It's not about attracting everyone, it's about attracting the right one
A friend sent me a link to a piece in Sunday's National Post entitled "Military recruits drawn to steady jobs, not combat." It drew some interesting conclusions about advertising for the CF:
I've had the opportunity to meet some of the people who handle advertising for the CF, and I trust they're smart enough to take this report with a frigate-sized grain of salt.
Why?
Well, first of all, the focus groups were conducted in Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, and Moncton. While all are undoubtedly big sources of recruits for the CF, I'd hazard a wild-assed guess that Moncton's recruiting rate per capita is likely five times that of the bigger population centres. I would have liked to see focus groups that mirrored where the CF's labour pool actually comes from: small town and rural Canada.
Secondly, "Each of the eight focus groups had seven to eight participants." That's a maximum sample size of 64 souls, out of a population of 30-some-odd million. 'Nuff said.
But most importantly, this report should be viewed in the context of who the CF is looking to recruit. It's not the "average Canadian," it's not the twenty-something who wants a safe lifetime sinecure in a cushy union or academic job, and it's not anyone with a me-first mentality. We've had quite enough of the man in the green flannel suit, thank you very much (and if you've never read the linked essay, I heartily recommend it).
A career in the military is, at its essence, a contract of unlimited liability. There's no way around that. Those who can't bear that thought have no business putting on a uniform.
Trying to sell young Canadians on the idea of a military whose only distinguishing feature from the civilian world is wearing the same outfit to work every day is dishonest advertising.
What I find most interesting in the article is one line that neither the journalist nor the headline writer seem to have picked up upon:
The CF's biggest recruiting challenge right now isn't infanteers. There are plenty of young men and women joining precisely for the lifestyle shown in the 'Fight with the Canadian Forces' ads derided in the article. The recruiting challenge is in the technical trades.
If this research can give some insight into the mindset of those interested in becoming naval electronics technicians, then it might have some lessons to teach in terms of targeted, specific tag-lines and themes for that particular group of potential recruits. Stuff for the trade magazines at their schools, or for recruiters visiting their classrooms and campuses to remember.
But wider lessons for CF recruiting as a whole? I don't think so.
It's all about the career -- not the combat.
That's the message the Canadian Forces should pitch to young recruits, according to recently released polling research on potential military advertising campaigns.
The Department of National Defence commissioned polling firm Phoenix Strategic Perspectives to test potential ad concepts among focus groups of Canadians aged 18 to 34 who are involved or interested in skilled trades.
The clear favourite was a TV ad with the tagline, "This is my job." The ad was preferred by a majority of participants in six out of eight focus groups, and in some cases was the unanimous winner. The main reasons? The ad emphasized the career prospects of joining the military, as opposed to the prospect of armed conflict. The ad also highlighted the opportunities for paid education and training and referred to a three-year minimum commitment required of recruits.
Coming in a distant second was an ad with the tagline, "Wanted: Fighters of all kinds," while an ad called "Now hiring" came in third.
"The results of this research provide clear direction to DND in terms of advertising [and] promoting the benefits of a career with the Canadian Forces. In every group, the ‘career/job' theme resonated much more with participants than the ‘combat/fight' theme," Phoenix states in a recently released report on its research.
"Put succinctly, to the extent that participants are willing to consider joining the CF, they are interested in joining as skilled technical personnel, and not as soldiers or potential combatants. This is an important consideration to keep in mind for all related marketing and communications activities."
I've had the opportunity to meet some of the people who handle advertising for the CF, and I trust they're smart enough to take this report with a frigate-sized grain of salt.
Why?
Well, first of all, the focus groups were conducted in Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, and Moncton. While all are undoubtedly big sources of recruits for the CF, I'd hazard a wild-assed guess that Moncton's recruiting rate per capita is likely five times that of the bigger population centres. I would have liked to see focus groups that mirrored where the CF's labour pool actually comes from: small town and rural Canada.
