New Army recruitment campaign

You certainly do. Despite offering more trade training and quals the RN are unable to attract a quarter of the applications the Army does, measured at the same or any point, and a third the number of recruits start training.
And how much of that difference is because of the relative size of the Army & RN?
 

Quite an interesting video. About five years old. It's easier to build strong children than repair broken adults.

I did a bit with CAL RMAS before heading out to civ div and ASLS in pirbright.
Jordan Peterson the canadian psyche suggested that parents should not simply be the best friends of their children.... The trouble with snowflakes is joining the forces, its always being hard leaving behind your friends, but if your parents are your best friends, likely even harder to deal with that loss. Those like myself whose parents weren't any great shake it was easier to adjust and all the recruitment campaigns show up is the complete lack of understanding at how groups function (ironic given the forces are supposed to be good at that sort of thing).

Similarly, ethnicity if your living in a community which doesn't mix all that much with the host population. Then you are posted to a unit, where your in a serious minority, you have an almost unresolvable problem that nice glossy videos is not going to alleviate anything.
 
Really.

Really, really, really.

The minimum age (and age for WRAC Juniors) was 16, from 1975 on.
Actually, you're wrong.

The minimum age was 15 3/4 for Apprentices, and don't start any sh*t or trying to find it on google. I have practical knowledge and experience of this fact.

I'm intrigued by the WRAC Juniors. As they must have disbanded earlier than the other Junior Leaders units. IIRC C Coy at Harrogate disbanded in July 1993 and the first female ATs at Harrogate were in 91B (starting Sept 91) I think. Definitely females in 91C, as the AT RSM was one. Which is interesting when you think the Corps closed in April 92.
 
Actually, you're wrong.
No, the minimum age for females (and age for WRAC Juniors) was 16. Read the links already given. Your claim that " ...... the minimum age for females would have made that difficult unless they were over 17. It was over 18, but I can't quote remember what it was" absolute nonsense.
The minimum age was 15 3/4 for Apprentices, and don't start any sh*t or trying to find it on google. I have practical knowledge and experience of this fact.
I presume what you're talking about are MALE apprentices, who had a similar minimum age to MALE Junior Leaders (as distinct from Junior Soldiers). That didn't apply to females, for whom the minimum age was 16.

No "google" required - just "practical knowledge and experience" which you very clearly lack in this as in every area you've posted on here.
 
Actually, you're wrong.

The minimum age was 15 3/4 for Apprentices, and don't start any sh*t or trying to find it on google. I have practical knowledge and experience of this fact.

I'm intrigued by the WRAC Juniors. As they must have disbanded earlier than the other Junior Leaders units. IIRC C Coy at Harrogate disbanded in July 1993 and the first female ATs at Harrogate were in 91B (starting Sept 91) I think. Definitely females in 91C, as the AT RSM was one. Which is interesting when you think the Corps closed in April 92.
Harrogate you had turned sixteen, when you got an enlistment date... Though the recruitment process you were often just under 16.... So your both generally right.
 
Jordan Peterson the canadian psyche suggested that parents should not simply be the best friends of their children.... The trouble with snowflakes is joining the forces, its always being hard leaving behind your friends, but if your parents are your best friends, likely even harder to deal with that loss. Those like myself whose parents weren't any great shake it was easier to adjust and all the recruitment campaigns show up is the complete lack of understanding at how groups function (ironic given the forces are supposed to be good at that sort of thing).

Similarly, ethnicity if your living in a community which doesn't mix all that much with the host population. Then you are posted to a unit, where your in a serious minority, you have an almost unresolvable problem that nice glossy videos is not going to alleviate anything.

‘be a parent until they leave home, then you can be their friend’.
 
You certainly do. Despite offering more trade training and quals the RN are unable to attract a quarter of the applications the Army does, measured at the same or any point, and a third the number of recruits start training.

Those are the simple and only facts that show the comparative effectiveness of the two ad campaigns, which was the point you made (totally incorrectly) and what this thread is about. Both are effective in attracting interest and recruits, but the Army's has been considerably more effective in the last couple of years and far more effective recently.

Recruiting is only one of a number of factors affecting manning, which is the point you've now latched on to - the main factor being retention, which is a different but parallel issue.

The problem I (and others) have with the present ad campaign isn't that it's not attracting people (it is), both as applicants and recruits, but that it's targeting and attracting "the WRONG people"*.

Army ad campaigns used to consistently target "uneducated and deprived kids from sink council estates" who were ideal for the Army and whom the Army was ideal for. This campaign, though, ignores them completely and instead targets those who are totally unsuited to the Army and for whom the Army is totally unsuitable.

A disastrous short-term solution that suits only the bean-counters and those whose OJARs depend on it.


(*: as CAARPS put it, before he ceased to be a potential part of the solution and became a senior part of the problem)
Wow. A "bแllshit" from chimera.

I'd be very interested to know about which point in particular:

The comparative effectiveness of Army vs RN recruiting ads?
Well, the stats are publicly available ...

