New Army recruitment campaign

Was the bullshit any different from the Frank campaign which suggested that soldiers had the pick of fit, sexy women when the reality was the only lay most got near was sloppy seconds from the Squadron bike?

All adverts allude; they create an image that conveys a message. They don’t have to be be spot on accurate; they’re not documentaries. They don’t create a contract that has to be fulfilled; all they do is attract interest and that only goes as far as the call to action in the ad.

The message that the patrol prayer ad delivers is that the Army is a place of religious tolerance that welcomes people of all faiths without judgement. So faith is not a reason not to join. Only the terminally dim would conclude that it means that patrols stop for prayer.

Whether it was a success or not can only be easily proven by ad tracking.
The problem with that particular ad, @Bob, was that while it delivered a "message" that was barely credible to most people watching it, who would probably have thought "umm... that seems a bit of a stupid thing to do in a war zone", which is hardly making the Army look professional, the "message" it delivered to those it was supposed to appeal to, namely strict Muslims and their gatekeepers, was that "we're pretending to respect your religious beliefs, but we don't really give a sh1t which is why we haven't even bothered to check if what we're portraying is correct or sacrilege".

Only the terminally dim would be happy with an ad that delivered those messages.
 
All adverts allude; they create an image that conveys a message. They don’t have to be be spot on accurate; they’re not documentaries. They don’t create a contract that has to be fulfilled; all they do is attract interest and that only goes as far as the call to action in the ad.
The ASA would disagree.
 
Only the terminally dim would watch an advert and think it creates an entitlement. Watch it with an open mind and apply some critical thinking to work out what the message is supposed to be.

And no, I’ve never suggested that subsidised accommodation is somehow fantastic; I said it is part of an attractive package. If sunsidised accomodation has no recruiting or retention value, then it should be got rid of. Your response was to that removing subsided accommodation would cause people to leave. So subsidised accommodation must have an attraction.

And you are terminally dim. And I’m only responding to your constant chippy ad hominem posting.
There you go again with the terminally dim, you arrogant shitcunt. Because civvies know all about the army dont they? They automatically would know its utter bollocks?

Subsidised accommodation is part of an attractive package is it? You dont half waffle some shite dont you?

This is the second time you have been told that the reason we have it, is to stop an even worse recruiting/retention rate. Not because people are climbing over the fence to get it or because its stopping anyone getting it.

Im not that dim that I dont know what nationality I am, eh Aussie?
 
So now you're blaming your wife for your stupidity?

I'm tempted to say unbelievable, but given your stupidity on subjects you should be expected to know something about but demonstrably don't, sadly it's not.
You're not making a great deal of sense, John.
 
Yes, but it does provide a foot in the door. I think it was Mandela who said something along these lines:

'Speak to a man in a language he understands and you speak to his head, but speak to him in his own language and you speak to his heart.'

In my experience that removes at least half of the potential conflict. Even more if you can provide a twinkle in your eye.
Pace Madiba and your experience but I've had more fun in Tashkent quoting Khayyam in English than I've ever had with schoolboy French in Paris.
 
Pace Madiba and your experience but I've had more fun in Tashkent quoting Khayyam in English than I've ever had with schoolboy French in Paris.
But think of how much more fun you could have had, and how much more you may have been appreciated, had you been able to do so in the original.

'Traditional' British arrogance and ignorance, even reciting poetry, isn't appreciated overseas anymore, however much fun those doing so may have.

(not that I'm suggesting in any way that applies to you and the Rubaiyat)
 
But think of how much more fun you could have had, and how much more you may have been appreciated, had you been able to do so in the original.

9snip)
But then I wouldn't have known what I was saying...
 
The problem with that particular ad, @Bob, was that while it delivered a "message" that was barely credible to most people watching it, who would probably have thought "umm... that seems a bit of a stupid thing to do in a war zone", which is hardly making the Army look professional, the "message" it delivered to those it was supposed to appeal to, namely strict Muslims and their gatekeepers, was that "we're pretending to respect your religious beliefs, but we don't really give a sh1t which is why we haven't even bothered to check if what we're portraying is correct or sacrilege".

Only the terminally dim would be happy with an ad that delivered those messages.
For the most part I agree with you John, particularly your point about the specifics of the religious ceremony which really shoukd be right.

