How do we know that. If it is so, why isn't the evidence put forth to make the argument?
I'm not going to wade through it, but yes that is public knowledge. It is buried in all the available data about Pentagon spending. There is a number for how much each recruit cost in advertising, and whether the number is increasing or decreasing. And yes, every use goes against a “metric” of results.
Many years ago the military sponsored several cars in NHRA drag racing. There was lots of complaining when they stopped. But it was simple - the results stopped so the money stopped.
I noticed that congresswoman dingbat said nothing about the money spent advertising on MTV - and yes there is LOTS of it. A friend of mine was complaining about that some years back. As I told him, where should it go, to “The Military Channel”? Who watches that? Well I do for one, and so do most of my friends. But why would you spend money on a channel that has mostly 50 and 60 year old ex-military viewers? None of us are going to join again unless the age and medical standards get relaxed - a bunch.
Ultimately the rules of advertising are the same, no matter what you are selling. You have a target audience, and you buy head count. And that's true whether it's NASCAR, or Two and a Half Men, or even MTV. You have to spend the money where you get the results.
Well, it was in the article ...
If it is true that one in three members of the military is a NASCAR fan, that tells me that the hood of a stock car probably isn't a bad place to advertise. The issue, though, as some have mentioned, is cost-effectiveness.
Understanding that we have an all-volunteer military, I'd like to see recruiting dollars spent as wisely as possible too. Or would it simply be better to have a draft and avoid the cost of recruiting advertising altogether?