New Army recruitment campaign

@Bob, I was going to shout 'un-B-fecking-lievable' but instead I have to say 'thank you' for highlighting so much that's so badly wrong with the ad campaign (and, to a certain extent, the Army).

Just where-the-feck do you think the Army stands a better chance of getting more recruits from: the 90% of 16-24 year olds with smartphones or the 10% without?

From the binge-gamers on a mega internet package or those who can barely afford a pre-paid package, have used up all their 'net, and can only text or call?

The Army's trying to use advertising to change how the public perceives it when what it should be doing instead is trying to use it to get 9,000 recruits a year.

It really is sinpke!
Several points; OFCOM put smartphone adoption in that age band at 94% so it’s probably less than 10%. . The Army needs to recruit across the age and

Secondly, everyone in full time education has an email address and access to a computer. There are computers in every school, college, job centre, library and recruiting centre.
@Bob, I was going to shout 'un-B-fecking-lievable' but instead I have to say 'thank you' for highlighting so much that's so badly wrong with the ad campaign (and, to a certain extent, the Army).

Just where-the-feck do you think the Army stands a better chance of getting more recruits from: the 90% of 16-24 year olds with smartphones or the 10% without?

From the binge-gamers on a mega internet package or those who can barely afford a pre-paid package, have used up all their 'net, and can only text or call?

The Army's trying to use advertising to change how the public perceives it when what it should be doing instead is trying to use it to get 9,000 recruits a year.

It really is sinpke!
I don’t think the Army stands a better chance of recruiting from the 90% than the 10%, if it is 10%; OFGEM have the penetration at 94%. Whichever, by no means all of those are will be suitable, through criminality, drug use, health issues. So the addressable market who don’t have smartphones could be less than 5%. So you ignore 90% of the market and target 5%. And recruit that 5% may fill gaps in the infantry, but it sure as hell isn’t going to fill gaps in the Signals.

The fact recruiting 9000 a year is darned difficult. The services have a unique recruiting challenge, in terms of volume, age spread and ability range. One marketing group channel is never going to be enough.

Segment the market. Use appropriate channels of each segment. Test and adjust.
 
Ah @Joe_Private still hiding behind silly little badges, you coward?
Oh, stop being a pathetic little drama queen. Someone disagreed with you, boo hoo.

As it happens, I merely disagreed with your assertion that there was only one possible conclusion...
Taking all the previous emotion and waffle out of that single point, surely the only conclusion can be utter incompetence at that point of the process?
... when there are others which have previously been discussed.
 
I thought you were after MILFS, not that I want to travel a well trodden route but your story does seem to change to suit the situation ^~

As I have said before, our advertising campaign is attracting more than sufficient numbers. We are not converting them, therefore there are issues.

Contrary to constant speculation on this site (may I add without data to support :) ), not only do we have headline and specific targeted marketing, we also have data for conversion and wastage at every stage of the pipeline.

The easy, and common approach (and the approach of most of the senior leadership/management) is to blame the computer system and the medical blockages.

My hypothesis, based on my knowledge of our historic demographic, is that we are attracting the wrong people because of assumptions that the population (GEN Z) is one size fits all and they are all digitally connected and behave the same.

Time will tell who is right, but the computer and medical issues are (supposedly) being sorted, so what will the next reason be if we can’t get our 70000 apps to convert into 9000 recruits?
I don’t think we are disagreeing; both of us are saying use appropriate channels to attract appropriate audiences. As you have rightly pointed out, you are targeting right across the age and educational spectrum.

Turning 70000 applications into 9000 recruits is still a marketing challenge. Keeping them engaged, informed, motivated etc as the go through the process requires a lot of effort to target them with appropriate content. The further down the funnel they go, the more personal the contact has to be.

I don’t believe you have the data, not in a properly useable form. Why; because the IT isn’t sorted and, if the IT isn’t sorted, the data can’t be sorted.

So are you retargeting applicants social media feeds or their browsing with specifically targeted content? If you’re not, then you’ll lose them (I still get very specific ADF ads popping up, three years after I went through the processes). I suspect the Army has spent millions on bespoke IT that can’t actually track the interactions in a cohesive way.

Sure, my target market for my primary business is MILFs. Actually it’s a very tightly defined audience in terms of lifestyle, education, disposable income etc. So our messaging is very specific. It’s also not my only business.
 
Last edited:
Oh, stop being a pathetic little drama queen. Someone disagreed with you, boo hoo.

As it happens, I merely disagreed with your assertion that there was only one possible conclusion...

... when there are others which have previously been discussed.
Your first comment is vapid , if you disagree say why don't hide behind pixels, youe second assertion is without substance watsoever.

So come on big boy, what do you disagree with, why and what is your alternative? Not hard is it?
 
Your first comment is vapid , if you disagree say why don't hide behind pixels, youe second assertion is without substance watsoever.

So come on big boy, what do you disagree with, why and what is your alternative? Not hard is it?
The alternatives have been discussed in the 90-odd pages of this thread. For more information please reread.
 
