Wavell Room
Image default
Long ReadPeople and Leadership

Fix Up, Look Sharp

The British Army is doing itself a disservice by failing to communicate its brand effectively. The Army needs to have a brand that appeals to multiple stakeholders, so that it can be a stronger organisation over the longer term. There is residual goodwill and public respect towards the Army, with 90{4dab693c107f7b6d4058a0febcf4eed43717abc6a37e80004208d6080fd302b5} of people stating that they support members of the Armed Forces, but there remains a clear gap in public understanding of their role.[1] They respect the Armed Forces – even more so than NHS staff – but don’t quite understand what it is that they do.[2]

However, these high levels of respect have not translated into a clear understanding of the Army itself. It is one thing to respect a serviceman or women, but another to hold affection and regard for the institution. The Army can learn from the NHS here. As an organisation, it is loved by consumers, beating even global juggernauts like Dove and Visa, who spend millions on brand campaigns every year.[3]

Part of this is due to the regular access and interactions many people have with the NHS, but it is also the result of a highly strategic approach to managing the brand across multiple groups of stakeholders. The NHS knows exactly how valuable its brand is, and the trust it generates, and it therefore seeks to maintain a strong hold on how it shows up in all public arenas.[4]

The success of the NHS demonstrates that size, complexity and public funding is no barrier to building a brand. The NHS employs 1.3 million people,[5] and its budget is about 3.5 x bigger than the entirety of UK defence.[6] There’s no excuse, and no reason, for the Army’s failure to have a brand that communicates effectively with its key groups of stakeholders.

Building a strong brand

In order to build that institutional respect and understanding, and bridge the gap between civilians and the military, the Army must first understand and clarify the needs of their stakeholder groups. Then it must decide on the role the brand plays for that audience. There are five broad audiences to consider:

  1. Existing servicemen and women

The brand can be a rallying cry, inspiring them in challenging times (particularly during budget and staffing cuts) and encouraging them to stay the course in the long-term. An effective brand could significantly help to improve retention.

  1. Potential recruits

The brand can act as a beacon, persuading people to choose the Army over both other public sector and defence organisations, and over easier (and sometimes better paid) jobs in the private sector. A strong Army brand here could help address some of the challenges of under-staffing.

  1. Politicians

The brand demonstrates the value the Army uniquely brings to UK defence and security capabilities, showing how it fulfills UK defence aims and ambitions. This helps to ensure that the Army does not unduly suffer from funding cuts – a particular risk, given the long-term equipment spending plans of the Navy and Air Force.

  1. British public

The brand helps to build support, enthusiasm and empathy for servicemen and women. This further helps recruitment and retention, as people see the Army as a viable career choice that leads to status and wider appreciation by the public, which can help compensate for some of the challenges of a life in service. It is important that this message steers clear of purely venerating veterans and the injured. It needs to put forwards a positive message and build understanding of the realities of Army life; not create a pity party that lionises the forces and their sacrifices.[7]

  1. The wider world

The brand projects power and influence, supporting broader UK defence ambitions. A successful brand will reassure allies, deter enemies, and help the UK to secure and retain an influential place in global politics. A strong global brand can also assist in procurement negotiations with major global firms – be someone they are proud to supply, and you can often negotiate better terms and agreements.


There are two critical implications for the Army. Firstly, it needs to set out a precise strategic viewpoint that can then be translated into relevant messages for each stakeholder group. Secondly, it needs to build the internal capabilities to deliver this message consistently.

Setting out a strategic viewpoint

The most effective brands are intertwined with a coherent, long-term strategic view. To succeed, the Army’s brand needs to reflect the long-term ambitions of the Army and its role in wider UK defence. This will help ensure that messages are consistent, meaning that they look and feel like part of a coherent overall strategy. It will also mean that messages stay consistent over time, reinforcing the long-term strategy of the Army. The messages need to be fully embraced by those within the Army, but particularly those in HR, communications and leadership roles, who can then also work to ensure that brand and messaging is consistent with the reality of service life day to day.

Realistically, this will be very hard for the Army to achieve in its current state. There is a lack of clarity on the role of the Army in the long-term, which others have covered in much more detail and nuance elsewhere.[8] It is cornered by complex political realities, and thus far has failed to put forwards a clear view.[9] Solving that challenge is beyond the purview of this post (and this author), but once a strategic direction has been set that needs to act as the basis for the Army brand.

Building internal capabilities

The complexity of managing a multiple-stakeholder brand means that the Army needs to have a team of people who are experienced and able to agree a strategic direction, and push it through to execution, year after year. It is important not to outsource this task to ad companies and consultants – they will no doubt deliver excellent work, but they are very expensive to maintain in the longer term. It will be more effective and cost-efficient for the Army to develop the capability internally. This will likely involve some external hires at the start, and then as the capability is embedded, new Army recruits can be trained up as specialists. This will help further ensure that brand and messaging is consistent with the lived experience of Army men and women.

Again, solving this will be hard for the Army. It’s okay for the brand to be a journey, and it’s okay to not be perfect all the time. It’s only natural that sometimes the Army won’t live up to every brand ideal it espouses. But it is not okay to ignore vast groups of stakeholders.

The Army is living the consequences of this right now in the form of recruitment and retention issues. These cannot be solved with yet another snazzy, short-term recruitment campaign that seeks to conceal a declining offer for new joiners behind sexy messaging and facebook ads. A long-term, strategic approach, which reflects a clear strategic view of the Army’s role in the future, and considers the needs of multiple groups, is the only way forwards.

[1] https://www.kcl.ac.uk/kcmhr/publications/assetfiles/2014/Hines2014.pdf

[2] http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2012/05/the-armed-forces-society/

[3] https://www.prophet.com/relevantbrands-2016/uk.pdf

[4] See https://www.england.nhs.uk/nhsidentity/ to get a glimpse of how tightly controlled brand guidelines are. For a more detailed view, they have publicised 2016 research on stakeholder views, which shows the depth of consideration they give to their brand. You can find it at https://www.england.nhs.uk/nhsidentity/wp-content/uploads/sites/38/2016/08/NHS-Identity-Research-phase-one-and-two.pdf

[5] http://www.nhsconfed.org/resources/key-statistics-on-the-nhs


[7] https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3972266/nations-top-soldier-sir-nick-carter-warns-that-britain-is-damaging-its-own-army-by-treating-troops-like-victims/

[8] https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/how-do-you-solve-problem-like.html

[9] http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/beyond-sangars-towards-post-afghanistan.html?m=1

The views expressed within individual posts and media are those of the author and do not reflect any official position or that of the author’s employees or employer. Concerns regarding content should be addressed to the wavellroom through the contact form

Siân Davies

Siân Davies is a business leader and army wife, with over a decade’s experience working for some of the world’s biggest & most well regarded companies

Related posts

Changing the RUSI LWC – The View from The Wavell Room

The Wavell Room Team

Grey Threat: Exploring Tactical Information Advantage.

Squadron Leader Rob Pitt RAF

Maximising Fighting Power: Eighth Army at Alamein 1942

Steve Maguire

Leave a Comment