Army Marketing Shift: Snafu or Effective Exercise - Case Study Example

Army Marketing Shift: Snafu or Effective Exercise? Executive Summary This paper analyzes the shift in the marketing strategy of the United s Army, which changed its slogan from “Army of One” to “Army Strong” in November 2006 after failing to meet its recruitment target in 2005. Using the SWOT-PESTEL situational analysis model, an assessment of the U.S. Army’s marketing strategy is conducted. The discussion established the bases for an objective study of the previous campaign and why it was not effective, and the assessment as to whether the new campaign would be more effective. The results show that the new campaign sidesteps the key issues and the paper concludes by recommending a set of powerful and high-impact arguments that are more in accordance with our nation’s founding spirit. Introduction Snafu stands for “Situation Normal All Fouled Up” and refers to an otherwise normal event that turns into a disaster. This paper analyzes the shift in late 2006 of the U.S. Army’s marketing slogan from “An Army of One” to “Army Strong”. Marketing slogans are used in advertising as a very good way to deliver an intense and strong message to the customer so that s/he decides to read the rest of the ad. Slogans also help in mind recall by instilling an image that sticks. The U.S. Army has had a long string of successful and effective slogans since it became an all-volunteer force in the early 1970s: “Today’s Army wants to join you” (1971-73), “Join the people who’ve joined the Army” (1973-79), “This is the Army” (1979-1981), “Be all you can be” (1981-2001), and “An Army of One” (2001-2006). The new slogan that would be tried out in the next two years with an optional extension for another three years actually has two related tag lines” “There’s strong, then there’s Army strong” and “It’s a strength like none other”. The main reason cited by the Army for the marketing shift was its failure to meet its recruitment target in 2005, a trend that had already been somewhat predicted by declining recruitment figures since 2003. Essentially, while Army recruitment is similar to any normal company that wants to hire people to work for it, its critics cite one major difference: if you work for the Army, you would have to be ready to risk your life for your employer. It can be argued that the Army is not much different from companies that hire people for dangerous work in underground mines, offshore oil rigs, or outer space, so why are people not willing to work for it? Given the situation prevailing in the U.S., was the shift in marketing the best move, was it a move in the right direction, and would it address the probable reasons for not meeting the Army’s recruitment objectives? The best way to answer these questions is to do a situational analysis that would enhance our understanding of the U.S. Army as an organization, its roles and functions, and the target market of its recruitment activity. Strategic Analysis of the U.S. Army Ironically, the word “strategy” comes from the Greek word strategos meaning “art of the general” and implies its initial application in warfare (Watson, 1993, p. 26). It is therefore easy to make the ‘wrong’ assumption that Army executives are proficient in strategically planning not only how to win battles and the war, but also how to get people to work for it. However, as the experiences at Vietnam and now Iraq tend to show, crafting and executing strategy are not as simple as they seem. The reasons are twofold. First, strategic planning and execution are tough, complex exercises (Mintzberg, 1994; Bossidy and Charan, 2002; Kaplan, 2002). Second, strategic marketing has likewise gotten more difficult in this day and age, more so when the strategic objective is related to marketing (Levitt, 1960) and finding human resources (Herman and Gioia, 2003). These two major factors combined lead to difficulties in predicting and planning for the behavior of customers (Schiffman and Kanuk, 2004; Andrews, 1987). Thompson and Strickland (2001) links crafting a strategic marketing plan for an organization with its over-all game plan to make out a market position, conduct its operations, attract and please customers, compete successfully, and achieve organizational objectives. This definition applies to business organizations aimed at generating profits, but it also applies to the U.S. Army and other non-profit organizations. The Army, as will be seen in the analysis below, have several customers they need to satisfy and whom their marketing campaigns should attract and move to action. The Army also competes in the recruitment process with the other armed services (Air Force, Navy, Marines, etc.). Putting together the academic sources cited above, we can define strategic analysis, also known as strategic choice or strategy development, as the process where corporations put content into their strategy. The main output of strategic analysis is determining what sort of organization to be, in what business and markets to compete, and how to position the organization in its environment so it can compete successfully. Making a strategic analysis involves a review and evaluation of the effectiveness of core organization-wide processes from the perspective of top-level management, and plays an important role in providing the needed feedback that helps management to re-focus the firm (Neely, 1998). Applied to the U.S. Army’s case, the strategic analysis serves an educational purpose and offers a chance to review facts about its strategies and operations that reflect the quality of its management (officers), employees (soldiers and recruits), and shareholders (the American nation and government). There are different strategic analysis models, which are frameworks to analyze the organizational environments in the past, present, and future, but the focus of this paper is the SWOT-PESTEL analysis (Andrews, 1987; Chandler, 1962; Steiner, 1979) and not the other well-known models such as the Ansoff Matrix (Ansoff, 1965), Porter’s Value Chain, Five Forces model, and Generic Strategies (Porter, 1980, 1985, and 1990), Strategic Mapping (Miles and Snow, 1978), and the Boston Consulting Group (or BCG) Matrix (Henderson, 1976). The SWOT-PESTEL Analysis, reflecting the acronym of the factors used for the study, looks at the organization’s internal (Strengths and Weaknesses) and external (Opportunities and Threats) environments. PESTEL stands for six environmental factors that affect the organization: Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Environmental, and Legal. The analysis is conducted by looking at the U.S. Army as an organization and how it is situated in its internal and external environments, limiting the scope of the study to the Army’s recruitment strategies. Although for lack of space it is not the intention of this paper to study the whole U.S. Army as a military organization and make strategic recommendations to address its problems, it is unavoidable that some findings have a bearing on the whole organization and that some suggestions may touch on this issue. Based on the findings of the situation analysis of the U.S. Army, judgment can be made as to whether the shift was the correct one, whether it was made in the right direction, and if not, how it can improve its strategic marketing plans to meet its objectives. SWOT-PESTEL Analysis of U.S. Army Marketing Strategy Internal Analysis: Strengths and Weaknesses Strengths: Long tradition and history, professional manpower, wide career options, excellent training for employees and management ranks, positive image, good R&D track record, and good financial capability. The U.S. Army has a long history and tradition of excellent service to the nation and may be credited for helping the U.S. achieve its current status as the world’s superpower. It also has a professional manpower base, meaning its soldiers are qualified and well-selected volunteers chosen from a wide base of over 26 million young men and women from the ages of 18 to 24 (Kane, 2006). Its human resources development (HRD or training) program instills discipline, physical fitness, interior strength, and mental toughness, in the process forming its employees with the values that are cherished or deemed important by the nation, such as citizenship, social responsibility, and patriotism, among many others. Its management training program (at West Point) enjoys an excellent reputation. Its training programs emphasize teamwork. The Army offers several career options – office, battlefield, and technical – to potential recruits, provides competitive salaries and benefits, and has been proven to be a good stepping stone to successful careers outside of the military (as proven by several ex-Army soldiers and officers who eventually became top business executives and politicians or successful professionals in the private sector). For most of its history, it has enjoyed a positive image as an institution that plays a major role in fostering the nation’s democracy, economic stability, progress, and the maintenance of social peace and equality. It also has an enviable track record of research and development achievements in science and technology (which gave the world computers, the Internet, mobile telephony, and space travel among many other things). Like any other government office, the Army is funded by the U.S. taxpayers, and the nation being the richest in the world, the Army’s budget is also the highest in the world. Theoretically, at least, it does not have financial problems, and its workers are assured of receiving a regular salary. Weaknesses: Voluntary recruitment system, tough training programs, negative image from recent experiences. Two strengths of the Army are also sources of internal organizational weaknesses. First, the voluntary nature of its recruitment policy diminishes its chances of getting the best qualified manpower, who may opt to study and work for other organizations (this may have been avoided by a mandatory draft system where all able-bodied young men and women are required to register and serve for a number of years, thus giving the Army the option to retain only the best and the brightest, as it used to do). With a voluntary system, the Army has to be satisfied with getting the best of those who decide to apply. Second, its HRD program can turn off (or away) potential recruits because of its toughness, and there have been widely-known incidents where people who want to work for the Army are not able to do so because of injuries suffered, or because of the negative connotation of physical hardships, during training. In recent years, because of difficulties in Iraq, public opinion has shifted against the Army’s good image as more of its employees become casualties, thus resulting in a heightened perception of job-related risk that acts as a deterrent for those who are thinking of working for it. External Analysis: Opportunities and Threats Opportunities: Terrorism, immigrants, education in life, appeal to civic values, appeal to adventure, superpower status, and action-oriented behavior. The increase in threats to global peace is an opportunity for the Army to be useful and to secure higher budgets from the government