It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Army Slogan - 'Army Strong'

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Well it seems due to low recruiting numbers the Army is spending $1 billion over five years to change the slogan to 'Army Strong'.


The result is a new slogan with high expectations and deep meaning.
$1 billion for this. I realize that they are lowering the educational levels for recruits but isn't this a little 'base'?




The slogan “Army Strong” expresses physical and emotional strength; the very qualities the Army recruiters have on the long list of benefits for joining the Army. The slogan also has a deeper meaning. Parents, teachers, and other influential people in a young adult’s life will be more likely to view the Army as an outlet to strengthen one’s character. Beyond personal strength the new slogan will exude the strength of the Army, its capabilities, firepower, accomplishments, and fortitude.


The most interesting point to me is the reason they give for changing from 'The Army of One' as it gave the impression that the Army was interested in maintaining a person's individuality.



“If you want to be an ‘Army of One’ you probably want to join the Hell’s Angels, not the U.S. Army,” he said.

Source




posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 02:50 AM
link   
Sounds rather Neanderthalist, doesn't it?

"Army Strong. Me Good.. Where club?"

I think the British Army motto is better...

"Be the Best". Damn right...



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Sounds rather Neanderthalist, doesn't it?

"Army Strong. Me Good.. Where club?"

I think the British Army motto is better...

"Be the Best". Damn right...


Not only is is Neanerthalist, they are spending $1 billion dollars on it. Meanwhile there are veterans who living on the streets. Shocking.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 10:09 AM
link   
I think the Army has serious issues with slogans.

"Army of One"...wtf


"Army Strong"...pfft



I think the Marines got it right with "The Few, The Proud, The Marines". It's been the same for years. Out of all the branches, the Corps spends the least on recruiting and has always met their quota. They make one commercial every five years, or something like that.



[edit on 15/10/2006 by SportyMB]



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Well, as the article stated they feel they need to change the slogan to help with recruiting during times of war. I wonder why they are having trouble recruiting -- it doesn't take a genius to figure it out. I actually find it extremely offensive at the amount of money they are paying out for this.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 10:52 AM
link   
"Army Strong" sounds like a great name for an underarm deodorant... perhaps they can achieve some advertising co-synthesis by picking up a sponsor to co-exploit such a slogan - How about AXE? They already have patrols in Columbia... walkin' perimeter lookin' for the "stink" - "AXE the official deodorant with grunt".

Victor K.

43'

[edit on 15-10-2006 by V Kaminski]



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 11:07 AM
link   
I just guess they should try and take their ideas from the Marines. At least, they might get more willing recurits.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   
They have lowered the intelligence requirements to enter the army. Used to recruits had to score at least a 31 on their ASVAB, now it's been knocked down to 27. I scored a 78 and I ....didn't even study for it really.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 02:07 PM
link   
"Fire Bad, Army Strong!"

Actually, a billion dollars is cheap for a slogan of that quality.

After all, advertising consultants of the caliber of Tarzan, Tonto and Frankenstein don't come cheap, you know.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
"Fire Bad, Army Strong!"

Actually, a billion dollars is cheap for a slogan of that quality.

After all, advertising consultants of the caliber of Tarzan, Tonto and Frankenstein don't come cheap, you know.


Actually it goes well with 'Muslim bad - Christian good'


[edit on 15-10-2006 by deessell]



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Collateral Hammage

You know, I could save the Army about $999 million if they would just use my recommended recruiting slogan.

Aside from being much cheaper, it builds on a very successful ad compaign and is sure to just pack in the recruits:

Got Guns?

At just $1 million, I think it's a steal!




posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   
The Army needs to get back to basics, instead of spending so much on Madison Avenue type slogans and fashion statements.

All the services spend money on public relations and advertising, but the Army just can't seem to decide what it is or how it should dress. I've seen more Army uniform changes and new slogans in my lifetime than the Marine Corps has had in 200 years.

Fundamental values and personal accomplishment beat glitz, buzz words, and jingles any day of the week.

By the way, in the phrase Army Strong, Army is an adjective, not a noun, but you'd think that the broken English equivalent would have caught someone's attention, or maybe it was intentional.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Sounds rather Neanderthalist, doesn't it?

"Army Strong. Me Good.. Where club?"

There used to be a tv show in the US where the characters were dinosaurs who lived like people, in a sort of parody of the world. They invented 'war', in one episode, 'W.A.R.' "We Are Right".




deesell
Not only is is Neanerthalist, they are spending $1 billion dollars on it. Meanwhile there are veterans who living on the streets. Shocking.

