Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Military United States

US Army Planned To Pay Streamers Millions To Reach Gen-Z Through Call of Duty (vice.com) 85

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
The U.S. Army allocated millions of dollars to sponsor a wide range of esports tournaments, individual high profile Call of Duty streamers, and Twitch events in the last year to specifically grow its audience with Gen-Z viewers, and especially women and Black and Hispanic people, according to internal Army documents obtained by Motherboard. From the report: In many cases the sponsorships ultimately did not happen -- the Army ordered a stop of all spending with Call of Duty's publisher Activision after the company faced a wave of sexual harrassment complaints. But the documents provide much greater insight into the Army's goals and intentions behind its planned integrations with Call of Duty and other massive entertainment franchises.

"Audience: Gen-Z Prospects (A18-24)," one section of the documents read. "Focus on the growth of females, Black & Hispanics." Motherboard obtained the documents through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). A table included in the documents lists the funds the Army planned to spend on various platforms, events, and streamers. At the top, is Twitch and its HBCU [Historically Black Colleges and Universities] Showdown. Previous seasons of this esports league had players compete in Madden and NBA games. The Army planned to spend $1 million on sponsoring the event. The documents show that the U.S. military considered gaming and, in particular, Call of Duty, as a potentially useful branding and recruiting tool.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Army Planned To Pay Streamers Millions To Reach Gen-Z Through Call of Duty More

US Army Planned To Pay Streamers Millions To Reach Gen-Z Through Call of Duty

Comments Filter:

  • and my wife said "hey, i'm worried
    cause they're starting to deploy!"
    and i said "honey, don't be silly,
    we'll send someone else's boy,
    cause we all make sacrifices
    and in a war
    that's what the poor
    people are for"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    • Re:not surprised (Score:5, Informative)

      by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Friday December 02, 2022 @02:14PM (#63097246)
      You could also avoid surprise by having read this article on it [gamerant.com] a year ago.

      Or you could check out the US Army e-sports homepage [army.mil].

      Or, you could be suckered in by Motherboard's conspiratorial allusions, playing into the unhealthy symbiosis between lazy cynicism and sensationalist reporting.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Rujiel ( 1632063 )
        What is sensationalist about it? Isn't the process of military recruiting youth (especially the poor) through games and movies itself a sesnational thing?
        • To the broader issue, what is the solution? Universal conscription?
          • We're currently wrecking Russia's military with our equipment and some other country's kids. Works for me.
            • Not only that, we're getting our equipment and munitions field tested without risking any of our own troops. We now know how well they perform in practice and what needs fixing or improving.

            • Kids? I think every breathing human being in that country is in the fight.

        • "Isn't the process of military recruiting youth (especially the poor) through games and movies itself a sesnational thing?"

          Not inherently, no. It can conceivably be done in an exploitative way, but I don't see that the concept is itself inherently sensational.

