(Via Milinet)
Wall Street Journal
July 6, 2000
New Report Says Military's Advertising Is Ineffective, Reaches
Wrong Audience
By Greg Jaffe, Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal
The military's recruiting ads aren't all they could be. In fact,
they
aren't even close, according to a new report that is causing the
armed services to rethink how they spend their $265 million
annual
advertising budget.
As one its key recommendations, the report urges the services to
de-emphasize dangling college cash -- a major recruiting pitch
for the
past two decades -- and instead work harder on developing
distinct
brand identities, as exemplified by the current crop of Marine
Corps
ads.
The biggest challenge, according to the report, is reaching a
generation whose parents came of age after the draft ended and
whose
connection with the military is scant to none. "The disconnect
between many teens and the military is incredible," says Bryan
Flood,
a political-advertising consultant and one of five researchers
on the
report. "In focus groups with kids, they were asking questions
like,
'Can I eat chicken in the military? Can I drive a car? Can I go
home?'. . . They need to give young people a clear sense of who
they
are and what they have to offer."
Commissioned by Defense Secretary William Cohen and set to be
released to Congress this week, the report was prepared by a
bipartisan team of consultants from two advertising agencies,
Sawyer,
Miller & Co. and Murphy, Pintak, Gautier Hudome, both based in
Washington, D.C. It couldn't come at a better time. The Navy and
the
Air Force are now seeking bids for their advertising contracts,
together valued at about $650 million over the next five years.
The
Army, which last week selected Leo Burnett Worldwide Inc. to
develop
its new campaign, is working on a new strategy that will be
unveiled
this winter.
Typical of recent Army ads is one featuring a picture of a giant
calculator. Under the picture, the text says: "Learn that a
reward
means more when you earn it. Now earn up to $50,000 for
college." The
report's authors argue that that focus belittles the training
the
military itself provides, while boosting the profile of the
competition: community colleges and universities.
Moreover, in targeting kids who need money for college, the
services
are chasing a rapidly shrinking market. College loans and grants
have
become increasingly available in recent years.
The report's recommendation that the services concentrate on
developing "brand identities" is aimed at giving potential
recruits,
parents and teachers a clearer sense of what each of the
services
does and how they do it. It also maintains the services must
start
early, targeting kids as young as 12 years old.
The report recommends that some ads stress patriotism while
others
emphasize the individual benefits of discipline and pride.
Whatever
they do, the ads must "give young people a clear definition of
the
U.S. military's post-Cold War mission," the report states.
As an example of what works, the authors cite recent ads touting
the
Marines as an elite group of warriors and characterizing service
in
the corps as a life-transforming experience. In one magazine ad,
a
sweating Marine is pushing to finish a grueling run. The caption
beneath reads, "Running won't kill you. You'll pass out first."
In
larger print, the ad goes on to promise: "The Change Is
Forever."
The approach appears to be paying off. The Marines are the only
one
of the four services to meet their recruiting and retention
goals for
the past five years. They spent only about $1,080 last year on
advertising and enlistment bonuses to land each of their
recruits,
compared with the Army's $3,200.
The report also takes the services to task for wasting cash by
advertising almost exclusively on national TV, particularly on
televised sporting events. The majority of that viewing audience
is
too old to enlist, the report notes. It says the services can
get a
lot more bang
for the buck using the Internet as well as far-less expensive
cable
and regional TV advertising.
Currently, the services use the same basic ads to recruit
18-year-olds fresh out of high school and 24-year-olds with
years of
work experience. A Hispanic youth from Texas and a white male
from
the South also see the same ads. The result, the report
concludes, is
that some groups -- like Hispanics, who make up 14% of the
country's
teen population but only 8% of the military -- aren't being
reached.
Even with sharply targeted advertising, changing young people's
attitudes toward the military could be a very slow process. The
report's authors got a personal taste of that when they asked
teens
in focus groups what movie had most formed their view of the
military.
While the uplifting World War II epic "Saving Private Ryan" was
being
released on video at just about that time, very few of the teens
mentioned it. The most popular answer was "Full Metal Jacket,"
Stanley Kubrick's dark portrait of the Vietnam-era military
released
more than a decade earlier. That movie, with its abusive drill
sergeants, boot-camp suicides and relentless violence, seemed to
confirm the teens' worst impressions of military life.
"In every briefing we did at the Pentagon, we mentioned the
popularity of 'Full Metal Jacket,'" Mr. Flood says. "It
exemplifies
what the problem is for the military and it shows there are not
going
to be any quick fixes."
Reply
Reply All
Forward
|
