commissioned as Captain wef 9 Dec 2013, also long before he took over as WO1 ASM, in March 2015 so no need to look at his pay statement either, @CAARPS).

God, what a complete farce.
 
m inclined to think it’s more slack use of terminology.
I think you're being over-generous there, Bob.

Confusing 'unique hits' and 'hits' could be slack use of terminology, but changing from first 'hits' to 'views' ("... the army jobs website received 815,000 unique hits between January 2 and 31, almost double the 427,000 views it got in January 2018" ) in the same sentence can only be deliberate.

Not a direct lie, but "economical with the truth", similar to Nugee in front of the Defence Committee when he was asked if any of those involved in the RPP contract were still serving and he replied that all those who had "signed off" on the contract had already left without being promoted. Technically true, but he had been intimately involved, was still serving, and had been promoted.

You wouldn't buy a used car from these people, let alone trust them with thousands of people's lives.
 
Bob! Just thinking about you!

Neither was I suggesting that, as I thought I, and the Guardian article, and my quote from it made abundantly clear - it doesn't get you the job (or stop you getting it), it just opens the door and makes it easier (or makes it harder), which is why I'm still confused why @2pi was so dismissive of it. Maybe his version has different posts, as sometimes seems to happen here.

While it's worked to my advantage, though, I've never played the 'old boy' card and I strongly disagree that it's a good thing or healthy as it's open to far too much abuse. Look at the numbers getting into Oxford and Cambridge from schools like Eton and Harrow, for example, which has no relationship to the schools' academic records, or the number of OE MPs.
When I say it’s a good thing, I mean the ex-services network, not the old school tie thing.

The network of former service people who can help with advice, introductions or just be a listening ear is invaluable for many service leavers. That is a very different thing from the kind of network that excludes people from roles because they didn’t go to the right school, were in the wrong regiment. Or weren’t commisisoned.

The latter being one reason why I don’t particularly like what the Officers Association does.
 
I think you're being over-generous there, Bob.

Confusing 'unique hits' and 'hits' could be slack use of terminology, but changing from first 'hits' to 'views' ("... the army jobs website received 815,000 unique hits between January 2 and 31, almost double the 427,000 views it got in January 2018" ) in the same sentence can only be deliberate.
I don’t think it is deliberate misrepresentation. I think it’s classic talking bollocks loudly; throw in a bit of jargon to look good.

There’s no such thing as a unique hit. If the site received 800k hits, that would be around 50k visits, a massive reduction in traffic.

My guess is they had 400k visits in January 2017 and 800k in 2018. I’d be very surprised if they hadn’t doubled traffic given the spend on top of funnel ads.

But I don’t think they’re measuring unique visits in either case, because the numbers are too big. 800k unique visits would be 10% of the 16-24 year old population, an unbelievable level of penetration for campaign like the current one.

Looks to me like classic bullshit baffles brains stuff. Generalists who can’t master the technical details of their brief. Anyone who has ever been involved with website performance would see through it.

Overall, I think they have had a big improvement in traffic not they aren’t reporting it properly. Whether that results in more soldiers is a different argument.
 
When I say it’s a good thing, I mean the ex-services network, not the old school tie thing.

The network of former service people who can help with advice, introductions or just be a listening ear is invaluable for many service leavers. That is a very different thing from the kind of network that excludes people from roles because they didn’t go to the right school, were in the wrong regiment. Or weren’t commisisoned.

The latter being one reason why I don’t particularly like what the Officers Association does.
We'll have to agree to differ there, Bob. While I'm all in favour of former svc people / regtl assocs, etc giving that advice, listening ear, etc, I draw the line when it opens doors as I do with any other 'old boy' network. Too much question of who's a 'veteran', who's entitled to it, and it being abused by those with least right to it.
 
I don’t think it is deliberate misrepresentation. I think it’s classic talking bollocks loudly; throw in a bit of jargon to look good.

There’s no such thing as a unique hit. If the site received 800k hits, that would be around 50k visits, a massive reduction in traffic.

