New Army recruitment campaign

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.
It doesn't matter how many are interested crapita make it so hard to get in that they all get pi55ed off and bin it.
 
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.
This. All of it.

The network effect is not simply about maintaining some sort of privileged background. Its about developing connections and helping that network and those participants out when you can. A chunk of my success can be attributed to giving back in many guises because I enjoy it and it's the decent thing to do.

The upside as it so happens has been significant.
 
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.
I think you've typo'd 'views' and 'Views' there, Bob!

Jan 2018: 427k views / around 1 mill hits
Jan 2019: around 325k views / 825 k hits

Makes perfect sense. It's a cr@p ad campaign and the only reason it's the "highest for over a year" is because the 2018 ''belonging'" campaign started over a year before the 2019 'snowflake /binge gamer' video campaign (which they're counting from, not the poster campaign) so if they go back 366 days it's true, but if they go back another fortnight it's not and the results are worse.

You're simply not being cunning enough, Bob - it's a cheap con trick, like 'trained soldiers' and who 'signed off' the RPP.
 
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.
Bob, I agree with you 100%. Absolutely. Completely. Life's not a level playing field and it's unlikely it ever will be. Some of us are born with a tailwind, as I'm the first to admit having had a strong following breeze and no need to build a 'network' as one was handed to me on a plate, some with a headwind (to use the Grauniad's excellent analogy).

That was why I disagreed so strongly with @2pi when he said:
Does the old boys network exist? Sure. Is it nearly as important as people outside it seem to think it is? No it isn't. The senior decision makers have woken up to the idea that the right person and the right mix of team is far more important and your twenty year old experiences of them are absolutely no guarantee. You went to school with them? That's nice. Are they any good? Let's get some others to work that out.
To me, that's uninformed nonsense from those who've not been part of it.

It's massively important, whether it's based on the old school tie, the right regiment, right clubs, or just "someone who is recommended by someone (you) trust rather than a random responder to an advert." Even when you don't use it, it's still 'there' - my first pl sgt knew where I'd been to school before I'd even arrived, FFS. I was elected to Lord's when I turned 18, and John Paul Getty still couldn't get into the Pavilion even after he'd paid several million to build them a new stand.
My first 'in' after leaving the Army was to me, not from me, just because of people I'd met in passing whom I barely knew.

The idea that the old boy network isn't 'nearly as important as people outside it seem to think it is' and that 'the senior decision makers have woken up to the idea that the right person and the right mix of team is far more important' is, in my view and experience, confirmed on a monthly basis, living in some sort of utopian la-la land. The tailwind may not get you the job but it gives far more chance of getting it than the 'right person' fighting a headwind.

Hence my disagreement with @2pi's view and post.
Oh. ... oh well ... ho hummm ... bizarre.
 
I think you've typo'd 'views' and 'Views' there, Bob!
No, i typo’d Views instead of Visits.

To be clear, on a well performing site, one “Visit” will drive a user to “View” 2.5 pages and each page view will include an of average 16 file transfers or “Hits”.

We’ve been here before and disagreed, but, IMHO, the recruiting site isn’t likely to be high performing. I’d bet it’s page views per visit are (well) below 2.5 because the home page is poor, especially on a phone. Ironically, if it’s only doing 1.5 pages per visit, 800k hits represents more visits.

Which is why these big numbers are meaningless. Any fool can get loads of views on their home page; just pay for more adverts. Equally any fool can make a poorly performing advert deliver more leads by spending more money on running the advert.

It’s bollocks....
 
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.
Of course. It’s no different to advertising your car in the local rag; you’ll get more tyre kickers than serious enquires.

My eCommerce site converts ~3% of visitors to sales. Only 18% of our visits are organic; in other words, they didn’t cost us advertising dollars. But most of those 18% arise from marketing activities.

It will be the same for recruiting. A relatively small percentage will walk in and sign up without the Army having to find them (the organic leads$. Those that you go and find cost you money to find and a only small percentage of those that you find will result in a successful application. Of those that don’t, plenty will be tyre kickers.

It’s nothing new; you could apply equivalent analysis to KAPE tours, AFCOs and any other means the Army has used to get people to sign up.
 
Of course. It’s no different to advertising your car in the local rag; you’ll get more tyre kickers than serious enquires.

My eCommerce site converts ~3% of visitors to sales. Only 18% of our visits are organic; in other words, they didn’t cost us advertising dollars. But most of those 18% arise from marketing activities.

It will be the same for recruiting. A relatively small percentage will walk in and sign up without the Army having to find them (the organic leads$. Those that you go and find cost you money to find and a only small percentage of those that you find will result in a successful application. Of those that don’t, plenty will be tyre kickers.

It’s nothing new; you could apply equivalent analysis to KAPE tours, AFCOs and any other means the Army has used to get people to sign up.
When I was posted to a TA unit, the guys from the local ACIOs lived on the same patch as us. I remember that the hit rate was for every hundred that walked through the door, two or three completed basic training.
 
