The government sent my son a $2 bill. And they promised him another $5 if he would spend 15 minutes filling out a survey.
If you ask me, they should spend the money on young men and women with untreated Traumatic Brain Injuries.
The envelope said JAMRS. I thought it must be some engineering school we'd never heard of. My son is a senior in high school. He scored at the very top on all the math tests and checked engineering as his interest. He gets more mail than you could imagine. My daughter did equally well in English, but never got this kind of mail. Now that he's narrowed down his choices, most of it gets tossed.
JAMRS? I looked at both sides of the envelope. No explanation. When he opened it, the $2 bill fell out. Forget about a penny for your thoughts.
The survey was a dead giveaway. Had he considered a career in the military? Did he come from an area with high unemployment? Was he concerned about the cost of a higher education? Was he worried about his job prospects? What would his parents say if he told them he was interested in the military? If he were interested, which branch would it be?
Me, I kept looking to see who JAMRS was. They never said. Not on the front, not on the letter to give to your parents if you were under 18, nowhere.
It all rubbed me wrong. The government doesn't need to pay my son $7 for his opinion. Frankly, they can't afford to.
They don't need to ask him what I think. I'll tell them. For free.
When I got to my computer and Googled JAMRS, I learned that it was the "Joint Advertising Market Research and Studies." But of course.
How about some English and some honesty here? If you want kids to put their lives on the line, tell them who you are.
JAMRS "conducts marketing efforts — under the Today's Military brand — to enhance and extend the individual Services' communications efforts with a variety of branding and advertising initiatives."
The "Today's Military brand"? Is serving your country a brand? Do we need branding initiatives to "market" service? Are these people trying to turn us off, or is it just by accident?
I have nothing but respect for young people who choose to serve in the military. In my experience, it's a choice that is certainly affected by economic conditions and educational opportunities (the primary subject of the survey). But at its core — and the reason I respect it so much — it's a choice to serve this country. It's about patriotism and love of country.
Why is it being "sold" behind an unknowable acronym for an organization that makes it sound like what's involved is a choice between soaps or cereals?
Where is the dignity in paying kids seven bucks to check off some answers?
Where is the pride, the respect?
If the Department of Defense has cash to burn in sending out who knows how many $2 bills to young people, why not spend it taking care of the young people who already said yes and came home suffering serious long-term injuries that, according to media reports, are going undiagnosed and untreated? If the JAMRS folks want to enhance the conversation with parents about service, which is what their website says, why not do so by promising to treat our kids as the precious and irreplaceable lights of our lives that they are?
On the other hand, if they think they're better off hiding behind some marketing acronym, not to mention throwing cash money around, then all the branding in the world won't help our military fulfill its mission.
JAMRS? No thanks.
To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
|
 |
Comments
|
13 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
Suzie I am sure a child reared in your household would never be a candidate for the US Military. Hence it was a waste of funds in this case.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Paul
Wed Oct 6, 2010 10:12 AM
|
|
|
|
Well, Paul, it sounds like her kid is not only smarter than you and your kids, but I'll bet he can kick the snot out of you and your kids...Then again Paul probably doesn't have any kids because he probably can't attract a woman with any sense...
Comment: #2
Posted by: FWB
Wed Oct 6, 2010 10:34 AM
|
|
|
|
Paul, I'm an Army vet and I agree with what Ms. Estrich has to say in this article. I can't understand how our military can say they do not have enough funds to support those injured in service, but they can throw around money on a recruiting tool masquerading as a survay. $7 may not be a large amount of money, but multiplied by the hundreds of these survays that are sent out, it can really add up.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Michelle Keane
Wed Oct 6, 2010 11:32 AM
|
|
|
|
I'm surprised it took an unsolicited letter with $2 inside to make Ms. Estrich realize what is wrong with the modern military. How many National Guard, Army, Navy, Marine, Coast Guard commercials do you see on TV? Unlike Save the Children which gets air-time through charitable donation by the network, the U.S. Military has to pay for that airtime (and to make the commercials). What about recruiters going to high-school and college career fairs handing out lanyards, informational DVDs, etc. Those all cost money too.
Unlike traditional advertising which aims to create new customers or new employees that will bring in additional profits, the military is not a corporation, it actually has ZERO ability to make money. Instead, it consumes hundreds of billions of dollars of tax payer money every year. It's disgusting to think that a single penny goes towards recruitment of new soldiers when it should be going towards helping treat the ailments of veterans, or even better, any American citizen in need of medical care.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Nathan H.