        • Sensational? More like infuriating. Recruiters are pieces of shit, and it's a shame that more of them didn't catch COVID back in 2020 and choke on their own snot. Their job is basically to lie to children (16-17 years olds) and convince them to sign up to commit murder or suicide for the multinational corporations in their country.
          • Recruiters rarely have to lie, especially when unemployment is high and kids coming out of High School are wondering if they'll find jobs. And, of course, they're talking to people who want to do something for their country, rather than sitting back and waiting for government handouts to fall into their laps.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Rujiel ( 1632063 )
              "they're talking to people who want to do something for their country, rather than sitting back and waiting for government handouts to fall into their laps." Wow, wait until you find out that military funding is completely socialized.
              • I'm a vet. A 'Nam vet who spent seven months in Tonkin Gulf back in '72 and I'm 30% disabled, all Service Connected. I think I've earned my VA medical benefits and Disability Compensation. What have you done for your country?
                • Just ignore such uninformed claims. Military, together with all the service-related benefits, is indeed paid fot by the state - in a fully and completely capitalist fashion: in exchange for very specific things (services , in fact). Sorry to hear of what it dif to you
                  • None of it was caused by enemy action. I lost part of my hearing because of too much exposure to outbound gunfire when we were doing shore support, along with tinnitus. And, my LADA was ruled to be the long-term affect of indirect exposure to Agent Orange. Yes, our ship was targeted by counter-battery twice, but the closest they came was about thirty yards away. Seeing those six inch shells splash in the water was just like watching a well-made war movie.
                    • I would surmise that the effects of your disability are not any easier because they were caused by something other than direct confrontation with the enemy, nor the merit of your service is diminished by the absence of such directly injurous confrontations.. It's impressive how you managed to see those shells falling close to your ship as like watching a movie - I wonder how many of those anti-military/critical-of-military types would have had the same presence of spirit.
                    • I didn't see the shells themselves, just the splashes. Even then I was a military history buff and had watched lots of WW II movies, so the image came easily. As far as the anti-war types, I doubt that they'd have seen enough of those movies to make the connection.
                    • It's true that they probably didn't see those movies, but beyond just not making the connection... it's unkind of me but I was kinda insinuating that they were more likely than anyone to be breaking into tears or something like that...
                    • And of course, I can't imagine any of them signing up to serve in the first place. Not only would it be against their anti-military principles, it would mean doing something for their country instead of just holding their hands out for freebies.
                    • What you just said, exactly. And keep indeed in mind, regarding those whose wish to accuse the military of any kind of "socialistic" benefits, that people frequently accuse others of what they themselves guilty of. (P.S. Since you mentioned being a military history buff... do you know the books by Basil H. Liddell Hart? I myself have this interest - maybe not to the buff level, but still - and I found them awesome).
                    • I've only read his book on strategy, where he makes a great case for using indirect approaches instead of direct. Sherman's March to the Sea is a great example, as he was always threatening at least two objectives and never went where the Confederates defended.
                    • You mention a book I never got my hands on... I read "The military history of the second world war", the book on the first world war, "The side of the hill"... Actually, one thing thay made mention this author is (apart from these books being really excellent) is that he had served in the first world war and got injured (I think he got too much of a sniff of those gasses), it was bad enough that he had to be honorably discharged but he still was able to lead a productive life afterwards, so I would surmise

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by Rujiel ( 1632063 )

                    "Military, together with all the service-related benefits, is indeed paid fot by the state"

                    That is literally what I said

                    • I may have understood you but you said that military is "socialized", which I interpreted as "receiving handouts". I was pointing out that all the benefits that military personnel receives are part of a purely economic transactions: they are obtained in return of serving for a certain time, with all that may entail, such as risking your life, putting up with lots of s--t, changing locations frequently, etc. It is no different from your employer paying for your health insurance and giving you a salary, whic
                    • That was to be "misunderstood", sorry

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by Rujiel ( 1632063 )

                  I'm not just talking about the cost of the VA which has failed so many people, but the whole of US warfare. Obviously the contractors receive public money. it's all socialism for them even not in practice.

                  The defense department can't even account for what 61% of its public funding was used for. Not a failing grade, they say!
                  https://thehill.com/policy/def... [thehill.com]

                  it's a system that destroys its own citizens' welfare while also ruining the livelihoods and futures of families around the world. Like for example, how'

                  • All I can say in response is that you have a very non-standard definition of socialism [wikipedia.org].
                  • You do understand, do you, that universal healthcare means that your taxes go from say 15% of your gross income to something like 25? This is the case for those countries that do have universal healthcare... and whose military spending is not even up to NATO's threshhold?

        • What's sensationalist is targeting racial and gender groups in violation of civil rights laws that say all such groups are to be treated equally.

    • I know one recruit that joined partly as a result of these esports, and his family is anything but poor.

