A suitably secretive away-day three years ago marked one of the first occasions that a select group from the marketing services world was introduced to the British Army's Recruiting Partnering Project (RPP).
The Army's roster and non-roster agencies, as well as representatives from the IT, training, assessment and education industries, made up the 120 attendees. They learned of the Ministry of Defence's plan to make 'efficiencies' - a euphemism for cost-cutting - and modernise by outsourcing almost every stage of its recruiting process to a consortium on a 10-year contract.
When this development came to light, those already on the Army's payroll were eager to play down the relevance of the RPP to their businesses. Fast-forward to 2010, however, and its significance cannot be underestimated.
Publicis, the Army's lead strategic agency, is not involved with the two consortia that have progressed to the 'detailed dialogue' stage of the process, which should lead to a new contract being awarded next year and full implementation in 2012. The official line from the MoD is that Mulberry, Publicis' consortium, pulled out of the process. Other incumbents such as Tequila\ and PR agency Biss Lancaster are in the same situation.
Given that the Army's marketing work has been widely acclaimed, at first glance the current situation is some-what puzzling. Colin Cook, the Army's marketing director, is happy to heap praise on Publicis, which has held the account since 2002, saying it has 'produced some excellent work in support of Army recruiting'.
Behind closed doors
The RPP, as one would expect of a multimillion-pound government contract, is cloaked in secrecy - non-disclosure agreements have been the order of the day - so it is difficult to get any transparency as to how decisions have been made. Without having sight of the marketing submissions, it is also hard to judge their respective merits. However, assuming the current marketing work is as highly regarded as it appears to be, the split may say more about the importance - or lack of - marketing in the process.
Perhaps the prevailing attitude by those running the RPP is summed up by one observer, who says: 'It's not only one agency that can do Army recruit-ment well. There are probably a dozen that can.' Indeed, while Colonel Andrew Chapman, who is overseeing the project, is eager to stress that marketing is a critical part of the 'attraction operation' (Army speak for drawing in new recruits), he freely admits it is a 'small part in the sense that the RPP is looking at the entire operation'.
One of the key drivers of the project is the introduction of a new IT infra-structure contract, so the marketing services agency that ended up with a strong partner in this area in its consortium will no doubt have had a distinct advantage.
Those who have been involved in the process are split as to whether market-ing disciplines such as advertising and PR should have been part of the process in the first place. While some argue that it is a worthwhile exercise - 'You have to look at things as a total integrated package,' is one comment - others are at a loss as to the wisdom of lumping together a creative business with an ICT (information communication technology) partner.
There are also questions as to whether all the effort will prove worthwhile in the long run. Marketing understands that the contract has been drawn up on a fixedcost-per-recruit basis. While the recession has boosted Army ranks, when the economic climate improves and the employment market becomes more competitive, the fixed-cost contract becomes a less attractive prospect.
Aiming for efficiencies
Some observers wonder why the RPP was not run across all three military services if making efficiencies was the aim. But old rivalries are hard to shake off, and it is understood that RAF bosses' unease that their needs would be overshadowed by the Army prevented a wider review, although rumours still abound that the RPP could still be expanded in this way.
Large sums of taxpayers' money have already been spent on this, but more will be needed to get the contract up and running, which is why doubt looms over whether it will come to fruition. 'There's been a change of government since the start of the RPP so they might not be able to, or want to, do this after all,' says one insider.
Only last month a row broke out between the Treasury and the MoD over which department should fund the renewal of the Trident nuclear deterrent, so the interest in signing a multimillion-pound contract could be on the wane.
The final twist in the RPP story could be that little changes, leaving all parties wondering why they got involved in the first place.