Church of the Customer Blog
« Military marketing is opt-out | Main | CUES presentation »
April 17, 2005
Military marketing is opt-out
With all of the hub-bub some groups are strirring up about marketing to children, one practice has remained rather stealthy: military recruiters have unprecedented access to every school's information to contact kids directly.
The law that teachers and states love to hate, the No Child Left Behind act, requires schools to provide the military every student's name, address and phone number and the right to contact them directly. It's an opt-out system, meaning families must tell the military not to contact them, rather than granting contact permission, otherwise known as opt-in.
With military recruitment goals falling short, the heat has been turned up on the access to high schoolers, as the Chicago Tribune reports (short life-span, registration required).
No one wants military recruiters to fail, including me. But if they are granted marketing access to teens at the exclusion of everyone else, that's high hypocrisy. A level marketing playing for everyone, including the military, is an honest, democratizing market force.
Other blogs that reference Military marketing is opt-out:
» Opt-Out Military Marketing from O'DonnellWeb
This business and marketing site has picked up the military recruiters getting public school role lists story that bounced around... [Read More]
» Student consumers from That Boy
There's a great discussion underway at Customer Evangelists on how much access the military should have in recruiting your teenage children. Note: you might want to suspend patriotic reactions to get a deeper take on the issues posed. The larger [Read More]
Actually after reading the story, this seems to be much ado about nothing. Most public schools gave the military access to the student roles prior to NCLB anyway. Also - NCLB only aplies to public schools. It's interesting how these parents so oppossed to the miltary seem to have no qualms about letting the government educate their children. You can't have it both ways. If you kid is in a government school, allowing government agents access to them to discuss government careers doesn't seem like that big of a stretch.
Let me make sure I understand this... you're saying the military should have to compete on the same basis as the folks selling Nike and Coke?
I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. Public schools are funded in part by the federal government. They should have the right to offer opportunities to young men and women while at the same time boosting our national defense. This is nothing new and hasn't hurt us as a nation so far (I would argue it's actually stronger due to that practice), why stop it now?
Thanks Chris, Mike and and Ron for your comments. I appreciate the discussion... but I have to disagree with Chris and Ron.
Ron, I could make your argument about telemarketing -- does it really hurt the nation? That's debatable. It may reduce productivity, but a preponderance of Americans oppose it because it is invasive.
Chris, it's hard for me to buy the trade-off argument. If we are to have an opt-in army, then it's marketing should be opt-in, too. I would like to see the military focus on producing exceptional marketing. The "Army of One" campaign was not.
Additionally, I don't believe the families opting out of direct contact are anti-military (nor am I); I think they, like me, are opposed to opt-out access.
In the bigger picture, this is symptomatic of the marketing-saturated beast of American culture. When Americans say that regulating advertising and marketing is more important than regulating the nuclear power industry (as Yankelovich reported last year), then you know there's a crisis.
Seriously? This is a problem? Is this the only case of opt-out marketing to students? I don't think so. My grade school child got a special "reward" for attendance—a coupon to Chili's, given to her by the principal. We certainly didn't opt-in for a child begging us to go to Chili's so she could use her certificate. Do guidance counselors tell high school students about scholarship opportunities at various schools? Isn't that a form of marketing by the schools? The military is funded by our taxes. If direct contact lets the military find the right people more efficiently (saving us tax dollars), I'm all for it.
The military marketing is opt-in. The parents opted in when they enrolled the kids in government controlled schools. The law does not apply to private schools or kids being educated at home or otherwise outside the system.
Just regarding Chris' last comment: Public education is the only option for the overwhelming majority of the country. It is not an opt-in. Only those with financial resources can afford the options you mention. As such, it is yet another example of how those with money can shield themselves from advertising the less fortunate must suffer through.
To say that military marketing is opt-in by default because public education is partially financed by the federal government is like saying that it's OK for you to hang your company's banners on city buses for free because your taxes support public transportation.
