Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

New Army recruitment campaign

If I may (having been a COS for this kind of shit)...

There is an inevitable tension between "the requirement" and "who is going to fill it". Arguments about this sort of stuff (both worthy and job-dodging) take up time. There is one option, which is to warn off a large number of people at the earliest opportunity, and then make a late(r) down-select to the small handful who will be used. The problem with that approach is that it still buggers around with people, they are still unable to plan their lives, it is still "bad busy".

Another option is to let less people be warned off, with a bit less time, but now you're in short(ish) notice movement of a decent wedge of people, which, again, impacts on ability to plan life (as well as impacting units).

The third option is to wait for the last safe moment (for the staff, natch) to make a more precise estimation of the need, but it will be at short notice, monumentally hacking off those nominated (but it'll be a much smaller number).

Ah ha I hear you cry - why not get the right number people early on? Well, in my experience employing officers for augmentation/support (correctly) demand the moon on a stick. Not least because we've tended to strip their organisations of people "on risk", and the jobs need doing. So what I used to do (and others in my position) was barter with them - on both numbers and necessary qualifications. That bartering takes time, and we enter the problem above.

To follow up on the point about reducing commitment for those who've just deployed on flood relief - well, someone is going to have to do the task. So if you stand down those already warned off, you have to warn off (at short notice) someone else to do it. And we have another entry point to the scenarios above.

Perhaps you might say the solution is to do less. Good point, well made. Apart from the fact that as the RM are now finding, people join up to be busy. Only they want "good" busy, not "bad" busy. And within a unit, the same activity can be "good" busy for one population (those experiencing something for the first time, especially if it consolidates them in their rank) and "bad" busy for another (for whom it is the 3rd or 4th time in that rank to do that activity, and they can do it with their eyes closed). As for how you deal with that, who knows*?


*I have some ideas, but there we go.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
So in 1982 I went on pre Belize leave and 2 days later was called back to go to the FI's.
Who can I sue, or was that part of being a soldier?

Congratulations, first prize in spectacularly missing the point in your rush to be outraged ^~
 
If you cant take a joke you shouldnt have joined.
I did 22 years and have been out for just over a decade and I still don't get the punchline.
 
Congratulations, first prize in spectacularly missing the point in your rush to be outraged ^~
I'm not outraged. What was the point I missed.
I was listening to a civie on R4 boasting about using a Jap toilet as a culture shock. I arrived at Gutersloh at 1730 Jan 1976 as the blokes were going back to work. I was straight out of SEE's college culture. That was just the start of 3-5 weeks of surprise which enabled some very fast learning.
I knew blokes in REME Wksps who signed off because life was too predictable and boring.
BTW when I joined we were told that the Army preferred us to do 6 to 9 years and then leave as it gave them an unpaid pool of reserves up till the (then) 22 year point.
I do realise that we live in totally different times but I have a 16 year old friend who is planning to join REME as a tech. Despite her parents wishes (who support her ambitions) she plans to leave school when GCSE's are finished because she cannot stand it.
Just what we should want. Adventure not boredom is her aims, couldn't do her CBT yesterday because of the floods so booked in next Thursday.
E2A. Believe me, we are both on the same side as I want a great army to continue as a career available to people who like me were set up for life by it. The serving country was just another part.
 
Last edited:
If I may (having been a COS for this kind of shit)...

There is an inevitable tension between "the requirement" and "who is going to fill it". Arguments about this sort of stuff (both worthy and job-dodging) take up time. There is one option, which is to warn off a large number of people at the earliest opportunity, and then make a late(r) down-select to the small handful who will be used. The problem with that approach is that it still buggers around with people, they are still unable to plan their lives, it is still "bad busy".

Another option is to let less people be warned off, with a bit less time, but now you're in short(ish) notice movement of a decent wedge of people, which, again, impacts on ability to plan life (as well as impacting units).

The third option is to wait for the last safe moment (for the staff, natch) to make a more precise estimation of the need, but it will be at short notice, monumentally hacking off those nominated (but it'll be a much smaller number).

