New Army recruitment campaign

Just to aid clarity of discussion, who’s sock are you ^~
I joined the site in 2013, and none of my posts have ever had a whiff of socks or brasso. If you want to continue derailing threads by ad hominem trolling, might I suggest the NAAFI.

To aid further clarity of discussion, I'll happily admit I think this year's recruitment ad campaign is much better, extolling the benefit of increased self-esteem from serving will hopefully appeal to Generation X and incentivise the necessary levels of hard work and determination required, in equal measure.
 
I joined the site in 2013, and none of my posts have ever had a whiff of socks or brasso. If you want to continue derailing threads by ad hominem trolling, might I suggest the NAAFI.
OK then:

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.
The message from on high was, the adverts aren't targeted at serving soldiers.

As I have said consistently and repeatedly, the metric of success is not applications, they are simply a measuring point.

The KPI metric and the one in which the contractor is measured against is Basic Training Starts. Individuals commencing Basic Training only do so if they meet the educational, physical and medical standards set by the Army for the particular role. The contractor does not set these standards.

Once a candidate has commenced Basic Training, it is wholly the responsibility of the Army to get them to trained soldier standard, from the entry standard as set by the Army and for their retention.

The fact that this doesn’t fit with the narrative posters want is hardly the contractors (or the Army’s fault).
 
Last edited:
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.
The Times article you quoted quite clearly states that the numbers are “withdrawn or rejected” as does your post quoting the article.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
Dr Death, Dr Doom, TEITR or HennyPenny? All fake branded socks from Thai street markets.
Wasn't there another WRAC-sock ?

For clarity I mean a site sock as opposed to something in which to dump your custard.
Unless it's wishful thinking on his part.
 
Wasn't there another WRAC-sock ?

For clarity I mean a site sock as opposed to something in which to dump your custard.
Unless it's wishful thinking on his part.
Handymandy I think
 
OK then:



The message from on high was, the adverts aren't targeted at serving soldiers.

As I have said consistently and repeatedly, the metric of success is not applications, they are simply a measuring point.

The KPI metric and the one in which the contractor is measured against is Basic Training Starts. Individuals commencing Basic Training only do so if they meet the educational, physical and medical standards set by the Army for the particular role. The contractor does not set these standards.

Once a candidate has commenced Basic Training, it is wholly the responsibility of the Army to get them to trained soldier standard, from the entry standard as set by the Army and for their retention.

The fact that this doesn’t fit with the narrative posters want is hardly the contractors (or the Army’s fault).
It seems despite the uplift in recruits the manning shortfall is not being addressed:


But if you want to see a fine example of foot in mouth here we have the CO at Harrogate putting off next years intake and setting the public view of the Army back to the 1930s:

Lt Col Rich Hall, the commanding officer at Harrogate, added that many recruits came from troubled backgrounds. “A third of the college are what you’d describe as really disadvantaged, excluded from school, behavioural issues, perhaps brought up by grandparents, often from broken homes.”
 
It seems despite the uplift in recruits the manning shortfall is not being addressed:


But if you want to see a fine example of foot in mouth here we have the CO at Harrogate putting off next years intake and setting the public view of the Army back to the 1930s:

Lt Col Rich Hall, the commanding officer at Harrogate, added that many recruits came from troubled backgrounds. “A third of the college are what you’d describe as really disadvantaged, excluded from school, behavioural issues, perhaps brought up by grandparents, often from broken homes.”
Also just the type of young people that parents want their offspring to be around.
 
Also just the type of young people that parents want their offspring to be around.
And an officer who works with Junior Soldiers and who enjoys lengthy Adventure Training expeditions. :)
 
It seems despite the uplift in recruits the manning shortfall is not being addressed:

The official brief is that it will take full recruiting every year until 2024 to bring the Army back to full strength.

But, as I have said on many occasions (the single issue bore that I am!), that is because the VSO cohort refuse to accept that there is a retention issue.

And that is because they would have to do a significant amount of Navel Gazing and accept that retention is bang in their AOR. Much easier to blame something else, however, that something else has been fixed (temporarily), therefore, as I said, the narrative is 'the long road to recovery' :)
 
It seems despite the uplift in recruits the manning shortfall is not being addressed:


But if you want to see a fine example of foot in mouth here we have the CO at Harrogate putting off next years intake and setting the public view of the Army back to the 1930s:

Lt Col Rich Hall, the commanding officer at Harrogate, added that many recruits came from troubled backgrounds. “A third of the college are what you’d describe as really disadvantaged, excluded from school, behavioural issues, perhaps brought up by grandparents, often from broken homes.”
So that's why Rich Hall hasn't been on QI for a bit.
 
The official brief is that it will take full recruiting every year until 2024 to bring the Army back to full strength.

But, as I have said on many occasions (the single issue bore that I am!), that is because the VSO cohort refuse to accept that there is a retention issue.

And that is because they would have to do a significant amount of Navel Gazing and accept that retention is bang in their AOR. Much easier to blame something else, however, that something else has been fixed (temporarily), therefore, as I said, the narrative is 'the long road to recovery' :)
Reduce the size of the Army and the problem is solved (possibly only temporarily).
 
It seems despite the uplift in recruits the manning shortfall is not being addressed:


But if you want to see a fine example of foot in mouth here we have the CO at Harrogate putting off next years intake and setting the public view of the Army back to the 1930s:

Lt Col Rich Hall, the commanding officer at Harrogate, added that many recruits came from troubled backgrounds. “A third of the college are what you’d describe as really disadvantaged, excluded from school, behavioural issues, perhaps brought up by grandparents, often from broken homes.”
He regularly tweets nonsense. Is he an LE-type?
 
No need to bring the post ICSC junior General community into the mix ^~
My apologies. But for many LE it's the first time they've had the opportunity to write an essay, sometimes by hand, however poor. Some are even placed in charge of syndicates.
 
My apologies. But for many LE it's the first time they've had the opportunity to write an essay, sometimes by hand, however poor. Some are even placed in charge of syndicates.
Unless, of course, they had attended the pre requisite MA module!
 
Published by: Dan Morris, Harrogate, Jane's Defence Weekly, on 12 February 2020

Military Capabilities

British Army set to hit recruitment target for first time in years.

The British Army is on course to reach its soldier recruitment target for the first time since signing a GBP495 million (USD641.6 million) contract with Capita in 2012 as part of the Recruiting Partnership Programme (RPP). As of February, 99% of its target for regular soldier recruits has started or been accepted and has a date to commence basic training. Capita expects to reach its target of 9,404 recruits for the year ending 31 March.

The latest figures come as a relief to Capita and the British Army after a 2018 National Audit Office (NAO) report highlighted that the RPP had not met its annual target to recruit soldiers since its inception, leading to Capita openly acknowledging that it underestimated the complexity of armed forces recruitment.

PHOTO: Recruits taking part in a graduation parade at the Army Foundation College in Harrogate. (British Army/UK MoD)

1581721342101.png


 

Latest Threads

Top