Summary:
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to critically evaluate the
state of social marketing in the light of the Second World Social
Marketing Conference. The paper refers to keynote speeches and
presentations to illustrate the contradictions and confusion in
contemporary social marketing thought which may be hindering the
acceptance and adoption of social marketing principles.
Design/methodology/approach – Arguments are based on the author’s
participation in, and reflections on, the conference itself. Findings –
It is suggested that the name “social marketing” itself may be confusing
to policy makers and practitioners, particularly with the massive
growth in social media. The increased involvement of profit-making
organisations is also questioned along with the usefulness of commercial
marketing theory. The paper argues that in the light of current trends
and obvious confusion a repositioning is required to focus social
marketing theory and practice around a mission to provide better
non-profit services for social/public good. Practical implications –
This paper should help social marketers to focus their thinking and
activities. This in turn will help policy makers, public service
providers and professionals improve their services to the community.
Social implications – It is hoped that these ideas will help social
marketing to flourish and to be better understood by policy makers,
practitioners and society at large. The overall aim of social marketing
is to help people and improve society – the paper argues that social
marketing must refocus on its public service role to fulfil its societal
function. Originality/value – The paper contains original ideas and a
unique perspective on social marketing which should stimulate debate and
help social marketing grow in a socially useful way.
Introduction
The 2nd World Non-Profit and Social Marketing Conference (WNSMC) held
in Dublin, April 2011, was an outstanding success. However, after
actively participating in, and reflecting on, the conference the author
believes that social marketing is at a critical stage of its life cycle.
Keynote speakers offered different views of what the discipline is or
should be. Some practitioners argued that this lack of agreement,
coupled with a misunderstanding of the term “social marketing” itself,
was hindering their ability to implement social marketing projects and
help their clients. In this critical “thought piece” the author argues
that social marketing is failing to position itself effectively, which –
as with any other product or service – is causing confusion in the
marketplace, allowing the “competition” (for example, behavioural
economics and social advertising) to take over. In other words, we have
not marketed social marketing effectively. In this paper, a short
history of social marketing is followed by a discussion of the issues
currently effecting social marketing and why there is cause for concern
about its future. These issues include the growth of social media – and
the consequent confusion with social marketing (politicians,
practitioners and the public often have Twitter and Facebook in mind
when social marketing is mentioned) – and the role (if any) of
commercial organisations and thinking. This leads to the suggestion that
social marketing should be rebranded and repositioned with a clear
mission to reduce social inequalities through the provision of better
public and voluntary services. This will enable social marketing to more
effectively fulfil its main role: to help improve individual lives and
society in general. Some social marketers will be unhappy with these
ideas, which may be perceived as controversial. There are obvious
counter arguments to certain opinions and proposals expressed in this
paper. However, by raising these issues the author hopes to stimulate a
constructive debate on how to reduce the apparent confusion and
strengthen social marketing theory and practice.
A short history of social marketing
This paper does not aim to provide an exhaustive account of the
history of the development of social marketing. For a more detailed
discussion of the principles and evolution of the concept see [5]
Donovan and Henley (2010) and [1], [2], [3] Andreasen (1994, 2003,
2011). However, a brief introduction serves to illustrate the different
views and definitions of social marketing that have emerged since its
inception and why, 40 years later, the world of social marketing is such
a confusing one. The idea that marketing tools and techniques could be
used to promote social good and to help address social problems
developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s as academics argued that
marketing is relevant to all organisations having customer groups ([13]
Kotler and Levy, 1969; [12] Kotler, 1972). In their pioneering article
[15] Kotler and Zaltman (1971, p. 5) proposed:
Social marketing is the design, implementation, and control of
programs calculated to influence the acceptability of social ideas and
involving considerations of product planning, pricing, communication,
distribution and marketing research.
[1] Andreasen (1994, p. 110) criticises these early attempts to
define and justify social marketing, which he argues caused confusion,
proposing the following:
Social marketing is the adaptation of commercial marketing
technologies to programs designed to influence the voluntary behaviour
of target audiences to improve their personal welfare and that of
society of which they are a part.
This definition emphasises the use of marketing techniques to change
behaviour, rather than merely to promote ideas or provide information.
Although there is now general agreement that social marketing concerns
behaviour change, there is no consensus on the most appropriate target
audience. [8] Gordon (2011) points out that the vast majority of social
marketing thought and practice has been applied “downstream”, in other
words directed at individual “consumers”. There is an argument that
social marketing should focus more on up-stream activities and audiences
in an attempt to influence policy makers, managers, etc. to improve the
socio-economic environment in which individuals find themselves ([10]
Hoek and Jones, 2011). So, rather than “blaming” individuals, social
marketers should focus on enabling them to make healthier choices by
improving the environment, addressing inequalities and encouraging
policy makers to address the underlying causes of health and social
problems ([27] Wymer, 2011).
Shortly after [15] Kotler and Zaltman (1971), [16] Lazer and Kelley
(1973) offered a rather different definition of social marketing:
Social marketing is concerned with the application of marketing
knowledge, concepts, and techniques to enhance social as well as
economic ends. It is also concerned with analysis of the social
consequence of marketing policies, decisions and activities.
