New Army recruitment campaign

No disrespect Gents.

It is a Marketing medium, of course it is going to be positive about Marketing.



Which in theory is brilliant.

Visits to Army jobs website up 93% - Marketing success - What is the figure ?

Applications increased to 71% - A success in Marketing terms - What is the figure ?

It can be deemed a success for the Army when the following are published

Phase 1 complete - % and figure

Phase 2 complete % and figure

How many bug out during the first 4* years

How many extend beyond 4* years

A tad early to be back-slapping and claiming success without completing the cycle.
No idea where I got this from bit istr the largest outflow from the army occurs between 5-8 years.

2020 is also the magic year that VEng comes to fruitation*. The first chaps recruited on VEng are coming to the end of their initial 'short' 12 year contracts. Some will be extended and converted to long, some will not.

* © @amazing__lobster (almighty flinger of ashtrays).
 
Can’t see many not being offered the full term.
Depends I suppose.

I still think a 3ish year initial or probation contract would help. With a possible 4th for border line cases.

Requirement for average overall grade B on all SJARs, and two 'yes' for continuation on last two.

Anything less and you go to a merit board. CO should be allowed to ask to keep you but otherwise out you go if not of merit.
 
No idea where I got this from bit istr the largest outflow from the army occurs between 5-8 years.

2020 is also the magic year that VEng comes to fruitation*. The first chaps recruited on VEng are coming to the end of their initial 'short' 12 year contracts. Some will be extended and converted to long, some will not.

* © @amazing__lobster (almighty flinger of ashtrays).
As soldiers normally cant leave until their 4 year point them leaving shortly afterwards isn't a ringing endorsement.

About 3 or 4 years ago RLC was adamant that you have to be a Cpl by your 12 year point if you were on Veng short. Loads of boasting how they would get rid of all the admin/discipline/biff cases. Just as I was leaving they got on their reversocycle because the manning figures were so shit and telling everyone that they would be staying in, including a biff private soldier.
 
From the Times:

Just to throw some fuel on the fire that the recruiting campaigns were hugely successful at getting people to apply, but not the right sort of people.

Half a million applicants fail to reach army ranks

More than half a million army applicants have withdrawn or been rejected over the past eight years despite a worsening manpower crisis, figures have revealed.

The service has struggled with a chronic personnel shortage that critics have blamed in large part on the creation of a recruitment partnership with Capita, the outsourcing giant, in 2012.

Although successive Conservative administrations have pledged to maintain a minimum of 82,000 personnel, the number is thought to have slipped to about 9,000 below this level. Hiring targets were missed in each year from 2012 to 2018. Statistics have revealed, however, that 531,570 people commenced the application process in the past eight years but either pulled out or were excluded.

Last year alone, 116,312 people exited the process before formal enlistment. The figures were published in response to a parliamentary question by Liz Saville Roberts, a Plaid Cymru MP.


An army source heaped criticism on the service for “getting good numbers of people interested, but not being able to convert enough” to recruits.

Moves are afoot to help bolster the inward flow of junior soldiers, however. A recent overhaul of military medical policies will prevent having to turn away hundreds of essentially healthy candidates each year. In the past there was a ban on anyone with a history of asthma or eczema, but individuals are now judged according to their specific medical case.
Voluntary departures from the enlistment process were more common than rejection over six years, prompting an investigation in 2018 into the high drop-out rate.
The study by Capita found that a change in personal circumstances was the most common reason to quit along the way, while about 23 per cent of applicants withdrew because they thought they weren’t fit enough. Recognising this barrier to entry, last September the army launched a boot camp initiative. The four-week courses help overweight and unfit candidates to meet the basic physical standards to enlist while also providing coaching to boost confidence.
Another obstacle to recruitment has been the slow “flight time” from applying online to finally receiving an offer to begin training. The average time was 200 days in 2018, which was brought down to 160 days last year.
A more common reason for withdrawing from the recruitment process, according to the study, has been discouragement from friends and family.
The army’s latest annual recruitment campaign, launched last month, has sought to bolster its image by outlining the lifelong self-esteem that a service career can instil. It follows on from the controversial but successful 2019 advertising campaign, in which “snowflakes”, “me, me, me millennials” and “selfie addicts” were urged to join up. The US military is now teaching a marketing module based on the campaign, which led to a rise in applications to the British Army.
The decade-long Capita contract, worth £495 million, has been heavily criticised by MPs. However, following a reset last year the army believes that it has turned a corner. It is understood to be on track to fulfil more than 90 per cent of its target to hire 9,404.
A spokesman for the recruitment partnering project said: “Considerable increases in application and enlistment numbers, as well as significant reductions to the time it takes for applicants to receive a job offer, are among the evidence that the turnaround has been achieved . . . there has been a one-fifth reduction in the applicants who withdraw or are removed from the process.”
 
