New Army Commercial

scoutpilot said:
Oh, of course. I forgot this is Service Academy to Get You Into Med School Forums. No doubt a hit with our burgeoning demographic.
Click to expand...
I hate to sound like an AMEDD traitor, but I repeatedly tell cadets ROTC's/USMA's purpose isn't to make you a medical officer. Outside of dieticians and nurses (the only medical providers with an undergraduate degree), the goal of graduate medical education isn't guaranteed.

Special branches (AMEDD, JAG, Chaplain) shouldn't be prominent in any joint advertisement. It's paramount to false advertising.

"I'm joining ROTC/USMA to become a medical officer."

4 years later...

Ed delay denied...congrats on Chemical Corps.


That being said, I don't take issue with combat support and combat service support Soldiers being prominent in the advertisement. I remember seeing a study implying it takes seven to nine support Soldiers to feed, clothed, and maintain a war fighter (the stat makes sense to me). Basically, the Army needs 10 POGs for every door kicker. Why wouldn't that mechanic be featured in the ad?
 
Gentlemen, we will have to agree to disagree.

Simply put, these commercials aren't for you... mirror-marketing is the classic mistake arm-chair marketers make. It's clear that the Army has deliberately chosen not to follow a "me too" advertising strategy (and as you say, for the past 20 years that's been true). Instead they've focused on aspirational messaging they feel yields the results they are after... or again they wouldn't have pursued it for as long as they have. And until such time as you can no longer specify your MOS/training path in an enlistment contract, then they certainly aren't false advertising.

Could it be that they feel they feel the talent pipeline for combat troops is fairly consistent, and their need for attracting quality talent in the other areas is greater? Given the competition out of ROTC for the combat branches and nature of the force reductions, one could see how this would plausible.
 
We weren't giving $40,000 signing bonuses in 2007 because we were short on doctors.

Army marketing has been a joke for years. The Army of One days were particularly "aspirational."
 
scoutpilot said:
We weren't giving $40,000 signing bonuses in 2007 because we were short on doctors.

Army marketing has been a joke for years. The Army of One days were particularly "aspirational."
Click to expand...
That was a very short lived advertising campaign. It was pretty bad. Should have stuck with "Be all you can be"
 
I think this thread is interesting and all the comments valuable, because by commenting on recruiting commercials it highlights the multiple roles the Army is charged with and no one commercial can highlight them all. Also may be part of the country's cyclical post-war re-evaluation of the military. All agree numbers seem to be 10-1 to support combat arms. But unlike the Corps (and I am biased here) which embraces its role with combat violence the Army needs to reach a broad spectrum to support its multiple roles. Every member of the Corps is first and foremost an infantryman, so sword carrying marines slaying dragons, or doing pre-ninja warrior physical tests play well in their commercials. I will say I always thought the Army “we do more before 9:00 a.m.” was pretty good commercial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top