New Army recruitment campaign

What makes you think it was an objective for people to talk about the army? Id suggest the objective should have been to get more recruits.
The idea of the campaign is to get people who might not have traditionally thought about the army thinking about it. Some of those people will give it a go, how may I haven't a clue but before you join up you need to think about joining up; like the F35 there has to be a 'development phase'. In this case developing the idea in your mind that you will try and join up.
 
I agree with your point but I think there is a context that needs to be considered.

This generation is turning it's back on University education as they realise the massive con the University Bubble was/is. Due to the lowering of standards at Universities and the glut of Graduates young people today are faced with throwing three years of their lives away, accumulating in excess of £30k debt and facing a real struggle to find meaningful employment.

Those who choose to finish Education at 18 with two or three A Levels find themselves with enough UCAS points to join up as an Officer rather than in the ranks. So in this group you have those who may have finished after GCSE, but due the raising of the school leaving age achieve A Level, some too dumb to get a meaningful degree and those who choose to seek employment rather than a Degree. A pretty mixed bunch.

It's only the circle turning after all. Back in time a Commission could be achieved with 5 O Levels and a Teeth-Arm officer with a degree was virtually unheard of or treated with huge suspicion by his peers. Face it a Commission is very attractive to someone with a couple of A Levels whose alternatves are likely to be call centres or junior positions in business.

So now, it seems, we are returning to the 1980s style Army with school leaver officers rather than Graduates.

Getting back on track though, how many of those going through RMAS would simply not have got there ten years ago and are they impacting on soldier recruitment figures, their more natural route until recently?
Agreed 100% - I wish the 'like' button was sorted!

The problem is that while the clock's turning back / going full circle for some things it's not for others.
 
That’s not the advertising companies object. They’re be marked on website hits not people arriving at Purbright.
Its should however be the Armys objective.
 
The idea of the campaign is to get people who might not have traditionally thought about the army thinking about it. Some of those people will give it a go, how may I haven't a clue but before you join up you need to think about joining up; like the F35 there has to be a 'development phase'. In this case developing the idea in your mind that you will try and join up.
Thats not the same as "talking about it" is it? Scousers still whine on about the Suns coverage of Hillsbourough, I doubt News International are happy that they are "talking about it".
I have yet to find a single person from cadets to veterans in their 60s who think this advertising campaign is any good. But at least they are talking about it eh?
 
That’s not the advertising companies object. They’re be marked on website hits not people arriving at Purbright.
FFS! I wish the 'mong' button was sorted out too.
What makes you think it was an objective for people to talk about the army? Id suggest the objective should have been to get more recruits.
Exactly. If there's a lot of interest but by those who are never going to make it as recruits it's pointless. If there's a lot of interest but by those who think it makes the Army look out of touch, absurd and stupid it's a bad ad. If there's a lot of interest but it puts those off who would make good recruits and soldiers because it makes them think the Army's out of touch, absurd and stupid and they don't want to serve with snowflakes and class clowns it's not only a bad ad but counter-productive.
 
You can not measure that though unless you put a question on the website to the effect of "Are you visiting this site because you saw an advert if so which one?"
No ... no, no, no ...

That'd be to get quantifiable feedback so you could measure the effectiveness of an ad campaign, or start to get feedback about why people drop out of the pipeline at various stages, why over 100,000 registrations only become 7,000 recruits, etc, etc, etc, etc .....

Nobody wants that ...
 
You can not measure that though unless you put a question on the website to the effect of "Are you visiting this site because you saw an advert if so which one?"
Yes you can. You can see the route that people took to get to the page.

You can also see how long the advert was watched, whether it was watched multiple times, how long people then viewed the various pages, and what route they took. If the user allows it, and most do, you can also leave a tracker that allows you to see re-visits, and sometimes some comparison with other sites.

It's also possible to map it by time, and compare with other events, so whether there was a surge in interest last night during the Paras programme, whether people diverted off to the RM site as a result of their adverts, and whether views on the Army site were biased towards Para, other Inf or other trades.

Traffic tracking is very mature, and well understood by the marketing industry.
 
You can not measure that though unless you put a question on the website to the effect of "Are you visiting this site because you saw an advert if so which one?"
Of course you can. You can also analyse the demographics of the people clicking through to a disturbing level of detail - age, sex, location, level of education, hobbies and interests, employment, etc. and use it to tailor future campaigns. That's social media's entire business model.
 
Of course you can. You can also analyse the demographics of the people clicking through to a disturbing level of detail - age, sex, location, level of education, hobbies and interests, employment, etc. and use it to tailor future campaigns. That's social media's entire business model.
On one visit to the Army recruitment site?
 
Yes you can. You can see the route that people took to get to the page.

You can also see how long the advert was watched, whether it was watched multiple times, how long people then viewed the various pages, and what route they took. If the user allows it, and most do, you can also leave a tracker that allows you to see re-visits, and sometimes some comparison with other sites.

It's also possible to map it by time, and compare with other events, so whether there was a surge in interest last night during the Paras programme, whether people diverted off to the RM site as a result of their adverts, and whether views on the Army site were biased towards Para, other Inf or other trades.

Traffic tracking is very mature, and well understood by the marketing industry.
As I said before all on the Army website?
 
You can not measure that though unless you put a question on the website to the effect of "Are you visiting this site because you saw an advert if so which one?"
“Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half.”

John Wanamaker (1838-1922)
 
Its should however be the Armys objective.
I didn’t say it wasn’t. The objective of the recruiting campaign is more recruits. The objective of the advertising campaign is to increase interest in becoming a recruit. The advertising company doesn’t give a shit about people becoming soldiers. And if the payment was tied to it, the risk money would be amazing.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top