So...

Army has problem, Army recognises problem, Army puts in place measures to help solve/ameliorate problem?
 
From the Times:

Just to throw some fuel on the fire that the recruiting campaigns were hugely successful at getting people to apply, but not the right sort of people.

Half a million applicants fail to reach army ranks

More than half a million army applicants have withdrawn or been rejected over the past eight years despite a worsening manpower crisis, figures have revealed.

The service has struggled with a chronic personnel shortage that critics have blamed in large part on the creation of a recruitment partnership with Capita, the outsourcing giant, in 2012.

Although successive Conservative administrations have pledged to maintain a minimum of 82,000 personnel, the number is thought to have slipped to about 9,000 below this level. Hiring targets were missed in each year from 2012 to 2018. Statistics have revealed, however, that 531,570 people commenced the application process in the past eight years but either pulled out or were excluded.

Last year alone, 116,312 people exited the process before formal enlistment. The figures were published in response to a parliamentary question by Liz Saville Roberts, a Plaid Cymru MP.


An army source heaped criticism on the service for “getting good numbers of people interested, but not being able to convert enough” to recruits.

Moves are afoot to help bolster the inward flow of junior soldiers, however. A recent overhaul of military medical policies will prevent having to turn away hundreds of essentially healthy candidates each year. In the past there was a ban on anyone with a history of asthma or eczema, but individuals are now judged according to their specific medical case.
Voluntary departures from the enlistment process were more common than rejection over six years, prompting an investigation in 2018 into the high drop-out rate.
The study by Capita found that a change in personal circumstances was the most common reason to quit along the way, while about 23 per cent of applicants withdrew because they thought they weren’t fit enough. Recognising this barrier to entry, last September the army launched a boot camp initiative. The four-week courses help overweight and unfit candidates to meet the basic physical standards to enlist while also providing coaching to boost confidence.
Another obstacle to recruitment has been the slow “flight time” from applying online to finally receiving an offer to begin training. The average time was 200 days in 2018, which was brought down to 160 days last year.
A more common reason for withdrawing from the recruitment process, according to the study, has been discouragement from friends and family.
The army’s latest annual recruitment campaign, launched last month, has sought to bolster its image by outlining the lifelong self-esteem that a service career can instil. It follows on from the controversial but successful 2019 advertising campaign, in which “snowflakes”, “me, me, me millennials” and “selfie addicts” were urged to join up. The US military is now teaching a marketing module based on the campaign, which led to a rise in applications to the British Army.
The decade-long Capita contract, worth £495 million, has been heavily criticised by MPs. However, following a reset last year the army believes that it has turned a corner. It is understood to be on track to fulfil more than 90 per cent of its target to hire 9,404.
A spokesman for the recruitment partnering project said: “Considerable increases in application and enlistment numbers, as well as significant reductions to the time it takes for applicants to receive a job offer, are among the evidence that the turnaround has been achieved . . . there has been a one-fifth reduction in the applicants who withdraw or are removed from the process.”
The reporter is rather guilty of using a raw statistic that isn’t explained to make a point that it doesn’t prove.

Over 8 years, 500,000 applicants failed to make it through from application to training. That’s 60000 a year. So roughly one applicant passes through for every ten applications. Given the definition of Applicant and the early stage it’s measured, I say that is pretty good.

I bet that’s it’s not much different to many other job ads, particularly for the age its targeted at.
 
The reporter is rather guilty of using a raw statistic that isn’t explained to make a point that it doesn’t prove.

Over 8 years, 500,000 applicants failed to make it through from application to training. That’s 60000 a year. So roughly one applicant passes through for every ten applications. Given the definition of Applicant and the early stage it’s measured, I say that is pretty good.

I bet that’s it’s not much different to many other job ads, particularly for the age its targeted at.
But, without wanting to attract the site resident expert on all things bright and beautiful, don’t let the truth get in the way of a good headline :)
 
But, without wanting to attract the site resident expert on all things bright and beautiful, don’t let the truth get in the way of a good headline :)
He’s away playing with his socks on the NHS thread. Mods decided that his expertise didn’t stretch to health and banned him. So two crows, Drs Doom and Death. appear next day and argue with each other.

He’s s got at least four odd socks running. Sad really.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
He’s away playing with his socks on the NHS thread. Mods decided that his expertise didn’t stretch to health and banned him. So two crows, Drs Doom and Death. appear next day and argue with each other.

He’s s got at least four odd socks running. Sad really.
Spouting bollocks of Gamlinian proportions.
 
The reporter is rather guilty of using a raw statistic that isn’t explained to make a point that it doesn’t prove.