My guess is they had 400k visits in January 2017 and 800k in 2018. I’d be very surprised if they hadn’t doubled traffic given the spend on top of funnel ads.

But I don’t think they’re measuring unique visits in either case, because the numbers are too big. 800k unique visits would be 10% of the 16-24 year old population, an unbelievable level of penetration for campaign like the current one.

Looks to me like classic bullshit baffles brains stuff. Generalists who can’t master the technical details of their brief. Anyone who has ever been involved with website performance would see through it.

Overall, I think they have had a big improvement in traffic not they aren’t reporting it properly. Whether that results in more soldiers is a different argument.
I think you're confusing yourself with the jargon, Bob.

Not remotely my field, as I said, but clearly there is such a thing as a unique hit even though it's an outdated and seldom used term for a unique visitor. Probaly pre-dates your interest / involvement.

The 170,000 "unique hits" (unique visits) in 5 days Urch referred to is clearly as absurd as the 800,000 plus "unique hits" (unique visits) the MoD claimed, as you say, so it's almost certainly just 'hits' - much the same, in fact, as the 400,000 plus 'views' they got the year before.

It's notable that Urch says the number of 'applications' on the first day was the "highest in over a year" , which I'd missed, not longer. That's particularly unimpressive given the poor results going back years, and any noticeable increase of the magnitude he's claiming would have been the highest for five years or a decade, not just one year to a campaign that was a failure.

It's just a cheap con as even a BS generalist wouldn't change from 'hits' to 'views' in the same phrase, let alone sentence, and if they were just making a mistake by referring to 'unique hits' they'd have continued to make the same mistake rather than use a completely different term.
Overall, I think they have had a big improvement in traffic not they aren’t reporting it properly. Whether that results in more soldiers is a different argument.
As it's only "the highest in over a year"", no more, and it's not even as effective as the appalling 'Don't Join the Army' ads of three years ago, that's a disaster, not a 'big improvement'. It's a deliberate con.

(and that finger-stabbing seems a bit reminiscent of Bill Clinton never having sex with that woman)
 
Oh, and the same thing applies to the Cpl Major / whatever's claim that numbers at Catterick were also the best for "over a year" That's like the Bosun of the Titanic boasting that it's not gone down any quicker than it had an hour ago.
 
I think you're confusing yourself with the jargon, Bob.

Not remotely my field, as I said, but clearly there is such a thing as a unique hit even though it's an outdated and seldom used term for a unique visitor. Probaly pre-dates your interest / involvement.

The 170,000 "unique hits" (unique visits) in 5 days Urch referred to is clearly as absurd as the 800,000 plus "unique hits" (unique visits) the MoD claimed, as you say, so it's almost certainly just 'hits' - much the same, in fact, as the 400,000 plus 'views' they got the year before.
I’m not sure the Urban Dictionary counts as a reliable source! I’ve never heard anyone with any credibility use hit to describe visits. Hit has specific meaning; the number of files uploaded when a page is visited.

If he does mean unique visits, I’m amazed. That’s 800,000 new visits by people with cookies that aren’t blocked by their browser. That’s vast; some analysts quote that browsers block 80% of cookies.

These are meaningless headlines numbers that in no way measure the success of the campaign. Nor do they show any accountability; anyone can spend money on getting clicks. The key parmater is whether your advert delivered the views per
dollar it was supposed to achieve.
 
We'll have to agree to differ there, Bob. While I'm all in favour of former svc people / regtl assocs, etc giving that advice, listening ear, etc, I draw the line when it opens doors as I do with any other 'old boy' network. Too much question of who's a 'veteran', who's entitled to it, and it being abused by those with least right to it.
The whole point of a network is to open doors. The issue is whether that network unfairly advantages an individual passing through the door.
 
