In these times of minimal budgets, should DOD subscribe to sponsors?

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 29 May 2015 15:37:29 -0400

Similar to sports teams, DOD could take on sponsors to supplement the dwindling budget. One example, a company would pay DOD a sum and then put their brand on a piece of clothing or equipment and have all branches of service wear it. What are your thoughts? Would the additional money help DOD and specifically the military?

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made May 29 at 2015 3:45 PM

CPT Ahmed Faried — Fri, 29 May 2015 15:45:14 -0400

Response by SGT Richard H. made May 29 at 2015 3:48 PM

SGT Richard H. — Fri, 29 May 2015 15:48:25 -0400

Interesting idea....with a plethora of opportunities for conflict of interest.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made May 29 at 2015 3:49 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Fri, 29 May 2015 15:49:14 -0400

Maybe.

As an example, we have the Marine Corps Marathon. It has sponsors. Companies like Brooks (running shoes), Gatorade, etc. I think this is perfectly valid.

I also think that companies could provide "gear" as a tax credit to the government. Basically put it on the GSA schedule and the government is able to buy it (to a point) as a form of sponsorship, up to the company's tax liability.

Should a company be able to "brand" us? No. But that does mean there isn't some middle ground. Things like the Panasonic Toughbook advertisements are examples of good branding. Lockheed uses good branding.

There absolutely should be some "symbiotic" relationship involved there.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made May 29 at 2015 3:52 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 29 May 2015 15:52:45 -0400

"This military operation is sponsored by Haliburton"...
No, this is not a good idea.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made May 29 at 2015 3:52 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 29 May 2015 15:52:56 -0400

I see a huge pandora's box of corruption and racketeering.

Sounds nice, but I say leave it alone.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made May 29 at 2015 3:53 PM

LTC Bink Romanick — Fri, 29 May 2015 15:53:45 -0400

If you want an tellectually based answer I don't have one so I'll just say hell no.

Response by SSG Trevor S. made May 29 at 2015 3:55 PM

SSG Trevor S. — Fri, 29 May 2015 15:55:50 -0400

We do have sponsors, the American people. We should thank them every once in awhile.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made May 29 at 2015 4:02 PM

MSG Brad Sand — Fri, 29 May 2015 16:02:05 -0400

Cool, I think we could get our Carriers looking like a NASCAR race car? Even better, Wonder Bread could sponsor a Abrams...and then the crew could wear the costumes from Talladega Nights!

Response by LTC John Shaw made May 29 at 2015 4:05 PM

LTC John Shaw — Fri, 29 May 2015 16:05:55 -0400

Hate this idea! It turns the military service and the trust we engender into another corporate Ad pitch.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 29 at 2015 4:11 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 29 May 2015 16:11:14 -0400

"This sticker is dangerous and inconvenient, but I do love Fig Newtons."

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 29 at 2015 4:39 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 29 May 2015 16:39:36 -0400

Actually... It would be interesting to see the services being publicly traded on NASDAQ or the Dow. I'm curious how long each would last...

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made May 29 at 2015 4:52 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 29 May 2015 16:52:38 -0400

Let me play Devils advocate...

Nike donates boots to the entire Corp and in return receives a tax break and the free advertising of Marines wearing the company's logo on their boots. The Corp then gets to re-designate the money to another much needed cause. Nike has zero say in how, or if, the boots are used and zero say in any military actions.

Is there still a problem in this scenario? Why?

Response by SSG Adam Wyatt made May 29 at 2015 5:18 PM

SSG Adam Wyatt — Fri, 29 May 2015 17:18:33 -0400

Not only no, but f*ck no!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 29 at 2015 5:37 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 29 May 2015 17:37:14 -0400

As long as it doesn't constitute a conflict of interest and the sponsor will assist in an indirect way to advertise recruiting for the services.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made May 29 at 2015 5:50 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 29 May 2015 17:50:34 -0400

This is the greatest idea ever, but not for the military, do it to politicians.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 29 at 2015 6:49 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 29 May 2015 18:49:56 -0400

Ever see the movie "War, Inc."? That's exactly what it would look like.

Response by SSG James Doherty made May 29 at 2015 6:55 PM

SSG James Doherty — Fri, 29 May 2015 18:55:14 -0400

I can see it now, Monsanto presents "Eat Your Vegetables" enforced by U.S. Army drones.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2015 8:47 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 30 May 2015 08:47:58 -0400

Good idea but no, that would empower the military industrial complex beyond belief. Remember special interests are always at the center of national security issues.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2015 9:46 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 01 Jun 2015 09:46:59 -0400

Minimal as compared to what. When you count the DOD $585 billion as minimal we got issues. The budget is more then enough. The problem is where all this money is going. and the sheer amount of waste from the highest level to the platoon level is huge.

No we don't need sponsors. We better resource managers and rewards if you complete training without going over budget. Same with weapon and construction programs.

Response by SSG Rob Schwandt made Jun 3 at 2015 9:44 AM

SSG Rob Schwandt — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 09:44:29 -0400

Well, since DOD pays millions upon millions to sponsor different sporting events, it would be wiser to cut that from the budget. I think the American population knows the Military exists.