In brief the MOD had dared to reach out to
their target market at a time when they thought that market may be interested
in hearing about the jobs they had on offer. I’ve no doubt that the timing
could’ve been better than on exam results day but equally the apparent
existence of jobs that don’t require qualifications could be reassuring to
people who’ve failed to get any. As we no longer have much industry or retail
it’s fair to ask what opportunities there are these days for such individuals.
I think The Guardian may have been more
concerned that the army and its advertising were lacking morals. There is
clearly a place for moral thinking in marketing but few would expect it. Their
ads may have pictured an armoured vehicle at sunrise but you’d hardly have
expected them to show bodies on the battlefield and they’re probably banned
from showing tracer fire and explosions on the grounds of glorifying warfare.
In the same sense, you wouldn’t anticipate
an ad for a dull data-entry job to show a lank-haired, sweat-stained, spotty
teen hunched over a keyboard. Advertisers are compelled to make things glossy,
clients and recipients expect it.
I don’t imagine that the agency working on behalf
of army recruitment deliberately targeted ‘stressed teens’, their scope was
based on age plus geographical and social groupings. It was aimed at the people
most likely to respond, that’s how advertising works these days.
Government bodies may have more of a duty
to be moral but it’s not so long since drunks were drafted by dropping a coin in their drink, there are
limitations. At the very least the ad copy didn’t say ‘Failed your exams? You
can still be cannon fodder’ even if we all know that’s what it meant.
Comments