Military marketing expert blasts Army deal with The Rock

This week, Military.com’s Steve Beynon reported that the U.S. Army’s $11 million sponsorship deal with the United Football League and co-owner Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson “was so catastrophic, it led to a projected loss of 38 enlistments.” That projected loss analysis, from an internal review of the deal, has led to a lot of commentary on the subject. But it’s worth getting some insight on that from someone who’s specifically worked in the military marketing space for a long time, so AA spoke to military marketing expert Matt Gafford by e-mail about this deal and what went wrong.

Gafford was the lead marketing manager at USAA for more than six years from 2017-2023, working at that company for almost eight years in total. He’s since founded his own agency, The Barracks, to connect brands to the military community. He said the specific Army-UFL campaign here, illuminated in that piece from Beynon, was “flawed from the start.”

“Any marketing campaign—or military operation, for that matter—must be designed to deliver against the goals you wish to achieve. Based on published information, the Army’s endgame was to boost recruiting. The Army seemed to believe aligning with Dwayne Johnson and levering his considerable social following was a route to reach their desired audience—and that a partnership with the UFL was the path to inclusion in The Rock’s social channels. With that in mind, the UFL/Army campaign was poorly executed and was also a flawed idea from the start.”

Gafford said a particular issue was how this deal “relied on celebrity over property” in emphasizing Johnson rather than the league.

“To be effective, a brand needs to execute assets included in a partnership and then provide additional activation executions to amplify the message beyond those at the game or watching the broadcast at home. Instead of following this blueprint, the Army leaned into social media posts from a celebrity. The overall partnership was flawed from the start, as it relied on celebrity over property (UFL). Johnson has a larger following than the UFL, but the Army’s partnership was with the UFL—not Johnson.”

He said the campaign should have seen potential Johnson posts (they reportedly only received two of the five they contracted for, and are working out a settlement there) as a nice extra rather than the core part of the plan. Or, alternatively, if they wanted to work with Johnson rather than the UFL, they should have just done that.

“The Army should have viewed any brand engagement from Johnson as a bonus, above and beyond assets received through the UFL partnership. If the intent was to partner with Johnson, the Army should have explored a direct relationship instead of through a third party, like the UFL. Jumping into a partnership with an unproven property simply to leverage celebrity is messy.

“The Army saw an opportunity to have Johnson directly support the brand at a price they were willing to spend and that risk was worth the opportunity. Unfortunately for the Army, a legal battle may be required to provide remedy for what sounds like unfulfilled assets.”

Gafford said working with a recently-formed league like the UFL shouldn’t be off the table, especially if the price is right, but it does come with higher risk than an established league.

“The biggest element to evaluate with any sponsorship is the value proposition. A brand has to weigh whether the audience that can be reached through the property is the right audience for the brand and whether that audience is worth the financial investment in the property.

“A new property can be a fit, if that property finds some traction and shows signs of longevity and growth potential. It also makes the investment from a brand a higher-risk proposition. For a “new” league, the UFL showed signs of future seasons, evidenced by just under 1 million viewers per game. But for every UFL, there’s an XFL that didn’t make it.”

He said the comparisons many have made to the National Guard’s NASCAR sponsorship a decade ago don’t all fit, given the vastly different era. But one thing that does overlap there, in Gafford’s mind, is the lack of going beyond just visuals.

“The National Guard’s NASCAR sponsorship was a different property and a different time. It’s unfair to draw conclusions as to whether sponsorship is the right path for a branch of military service based on one example.

“However, what should have been a warning is the execution. Did the National Guard expect there to be a straight line result from applying a National Guard logo on a car to an uptick in recruiting? Without supporting activation beyond assets provided within a sponsorship, the full value of a partnership will not be realized.”

Gafford said if he was running Army ads, the first step would be a wider approach and a longer-term look. He thinks the short-term focus here was part of the problem.

“Before I’d look at Army ad placement, I’d want to understand the goals Army has and the budget available. Rather than focus on ads within a broadcast, the right approach would be to build a holistic campaign that includes appropriate tactics to reach the desired audience. Otherwise, you’re likely to fall into the same trap Army found themselves in with the UFL. The Army has recruitment goals to hit with a September deadline.

“The UFL fit into the Army’s timeline being able to complete a season of play with time still for a postseason evaluation. For the money the Army spent with the UFL, a sponsorship with the NFL could have been a consideration. But the NFL season doesn’t start until September. There are other property considerations available which would have been a better fit. But the property won’t matter if the plan is to simply splash some TV ads on a broadcast. A commitment from a brand to fully leverage the power of a partner property is a must-have for the brand to achieve the best results.”

And he said that kind of holistic approach can be particularly important in an era where not as many in Gen Z, the target demographic for Army recruiting advertising, are watching live sports.

“I think the definition of live sports has changed and marketers have to embrace not only the channel which Gen Z consumes sports but embrace the generation’s interest. For example, gaming has exploded among this demographic, yet gaming is not consumed through traditional TV broadcasting avenues. Instead, marketers have to not only go where the individuals are but reach those eyeballs through channels that make sense.

“Live streaming, interactive considerations, game integrations are all advertising tactics available to a brand. But a brand has to be willing to adapt to the audience they are trying to reach. Within the “traditional” definition of sports, there’s still an opportunity to reach an audience.

“But it’s no longer as simple as traditional TV ads. This is where sponsorship, social media, events, video content distribution, and PR/earned media efforts are utilized to tell a more impactful brand story that is more likely to reach the desired audience.”

Gafford said a key for brands in military or military-related marketing is a deep understanding of the area, which he thinks they often miss.

“To effectively reach the military community a brand must show they understand the segment through imagery, vernacular, and creative — and then illustrate how that brand/product supports the military or makes their life easier. If a servicemember is going to be shown in-uniform, then the uniform needs to be authentic. If the individual is shown saluting, that salute needs to be executed in the same manner as a servicemember would perform.

“Unfortunately, brands often don’t look at this level of detail, instead opting for a stock image with a servicemember in the equivalent of a costume uniform literally wrapped in the American flag. Brands confuse ‘Americana’ for military, seeking to insert patriotic elements to represent military service. Those who have served respect the flag, and very well may fly one outside their home, but they don’t wrap themselves in it.”

He said another crucial element is that sponsorships often take time to produce results, and should not be the only part of a marketing approach.

“Sponsorships are a great tool to increase awareness of a brand, product, or brand position among a target audience. Awareness does not immediately translate into sales or consumption. Brands can be short-sighted and expect sponsorship to be an all-in-one solution, which is most likely what the U.S. Army did in this situation.

“Sponsorship is a long-tail tool best executed over a number of years which allows a brand to build equity among the audience who may be slow to align the brand with the property. Once that connection is made, data shows fans are exponentially more likely to consider buying from the brand. The Army aligned with a new property that didn’t have an established fanbase and expected immediate results. That’s not a winning formula.”