and greater support from its citizenry, as shown by the surge in enlistment after 9/11. Immigrants are also usually looking for opportunities for social advancement and can realize this by getting the free education benefits offered by the Army. The Army’s training program also appeals to Americans, usually the parents or grandparents of potential recruits, who realize the importance of civic values (patriotism, discipline, hard work) and notice their decline among the youth. America’s superpower status can be a source of pride for those who want to work for her or to help preserve that status in the world. In a world growing in uniformity, an Army career can be an opportunity to be different, highlighting the nature of engaging in a unique personal adventure. Most young people familiar with video games and sports can shift their action-orientation by working for the Army presented as a realistic option. Threats: Terrorism, education quality, more career alternatives, and demographics. Terrorism also increases the probability of danger, thus diminishing the likelihood that parents would want an Army career for their children. As the quality of education deteriorates, so does the quality of recruits. Abundant career alternatives that are more comfortable and materially rewarding compete with the Army as an employment option. Declining birth rates also means there will be more immigrants among recruits or a diminishing pool of potential recruits. PESTEL Analysis Political: Since the Army is a government office, the image and performance of the political system affect the public’s perception. Economic: There are better ways of earning a living than to put oneself in danger of death or injury. However, economic hardships in some sectors can help in getting recruits (e.g., the poorer districts in America). Social: Defending the country is a noble cause, but there is so much anti-war propaganda that becoming a soldier is becoming unpopular. The image of an America that is carrying its weight on the global stage is also not popular with some sectors of society. Technological: The Internet and advances in mass media technologies can help in the recruitment effort, at the same time that it spreads negative or biased information. With advances in technology, young people have discovered new and easier ways of making money and developing a career, such as starting Internet-based companies, working for more established organizations, or becoming video game designers. Environmental: The Army has a better image now than it used to when it engaged in chemical warfare. However, it is also accused of destroying the environment in the countries where it sees action. Legal: America’s growing litigious society is a challenge to potential mistakes in recruitment or the accountability of officers in battle (several lawsuits have been filed against the Army and government officials for deaths and injuries in Iraq). Post-Mortem Analysis: “Army of One” (2001-2006) Campaign The Army of One campaign initiated in 2001 and which lasted until 2005 was designed to target 18 to 24 years old men and women who are citizens of the U.S. to enlist. The main message was an extension of its previous one – “Be All That You Can Be” – and emphasized that the Army would help anyone become someone, a responsible citizen who can realize his/her fullest potential. Launched the same year as the terrorist attacks, its effectiveness was unquestioned until in 2005, when the Army failed to meet its recruitment target of 80,000 by at least 7,000 (U.S. Army, 2006b). Although it eventually met its target in 2006, the Army decided to launch a new slogan because of several criticisms: that the “Army of One” campaign promoted individualism and went against the team spirit of the armed forces, that the slogan was self-centered and too focused on selfish rather than on the collective social values. Others cited possible confusion among the target market as to the real message that the ad images and slogan conveyed. Its solution was the “Army Strong” campaign. Analysis: “Army Strong” (2006-?) Campaign Given the shortcomings of the previous campaign and the findings from the situational analysis of the U.S. Army’s strategic marketing plan would allow an analysis of its current campaign. Launched on November 9, 2006 with a nationwide television campaign, the main message is to powerfully communicate the character of the Army soldier and the unique and transformative power of the Army, which is consistent with previous campaigns. The Army is using television, radio, print media, and the Internet to target not only its usual markets (Middle Class Whites and African-Americans) but also immigrants (one ad is in Spanish) and parents to carry the strong, unique, and distinctive U.S. Army brand. Aside from increased Internet ad presence in popular search engines Google and Yahoo, alternative marketing channels such as text messaging and video partnerships with YouTube.com would be used. The U.S. Army is also taking “America’s Army: The Official U.S. Army Game” into the Global Gaming League, an online gaming league and social network that sponsors and covers video game tournaments (U.S. Army, 2006b). There will also be more public relations activities such as televised town hall meetings where a select group of soldiers would narrate positive stories about military successes in Iraq and Afghanistan and answer questions. Audiences, not pre-screened, promise to make each of these an exciting experience. Through shows in Discovery Channel, Army mechanics would trick out a Jeep, and in an ESPN reality show, an ex-football star would