When I was posted to a TA unit, the guys from the local ACIOs lived on the same patch as us. I remember that the hit rate was for every hundred that walked through the door, two or three completed basic training.
And for every 100 that walked through the door you needed to touch 1000 to get them there (blind guess at the 1000, but it was in that order).

Recruiting is just a specialised form of marketing. You find leads, nurture them and convert them in to sign ups. You need multiple channels to do it; no single touch point works. Channels being advertising, direct (face to face) recruiting, digital recruiting, PR, promotions et al. They all have to be integrated.
 
No, i typo’d Views instead of Visits.

To be clear, on a well performing site, one “Visit” will drive a user to “View” 2.5 pages and each page view will include an of average 16 file transfers or “Hits”.

We’ve been here before and disagreed, but, IMHO, the recruiting site isn’t likely to be high performing. I’d bet it’s page views per visit are (well) below 2.5 because the home page is poor, especially on a phone. Ironically, if it’s only doing 1.5 pages per visit, 800k hits represents more visits.

Which is why these big numbers are meaningless. Any fool can get loads of views on their home page; just pay for more adverts. Equally any fool can make a poorly performing advert deliver more leads by spending more money on running the advert.

It’s bollocks....
Yes, 2.5 was the ratio I was using. Put your sly hat on instead of your 'WYSIWYG' one (that's a compliment, BTW) and the con may fall into place - not a lie, but far from an honest picture.
 
When I was posted to a TA unit, the guys from the local ACIOs lived on the same patch as us. I remember that the hit rate was for every hundred that walked through the door, two or three completed basic training.
And remember these aren't even walking through a door but just registering on the 'net. IIRC @CAARPS put the conversion rate at just over 7%, which is phenomenal. Unless they're phenomenally bad, of course, and someone's just playing the numbers game.
 
Bob, I agree with you 100%. Absolutely. Completely. Life's not a level playing field and it's unlikely it ever will be. Some of us are born with a tailwind, as I'm the first to admit having had a strong following breeze and no need to build a 'network' as one was handed to me on a plate, some with a headwind (to use the Grauniad's excellent analogy).

That was why I disagreed so strongly with @2pi when he said:
To me, that's uninformed nonsense from those who've not been part of it.
You're hopelessly out of date I'm afraid and as I said earlier (which you entirely ignored), it's wholly overstated. If you look at the make up of at senior management of the firms that I've spent most of my life working.

It might have looked like that back when you experienced it, it doesn't today to anything resembling the same degree. I know because this is the world in inhabit, today.

It's massively important, whether it's based on the old school tie, the right regiment, right clubs, or just "someone who is recommended by someone (you) trust rather than a random responder to an advert." Even when you don't use it, it's still 'there' - my first pl sgt knew where I'd been to school before I'd even arrived, FFS. I was elected to Lord's when I turned 18, and John Paul Getty still couldn't get into the Pavilion even after he'd paid several million to build them a new stand.
My first 'in' after leaving the Army was to me, not from me, just because of people I'd met in passing whom I barely knew.
The idea that the old boy network isn't 'nearly as important as people outside it seem to think it is' and that 'the senior decision makers have woken up to the idea that the right person and the right mix of team is far more important' is, in my view and experience, confirmed on a monthly basis, living in some sort of utopian la-la land. The tailwind may not get you the job but it gives far more chance of getting it than the 'right person' fighting a headwind.

Hence my disagreement with @2pi's view and post.
Oh. ... oh well ... ho hummm ... bizarre.[/QUOTE]

Your comments really are bizarre, they can be largely categorized as

1) I made a comment, unrelated to yours but I've already made all the points you could have made, only better.
2) I ignored your point and now I claim you made a different one
3) I assume my background is unique, you couldn't possibly understand
4) I question peoples experience rather than evaluate their statements (at no point have I asked you about yours, but you've asked me about mine, in behavioral analysis that practice has a name and its pejorative, I wonder if you know of it)

To re-iterate my point, for when you ignore it again, you are hopelessly out of date. The 'following wind' concept you cite is different to actively maintained and developed networks that professionals engage in today to their benefit. Funnily enough my father's contemporaries didn't get it either.

Ho hummmm bizarre indeed....

To add: You presume I haven't experienced the old boys network in the form you describe. It's not clear on what basis you make that assertion.
 
You're hopelessly out of date I'm afraid and as I said earlier (which you entirely ignored), it's wholly overstated. If you look at the make up of at senior management of the firms that I've spent most of my life working.

It might have looked like that back when you experienced it, it doesn't today to anything resembling the same degree. I know because this is the world in inhabit, today.



The idea that the old boy network isn't 'nearly as important as people outside it seem to think it is' and that 'the senior decision makers have woken up to the idea that the right person and the right mix of team is far more important' is, in my view and experience, confirmed on a monthly basis, living in some sort of utopian la-la land. The tailwind may not get you the job but it gives far more chance of getting it than the 'right person' fighting a headwind.