That while recruiting's a factor, the main factor affecting manning is retention?
Not sure how you could argue with that ...

That "Army ad campaigns used to consistently target "uneducated and deprived kids from sink council estates" who were ideal for the Army and whom the Army was ideal for" ?
Maybe you could name an Army ad campaign that didn't, or explain why "uneducated and deprived kids from sink council estates" are not ideal for the Army or the Army not ideal for them ...

That "This campaign, though, ignores them completely and instead targets those who are totally unsuited to the Army and for whom the Army is totally unsuitable."?
Maybe you could point to any parts of the recent (or prior) ads in the campaign that target "uneducated and deprived kids from sink council estates" ... any at all.
Or maybe you could explain why any of those targeted are suited to the Army, etc. ...
Just to remind you, that included the following (in no particular order) :
  • those with anxiety issues, particularly those susceptible to the 'January Blues'
  • binge drinkers
  • drug chancers
  • the physically unfit and those unable to keep themselves physically fit
  • women who'd failed to get anywhere in civilian life
  • Muslims who hadn't been allowed to stop working and start praying when they wanted to in civilian life, but who expected to be allowed to on ops and to have the radio turned down for them
  • the selfish and self-centred "me, me, me" and selfie addicts
  • those unable to make or keep friends
  • binge gamers who, as Nissan and McLaren have found, find it difficult to work in a team
  • etc, etc, etc .....
The list is pretty extensive. Maybe you'd want them making up half your sect / tp / pl / coy / sqn / bn / regt, but I doubt most would, apart from the bean counters.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
That's one of the many things I think's missing from this campaign - it's all about "me, me, me".
Helps explain your posting style.


As for the rest, I commend B_J's recent and previous post to you.
qv.:
I've been following this thread for the last couple of days with interest.

Usually when you get three or four people killing a thread, they're mainly as bad as each other.

John G if you look back through the last few pages you'll see after my post it's mainly your own (very long) contributions tagging other members and them initially not responding.

Inevitably of course, with this being ARRSE, someone will respond, then you go into full-on multi-quote mode...

Fact based this would be acceptable, but the vast majority of this is merely opinion based, since most of you are no longer serving (some haven't for decades) so in essence you're simply locked in a never ending battle of opinions which is simply a waste of time.

So for the last time, please refrain from being argumentative. What's that V&S thing they teach us that starts with the wrong letter? O...?

Respect for others. We all have different opinions, based on different experiences. Let's leave it there, shall we?
This thread had, and still has, the possibility of being both informative and interesting, but please stop the hectoring, it adds nothing, puts people's backs up and makes you look more of a cock.
 

The_Duke

LE
Moderator
Now that the irritating whine appears to have stopped, perhaps we can step away from absolutes and entrenched positions.

Targeting the January blues does not mean emptying the psych wards. The desire to start afresh in the New Year is well recognised. LinkedIn is full of “new year, new challenge” type posts from recruiters for all sorts of roles.

Binge drinkers? The drinking culture of my younger colleagues may be different but it is still there. It doesn’t mean they are raging alcoholics unsuitable for service. Same with a more modern view on recreational drug usage.

In fact, if you step away from the rabid desire to take everything to extremes you can find some value in the adverts.

Taken as a whole, they suggest an opportunity to “be your best you” or “live your best life” - very common memes for the target generation, if perhaps not for those of us nearer a bus pass than an MOD 90.
 
Now that the irritating whine appears to have stopped, perhaps we can step away from absolutes and entrenched positions.

Targeting the January blues does not mean emptying the psych wards. The desire to start afresh in the New Year is well recognised. LinkedIn is full of “new year, new challenge” type posts from recruiters for all sorts of roles.

Binge drinkers? The drinking culture of my younger colleagues may be different but it is still there. It doesn’t mean they are raging alcoholics unsuitable for service. Same with a more modern view on recreational drug usage.

In fact, if you step away from the rabid desire to take everything to extremes you can find some value in the adverts.

Taken as a whole, they suggest an opportunity to “be your best you” or “live your best life” - very common memes for the target generation, if perhaps not for those of us nearer a bus pass than an MOD 90.
I can agree with most of that but not recreational drug usage.
I have seen the improvement in people when they have stopped too many times to like the practice.
And yes I know you can say the same about cigs and booze, but imho not as much.
 

The_Duke

LE
Moderator
I can agree with most of that but not recreational drug usage.
I have seen the improvement in people when they have stopped too many times to like the practice.
And yes I know you can say the same about cigs and booze, but imho not as much.
I served with some great soldiers who undoubtedly smoked some dope or took some Es before they joined up. I have no doubt some went back to it afterwards.

The enlistment criteria has been the same for ages - you may have taken them before, but it must stop on enlistment and we will test you to check you are sticking to your side of the bargain. Not foolproof, but realistic.
 
Now that the irritating whine appears to have stopped, perhaps we can step away from absolutes and entrenched positions.