revitalize a high school football team helped by a retired Army drill sergeant. The “Army Strong” campaign website (Army, 2006a) features actual U.S. Army Soldiers, showing that service in the Army makes young men and women stronger mentally, emotionally and physically, a strength they can carry into successful futures. The campaign therefore shows a more extensive mix of products – a wide range of career and learning possibilities and personal experiences – with one underlying and powerful theme: mental, emotional, and physical strength are good investments that would help secure a successful future. In contrast with the previous campaigns that focused mostly on the target market, this new one is aimed at convincing parents to allow their children to enlist and undergo training if they are eligible. In contrast with the ads of the previous campaign where the Army’s superior technology (night-vision goggles, attack helicopters, and every other gizmo that aims to protect the soldier) are emphasized, its new ads have a softer image of a son talking to his mom or a dad talking to his son about the training and college education and how the Army shapes a strong character. Would this new campaign work? The results are doubtful, because while it targets the right market (parents), it sends a wrong message. . Recommendations and Conclusions What the new campaign fails to address, and this is its main weakness, is a stronger appeal to patriotism and adventure which the Army thinks does not work as effectively as it did. It then shifted the Army’s image to that of a finishing school, a scholarship program, or a badge of maturity. This fails to address the parents’ concern that allowing their children to enlist at a time of war (against terror) is to sign their death warrants. No parent in his/her right mind would do that unless there is a higher and nobler reason for doing so. And yet, patriotism, adventure and willingness to die for one’s country are what the Army is really about. Unfortunately, some have to risk their lives so that the nation would live. Hiding this fact – that freedom has a high cost – is deception and a devaluation of freedom. Rather than emphasize only the benefits of enlistment, the Army (and ad agency) should have crafted a more powerful message that would enkindle the fire of patriotism, love for freedom, and the value of sacrifice not only in the soldiers who would fight the enemy, but more importantly in the families they would leave behind. American democracy is rooted on these values, and it is only by sustaining these values can we preserve the legacy of past generations who were willing to die (and let their children die) for the sake of our generation. It was a mistake to soften the message to make it easier for parents to allow their children to enlist. This corrodes the heart of democracy, because it is not the trained soldiers of the Army who are the real foundations of our strong nation, but the parents and families who are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. The Army can then use a more effective channel such as support groups for parents and families, reinforcing the message that if we want democracy to survive, we need to be reminded that it comes at a great price, and that anyone who wants to enjoy it must be willing to share the cost. This is the strategic marketing challenge the Army should have addressed. Reference List Andrews, K. (1987). The concept of corporate strategy (3rd ed.). Homewood: Irwin. Ansoff, H I. (1965). Corporate strategy: an analytic approach to business policy for growth and expansion. London: Pelican. Bossidy, L. and Charan, R. (2002). Execution: The discipline of getting things done. London: Random House. Chandler, Jr., A.D. (1962). Strategy and structure. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Henderson, B.D. (1976). The product portfolio. Boston: Boston Consulting Group. Herman, R. and Gioia, J. (2003). Impending crisis: Too many jobs, too few people. New York: Oakhill Press. Kane, T. (2006). Who are the recruits? The demographic characteristics of U.S. military enlistment, 2003-2005. Center for Data Analysis Report #06-09 (October 27, 2006). Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation. Kaplan, R.S. (2002). Building strategy-focused organizations with the balanced scorecard. Perspectives on performance, 2 (1), 4-7. Levitt, T. (1960). Marketing myopia. Harvard Business Review, July-August, 45-56. Miles, R. E. and Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure and process, New York: McGraw Hill. Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning. London: Prentice-Hall. Porter M.E. (1980). Competitive strategy: techniques for analysing industries and competitors. New York: Free Press. Porter, M.E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: Free Press. Porter, M.E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. New York: Free Press. Schiffman, L.G. and Kanuk, L.L. (2004). Consumer behaviour, 8th international ed. London: Pearson. Steiner, G.A. (1979). Strategic planning: what every manager must know. New York: Free Press. Thompson, A. and Strickland, A.J. (2001) Crafting and executing strategy: Text and readings (12th ed.). London: McGraw-Hill. U.S. Army (2006a). “There’s strong. And there’s Army strong.” U.S. Army Strong website. Retrieved 15 April 2007, from: U.S. Army (2006b). U.S. Army launches Army Strong campaign. U.S. Army. Retrieved 15 April 2007, from: Watson, G. H. (1993). Strategic benchmarking: How to rate your company’s performance against the world’s best. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Read More