I think that the biggest resource for recruiters is the University/College populace. I know for a fact that these places are full of people looking for purpose, challenge, danger- anything they are lacking after 12 or more years of school. I myself am one. I don't think that recruiting in the highschool crowd is as effective as it used to be, because secondary-education is much more reachable that it once was. Most highschool kids see the military as limiting their options, in a world that offers endless possiblities. The military has to change with the times and shift it's focus. I've yet to see any active recruitment at the university I attend, despite having been there for 10 months. I public recruiting booth, or a presentation in the caffeteria (done on a regular basis by other groups) would go a long a ways, especially if the recruiters read what is below...

Here's what I have to say. As a university student considering joining, I'm right smack in the middle of the recruiting propaganda. Which is to say I'm right smack in the middle of nothing.

From the perspective of the university student, the biggest thing holding me back is a complete lack of pertinent information regarding the future. University students are concerned about their futures, and how joining the military will affect their futures. How does military service on my resume affect potential employers? Why aren't there more success stories about how the CF helped Joe and Jane get a great job by giving them leadership, confidence, teamwork, etc. Why isn't the industry actively seeking people with military experience, even though the coporate world is turning more and more to 'boot camp' style training to teach their employees teamwork and leadership? In a world starved for people with degrees, offering them secure and comfortable future, the military if falling behind. Answers to these types of questions would mean a lot to today's career-oriented students.

If university students were confident that joining the military would be beneficial to their careers and teach them valuable skills for the future, the military would have no trouble swelling it's ranks. My university is full of people desperately seeking out the military experience. There are any number of clubs revolving around pseudo-militarism. The Airsoft club is probably the most realistic. But you can't walk down a hallway without seeing a poster offering "Rapid Assault Tatics" training or "Weekend Warrior" trips. University students hunger for release, adventure, danger... but they also want security for their futures, and will avidly avoid anything they think may harm their future. This includes everything that doesn't make it blatantly obvious that it is a good choice for the future. The military should make information and real-life examples more visible.

There is also a distinct lack of another type of information. The nitty-gritty stuff that you have to actively seek out a recruiter for, and in my opinion, shouldn't have to. How long do you have to sign on for? What kind of obligority service? Can I be sent to war? Will I be sent accross the country without any say? What happens if I'm hurt during training? Can I get out if I need to? How do I get promoted? How dangerous is it? What kind of law does the military subject me to? How will it affect my family life? What happens if I get pregnent? What kind of benifits and insurance? Do I have to pay for any equipment? What if I loose stuff? How much information does the military collect about me? Who has access to it? What happens when I quit? Will the government still call me up to go to war? Do the different branches have different answers to these questions?

If some of this info was made up front and easy to access, students would be alot more comfortable about seeing a recruiter. We are older than the Highschool crowd, and thus not so willing to jump in without knowing what we're getting into. I myself have been actively searching for answers to questions like these for months, and having to read all manner of things like the QR&O; and CFAO to find answers. Having to do this is not what I call easy to access information. There are probably enlisted people who haven't read through those things. Most students won't waste their time. Hey, if they don't want to say it out loud, it can't be good. And that's the end of it. The military has to be more open and active about their recruiting if they want more people.

The next problem is image, especially among middle and upper classes where the bulk of university students come from. The general view is that the military is out dated, and full of social deviants, people who can't think for them selves, and a bunch of hardcore gun nuts. As much as I hate to say it, the Americans have the image thing down pat. If the CF wants to learn a little about recruiting, they could do worse than look at a nation whose standing army is larger than the population of some countries. Although, even the Yanks are starting to have recruiting problems. But the fact it, the CF's image has to change.

If you want to know what draws the people I've talked to, the military image that they like, it's the image of themselves in fatigues and combat boots, holding a rifle. Wearing the beret, rappeling out of helo's, throwing Ka-Bars and handgrenades, and generally blowing **** up. Not really what it's all about, but then again, who has more fans: Hollywood or the CF? If the CF needs people so bad, they should play to them. Show people themselves as they could be in the military, a Rambo in each and every person. Make people think they can be bad-*** , show 'em what they want to see and you'll bring a few in. People like to think of themselves as adventerous, daring, and courageous. Especially us middle-class suburbanites who were raised on a steady diet of Hollywood heroism. If the CF capitalized a little on these self images, they might generate a little more interest, and in doing so, help their image.

And lastly, a personal concern as well as one voiced by many others, is the quality of training. The military (the politicians?) have got to respect the fact that, even if there is no war right now, the men and women that sign on, do so knowing that their signature may well put them into combat. And people die in combat. I'm growing concerned about whether or not the military is going to provide the training I need to survive & thrive in combat, or whether it is just going to give me an illusion of soldier skill that will get me killed. I felt sick when I read about this 16 day basic. What can you learn in 16 days !? I thought basic was a couple of months, and a grueling, intensive crashcourse in combat survival, not a few days of Boyscouts. And since I'm looking at infantry, which puts my *** in the grass, it concerns me even more. And then I read about old/obselete equipment, too few feild exercises, little or no live firing, etc. etc. etc. And it all makes me wonder what I want to sign on for. I've no qualms about going into combat, so long as I know I've had the proper training. I have a big problem going into combat wondering if I've had the proper training.