Several points; OFCOM put smartphone adoption in that age band at 94% so it’s probably less than 10%. . The Army needs to recruit across the age and

Secondly, everyone in full time education has an email address and access to a computer. There are computers in every school, college, job centre, library and recruiting centre.
So the soldiers that @CAARPS referred to lied. ... and that's the same "everyone in full time education" who can swim. I see..
I don’t think the Army stands a better chance of recruiting from the 90% than the 10%, if it is 10%; OFGEM have the penetration at 94%. Whichever, by no means all of those are will be suitable, through criminality, drug use, health issues. So the addressable market who don’t have smartphones could be less than 5%. So you ignore 90% of the market and target 5%.
So "criminality, drug use, health issues" mean those without smart phones can be written off and ignored. I see..
And recruit that 5% may fill gaps in the infantry, but it sure as hell isn’t going to fill gaps in the Signals
So they don't have smartphones because they're stupid. ... and uneducated is the same as too stupid to be educated. I see.
The services have a unique recruiting challenge, in terms of volume, age spread and ability range
Aaah. ... It's all because the services are 'unique' - no-one else needs a spread of age and ability ... and the reason we need to recruit the 'volume' has nothing to do with appalling retention and an unnecessarily high turnover. I see.
The fact recruiting 9000 a year is darned difficult. The services have a unique recruiting challenge, in terms of volume, age spread and ability range. One marketing group channel is never going to be enough.

Segment the market. Use appropriate channels of each segment. Test and adjust.
So use poster ads to appeal to those who don't have smartphones, assuming they're not too stupid, drug addled, unhealthy, or committed to crime.to read them ... and use those ads to tell those without smartphones that the Army needs the binge gamers, selfie addicts and phone zombies who have smartphones. I see.

I think I'm beginning to see where you're coming from, Bob.
 
So use poster ads to appeal to those who don't have smartphones, assuming they're not too stupid, drug addled, unhealthy, or committed to crime.to read them ... and use those ads to tell those without smartphones that the Army needs the binge gamers, selfie addicts and phone zombies who have smartphones. I see.
I’m not suggesting anyone is lying John. But smartphone penetration in the under 35s IS near universal. They are generation of selfie users, Netflix watchers and gamers. A near insignificant number of Gen Z aren’t computer literate users

The Army had been recruiting binge gamers for years; that’s what young people do. Here’s a thought; if the people the Army attracts aren’t avid internet consumers, why is the lack of decent wi-fi I’m barracks an issue.

A further thought; how many recruits turn up to Phase 1 without a smartphone and, of those who dont have a smartphone how many don’t have mobiles.

The only way to attract young people is to communicate with them using their preferred communication channels.

Sure, get what @CAARPS is saying about traditional audiences but you’ve still got to communciate with them.
 
Finally seen one of these social media ads in the wild and clicked through to the official Army page for comparison's sake.

Warry pictures that we've been told don't engage audiences: 8,883 likes within 17 hours of being posted.
Expensive, focus-grouped recruitment advert that's sponsored (i.e. the Army is paying for it to appear on people's social media whether they follow the Army's page or not): 8 likes.
 
I’m not suggesting anyone is lying John. But smartphone penetration in the under 35s IS near universal. They are generation of selfie users, Netflix watchers and gamers. A near insignificant number of Gen Z aren’t computer literate users

The Army had been recruiting binge gamers for years; that’s what young people do. Here’s a thought; if the people the Army attracts aren’t avid internet consumers, why is the lack of decent wi-fi I’m barracks an issue.

A further thought; how many recruits turn up to Phase 1 without a smartphone and, of those who dont have a smartphone how many don’t have mobiles.

The only way to attract young people is to communicate with them using their preferred communication channels.

Sure, get what @CAARPS is saying about traditional audiences but you’ve still got to communciate with them.
So perhaps we should just accept that we need to spend money on people to do the recruiting for certain target audiences. As ever, one size doesn’t fit all.
 
I think there is confusion between the method and the message, and confusion about what the latter should be. The emphasis, in my mind, should be on a career that's challenging, exciting, fun, dangerous, rewarding and quite well paid. Who, as a teenager, doesn't want to do exciting and dangerous stuff, and have money as well?

Tanks, guns, helicopters, parachuting, storming compounds - all good, exciting stuff. Having a 'me' moment to cry/pray/share emotions is just wet.
 
I’m not suggesting anyone is lying John. But smartphone penetration in the under 35s IS near universal. They are generation of selfie users, Netflix watchers and gamers. A near insignificant number of Gen Z aren’t computer literate users.
Well, Bob, someone has to be telling porkies! What you say and what @CAARPS says was reported from that estate simply aren't compatible, however atypical that sample is. 8 out of 85 "quality connections of MTA age" with e-mail addresses, with the majority of communication by text message, is a very, very long way from 'near universal', however you spin it.

