.
How can the military adjust to keep pace in a changing world? Serving military officers answer here in a new series of features in collaboration with Military Leadership Circle (MLC).
For several years—if not decades—both military leaders and Congressmen (among others) have publicly expressed concerns about the widening gap between the military and the American public. Rates of enlistment and participation in the force at war over the last seventeen years remain limited to a tiny percentage of the country’s overall population, they point out, and all manner of veterans’ struggles are frequently attributed (at least in part) to broader society’s inability to understand the military experience and its lasting implications. The Department of Defense and its various components, in fact, have often attempted to address this issue by directing efforts along the lines of the several “P's” of marketing strategies. Working on some of these “P’s”—aspects of marketing like promotion, placement, and packaging—can indeed help. But ultimately, this particular issue is fundamentally about the military as a “product”. That is, the military product has changed, and so the American people are not “buying it” as they once did. A look at the state of several of the marketing “P’s”, and recent efforts to address them, illustrates just how much the focus needs to be on the “product”.
Promotion. The country has been at war for 17 years. During this time, Coca-Cola has run six different major ad campaigns, while the overarching military message has essentially remained the same—essentially, "by, with, and through our partners in country x, we are winning". The names of the enemy have changed, and Secretaries of Defense have occasionally changed some official wording, but that core message has remained largely unaltered. Even such watershed events as the bin Laden raid (during Coke's "Open Happiness" era, seven years ago) have come and gone with little coordinated or concerted alteration in how the military promotes itself. Perhaps a new message is in order.
Placement. For the past two years, the Army has hosted "Meet Your Army" events in major media markets. This is an attempt to send Army leaders to cities with little or no Army presence, and "excite and inspire" the citizens who respect the military but ultimately know little about it. Quantitative data for "excitement" and "inspiration" are not available, but Army bands playing John Phillip Sousa marches are clearly not getting the job done, as the Army still struggles to make its enlistment quota. Is there a better placement for the military’s message?
Packaging. Recently, Army leadership began testing the use of an alternative uniform, modeled on the one GI's wore during the Second World War. (The Air Force has also toyed with retro uniforms in recent years). This tactic is similar to the nostalgia appeal soda companies, and other brands, periodically go for when they roll out retro cans or labels. The pride that the Greatest Generation felt, and that is cited in modern day press releases, however, may have had more to do with the fact that they had just defeated the Nazis than the color of their mismatched dress uniforms. It will take more than a change of clothes to bridge the civilian-military divide.
Product. As Samuel Huntington put it, a military in a democratic society needs to reflect the people it serves. In the wake of the difficult Vietnam era, the United States radically changed the way military enlistment works. The draft, or compulsory military service, was effectively ended, and the military ranks began to resemble more of a warrior caste than a force reflecting the composition of the population. The military ceased to "fight until it’s over, over there"; in fact, the nation writ large no longer fights at all. There are indeed benefits to having an all-volunteer force, but there are also costs. Ultimately, only a return to conscription will solve the "military-civilian divide". Reverting back to the original “product”—a force constituted in some proportion of conscripts—will close the societal gap, bringing the nation a sense of nostalgia, deepening the connection between force and populace in a way no packaging ever could, and putting increased pressure on the government to avoid prolonged conflict overseas.
About the author: JB Brindle is a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army and a member of the Military Leadership Circle. The views expressed here are the author’s own and do not represent the positions of the Department of Defense, United States Army, or any government agency. More information on the Military Leadership Circle can be found at https://militaryleadershipcircle.com.
The views presented in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of any other organization.
a global affairs media network
Changing the Military: To Market Better, Change the Product
August 15, 2018
How can the military adjust to keep pace in a changing world? Serving military officers answer here in a new series of features in collaboration with Military Leadership Circle (MLC).
For several years—if not decades—both military leaders and Congressmen (among others) have publicly expressed concerns about the widening gap between the military and the American public. Rates of enlistment and participation in the force at war over the last seventeen years remain limited to a tiny percentage of the country’s overall population, they point out, and all manner of veterans’ struggles are frequently attributed (at least in part) to broader society’s inability to understand the military experience and its lasting implications. The Department of Defense and its various components, in fact, have often attempted to address this issue by directing efforts along the lines of the several “P's” of marketing strategies. Working on some of these “P’s”—aspects of marketing like promotion, placement, and packaging—can indeed help. But ultimately, this particular issue is fundamentally about the military as a “product”. That is, the military product has changed, and so the American people are not “buying it” as they once did. A look at the state of several of the marketing “P’s”, and recent efforts to address them, illustrates just how much the focus needs to be on the “product”.
Promotion. The country has been at war for 17 years. During this time, Coca-Cola has run six different major ad campaigns, while the overarching military message has essentially remained the same—essentially, "by, with, and through our partners in country x, we are winning". The names of the enemy have changed, and Secretaries of Defense have occasionally changed some official wording, but that core message has remained largely unaltered. Even such watershed events as the bin Laden raid (during Coke's "Open Happiness" era, seven years ago) have come and gone with little coordinated or concerted alteration in how the military promotes itself. Perhaps a new message is in order.
Placement. For the past two years, the Army has hosted "Meet Your Army" events in major media markets. This is an attempt to send Army leaders to cities with little or no Army presence, and "excite and inspire" the citizens who respect the military but ultimately know little about it. Quantitative data for "excitement" and "inspiration" are not available, but Army bands playing John Phillip Sousa marches are clearly not getting the job done, as the Army still struggles to make its enlistment quota. Is there a better placement for the military’s message?
Packaging. Recently, Army leadership began testing the use of an alternative uniform, modeled on the one GI's wore during the Second World War. (The Air Force has also toyed with retro uniforms in recent years). This tactic is similar to the nostalgia appeal soda companies, and other brands, periodically go for when they roll out retro cans or labels. The pride that the Greatest Generation felt, and that is cited in modern day press releases, however, may have had more to do with the fact that they had just defeated the Nazis than the color of their mismatched dress uniforms. It will take more than a change of clothes to bridge the civilian-military divide.
Product. As Samuel Huntington put it, a military in a democratic society needs to reflect the people it serves. In the wake of the difficult Vietnam era, the United States radically changed the way military enlistment works. The draft, or compulsory military service, was effectively ended, and the military ranks began to resemble more of a warrior caste than a force reflecting the composition of the population. The military ceased to "fight until it’s over, over there"; in fact, the nation writ large no longer fights at all. There are indeed benefits to having an all-volunteer force, but there are also costs. Ultimately, only a return to conscription will solve the "military-civilian divide". Reverting back to the original “product”—a force constituted in some proportion of conscripts—will close the societal gap, bringing the nation a sense of nostalgia, deepening the connection between force and populace in a way no packaging ever could, and putting increased pressure on the government to avoid prolonged conflict overseas.
About the author: JB Brindle is a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army and a member of the Military Leadership Circle. The views expressed here are the author’s own and do not represent the positions of the Department of Defense, United States Army, or any government agency. More information on the Military Leadership Circle can be found at https://militaryleadershipcircle.com.
The views presented in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of any other organization.
