Frustrating recruiting by the U.S. military is lack of audience: Young people en masse, for the reasons in exhibit "I" and so forth, literally and figuratively hit the mute button or change channels.
Simply put, advertising as a primary tool for military recruiting is the wrong tool.
● And yet, noted in Storyboard 58, Congress ordered a group of admen to do a "Report" on how to get better military recruiting results. In calling for more ads, the admen consultants cited, for instance, that the same basic ads to recruit 18-year-olds fresh out of high school [were being used to recruit] 24-year-olds with years of work experience."
● Regardless of whether the ad guys really believed that fine-tuning an ad for 18-year-olds would bring a stampede of high-decile 18-year-old applicants, soon after the study a four-year $400-million ad account was awarded; and, indeed, for the next four years more-targeted ads were rampant.
● But at the end of those four years the military recruiting multiple still hovered at 1.0, typically no higher than 1.25 for one military branch or 0.9 for another. Thus a national defense question: Should a minimum MRM (see "Where the bar should be placed," in exhibit "I") of 2.0, 3.0 or higher be legislated? Despite the fact that difficulties in the civilian job market should reshape military recruiting results, the travesty of a low military recruiting bar remains, and the potential of an MRM bonanza is wasted. Hint: Both the MRM of 1.0 and 1.25 are far lower than what the U.S. could (and should) produce, both being relatively substandard, neither being something to celebrate.
In any event, another bad four years for MRM spelled another four years lost in spiking GPAs, SATs, AP course achievement, military-test scores, on and on. As should be self-evident since 1975, recruiting by ads is problematic , and yet reinstatement of the draft is not the answer. A third choice, already offered to the Pentagon, is the GMnavy.go model.