I’m not sure the Urban Dictionary counts as a reliable source! I’ve never heard anyone with any credibility use hit to describe visits. Hit has specific meaning; the number of files uploaded when a page is visited
Agreed, Bob, as I said and as the others say, as do others, its outfated and seldom used - butvthe term clearly exists.
If he does mean unique visits, I’m amazed. That’s 800,000 new visits by people with cookies that aren’t blocked by their browser. That’s vast; some analysts quote that browsers block 80% of cookies.
It's so unlikely it's impossible. Over 800,000 unique visits in a month and over 170,000 unique visits in five days is just an absurd number given the number in the 16-24 year old UK population of under 8 million. That's over 10% of the entire age group who were not only interested enough to visit the website but who hadn't gone there before and who hadn't blocked cookies. That's absurd.

Change it to 'hits', though, and it's correct.

The key point, which I'd missed and you seem to be still missing as are others, is that the number of hits and number of recruits to Catterick is only "the highest in over a year" and not a "five year high" which means the campaign's had similar attention to "belonging" and less than "Don't Join the Army", both of which were dismal failures.
 
- Marketing company whose previous campaign, Belonging, was the most engaged with campaign the Army has had for Recruiting in decades, hitting all it's targets and being more engaging than both RAF and RN adverts over 2018.

- ARITC and Recruiting Group I imagine, probably Gen Nanson at some point.

- Yes, marketing firm will be until 2020 at least.

- Because the market research and last years campaign were found to be measured as being good.

Happy?
If their syntax is a shyte as yours then it is just another huge waste of public money.
 
The whole point of a network is to open doors.
Agreed there, Bob.
The issue is whether that network unfairly advantages an individual passing through the door.
Well, that may be your issue, but it's not mine nor that of the article I linked to nor many others.

The issue 'we' have is that opening doors for some and closing them to others doesn't make for a level playng field or progress based on merit but gives some a tailwind and others a headwind that has nothing to do with merit.
 
Agreed, Bob, as I said and as the others say, as do others, its outfated and seldom used - butvthe term clearly exists.
It's so unlikely it's impossible. Over 800,000 unique visits in a month and over 170,000 unique visits in five days is just an absurd number given the number in the 16-24 year old UK population of under 8 million. That's over 10% of the entire age group who were not only interested enough to visit the website but who hadn't gone there before and who hadn't blocked cookies. That's absurd.

Change it to 'hits', though, and it's correct.

The key point, which I'd missed and you seem to be still missing as are others, is that the number of hits and number of recruits to Catterick is only "the highest in over a year" and not a "five year high" which means the campaign's had similar attention to "belonging" and less than "Don't Join the Army", both of which were dismal failures.
Your quoting my previous post when you say that 800k hits is 10% of the 16-24 population - I too think the numbers are implausible.

If you change hits to visits it means the visits are likely to be in the 20k area on a 1:2.5:45 Visits: Views : Hits ratio.

If you make similar assumptions about January 2018 numbers, 400k views would be about 160k Views. Looks to me like they might have gone backwards.

Put it another way, the numbers don’t make sense!
 
Agreed there, Bob.
Well, that may be your issue, but it's not mine nor that of the article I linked to nor many others.

The issue 'we' have is that opening doors for some and closing them to others doesn't make for a level playng field or progress based on merit but gives some a tailwind and others a headwind that has nothing to do with merit.
Life isn’t a level playing field.

When I’m looking for someone to work for or provide a service to my business, I’ll invariably use my network for recommendations. I’m far more likely to use someone who is recommended by someone I trust rather than a random responder to an advert.

Successful people go out of their way to meet new people, create connections and build their network. Sitting back and complaining that others have an unfair advantage isn’t a route to success.

Might I commend Adam Grant’s book “Give and Take”. I try to give to my network; givers gain.
 
Your quoting my previous post when you say that 800k hits is 10% of the 16-24 population - I too think the numbers are implausible.

If you change hits to visits it means the visits are likely to be in the 20k area on a 1:2.5:45 Visits: Views : Hits ratio.

If you make similar assumptions about January 2018 numbers, 400k views would be about 160k Views. Looks to me like they might have gone backwards.

Put it another way, the numbers don’t make sense!
I do wonder what proportion of these unique views were people who had a 'what the ****?!' response to the ad campaign and clicked through out of morbid curiosity to see how bad the rest of the material was. I know I'm one of them.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top