Wed Oct 6, 2010 1:55 PM
|
|
|
|
Paul,
I have to agree with Michelle here. I'm an Air Force veteran with 20+ years of service. There's good recruiting and bad recruiting.
PS. What branch of the military did you serve in?
Comment: #5
Posted by: capiscan
Wed Oct 6, 2010 4:22 PM
|
|
|
|
Please don't confuse the real military with people contracted by the military big wigs. These pollsters are far removed from the real men and women of our nations defenders.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Calvin
Wed Oct 6, 2010 9:33 PM
|
|
|
|
I'm not in the Service, but I know a little bit about survey research. I happen to know that using token incentives actually decreases the cost of surveys by a large margin. As strange as it sounds, "burning cash" is probably saving the government a lot of taxpayer dollars.
As for not calling itself a military survey? That probably has to do with response bias. What good is a survey if the only people who respond to it are the ones who feel a certain way? (Try putting "Sarah Palin Survey" on the front of a political poll and see how accurate it is.) I'm sure Ms. Estrich is a bright lady who is very knowledgeable about a lot of things, but she seems to be winging it here.
Comment: #7
Posted by: Jesse
Thu Oct 7, 2010 6:46 AM
|
|
|
|
Forty-three years ago I would not have minded getting a lettter with money requesting I join the military. Instead I received a letter that began with Greetings, report to etc., etc. I had four choices, report as the letter told me, volunteer for the military, go to prison or go to Canada. My choice at the time was to volunteer for 4 years. I wonder if the draft was reinstated would the American people really support these unwinnable wars we find ourselves in today. We seem to live in a society of if it don't affect me personnally then I don't really care.
Comment: #8
Posted by: James
Thu Oct 7, 2010 12:24 PM
|
|
|
|
The DOD probably has to do things like this in California because of the lack of ROTC and ability to interview on school campus. I would imagine there are a couple of kids in California that might be interested in a military career.
Comment: #9
Posted by: Early
Fri Oct 8, 2010 6:21 AM
|
|
|
|
The saddest part is that so many young people enlist and risk their lives because they have no prospects for a good-paying job or the money to go to college, like your son has. I know one such young man who enlisted to support his new wife and baby but never made it home for his son's first birthday. If you want to get mad about something, get mad about that.
Comment: #10
Posted by: Laurie Craw
Fri Oct 8, 2010 11:06 PM
|
|
|
|
If a person wants to enlist in the Armed Forces, they can visit their local recruiting station and talk to representatives from all branches of the military. But having their personal information collected and analyzed by a private marketing firm without their knowledge for the purpose of targeted recruiting is just plain wrong. Very little is known about JAMRS and probably no one would know about it had it not come up for reauthorization. Good column. Good work.
Comment: #11
Posted by: Libby
Tue Nov 30, 2010 8:13 AM
|
|
|
|
Thanks for this post. My son also received this envelope. He ignored it, so I opened it. I did the same things as Susan, kept looking for who these people were. I was automatically suspicious because there was no explanation.
I liked what Jesse said about survey research. he is probably right. However, the deceptiveness of this mailing is irritating.
Lots of young men go into the military because they have no idea what they want to do with their lives. It's a good place to learn a lot of different life skills, however, at this time, during the wars, economic crisis, questionable presidential leadership and all the other messes, I wouldn't suggest the military for my son. Husband and father in law are both veterans too.
Comment: #12
Posted by: Adrienne
Wed Apr 20, 2011 8:15 AM
|
|
|
|
West Virginia Mother here of five and have two daughters in the age group of the survey.We received a request for my 22 year old to do the JAMRS survey and it says she was randomly selected.She just graduated with honors from Drake University in Des moines, Iowa and landed a job with McKesson in Los Angelos,Ca. I opened the survey read it over and was surprised at the lack of transparency of who JAMRS was.I wondered though, because she was a gifted student through school,excelled in math etc. if it really was not random at all (136 IQ score in third grade etc).I thought it was the military looking to our young but bright for potential "intelligence recruits" etc.So, after she received it she Googled it like I am doing. She said today she remembers taking a test somewhere through her years that was military aptitude and scoring high...so it is a target group.She wanted to write back with an expletive across the survey because she is a conscientious objector to much of what our country does and would like to see SMART goverment for the people not the top 1-2%!!!! Reading Economic Hit Man ,getting a degree in accounting she is aware and questioning.Not a follower by any means.
Comment: #13
Posted by: Laura Rusmisell
Fri Oct 14, 2011 2:09 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