  • how did they expect recruiters to advertize ? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Micah NC ( 5616634 ) on Friday December 02, 2022 @01:56PM (#63097186)
    Are some advertisements okay and some not ?

    Should the government not be allowed to recruit ?

    What is news about this ?

  • Dangerous... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Friday December 02, 2022 @01:57PM (#63097190) Homepage Journal
    You know, recruiting by checking off quota boxes is a dangerous thing.

    We need to be targeting for recruitment, people that can get into and stay in shape and can be trained to kill our enemies.

    Plain and simple.

    I don't believe the Chinese govt is worrying too much about their service members preferred pronouns, nor do I believe they are lowering the physical requirements for their trainees so that a few more underrepresented demographics can be admitted.

    If/when we go to war in a real way...we are going to be in serious fucking trouble is we have armed forces that are not a fully cohesive unit, where each individual knows the whole team is behind them body and soul and is in good enough physical shape not only to hold up their end but to aid others in the heat of battle.

    But alas...the US military has their priorities in other places now.

    And often those goals of today, being a nice, friendly, woke military is driving away the exact people you want to be recruiting.

    • They missed their recruiting goals: need vs "woke" (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Somervillain ( 4719341 ) on Friday December 02, 2022 @02:12PM (#63097238)

      You know, recruiting by checking off quota boxes is a dangerous thing.

      We need to be targeting for recruitment, people that can get into and stay in shape and can be trained to kill our enemies.

      Plain and simple.

      I don't believe the Chinese govt is worrying too much about their service members preferred pronouns, nor do I believe they are lowering the physical requirements for their trainees so that a few more underrepresented demographics can be admitted.

      If/when we go to war in a real way...we are going to be in serious fucking trouble is we have armed forces that are not a fully cohesive unit, where each individual knows the whole team is behind them body and soul and is in good enough physical shape not only to hold up their end but to aid others in the heat of battle.

      But alas...the US military has their priorities in other places now.

      And often those goals of today, being a nice, friendly, woke military is driving away the exact people you want to be recruiting.

      The army missed their recruiting goals by 25% in 2022. They're not recruiting minorities and women for "wokeness," but because not enough people like you serve. I'll wager you never even served...if you did, you'd not be threatened by diversity. The army has been quite diverse since before you and I were born. In your first day at bootcamp, you'll meet people from many many ethnic backgrounds. If the army was meeting their recruiting goals, they'd probably not put too much money into advertising at all. Cool rant and all. If it was relevant, it might even be compelling. I know people like you want to blame "wokeness" for society's failings, but life is more complex than that.

      The army is the last organization to put their goals behind representation. It's literally life or death. They also have nearly no external pressure to comply with progressive ideals. The "woke" liberals turn a blind eye to the military because they know the only way you can be progressive in the first place is you're safe from physical threats....also, frankly, the military is not on their radar. Most also bask in the boomer anti-war efforts. The dumbest of them probably think it shouldn't even exist. They're not examining the military ranks and complaining about the lack of non-binary or women serving.

      The army isn't recruiting under-represented groups to feel good about themselves. They do it because they can't find enough people...plain and simple. Your statement is profoundly ignorant and unhelpful. Do some basic research before going on your rants.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Rujiel ( 1632063 )

        "The "woke" liberals turn a blind eye to the military because they know the only way you can be progressive in the first place is you're safe from physical threats.."

        This is true perhaps in the case of coddled politicians and media figures, but I don't think it's true of the broader left in the US, and especially not younger people.

      • you'd not be threatened by diversity. The army has been quite diverse since before you and I were born

        I don't think anyone has a problem with diversity....as long as the criteria for selection was MERIT.

        You don't need to recruit or hire base on filling a quote, you need to fill on merit, and through merit, you will have diversity, but it will be based on who is the best candidate.

        And for our military they need to be appropriate for the job and those in the field, need to meet the higher standards of phys

        • you'd not be threatened by diversity. The army has been quite diverse since before you and I were born

          I don't think anyone has a problem with diversity....as long as the criteria for selection was MERIT.