According to your friends at OFCOM (probably not OFGEM!) in August last year 90% of households in the UK had internet at home - by broadband, dial-up, wi-fi or moble hot-spot. Things may have changed since I did maths at school, but AFAIK that still leaves 10% of the population who don't. That's confirmed by their Adults' Media Use and Attitudes Report, also August last year - while the average spend is 125 GBP a month, that's way out of reach for the poorest 10%.

.... and guess where most of the Army's recruits come from, even now ... yes ... nearly there ... yes, the poorest 10% of the population.

But let's ignore them, as the last three ad campaigns have.
The Army had been recruiting binge gamers for years; that’s what young people do. Here’s a thought; if the people the Army attracts aren’t avid internet consumers, why is the lack of decent wi-fi I’m barracks an issue.
Well, here's a thought, Bob. Do the poorest 10% of the population really have the money to spend the UK average of 125 GBP a month on binge gaming?

Why is the lack of decent wi-fi in bks an issue? Hard one there, Bob ... maybe because, like three decent meals a day instead of one at school plus whatever's available from the food bank, that's what soldiers get used to and learn to expect ... maybe because once you're earning a decent wage you should be able to spend it as you see fit and buy the things you couldn't before ... maybe, for some, it isn't such an issue as long as there are alternatives ... maybe because the Army's been recruiting too many binge gamers who like exercising their thumbs instead of their legs ...
A further thought; how many recruits turn up to Phase 1 without a smartphone and, of those who dont have a smartphone how many don’t have mobiles.
No idea, Bob. Maybe all that would show, if we knew, would be just how few of the poorest 10% of the population are turning up for Ph1 because they've been at best ignored by the Army and at worst alienated by it.

It's a bit like the non-swimming stat - very easy to imagine it proves one thing to support your prejudices and pre-conceptions when, if you look at it with an open mind and put a bit more thought into it, it proves something totally different.
The only way to attract young people is to communicate with them using their preferred communication channels.
Which, at least for those on the estate @CAARPS referred to as well as the poorest sector of the population (what you call the Army's "traditional audience") the Army has not just failed to do but, judging by its last three ad campaigns, failed to even try to do or care about.
Sure, get what @CAARPS is saying about traditional audiences but you’ve still got to communciate with them.
I'm not sure you do, Bob, as you evidently don't "get" what I'm saying.

The Army's last three ad campaigns targeted, in turn:
  1. Those who had a problem 'belonging' - making friends and fitting in. Those who had no such problem were told 'Don't Join the Army.'
  2. Women who couldn't make it in civilian life; gays who wanted the world and it's nephew to know all about their sex life; the unfit who couldn't motivate themselves without peer support; mature men who wanted a shoulder to cry on for no reason; BAME who wanted to be respected because they were BAME, not on their own merits; those who wanted time off to pray that they weren't allowed as civilians.
  3. Class clowns, Binge gamers, Me me millenialls, Snowflakes, Selfie addicts, and Phone zombies.
While I'm genuinely sure they all bring their own particular talents to the table, I'm equally sure of two things:
  1. There aren't enough of the above who are ready, willing and able to join the Army to fill the vacancies.
  2. I wouldn't want to command a unit where that was all I had.
 
I’m not suggesting anyone is lying John. But smartphone penetration in the under 35s IS near universal. They are generation of selfie users, Netflix watchers and gamers. A near insignificant number of Gen Z aren’t computer literate users

The Army had been recruiting binge gamers for years; that’s what young people do. Here’s a thought; if the people the Army attracts aren’t avid internet consumers, why is the lack of decent wi-fi I’m barracks an issue.

A further thought; how many recruits turn up to Phase 1 without a smartphone and, of those who dont have a smartphone how many don’t have mobiles.

The only way to attract young people is to communicate with them using their preferred communication channels.

Sure, get what @CAARPS is saying about traditional audiences but you’ve still got to communciate with them.
Without trying to bang a ‘class war’ drum, you sound exactly like the ‘middle class’ managers I bang my head against a brick wall with daily.

I said near the start of the thread, smart phone ownership and data affordability are not the same thing. Gen Z is not a one size fits all and I agree whole heartedly it’s all about segmentation and targeting.

Here’s a thought. It is quite obvious that those that currently get through the process are internet connected, they have to be. So it stands to reason that those people will demand internet connection. But we obviously aren’t recruiting nearly enough of them annually.

So moving on to the demographic that is so small and insignificant, which in any case is filled with criminals, druggies and thickos (how very middle class condescending by the way ^~ ). Except it also contains significant numbers of kids who just want a chance to better themselves, who would grasp the opportunity if only they were told they could and given the means to do so.

So, noting damned lies and statistics (and the fact, that ironically, most data is collected online :) ):

2344E429-6467-4AEC-8CC2-8231AD59BEF4.jpeg


25% of adults sit in DE categories, yet nearly 40% of them are non internet users! Even taking out the older users, that’s not an insignificant number of our MTA that are not using the platform required to join the army. OFCOM 2017

Middle Class solutions to a Working Class problem.

If only some of those managers and marketers, left their internet terminals behind in their plush offices and “Let me take them by the hand and walk them through the streets of London, I’ll show them something that would make them change their minds” :)
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top