Ah ha I hear you cry - why not get the right number people early on? Well, in my experience employing officers for augmentation/support (correctly) demand the moon on a stick. Not least because we've tended to strip their organisations of people "on risk", and the jobs need doing. So what I used to do (and others in my position) was barter with them - on both numbers and necessary qualifications. That bartering takes time, and we enter the problem above.

To follow up on the point about reducing commitment for those who've just deployed on flood relief - well, someone is going to have to do the task. So if you stand down those already warned off, you have to warn off (at short notice) someone else to do it. And we have another entry point to the scenarios above.

Perhaps you might say the solution is to do less. Good point, well made. Apart from the fact that as the RM are now finding, people join up to be busy. Only they want "good" busy, not "bad" busy. And within a unit, the same activity can be "good" busy for one population (those experiencing something for the first time, especially if it consolidates them in their rank) and "bad" busy for another (for whom it is the 3rd or 4th time in that rank to do that activity, and they can do it with their eyes closed). As for how you deal with that, who knows*?

*I have some ideas, but there we go.

That answer would not be misplaced in the letters page of soldier magazine ^~

soldiers aren’t stupid (a new debate :) ), they know what is unavoidable and unexpected.

They also know when there is no excuse for them being given a late task. Using the example in question, we have known about VE 75 for 74 years (flippant), but we have known About it long enough to have a plan. I garuntee there are significant numbers of service personnel who still have no idea that they will be working that weekend.

Much like Armed Forces day, it was meant to be the community thanking the services. It has almost turned into a Scale A Parade, an MS (or gong) moment for those tasked with organisation.

They also know the difference between good/bad busy and when activity is filling the white space.

An 'Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees”
 
If I may (having been a COS for this kind of shit)...

There is an inevitable tension between "the requirement" and "who is going to fill it". Arguments about this sort of stuff (both worthy and job-dodging) take up time. There is one option, which is to warn off a large number of people at the earliest opportunity, and then make a late(r) down-select to the small handful who will be used. The problem with that approach is that it still buggers around with people, they are still unable to plan their lives, it is still "bad busy".

Another option is to let less people be warned off, with a bit less time, but now you're in short(ish) notice movement of a decent wedge of people, which, again, impacts on ability to plan life (as well as impacting units).

The third option is to wait for the last safe moment (for the staff, natch) to make a more precise estimation of the need, but it will be at short notice, monumentally hacking off those nominated (but it'll be a much smaller number).

Ah ha I hear you cry - why not get the right number people early on? Well, in my experience employing officers for augmentation/support (correctly) demand the moon on a stick. Not least because we've tended to strip their organisations of people "on risk", and the jobs need doing. So what I used to do (and others in my position) was barter with them - on both numbers and necessary qualifications. That bartering takes time, and we enter the problem above.

To follow up on the point about reducing commitment for those who've just deployed on flood relief - well, someone is going to have to do the task. So if you stand down those already warned off, you have to warn off (at short notice) someone else to do it. And we have another entry point to the scenarios above.

Perhaps you might say the solution is to do less. Good point, well made. Apart from the fact that as the RM are now finding, people join up to be busy. Only they want "good" busy, not "bad" busy. And within a unit, the same activity can be "good" busy for one population (those experiencing something for the first time, especially if it consolidates them in their rank) and "bad" busy for another (for whom it is the 3rd or 4th time in that rank to do that activity, and they can do it with their eyes closed). As for how you deal with that, who knows*?


*I have some ideas, but there we go.

Ive had some good officers who mange the time of their subordinates well, I've had some utter thundercunts who only succeed because they can legally **** soldiers around, they wouldnt 5 minutes in civvie street.
Its not beyond the realms of possibility that it can be done.
Most soidiers dont mind (or will put up with) genuine short notice taskings, however the majority arent genuine they are just the result of pisspoor planning from bellends who will not be held responsible.
 
That answer would not be misplaced in the letters page of soldier magazine ^~

soldiers aren’t stupid (a new debate :) ), they know what is unavoidable and unexpected.

They also know when there is no excuse for them being given a late task. Using the example in question, we have known about VE 75 for 74 years (flippant), but we have known About it long enough to have a plan. I garuntee there are significant numbers of service personnel who still have no idea that they will be working that weekend.

