Video game, killing machine or great protector? The challenges of marketing the United States Army.

Current slogan…

Previous slogan…

The slogan…

According to Adweek, the United States Army is down to four players in its search for a new advertising agency. Worth between 15 and 20 million dollars to the winner, the competing agencies are Draft FCB, Y&R, Grey and the incumbent, McCann Erickson. Big process driven agencies chasing a big process driven account, whichever one prevails, it won’t be a surprise.

I was at Leo Burnett when it picked up the army account in 2001. The agency had the tall order of replacing N W Ayer’s iconic “Be All You Can Be” campaign slogan, created in 1980. (For the record, I never worked on the account.) Burnett’s idea was “Army of One.” Arguably, not as good as BAYCB, it wasn’t a bust either. I do know Burnett excelled at putting the army onto the Internet, the importance of which should not be underestimated. The brief is, was and always will be about recruiting. Reaching young men and women online is key.

Presumably recruiting is easier during a bad economy. Conversely, it’s made harder by controversial wars such as the ones we are waging in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet after 9-11, the resulting patriotic fervor made recruiting for these same wars a relative breeze. Needless to say, doors open and close. Marketing strategies must change accordingly.

No matter what your politics or person feelings, the armed forces pose unique marketing challenges. We feel for the troops but we grow weary of the wars. We appreciate the security our superior military affords us but we resent the responsibility. We adore the hi-tech but we abhor when it’s used for killing. Contradictions abound. Subsequently, the army brand is a volatile and moving target. Like nuclear power I suppose, helpful but also maligned: radioactive.

Among the various reasons given for leaving his post as the most famous creative in Adland, Alex Bogusky cited (or implied) ethical conflicts with two of his agency’s biggest clients: Dominoes and Burger King. I wonder what Alex, and others like him, would think about working on Army. Before answering, I would remind all of us that a successful voluntary army pre-empts the government from resorting to a draft. Food for thought all you twenty-something’s building gnarly campaigns at CP&B and elsewhere.

From a copywriter’s perspective, I’d relish the challenge of trying to crack the army’s difficult code. For me the winning strategy would be something along the lines of convincing young men and women to do the right thing even if it sometimes feels wrong. I might not believe the notion, but I know I could write and sell it.

Copywriting and the fine art of manipulating the truth.

Caveat Emptor, baby!

I think I was about five years into my first job as copywriter when I became self-conscious that I was manipulating the truth to better serve my clients. It didn’t stop me from doing it but at least I was aware.

Up until then, I’d been learning how. Sometimes the trick was one of omission: removing a word like it was the “wrenched ankle” in Operation! Other instances required fancier solutions. Lots fancier. That warhorse of Ad land, McCann Erickson had a great expression for the art, calling it the “Truth Well Told.”

Using words to enhance a product’s attributes is an accurate definition of copywriting. It is also a pretty good description of lying. Skilled copywriters write with motive.

There are as many examples as there are stars in the sky. The sentence you just read; that’s one. Since there is no way to quantify the amount of stars in the sky there is no way to disprove my statement. If, by chance, someone from legal were to question it, I could do any number things to keep the exaggeration intact. For example, adding the word “likely” creating the softer “likely as many.” Still too strong? Then try “probably.” And so on. Copywriters treat adverbs like fabric softener. Serious authors tend to disfavor adverbs because they mitigate a sentence’s integrity. We like them for the very same reason.

Or we can play the percentages. Let’s say you have a bullet point about a product stating it cleans up to 52% of all stains tested. That doesn’t sound so good does it? How about saying, Product X cleans over half of every stain on earth. “Over half” sounds more impressive. “On earth” evokes magnitude. It’s the same mediocre truth but now it’s just well told.

Skilled copywriters know how to create myths about products so that they enthrall consumers. Altoids aren’t just strong; they’re “curiously strong.” Mythmaking is how we help create cult like status for brands. Yet, mythos depends on an inherent strength about a product as opposed to a weakness. Therefore, it is truth-based. In most cases a good story sells a good brand: Nike, Apple, Levis, etc…

As a longtime copywriter and even longer-time human being I certainly have given this topic a lot of thought. In some respects it is the driving force of this blog. Yet, for the most part, I don’t fault advertisers or their agencies for mastering the “truth well told.” After all, I believe in caveat emptor. I don’t think the market place should be impeded from selling with motive in order to protect the naïve.

Where it can go sideways is when we take our sharpened capacity to create myths into real life. Adroitly manipulating the truth to satisfy one’s agenda at home or at work is far more controversial than putting goods and services on an unearned pedestal. When Bill Clinton told the world he “did not have sexual relations with that woman” he was technically telling the truth (they never had intercourse) but he, of course, was lying.

If we continue to tell the truth our way it becomes our truth. We lose objective reality, becoming self-serving to the extreme. That’s okay if you’re a stick of gum. Not so much if you’re a husband, father or son.