The issue of the message is more complex. Adverts create different impressions and interpretations in individuals. No two people will see an advert the same way. What matters is whether enough people in the target audience act the way the advertisers are aiming to influence them to act.

Ultimately it’s a numbers game; the ad has a defined aim, defined in terms of message, target audience, desired response and budget. If it measurably achieves its aim within budget it’s a success. If it doesn’t, it’s a failure.

Whether you, I or @Stacker like the ad or think it’s miselading isn’t relevant. Nor is our subjective view of its success. All that matters is the numbers. And a single ad can’t be judged alone; it has to be considered as part of an integrated marketing communications strategy.

As a slight aside, vanilla advertising doesn’t work any more, particularly with the target age group for these ads. There’s too much noise.
 
For the most part I agree with you John, particularly your point about the specifics of the religious ceremony which really shoukd be right.

The issue of the message is more complex. Adverts create different impressions and interpretations in individuals. No two people will see an advert the same way. What matters is whether enough people in the target audience act the way the advertisers are aiming to influence them to act.

Ultimately it’s a numbers game; the ad has a defined aim, defined in terms of message, target audience, desired response and budget. If it measurably achieves its aim within budget it’s a success. If it doesn’t, it’s a failure.

Whether you, I or @Stacker like the ad or think it’s miselading isn’t relevant. Nor is our subjective view of its success. All that matters is the numbers. And a single ad can’t be judged alone; it has to be considered as part of an integrated marketing communications strategy.

As a slight aside, vanilla advertising doesn’t work any more, particularly with the target age group for these ads. There’s too much noise.
I'm not saying whether I like the ad or not, @Bob, or whether I think it's misleading or not, as there's no shortage of others doing that and as you say it's of limited relevance.

All I'm saying is that I think it's pretty fair to judge it as a 'bad ad' since the message it put across was clearly offputting for both the target audience and many others watching, and that's likely to deter people, not attract them, so the only ad that could probably be worse would be one saying 'Don't Join the Army' , however much attention that might grab, so no-one's likely to produce that as an ad.

... oops ...
 
There you go again with the terminally dim, you arrogant shitcunt. Because civvies know all about the army dont they? They automatically would know its utter bollocks?

Subsidised accommodation is part of an attractive package is it? You dont half waffle some shite dont you?

This is the second time you have been told that the reason we have it, is to stop an even worse recruiting/retention rate. Not because people are climbing over the fence to get it or because its stopping anyone getting it.

Im not that dim that I dont know what nationality I am, eh Aussie?
I’ve not told you anything. I’ve stated a view which is worthy of debate. The core of that view is that the pay and conditions offered by the Army is significantly better than anything else available to recruits. The fact that the Army blows that attraction by treating people badly doesn’t detract from the package.

So go on; what would you offer to soldiers as part of a remuneration package that attracts and retains?

You are the one who defaults to ad hominem abuse but you can’t take it.
 
I'm not saying whether I like the ad or not, @Bob, or whether I think it's misleading or not, as there's no shortage of others doing that and as you say it's of limited relevance.

All I'm saying is that I think it's pretty fair to judge it as a 'bad ad' since the message it put across was clearly offputting for both the target audience and many others watching, and that's likely to deter people, not attract them, so the only ad that could probably be worse would be one saying 'Don't Join the Army' , however much attention that might grab, so no-one's likely to produce that as an ad.

... oops ...
But is it clearly off putting? The evidence lies in the data, not in our opinnions and neither of us have the data.

My wider issue with this campaign and the new one is the lack of testing. These days, ad messaging can be tested in small sample campaigns before going large. I don’t think this happens; the tendency is towards testing with focus groups and then going global.
 
I’ve not told you anything. I’ve stated a view which is worthy of debate. The core of that view is that the pay and conditions offered by the Army is significantly better than anything else available to recruits. The fact that the Army blows that attraction by treating people badly doesn’t detract from the package.

So go on; what would you offer to soldiers as part of a remuneration package that attracts and retains?

You are the one who defaults to ad hominem abuse but you can’t take it.
That's a fair one, @bob. On paper, even with crummy accommodation and bad food, it's still a great package for potential recruits and an even better one for potential officers.

The only stumbling block's the Army ...
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top