The Army's focus in seeking to fix its recruitment issues should be spending more on television advertisements and less on signing bonuses, according to a Rand Corp. study commissioned by the Army and released Nov. 6, 2023. (U.S. Army Enterprise Marketing )
The Army should spend more on television advertisements and less on signing bonuses in its drive to attract new soldiers, according to a study released this week amid an ongoing recruiting crisis in the service.
The Army-commissioned study released Monday by the Rand Corp. think tank was based on an analysis of five years of budget and recruiting data.
It found that “television advertising and, to a lesser extent, recruiters have positive associations with contract production and that these inputs are relatively more cost-effective than bonuses.”
Like most of the other services, the Army has been struggling to replenish its ranks. Military officials have cited such factors as a strong civilian job market and obesity among young people that makes them unfit to serve.
The service has missed its recruiting goals for three straight years.
The Rand study suggests taking a page from the Marine Corps’ approach, which has always revolved around captivating commercials and the notion that being a Marine means being one of the “the few, the proud.”
The Corps was the only service to hit its recruiting targets in the last fiscal year.
In all recruiting models examined by Rand, increasing advertising expenditures was the biggest potential difference-maker for the Army. The ideal model recommends an 80% increase in spending on television advertising, the study said.
The Army also should consider shifting resources toward more recruiters, albeit at more modest levels than advertising, the study said.
Rand estimated that a 10 percentage point increase in advertising would yield a 1% increase in contracts. With 75,000 contracts as the prospective target, increasing advertising by 10% would account for 750 of those contracts, at a cost of $4,400 per contract.
What isn’t paying recruiting dividends is shelling out large sums for signing bonuses, the study said.
“The association of bonuses with contract production is relatively small, and a large portion of bonuses are paid to recruits who would have been willing to join for a lower (or no) bonus amount,” Rand said.
The analysis recommended a 40% decrease in spending on bonuses.
Enlistment incentives, such as bonuses for high-demand occupations or willingness to ship out on short notice, can reach as high as $50,000.
Lowering some standards to create more flexibility in recruit eligibility also could help, according to the study. However, there are risks to that strategy.
While it might save money and lead the Army to meet recruiting goals in the short run, there could be “downstream costs” in early attrition, lower performance and lower reenlistment rates, Rand said.