Much like Armed Forces day, it was meant to be the community thanking the services. It has almost turned into a Scale A Parade, an MS (or gong) moment for those tasked with organisation.

They also know the difference between good/bad busy and when activity is filling the white space.

An 'Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees”


Concur on AF Day - it's a joke.

As for VE Day, I suspect that the AF are pushing for the plan, but the local council - who "own" events like this - won't even be thinking about it.
 
I will give one very simple example:

The NAO produced a report in 2006 on Recruitment and Retention (ancient history I know, but a prime example of a refusal to learn/retain lessons of the past and each cohort having to make their mark).

One of the key recommendations was:

Recommendation 5: The Department is constrained in its ability to reduce the operational tempo, which is impacting on personnel, but should look to investigate measures to provide greater stability and certainty of work patterns for personnel between operational deployments. Whilst recognising the limitations in how much workload can be reduced, the Department should look to improve its ability to let serving personnel know their work patterns over a longer time horizon.

My bold, we still don’t routinely do this, Commanders at all levels have 2 years (max) to make their mark, they are going to take every opportunity to do so. Look at events of the last couple of weeks and troops deploying (rightly so in my opinion) on flood relief, how many FOE’s will be amended to take into account the extra commitment? We all know the answer.

Another looming example is VE Day 75, a bank holiday, known about for a significant period of time. How many soldiers who will be working (and it will be significant) have been formally told not to make personal plans for that weekend. How many know that they will be working just over 10 weeks out?

How many Commanders will be kicking back when the orders come down that another bank holiday is a working weekend? (But the troops will love it!). How much will be removed from the programme to compensate?

Soldiers exist to do the Nations bidding, but it also a voluntary profession. One of the biggest gripes is short notice tasking for long known about tasking, as pointed out by the NAO in 2006.

Treating soldiers as human beings and not commodities is completely within the gift of VSO’s, SO’s, O’s, WO’s, SNCO’s and JNCO’!
Wot 'ee sed!

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
 
I arrived at Gutersloh at 1730 Jan 1976 as the blokes were going back to work.
but I have a 16 year old friend who is planning to join REME as a tech. Despite her parents wishes (who support her ambitions) she plans to leave school when GCSE's are finished
What's your name Goldstein? :)
 
the Department should look to improve its ability to let serving personnel know their work patterns over a longer time horizon.

CAARPS

How is that even possible ?

In the good old days it was called the Arms Plot. It told you where you were going to be working and a rough guideline on dates. What it couldn't tell you was what you would be doing in that 2 / 5 /whatever time frame.

Even at Bn level, a yearly planner was produced and disseminated, which would include at the minimum, Block Leave dates, Major Training Packages dates and anything else with hard and fast dates. As always, with the caveat that everything is subject to change for Operational reasons.

Fastballs of every description, including Operational fastballs existed long before the NAO's report of 2006. FFS, even a 5 year posting to Germany resulted in about 50% of that period being spent outside Germany.

It therefore begs the question, what constitutes a longer time horizon ?

Are we pushing towards a Bn / Unit being moved to, say, Edinburgh, Newcastle, Brecon, Warminster or Colchester and be there in perpetuity ?

Although it might save the MOD money. Join X Regiment and serve 22 years in a static location with the odd deployment here and there does not really do much for me.

Soldiers exist to do the Nations bidding, but it also a voluntary profession. One of the biggest gripes is short notice tasking for long known about tasking, as pointed out by the NAO in 2006.

A problem has been identified by the NAO in 2006. ( Although SNT's precede 2006 by decades )


Treating soldiers as human beings and not commodities is completely within the gift of VSO’s, SO’s, O’s, WO’s, SNCO’s and JNCO’!

The answer to the problem is directly above. I'll highlight in red where the problem lies, you can tell me different.
 
Are we pushing towards a Bn / Unit being moved to, say, Edinburgh, Newcastle, Brecon, Warminster or Colchester and be there in perpetuity ?
Cameron was talking about that and included letting soldiers buy houses locally.
He obviously learned nothing from history about what effectively destroyed the Roman Legions.
 
Cameron was talking about that and included letting soldiers buy houses locally.
He obviously learned nothing from history about what effectively destroyed the Roman Legions.