Secondly, "Each of the eight focus groups had seven to eight participants." That's a maximum sample size of 64 souls, out of a population of 30-some-odd million. 'Nuff said.
But most importantly, this report should be viewed in the context of who the CF is looking to recruit. It's not the "average Canadian," it's not the twenty-something who wants a safe lifetime sinecure in a cushy union or academic job, and it's not anyone with a me-first mentality. We've had quite enough of the man in the green flannel suit, thank you very much (and if you've never read the linked essay, I heartily recommend it).
A career in the military is, at its essence, a contract of unlimited liability. There's no way around that. Those who can't bear that thought have no business putting on a uniform.
Trying to sell young Canadians on the idea of a military whose only distinguishing feature from the civilian world is wearing the same outfit to work every day is dishonest advertising.
What I find most interesting in the article is one line that neither the journalist nor the headline writer seem to have picked up upon:
The Department of National Defence commissioned polling firm Phoenix Strategic Perspectives to test potential ad concepts among focus groups of Canadians aged 18 to 34 who are involved or interested in skilled trades.
The CF's biggest recruiting challenge right now isn't infanteers. There are plenty of young men and women joining precisely for the lifestyle shown in the 'Fight with the Canadian Forces' ads derided in the article. The recruiting challenge is in the technical trades.
If this research can give some insight into the mindset of those interested in becoming naval electronics technicians, then it might have some lessons to teach in terms of targeted, specific tag-lines and themes for that particular group of potential recruits. Stuff for the trade magazines at their schools, or for recruiters visiting their classrooms and campuses to remember.
But wider lessons for CF recruiting as a whole? I don't think so.
posted by Babbling Brooks at 10:18 a.m.
4 Comments:
Recruiting technicians might be accomplished by attracting them to the prospect of supporting the combat mission. I.e., it's one fight, one team, and the techies are an essential part of the team. The jet jocks don't get to drop any ordnance on anyone without air frame techs, weapons techs, etc. RCEME keep the tankies going. Etc. The people with these skills may simply not see how they are combat support-related. Once they find out, they may realize there's more than one way to help bitch-slap the Taliban.
But we're a society without tigers. I love Canada with all my heart, but where on the list of priorities does defence of the nation lie for Canadians 18-34? (Note: A group I'm a member of.)
With the notable exception of my friends who are in the Forces, people I know are only thinking about themselves. And that's in Calgary.
So while I think you're bang-on with your criticism of the microscopic size of the sample, the urban bias, and the cultural differences that those cities share that make them different from much of Canada, I think the problem is real and not just a result of ineffective information-gathering.
Kirstin: Wow. How well put.
Mark
Ottawa
Geek point here: "Secondly, "Each of the eight focus groups had seven to eight participants." That's a maximum sample size of 64 souls, out of a population of 30-some-odd million. 'Nuff said."
Remember they're sampling not the full population but the 18-34 yrs old sub-group. So, instead of the represented mathematical universe being 30 million plus, it's -I'm guessing here- say, approx. 5 million in the 18-34 sub-group
I'm no statistics expert but I used to have a job involving insurance auditing using random samples. The samples were selected by vetted mathematical algorithms used in computer programs to randomly select the sample group from relational data bases.
One thing I learned is that if the random sample group is selected mathematically correctly, a surprisingly small number can be a statistically valid representative set. And the larger the universe, i.e. 5 mil or so, the smaller the sample number needed to accurately represent the universe, within a predictable margin of error.
Sampling is a pretty fascinating field of study. While results can be stacked (as in push-polling) in accordance with the wishes of whoever's paying for it, it can also yield accurate representative results with surprisingly low numbers. As unlikely as it may sound, sixty four truly randomly selected folks may accurately reflect 5 mil folks.
Now that's just a geek point. My experience with career people - personal and subjective - in my 4 yr enlistment in the USAF was that most career people had a psychological mindset to function well in a military hierarchy structure AND were very patriotic as well.
Post a Comment
<< Home