Over 8 years, 500,000 applicants failed to make it through from application to training. That’s 60000 a year. So roughly one applicant passes through for every ten applications. Given the definition of Applicant and the early stage it’s measured, I say that is pretty good.

I bet that’s it’s not much different to many other job ads, particularly for the age its targeted at.
I just looked up the year by year breakdown of the figures on the parliament site:
2013/14 - 58,419
2014/15 - 79114
2015/16 - 77055
2016/17 - 120,314
2017/18 - 80,357
2018/19 - 116,312

So whilst 60k a year, 1 in 10 would seem the right baseline, the last year's figures would suggest something else beyond the baseline. And in extreme danger of detailing the thread, I'm sure someone will blame it on Brexit, but it could still be linked to the quality of the candidates attracted that year.
 
I just looked up the year by year breakdown of the figures on the parliament site:
2013/14 - 58,419
2014/15 - 79114
2015/16 - 77055
2016/17 - 120,314
2017/18 - 80,357
2018/19 - 116,312

So whilst 60k a year, 1 in 10 would seem the right baseline, the last year's figures would suggest something else beyond the baseline. And in extreme danger of detailing the thread, I'm sure someone will blame it on Brexit, but it could still be linked to the quality of the candidates attracted that year.
Given that last year was near fully recruited, I suggest that there were simply more rejections due to lack of vacancies. Successful ad campaign fills top of funnel with more leads than you need.

This really isn’t complicated. Once you’ve got a funnel that works and is stable and you’ve done pretty much all you can to stop leakage, you have established your optimised conversion rate. Now all you need to do is fill the top of the funnel with enough leads.

And once you’ve got ad campaigns that are working and delivering consistently good return on ad spend, that’s really just about spending more on advertising to get more coverage.
 
Given that last year was near fully recruited, I suggest that there were simply more rejections due to lack of vacancies. Successful ad campaign fills top of funnel with more leads than you need.

This really isn’t complicated. Once you’ve got a funnel that works and is stable and you’ve done pretty much all you can to stop leakage, you have established your optimised conversion rate. Now all you need to do is fill the top of the funnel with enough leads.

And once you’ve got ad campaigns that are working and delivering consistently good return on ad spend, that’s really just about spending more on advertising to get more coverage.
Unfortunately not. These figures are only for voluntary withdrawals, not rejections.

I'd say it's a combination of a steadily declining suitability of the general population (obesity, snowflakery etc), the still too long time between apply and start training (getting better but never as good as the myriad of old anecdotes of starting the next day/week), the issues with current soldiers morale (retention) leaking out to put off potential applicants. Yes they are all 'being addressed', but looks like a long way to go, and it doesn't look good that these issues have all been glaringly obvious for years before we finally get round to looking at them.

My only beef with this whole thing was the message from on high to serving soldiers to STFU about the snowflake ad campaign because 'it was the most successful campaign ever', end of, no discussion. To which I and others thought was wrong, as it used the wrong metric. The metric of success that actually matters is new trained soldiers, not new applicants. Ad companies can measure the number of applicants, but as the customer we should be measuring what's important to us. And if (yet to be determined) the snowflake ad campaign led to too many unsuitable candidates applying, then it follows it was targeted at the wrong demographic.
 
Unfortunately not. These figures are only for voluntary withdrawals, not rejections.

I'd say it's a combination of a steadily declining suitability of the general population (obesity, snowflakery etc), the still too long time between apply and start training (getting better but never as good as the myriad of old anecdotes of starting the next day/week), the issues with current soldiers morale (retention) leaking out to put off potential applicants. Yes they are all 'being addressed', but looks like a long way to go, and it doesn't look good that these issues have all been glaringly obvious for years before we finally get round to looking at them.

My only beef with this whole thing was the message from on high to serving soldiers to STFU about the snowflake ad campaign because 'it was the most successful campaign ever', end of, no discussion. To which I and others thought was wrong, as it used the wrong metric. The metric of success that actually matters is new trained soldiers, not new applicants. Ad companies can measure the number of applicants, but as the customer we should be measuring what's important to us. And if (yet to be determined) the snowflake ad campaign led to too many unsuitable candidates applying, then it follows it was targeted at the wrong demographic.
Just to aid clarity of discussion, who’s sock are you ^~
 
Just to aid clarity of discussion, who’s sock are you ^~
Well he's not Comd ARTD ( or whatever is is called this week in an attempt to evade blame) - that honour clearly falls to you.
 

Brotherton Lad

LE
Kit Reviewer
Well he's not Comd ARTD ( or whatever is is called this week in an attempt to evade blame) - that honour clearly falls to you.
ARITC. I had a hand in designing the flash.
 

Latest Threads

Top