          You don't need to recruit or hire base on filling a quote, you need to fill on merit, and through merit, you will have diversity, but it will be based on who is the best candidate.

          And for our military they need to be appropriate for the job and those in the field, need to meet the higher standards of physical fitness...not to have the proverbial bar lowered so that those with lesser physical capabilities can make it.

          At no point did the military say they'd lower their standards to accommodate diversity. They're not saying..." able-bodied women and people of color...have you thought of joining the military?"...not saying "hey...we don't have enough minorities...let's lower our standards so we can have more representation."

          I can't tell if you're ignorant or disingenuous, but looking for people and lowering standards have nothing to do with one another...I can't imagine you being unintelligent enough to not know this.

          • They are absolutely lowering physical fitness standards in order to get more women into the military.

      • The army is the last organization to put their goals behind representation.

        Yeah, they clearly [dtic.mil] don't care about that at all [apnews.com].

        They also have nearly no external pressure to comply with progressive ideals.

        Oh yeah [cfr.org], none whatsoever [carnegieendowment.org].

        The "woke" liberals turn a blind eye to the military

        Sure [csmonitor.com], I totally see what you mean [politico.com].

        because they know the only way you can be progressive in the first place is you're safe from physical threats

        Absolutely [hoover.org], look how safe our military activity has made us [911memorial.org].

        Most also bask in the boomer anti-war efforts.

        Oh yeah [nytimes.com], just look at how anti-war boomers are [pewresearch.org].

        The dumbest of them probably think it shouldn't even exist.

        Good thing they have you to set them straight then, huh?

        TML;DR: GTFOH

      • "They're not examining the military ranks and complaining about the lack of non-binary or women serving. "

        So you aren't in the actual military either, I see.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mjwx ( 966435 )

        The army isn't recruiting under-represented groups to feel good about themselves. They do it because they can't find enough people...plain and simple. Your statement is profoundly ignorant and unhelpful. Do some basic research before going on your rants.

        This.

        The ranks of the Armed forces in most developed countries tend to be dominated by the poor. Especially the enlisted ranks. For centuries the British navy was seen as a good step for any poor lad who could hack it, a chance for a poor Victorian lad who cant even read to make some serious coin. Even today a lot of Americans see the Army as a route to (being able to afford) college.

        So it makes a lot of sense for them to look at Latinos and *gasp* women, especially latino and black women who will be

    • army needs to allow pot like the allow beer!

      • you really think soldiers are going to go into a fight after 16:20?

      • Seriously... back when I was in the service (20 years ago, US Army, 27e), they practically poured beer down new recruits' throats, possibly getting a whole generation of solders started on their journey to alcoholism. "You're done working, now go get drunk!"... But they had a zero tolerance policy for pot.

        After a few years of service, I was charged with possession for a few grams of weed and was kicked out. IMO the penalty was excessive...the new company commander was just setting the standard by being

    • When did you serve and what was your MOS/AFSC/etc?

      The armed forces have many gamers because nearly everyone in that age group games, even senior NCOs/officers. That was the case long before I ETSed in 2007. I joined in 1981 so I my career fixing fighters spanned punch cards and dump Unix terminals to the modern internet.

      Computer literacy is vital throughout the armed forces. Except for infantry and similar cardio and weight limits are mostly emphasized because American diets changed most of us into a nation

    • Ensuring that military service members are representative of the population they serve is important. A military that sees itself as separate from the population is how you get military coups. Our military must be "of the people, and for the people".

      Recruiting anyone other than those who are physically and mentally fit to serve is not going to work out -no matter the good intentions that motivate the recruitment. The only color that matters in the army is green. There is no room for racism or sexism in s

    • The real danger is unit cohesion and the type of people being recruited. But in the long ago a music video, and this was before music videos were widely popular, was created by the village people. While the band is now a gay icon, they were pretty straight. The Navy let them film on a navy ship. The idea was it could be a recruitment video. I think it was decided that it would attract the wrong type of people.

