[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Mark R. Lewis
Date: 29 Jan 2001
Time: 10:53:19
Before we are too quick to be critical of the "Army of One" ad campaign, it might be smart to consider two points. The first is that while you may not agree with it, you cannot assume it is the product of morons. Ad Execs may not know the Army like we do, but they know their job, their target audience, and the desired end-state. They certainly know money, and they get big bonuses for success. It's capitalism - pure Darwinism, baby - and these guys are big fish for a reason. For them, success equals meeting the recruiting goals of the Army, both quality and quantity.
The second is that the nation is in a serious predicament - requiring more quality people than it is willing to produce. There are enough good young people out there - it's unlikely that thousands of years of human history has sent forth warriors and patriots right up until this very moment and now the well is dry - but they are not responding to what you or I consider traditional recruiting messages.
So when we look critically at "Army of One," we've got to be careful to distinguish between what we WISH would attract enough quality recruits with what those Ad Execs KNOW will attract enough quality recruits.
Think it's flashy or irritating? Maybe so, but if you're a Boomer or a Xer, it doesn't matter. Take a moment to remember that what is an effective recruiting tool for us is unimportant. Worried about the lack of a teamwork-oriented theme? Me too. It's hidden, but I found it: Teamwork is a key component to Army's victories and it is a strong element in the "Army of One" message. "An Army of One" embodies the strength and unity of the U.S. Army." That's a powerful message, but it's still early in the effort, and if we can't see it yet, it may be because it's not meant for our eyes.
Advertising campaign aside, the Army's real task is to improve the "product" to attract and retain good soldiers. But meanwhile, we have a short-term problem to confront.
Consider what's at stake: the Army achieved it's recruiting goals for FY 2000, and that's an improvement over last year, when it fell short by 6,500. But look at some of the reasons behind this increase.
The Army changed its character standards. By mid-2000 the number of "character waivers" granted to recruits with felony records had already hit more than twice the amount in granted in all of 1998. 1
The Army changed its education standards. In 1997, the Army doubled the number of GED holders it would accept. 2 In February of 2000, in an experimental program, the Army removed the GED prerequisite entirely for a select group of recruits. 3
The Army changed its basic training standards. Over the last several years, the Army has "reviewed" the standards each recruit must meet in an effort to increase graduation rates, and as a result, the failure rate dropped from 23% in December 1998, to an expected 10% by the end of 2000. 4
So here is the problem: a demand for manpower tied to a pool of potential recruits that does not produce the quality people the Army needs even today. To meet that demand, the Army has had to change (read: lower) its standards to increase output. Looking at a clear growth trend, one has to be concerned that these policies will expand out of sheer necessity tomorrow.
Therefore, the Army must either reduce its demand (and that's a non-starter, as they are asking to expand the force by as much as 60,000) or it must take the steps necessary to man its ranks in the short term.
Simultaneously, it must also make itself attractive to a larger group of high quality young Americans. Part of that is certainly linked to externally controlled issues like missions, pay and base housing. But, the real heart of the recruiting challenge has to do with a transformation of the culture so that it represents a worthy service and a quality lifestyle, and then communicate that transformation. In the long run, that's what it needs to do to first recruit and then retain the best people available. The message "An Army of One... recognizes the...unique talents that soldiers possess. At the same time, it means the Army is one force with one mission and one set of values" seems a pretty good start.
But the time is now, and the bottom line is - if we are going to critique the "Army of One" message, we've got to offer something else that will be effective in delivering the numbers and quality required, in the short term. To turn it off before the results are in or something better is developed is dangerously shortsighted.
That said, somebody still needs to hand that good Corporal a rifle. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 Moniz, Dave. "Army and Navy granting more felony waivers Exceptions made to help boost number of recruits." USA Today, 03 July 2000, 7A. 2 "Army Recruiting Program Press Briefing." In U.S. Army News Release [online]. 04 Mar 1997 [cited 082130 Dec 2000]. Available from: http://www.dtic.mil/armylink/news/Mar1997/r19970307vollrath.html. 3 Ruivivar, Brooke. "Army Announces Programs to Boost Recruiting ." In ArmyLINK News [online]. 03 Feb 2000 [cited 082130 Dec 2000]. Available from: http://www.dtic.mil/armylink/news/Feb2000/a20000207gedmain.html. 4 Moniz, Dave. "This Isn't Your Father's Boot Camp Anymore." USA Today, 19 Jul 2000, A1.