But this, I think, is more a Government problem than a military one. The Government seems to have forgotten that the military is central to it's existence, and that the military is the protector of the people from which the Gov. draws it's power. The military could use more funding, but only if the military is ready to put those funds to good use. The Americans have shown that throwing more money at the military won't neccessarily fix the problems. But better pay and allowances, comparable to civilian jobs, would go a long a way towards bolstering the ranks. Throw in meaningful and realistic training, and perhaps a few toys to play with, and you've got a bigger, happier, more robust CF.

I could go on and on, but it's late. Feel free to post your opinions on what I've said. Note that everything I've said is personal opinion based of months of more or less fruitless research into what the CF is all about, and what happens to me when I sign the dotted line. So, none of it is hard and true fact, and most of it is pure conjecture. I welcome any and all comments.

Hope you enjoyed the read,

Basic is where you learn the "basics" common to the army, navy, airforce. You're not taught any tactics or survival stuff, that's all taught in your trades training. At basic you learn drill, ranks, basic weapons handling (c7, c9), etc.

We have now learned that the DND is going to spend 15 million dollars in their new recruiting campaign to attract recruits into the service. The recruiting material is of the benign type that I previously mentioned. "No violence please we are Canadians soldiers".

Canadian Forces invest $15.2M to fill out ranks
http://www.nationalpost.com/search/story.html?f=/stories/20010629/605334.html

The posters are soo politically correct (25% ethnic, 25% female} The ads depict all the gee whiz stuff you can do in the service. A small piece in the corner actually shows a weapon.. According to the article this campaign was run by a focus group (II think that is the correct spelling.. This 'focus' group agreed that the programme would work and we will get an increase in enlistments. (?)

After the announcement other groups expressed some disagreement and thought it would not work and was a waste of money. Time will tell. You can review their comments at;

Monday, July 2, 2021 - The Halifax Herald Limited

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A word or two

We told you so

Years ago, when military downsizing, funding cuts and morale problems all began to hit home, concerns were expressed about recruitment and retention of military personel.

Last week, it was reported that Canada's Armed Forces intend to increase their mandatory retirement age from 55 to 60 years of age.

Why? Because there has been such a poor response to recruiting efforts, and so many jobs already eliminated, and so many people have opted to leave on their own, that there are no longer enough people to staff the Forces.

Ottawa intentionally trimmed the Forces, at an all-time high of about 100,000 Canadians in the 1960s, down to about 58,000 as part of the budget cuts that began in the early- to mid-1990s.

Now, Canada finds itself without enough Canadians who believe there's no life like it, and choose to exist in some other type of life.

Meanwhile, the peacekeeping commitments have drained resources and forced the Department of National Defence to increasingly lean on members of reserve units, with less detailed training, to accept international assignments.

So the retirement age will be moved upward, in the hopes of keeping, for a few years longer, the well-trained sailors, soldiers and flyers we already have.

Do they gather together a sample of people and ask them for impressions? Do they screen out people who would have to be dragged kicking and screaming to a CFRC to be conscripted? Do they gather a sample of fairly new soldiers to determine what might have appealed to them to help them decide to join?

In short, did we ask the right people what they thought?

A while back, the marketing braintrust was convinced (duped?) into believing the public thought of the CF as "Proud, Proven, Professional" - however, in the same vein as a consultant tells you the time using your own watch, it should have been noted the focus groups included CF members who wanted to be thought of as professional (and thus, the result was skewed).

Over and over again, I keep looking at the American example (since they are our closest ally) - the US Army has been having problems meeting their recruiting quota for about four years - on the other hand, the US Marines have met their recruiting quota for the past 54 months! Hmmm ... didn't some rocket scientist marketing genius come up with "An Army Of One", while the Marines have stuck to the tried and true "The Few, The Proud, The Marines"????

Ya know, getting back to basics is not necessarily a bad thing (contrary to what the consultants and voodoo marketing witch doctors would have us believe).

If we're trying to recruit soldiers, then our advertising should attract soldiers. Ditto for sailors and airmen. However, if we're trying to attract employees, then our recruiting will have a different flavour (and we shouldn't be so surprised when our recruits behave more like employees than soldiers).

Here's a few favourites for comparison:

Join the Army. Stand On Guard for Canada.
It's not a job, it's an adventure.
Nobody wants to fight, but somebody has to know how.
We do more before breakfast than most people do all week.
Twice the Citizen - Join the Reserves.