    • You know, recruiting by checking off quota boxes is a dangerous thing.
      We need to be targeting for recruitment, people that can get into and stay in shape and can be trained to kill our enemies.

      No, we don't know that. Recruiting is all about the quotas, so I'm assuming by your poor choice of words you know nothing about military recruiting. That a fair assessment? Let me explain this to you.

      We could save a lot of money by only running recruiting stations in the most populated states, and focusing on dense urban areas. Just by the numbers, that's how it works, it's where the people are. You know those liberal strongholds, cities, right? We don't need to run a recruiting station in Alaska, and

    • we have armed forces that are not a fully cohesive unit, where each individual knows the whole team is behind them body and soul and is in good enough physical shape not only to hold up their end but to aid others in the heat of battle.

      I'd say it's even worse with the branches having so many overlapping functions. Consolidate them into one armed force.

    • Give kids a weapons drone to fly in a computer game. See how often they do friendly fire. Then, it's just a simple matter of recruiting the good ones to fly real military drones.

    • I thought they were lowering physical requirements because so many in the relevant age group are sedentary and/or overweight..,

  • They do, and have been doing, the same thing with "mainstream" sporting events for years (Google "paid patriotism")...the differences are not what people are trying to make them out to be, and this is just the logical extension of that. If you have a problem with this, then you need to be upset about all the patriotic theater in NFL, Nascar, etc too. This article (I mean, it is Vice) seems to be trying to drum up some sort of "backlash"...against what, I'm not sure? Attempts at diversity? Trying to reac

    • The military parasites literally paid the NFL to have football players stand for the Stupid Song. Before the mid-2000s, this was never a thing, but they needed more kids to sign up to commit murder or be murdered in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fuck Bush the Lesser.

  • CoD isn't exactly a too "realistic" representation of what army is like. A ticket shooter isn't exactly how you want your army to behave...

  • They have been trying to reach young people since they started producing FPS games back in 2000. Earlier versions 1.x and 2.x broke all kinds of records for online players, downloads and registrations. The early versions you had actually go to school in the game and pass tests to be able to play. The medic training was very informative and provided really world information that could be used offline. FPS game play but in order for your team to win, working together as a team was a must. Designed in awa

    • The military has been trying to reach the youth since 1862 [wikipedia.org].

      • >The military has been trying to reach the youth since 1862 [wikipedia.org].

        LOL. I meant through FPS gaming obviously. No edit feature to reword that better unforunately.

  • The armed forces are full of gamers both officer and enlisted. This is far from new.

    When I was an Alert maintenance super pilots and maintainers had many hours of standby time to kill so some brought our personal cable modems to work to give the group internet access via the cable TV connections. No risk to any official network and much fun was had.

  • Wait, you mean after we spent the last 18 years fucking them over, crushing the adults cared for them, suppressing their wages, ignoring constant school shootings, lying, and gaslighting them over climate change, completely ignoring their voices, and turning politics into an arena for everything we told them was wrong and disrespectful.... now we're all surprised picachu when they want nothing to do with defending the system that's been fucking them since birth?

    Golly. Color me surprised.

    • (I'm technically a combat vet but watching Scuds miss the flight line hardly counts except to the VA.)

      Most youngsters rely on peers and veterans for feedback. That's why I went USAF instead of Army or USMC. The Nam vets I grew up around told me I'd be "fucking retarded" to join either and I saw nothing in 26 years or afterwards to make me doubt them. I knew most of any career is spent in peacetime conditions so which choose shit over caviar? Everyone needs air power and "there are many ways to serve".

      OTOH I

  • Is a 700 pound call of duty gamer really fit for service though?
  • Where you speed all day trying to fix something with an inadequate service manual?

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (10) Sorry, but that's too useful.

Close