The Army of One

From Uncle Sam’s posters to TV commercial taglines proclaiming “Be All that You Can Be” or “The Few, the Proud, the Marines,” the historical messages used by the military to recruit have been ones of empowerment, elitism, and responsibility. Targeting the masculine audience, these commercials portrayed actors slaying dragons and conquering mountains. The newest ad campaign, however, has wandered away from the hyper-masculine proving ground and into middle America’s kitchens. Depicting father-son moments and “mom-I-want-to-talk-to-you-about-my-future” conversations, the campaign focuses not on what new recruits can do for their country but what their country can do for potential recruits.

The recruitment stance switch from patriotism, heroism, and duty to careerism marks a distinct departure in the traditional marketing techniques of the armed services, particularly in a wartime environment where self-sacrifice has typically been emphasized. Are these new marketing techniques simply aimed at increasing recruitment in a dwindling market or do they reflect a fundamental switch in the military’s recruitment paradigm?

If these efforts are indeed aimed at increasing enrollment by targeting an untapped market, they are not doing so through an emotional appeal. The new campaign represents a cost-benefit type of analysis in which the largest cost is overlooked completely. Rather than present the drive to push one’s limits in an inherently dangerous environment, these commercials focus on life after the military. The military isn’t showing the flames and the swords anymore, they are showing parental approval and college tuition.

Similar to the evolution of anti-drug and anti-smoking campaigns, which now appeal to parents as the most likely combatants of teenage substance abuse, the military seeks parents’ involvement in the decision-making process. Both campaigns are seemingly out to “educate” parents on the ways to parent. In these commercials, the decision to join the army signifies an opportunity to help parents raise strong, independent children who are also good citizens with career and college options. If, in fact, the army has started to target middle-income parents, then perhaps they, not their children, are the ones in need of a hard sell in the new target market. Having lived to hear their lottery number chosen, it is easy to believe that many of these parents would not endorse a military career in the present environment without the presentation of a compelling case. These commercials along with the Web site serve to allay parent’s fears by humanizing soldiers, solely presenting the benefits, and selling parental involvement as “good” parenting.

Whether this campaign will meet its objective remains to be seen. However, the news media and images of war torn Iraq are powerful forces working against the message this advertising campaign is attempting to communicate. But marketing is marketing, whether you are attempting to sell shampoo, airline travel, or career options. It is as simple as addressing the needs of a market by providing a differentiable product that meets those needs in an efficient and cost effective manner. Unfortunately in this case, there are numerous alternatives that aren’t as costly and just as effective, which reduces the value proposition of this option. When you remove the emotional component of a consumer’s buying decision, all that remains is the functionality of the option. It either saves you money or it makes you money. So, in the end by attempting to rationalize this decision, the military may have sacrificed the emotional appeal it once had, which motivated men and women to enlist despite a risky value proposition, in order to make the decision seem common, a strategy that forces the military to compete head-to-head in a marketplace, where they are no longer the market leader.