Hence my disagreement with @2pi's view and post.
Oh. ... oh well ... ho hummm ... bizarre.
Your comments really are bizarre, they can be largely categorized as

1) I made a comment, unrelated to yours but I've already made all the points you could have made, only better.
2) I ignored your point and now I claim you made a different one
3) I assume my background is unique, you couldn't possibly understand
4) I question peoples experience rather than evaluate their statements (at no point have I asked you about yours, but you've asked me about mine, in behavioral analysis that practice has a name and its pejorative, I wonder if you know of it)

To re-iterate my point, for when you ignore it again, you are hopelessly out of date. The 'following wind' concept you cite is different to actively maintained and developed networks that professionals engage in today to their benefit. Funnily enough my father's contemporaries didn't get it either.

Ho hummmm bizarre indeed....

To add: You presume I haven't experienced the old boys network in the form you describe. It's not clear on what basis you make that assertion.[/QUOTE]
Don’t you start, we’ll go into a singing loop and my phone will crash!
 
Don’t you start, we’ll go into a singing loop and my phone will crash!
I might just tag the posts with a 1-4 :D

In any case, it's interesting that what the military seem to think are the positive attributes and what people get hired for be those generic abilities or specific role specific ones are quite different. I base that on having interviewed, employed and worked with plenty of ex-forces in a number of roles. I've sometimes needed to stop people parroting what they've been told about how the outside world works and really work hard to tease out of them how they can add value to an organisation. In theory any good interviewer should be looking for that but it doesn't always pan out that way (I'm been guilty of not always doing a great job and suffering from "interview fatigue" before now)

I gave a no hire some feedback on that once, I bumped into her many years later and she commented that it was very useful insight given at a critical time (IIRC she was engineering in the RAF). She noted that at least her previous bosses really didn't have a clue and that in the intervening years things had changed much even just in her Career 2.0.

If the military wants to retain it's people it needs to understand what people want out of their jobs, how that changes over time and be honest about the change it's really able and willing to effect. It should also decide how long it thinks people should stay, anything less than a full career seems to have this label of "quitter" attached to it. This is certainly true of many uniformed organisations once you speak to people of a certain rank.
 
Gotta love the Army. A WO, who's actually a Maj, with the job title Cpl Major!
The great thing is the Army makes you put badges on your uniform so even strangers know what rank you are.

We are now simply one step away from:

"Major Major was an awkward child, disliked by other children and even by parents, who found he made them uncomfortable. Major Major majored in history in college, distinguishing himself in no way, then entered the Army, where he was promoted to Major through a glitch in a computer system. Once promoted, he remained a major, even though he had no military experience—no one saw fit to demote him. Major Major was thus a major even before he completed boot-camp with Lieutenant Scheisskopf, whom he outranked. When Major Duluth of the 27th Squadron was killed in action, Major Major was assigned to take his place, despite the fact that Major had only just arrived to Pianosa. "

"Major Major’s mediocrity is not presented as his own fault. Indeed, much of Major Major’s life has been determined by sheer luck, or fate. He did not ask for his name, or for his later promotion to Major, and he is powerless to stop the strange events that keep happening to him. "
 
The great thing is the Army makes you put badges on your uniform so even strangers know what rank you are.

We are now simply one step away from:

"Major Major was an awkward child, disliked by other children and even by parents, who found he made them uncomfortable. Major Major majored in history in college, distinguishing himself in no way, then entered the Army, where he was promoted to Major through a glitch in a computer system. Once promoted, he remained a major, even though he had no military experience—no one saw fit to demote him. Major Major was thus a major even before he completed boot-camp with Lieutenant Scheisskopf, whom he outranked. When Major Duluth of the 27th Squadron was killed in action, Major Major was assigned to take his place, despite the fact that Major had only just arrived to Pianosa. "

"Major Major’s mediocrity is not presented as his own fault. Indeed, much of Major Major’s life has been determined by sheer luck, or fate. He did not ask for his name, or for his later promotion to Major, and he is powerless to stop the strange events that keep happening to him. "
I know an NCO named Major...
 
You're hopelessly out of date I'm afraid and as I said earlier (which you entirely ignored), it's wholly overstated. If you look at the make up of at senior management of the firms that I've spent most of my life working.

It might have looked like that back when you experienced it, it doesn't today to anything resembling the same degree. I know because this is the world in inhabit, today.



Your comments really are bizarre, they can be largely categorized as

1) I made a comment, unrelated to yours but I've already made all the points you could have made, only better.
2) I ignored your point and now I claim you made a different one
3) I assume my background is unique, you couldn't possibly understand
4) I question peoples experience rather than evaluate their statements (at no point have I asked you about yours, but you've asked me about mine, in behavioral analysis that practice has a name and its pejorative, I wonder if you know of it)

To re-iterate my point, for when you ignore it again, you are hopelessly out of date. The 'following wind' concept you cite is different to actively maintained and developed networks that professionals engage in today to their benefit. Funnily enough my father's contemporaries didn't get it either.

Ho hummmm bizarre indeed....

To add: You presume I haven't experienced the old boys network in the form you describe. It's not clear on what basis you make that assertion.
I did warn you earlier that experience Vs Google is not an even match.
 

Similar threads


New Posts

Latest Threads

Top