The primary responsibility of the military is to fight wars, not take care of past war fighters. It clearly has to focus on getting new recruits, and the american public would simply never accept the sorts of tax increases required to take care of the veterans.

I wonder why they are having trouble recruiting -- it doesn't take a genius to figure it out

Yes, and?

I actually find it extremely offensive at the amount of money they are paying out for this.

I am sure that they are very concerned at having offended anyone.


sportyMB
Out of all the branches, the Corps spends the least on recruiting and has always met their quota.

They're also a tiny organization compared to the army, and they need to be shuttled around by the Navy, so that doesn't speak much for it being a model for the rest of the military.


GP
The Army needs to get back to basics, instead of spending so much on Madison Avenue type slogans and fashion statements.

Indeed, if that billion dollars was funneled into signing bonuses, it might be a heckuva lot more effective.

Fundamental values and personal accomplishment beat glitz, buzz words, and jingles any day of the week.

I think they'll be better off with the cash incentives than that.

you'd think that the broken English equivalent would have caught someone's attention, or maybe it was intentional

Its just like with McDonals, slogan " i'm lovin' it' " in lower case, incorrect contraction of words, etc. If you've gotta talk to the masses, you've gotta talk the language they understand.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   
deleted by author

double post

[edit on 2006/10/18 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

They're also a tiny organization compared to the army, and they need to be shuttled around by the Navy, so that doesn't speak much for it being a model for the rest of the military.


How do you think the Army gets around the globe and maintains its supply chain? Trucks, choppers and shoe leather?

The Marine Corps is unique in it's mission and the Army need not adopt its model, but you'd be hard pressed to find a force as replete and agile as the Corps and our connection to the Navy is hardly a liability, but rather an asset.

The Department of the Navy can deliver an incredible amount of firepower and troop strength in an incredibly short amount of time. That's nothing to sneeze at.

[edit on 2006/10/18 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
They're also a tiny organization compared to the army, and they need to be shuttled around by the Navy, so that doesn't speak much for it being a model for the rest of the military.


Your'e right, but what's your point? Think percents, not numbers.

Yeah they need to be shuttled around by the Navy, it's part of their job. Afterall, the Marines fall under the Dept. of the Navy and for them to shuttle themselves around they would have to have double the man power.

The Marines have the highest op-tempo, the most deployments (excercise and real-world), and they do it with more bang for the buck. Don't tell me your'e gonna deny that?

Other services, the Army recently, are starting to adopt a 'Marine' mentality when it comes to planning wartime logistics. Google up "SeaBaseing" and you'll get an idea. Also look up prestaged supply ships...all money savers.

Also, the other branches have nothing that even comes close to comparing to a MAGTF (google it up...that's another money saver).

[edit on 18/10/2006 by SportyMB]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 01:04 AM
link   
Good riddance. I never did like that slogan. Personally, I think they're just changing it so the Marines will stop making fun of it.

As for the billion dollars, I assume that this actually includes certain costs that actually would have been incurred anyway, such as printed materials bearing the new slogan that would otherwise still have been printed bearing the old slogan.

That being said, the army needs to get off the gimicks. It's not exactly news that the Army has suffered for lack of the kind of tradition that the Marines have done so well at creating. That's not to say that the army is without its traditions, but they don't harness them and make them known well enough, which is a pitty because the sense of belonging to something much larger and older and more important than yourself is a large part of what would motivate a young person to enter the service.

There is a big difference between the way the Army and Marines present basically the same job. The Army has bells and whistles and all kinds of incentives, and prospects will look for strings attached.

The Marines generally have dingier recruiting offices (almost invariably in a strip mall, near the Good Will Store), smaller enlistment bonuses, and most of their best known nicknames, slogans, etc predate the second world war. People logically know that there must be something rewarding about it, or else it wouldn't be there.



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 08:09 AM
link   
I must admit that 'Army strong' makes me think of other memorable lines, like: 'Hulk Smash!' and so on. Is it too much to ask for a line that a) contains a verb and b) doesn't sound like something you could grunt loudly.
I agree that the British Army's one is far, far better - Be The Best.



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 08:46 AM
link   
One of the things I don't like about this slogan is that its a play off on Armstrong's, 'Live Strong'. They should've at least came up with an original one.

But hey, if you give them your address so that they can try to recruit you, you get a free 'boonie' hat! Wow!




posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkmind

I agree that the British Army's one is far, far better - Be The Best.


They already had "Be all that you can be."

There's nothing wrong with "Army Strong" grammatically, as many here suggest.

I like it better than most of the recent ones, especailly "An Army of One."

In fact I like it now, better than when I first heard it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join