It was being discussed pre Options for Change.

It went along the lines of

Gordon's & Queens Own Highlanders amalgamate - Permanent base Fort George

Black Watch & Argyles amalgamate - Permanent base Condor - RM's moving South

Royal Scots & KOSB amalgamate - Permanent base Edinburgh, Redford or Dreghorn

RHF upscaled and based somewhere between Glasgow & Ayrshire, cannot recall exactly where.

Or something along those lines.
 
Published by: Forces Network, on 17 February 2020.

Navy Spends More Than Army And RAF On Recruitment Campaigns.

Recruitment advertising and promotion costs were highest for the Royal Navy in 2019/20.

The Royal Navy has been revealed as the British military service that spends the most on recruitment.

The Navy was the highest spender in 2019/20, with £21.3 million going towards its promotion and advertising costs for recruitment.

The Army was just behind, spending £21.2 million, with the Royal Air Force having spent £15.6 million.

Out of the three UK military services, the Navy and RAF both increased their spend in this area for the past three financial years consecutively.

The figures for the current financial year go as far as 31 January 2020.

In the 2018/19 financial year, the Navy was again the highest-spender, with £19.1 million, followed by the Army with £19 million and the RAF with £15.2 million.

Meanwhile, in the 2017/18, the Army spent the most (£19.4 million), followed by the Navy (£18.2 million) and RAF (£13.3 million).

In August 2019, the Ministry of Defence agreed a deal with a consultancy firm for a new recruiting programme, following statistics which suggested all three services had suffered a decrease in their full-time strength.

However, last week, the Army said it is about to meet its recruitment target for the first time since working with Capita.

1582117418551.png


 
Published by: Forces Network, on 17 February 2020.

Navy Spends More Than Army And RAF On Recruitment Campaigns.

Recruitment advertising and promotion costs were highest for the Royal Navy in 2019/20.

The Royal Navy has been revealed as the British military service that spends the most on recruitment.

The Navy was the highest spender in 2019/20, with £21.3 million going towards its promotion and advertising costs for recruitment.

The Army was just behind, spending £21.2 million, with the Royal Air Force having spent £15.6 million.

Out of the three UK military services, the Navy and RAF both increased their spend in this area for the past three financial years consecutively.

The figures for the current financial year go as far as 31 January 2020.

In the 2018/19 financial year, the Navy was again the highest-spender, with £19.1 million, followed by the Army with £19 million and the RAF with £15.2 million.

Meanwhile, in the 2017/18, the Army spent the most (£19.4 million), followed by the Navy (£18.2 million) and RAF (£13.3 million).

In August 2019, the Ministry of Defence agreed a deal with a consultancy firm for a new recruiting programme, following statistics which suggested all three services had suffered a decrease in their full-time strength.

However, last week, the Army said it is about to meet its recruitment target for the first time since working with Capita.

View attachment 450968

Can’t be arrsed to dig out the exact numbers of recruits per service for the period the stats apply, but in rough terms the £2500 per recruit, the RAF £6000 and the Navy £8500.

For all those who have posted that the Navy campaign is better, the numbers don’t lie. The Army is getting three times the Navy’s Return on Ad Spend
 
Can’t be arrsed to dig out the exact numbers of recruits per service for the period the stats apply, but in rough terms the £2500 per recruit, the RAF £6000 and the Navy £8500.

For all those who have posted that the Navy campaign is better, the numbers don’t lie. The Army is getting three times the Navy’s Return on Ad Spend
However, the Navy is a tough ask. The uniform is shit, no mobile phone or social media for months at a time. Hardly ticking the youth of today’s boxes...and you can have a beard in the RAF.
 
However, the Navy is a tough ask. The uniform is shit, no mobile phone or social media for months at a time. Hardly ticking the youth of today’s boxes...and you can have a beard in the RAF.
The 4 Ps of marketing; product, price, promotion and place. If your product (ie the job) has “niche” appeal, you have no control over price (pay) then promotion has to be shot hot and delivered to the right place (the niche to which it appeals).

IMHO the Navy and RAF are way behind the Army in marketing careers in the digital age.
 

Latest Threads

Top