By: Katherine Torres-Pummill, General Manager, Recurrent Military & Defense
One of the questions I get asked most often is why brands like BMW and T-Mobile invest in military audiences when they don’t sell anything related to defense.
The assumption is usually that it’s patriotism.
I don’t think it is.
I’ve spent years leading military media brands and live events, which means I’ve watched a lot of brands enter this space. Some test the waters and never return. Others show up once and quickly expand their investment. To me, that’s always been the more interesting story.
Brands test audiences all the time. They only come back when the math works. That’s what I pay attention to.
People still describe the military community as a niche audience, but I’ve never thought that was accurate. Most marketers think of military consumers as a niche because they picture active-duty service members. But that’s only one part of the ecosystem. Veterans, spouses, dependents, reservists, and caregivers create one of the country’s largest interconnected consumer communities.
What makes this audience different isn’t just its size.
Military life creates purchasing cycles that most consumers don’t experience. Families relocate every two to three years. They buy homes through VA loans. They replace vehicles, furniture, insurance, appliances, and phone plans on a predictable schedule. A consistent paycheck and stable benefits also make this one of the more recession-resistant consumer segments in the country.
That’s why brands like BMW, T-Mobile, financial institutions, fitness companies, and consumer technology brands continue investing here. They’re not selling defense products. They’re solving real problems for a community with remarkably consistent needs.
Where I think marketers get this wrong isn’t whether military audiences are valuable. It’s why they’re valuable.
I don’t think military audiences respond to patriotism the way many brands assume they do.
They respond to relevance.
I’ve watched beautifully produced campaigns miss the mark because they misunderstood the community they were trying to reach. I’ve also watched relatively simple campaigns outperform expectations because they reflected the reality of military life.
This audience punishes performative patriotism and rewards substance.
T-Mobile is a good example. Their relationship with the military community wasn’t built around a Memorial Day campaign. It was built through military-specific plans, hiring commitments, and showing up consistently over time.
There’s a difference between marketing to a community and investing in one.
One advantage of overseeing multiple military media brands is that I rarely look at a single campaign in isolation. Across We Are The Mighty, Task & Purpose, The War Zone, the Military Influencer Conference, and MilSpouseFest, I get to watch patterns emerge across different audiences, platforms, and brand partners.
The brands that perform best aren’t usually the ones spending the most money. They’re the ones willing to spend time listening before they start talking.
That’s why I think this conversation matters beyond military marketing.
What we’re seeing across marketing is that reach isn’t enough anymore. Communities are rewarding brands that understand them before trying to sell to them. You can see it in creator communities, gaming, HBCUs, and countless other identity-driven audiences. Military audiences aren’t unique because they’re military. They’re one of the clearest examples of what happens when trust becomes a competitive advantage.
For years, marketers have described military audiences as a niche. I think that’s caused many of them to miss the bigger lesson.
The brands that succeed here don’t win because they wave a flag. They win because they understand the people behind it.
To me, that’s what the future of marketing looks like.