Targeting the January blues does not mean emptying the psych wards. The desire to start afresh in the New Year is well recognised. LinkedIn is full of “new year, new challenge” type posts from recruiters for all sorts of roles.

Binge drinkers? The drinking culture of my younger colleagues may be different but it is still there. It doesn’t mean they are raging alcoholics unsuitable for service. Same with a more modern view on recreational drug usage.

In fact, if you step away from the rabid desire to take everything to extremes you can find some value in the adverts.

Taken as a whole, they suggest an opportunity to “be your best you” or “live your best life” - very common memes for the target generation, if perhaps not for those of us nearer a bus pass than an MOD 90.
IMHO there are two big issues with taking a more modern view over recreational drug usage. The first is that, however modern your view is, recreational drugs remain illegal and the supply line remains a violent exploitative thing. Should a force for good really be condoning drug use?

The second is more technical; if you condone recreational drug usage, how do you define competency levels or measure them In an equitable way. As a simple example, the levels at which the government deems someone unfit to drive from cannabis have a tiny dosage of THC, a level that one would show after a couple of drags on a spliff, but also 2-3 weeks after heavy a weekend of weed smoking legally in Canada. The former would render most incapable of driving for a few hours, the latter would not be impaired in any way and wouldnot have been a few hours after their last toke.

Whilst it’s probably true that the drug rules reflect the conservative nature of the top definition makers, who probably have something of an irrational fear of recreational drugs, they are entirely in line with plenty of other employers.
 

The_Duke

LE
Moderator
IMHO there are two big issues with taking a more modern view over recreational drug usage. The first is that, however modern your view is, recreational drugs remain illegal and the supply line remains a violent exploitative thing. Should a force for good really be condoning drug use?

The second is more technical; if you condone recreational drug usage, how do you define competency levels or measure them In an equitable way. As a simple example, the levels at which the government deems someone unfit to drive from cannabis have a tiny dosage of THC, a level that one would show after a couple of drags on a spliff, but also 2-3 weeks after heavy a weekend of weed smoking legally in Canada. The former would render most incapable of driving for a few hours, the latter would not be impaired in any way and wouldnot have been a few hours after their last toke.

Whilst it’s probably true that the drug rules reflect the conservative nature of the top definition makers, who probably have something of an irrational fear of recreational drugs, they are entirely in line with plenty of other employers.
Perhaps I didn’t express myself well - I mean more that acknowledging that drugs may have been part of their past doesn’t mean that they can’t have a future in the Army. It doesn’t mean they can be part of their life while serving.
I had several chats with soldiers who used to do drugs but then joined the army. The key point is to make potential recruits aware that history doesn’t dictate future.
 
Perhaps I didn’t express myself well - I mean more that acknowledging that drugs may have been part of their past doesn’t mean that they can’t have a future in the Army. It doesn’t mean they can be part of their life while serving.
I had several chats with soldiers who used to do drugs but then joined the army. The key point is to make potential recruits aware that history doesn’t dictate future.
I'm one of them.
I tried grass and acid for a few weeks when 17 before working out I didn't like the people I was hanging out with so binned it all.
4 years later walked past the DERR's recruiting office in Swindon, doubled back to look in the window and then walked in and asked,' 'what have you got in the infantry for a bloke with 3 'A's who failed RCB, radio op with a bit of repairing on the side?'
They took one look at this long haired wimp and said, REME.
They did ask if I had taken drugs, I told the truth as I knew very few who hadn't tried them.
At Sutton Coldfield an elderly (to me) RTR Captain looked at my docs and asked, 'it says here you smoked grass, you don't mean what's growing outside do you?'
'No Sir'.
'You don't still do it do you?'
'No Sir, tried it 4 years ago and didn't like it (that was not exactly true)'.
'Oh that's OK then'.
 
Bizarrely there was no better deterrent than 2-3 junkies dekitting.

They were sent home straight after the result.

Then when discharged they just walked around camp in civies.

The time not allowed on camp hurt their social lives, and walking around collecting signatures whilst folk got on with it reinforced their sh*tness.

Before being escorted to the camp gate. They weren't allowed to stay on camp overnight.
 
Perhaps I didn’t express myself well - I mean more that acknowledging that drugs may have been part of their past doesn’t mean that they can’t have a future in the Army. It doesn’t mean they can be part of their life while serving.
I had several chats with soldiers who used to do drugs but then joined the army. The key point is to make potential recruits aware that history doesn’t dictate future.
I had no issue understanding you from your initial post, however, I also understand that the adverts are aimed at all sections of the current MTA.

It just so happens that the current crop are targeting confidence and offering to help improve it in an individual.

If it was education, it doesn’t mean we only want uneducated, fitness doesn’t mean we only want the fat and unfit; income the poor etc.

It’s just like saying the bullets and bombs adverts of old only wanted to attract psychos!

Any reasonable person would :)
 

Latest Threads

Top