[8] Gordon (2011) cites this article in his paper on critical social
marketing (critical social marketing is concerned with the negative
impact on society of marketing and with reducing inequalities), in which
he shows support for this view of social marketing (although he
acknowledges its rather exceptional nature). As mentioned above, most
subsequent definitions and approaches have been of a downstream,
non-critical nature, in other words the focus of attention is individual
behaviour change rather than socio-economic structures and systems.
Gordon also admits that critical social marketing itself can be confused
with the terms critical marketing, societal marketing or socially
responsible marketing.
So, social marketing can be defined as the application of commercial
marketing principles to influence behaviour for the benefit of
individuals or wider society ([14] Kotler and Lee, 2008). Others believe
social marketing should be more critical with a much greater up-stream
focus ([8] Gordon, 2011). They argue social marketing should be more
concerned with the negative consequences of commercial activity and in
influencing policy to reducing inequality and improve the life chances
of disadvantaged groups ([9] Hastings, 2011). Eminent scholars continue
to debate what social marketing is, or should be. Should its focus be
upstream or downstream, critical or non-critical? If, critical does that
mean social marketing is really critical marketing or societal
marketing? It is against this backdrop that the WNSMC took place this
year. Throw into the mixing pot the growth in social networking media
([4] Bernhardt, 2011), the rise of the commercial social marketer ([26]
Young, 2011) and debates about the relevance of the 4Ps for social
marketers ([20] Nelson
et al. , 2011; [21] Peattie and Peattie, 2003), and we have a recipe for confusion. This confusion is discussed below.
Current confusion
At Dublin there were calls for social marketing to be a “movement”
([9] Hastings, 2011) and to move way from commercial marketing theory
and old paradigms. Keynote speakers ([18] Lefebvre, 2011) argued we
should “drop the old and focus on the new”. We should even stop talking
about the “target customer” and “audience” – “there is no such thing as a
target”. Instead we must embrace co-production, particularly making use
of social networking media and on-line communities ([18] Lefebvre,
2011). On the other hand, distinguished speakers such as [3] Andreasen
(2011) argued we should talk about the target audience, citing this as a
change in thinking. So, whilst being urged to forge ahead with new
thinking, and to stop viewing social marketing as a sub-set of
commercial marketing (Andreasen argued commercial marketing should, in
fact, come below social marketing in the pecking order), other noted
speakers ([17] Lee, 2011) continued to utilise the – arguably – outdated
and inappropriate tactical 4Ps tool ([21] Peattie and Peattie, 2003).
The 4Ps was borrowed from commercial marketing theory but may be of
little practical relevance today, even amongst manufacturing companies
([24] Vargo and Lusch, 2004).
For once and for all let us forget the 4Ps, or at least remove it
from any conceptual or strategic debate about social marketing (or any
marketing, for that matter). Social marketers are in the business of
behaviour change; that may concern “the public” (AKA, target audience or
market, consumers, customers, citizens, patients, residents, taxpayers,
etc.); politicians and policy makers; managers and leaders; or public
and private sector organisations. These are all people, or consist of
people. Services and campaigns are designed and delivered by people to
influence other people. What an irony that marketing has been built
around the tenet that organisations should put customers at the heart of
everything they do, yet it omits the most important P from the
ubiquitous 4Ps. As discussed earlier, the relevance of the 4Ps model to
social marketing is the subject of much debate but surely it is time to
move on? The [19] National Social Marketing Centre (2007) argues that
social marketing can operate at political, strategic and operational
levels. More attention should be paid to influencing policy makers and
strategists to encourage them to develop insight-driven, people-centred
approaches and thinking.
The 4Ps question was subject to much debate ([20] Nelson
et al.
, 2011), as was the entire question of what social marketing actually
is. This debate has been going on for some time and, as one developing
world speaker pointed out with great clarity – this is not helpful for
those who are trying to use social marketing to make a difference to
others ([22] Phiri, 2011). In other words this continued debate,
confusion and naval gazing is not helping practitioners and new converts
to the cause to help others. We are much more proficient at saying what
social marketing is not (health promotion, advertising, social
networking, information, fund raising, etc.) than what it is. If
practitioners, politicians, activists and academics are confused (and
the latter cannot even agree what it is) where does this leave social
marketing? In the UK social marketing prospered under New Labour. The
current coalition government – heavily influenced by the work of [23]
Thaler and Sunstein (2008) (see [6] French, 2011 for a critical
evaluation of “Nudging” in this context) more-or-less replaced the
language and principles of social marketing with those of behavioural
economics ([11] Institute for Government, 2010). Yes, this is the nature
of politics but it is also an illustration of the failure of social
marketers to convince policy makers of its value (particularly in a time
of economic stringency and cuts in public services). Which begs the
question, what is the role of social marketing? Who is it for and what
can be done in terms of theory and conceptual development to ensure it
is socially useful and cost-effective?
Let us face reality (and face up to Facebook)
Social marketing will struggle to establish itself as a serious
academic discipline if colleagues from within marketing and other areas
fail to grasp its full meaning and potential. We cannot endlessly debate
what social marketing is/is not – this is no longer interesting and
could be extremely damaging. How far have we come since the 1st World
Social Marketing Conference in Brighton 2008? A mix of academics,
practitioners and agency workers left Brighton inspired and fired up.
Whist still true after Dublin, which was a hugely successful event, for
some veterans a little of the inspiration had turned into frustration.
Social marketing thinkers have to face up to some realities: social
media exists and is growing at a phenomenal rate ([4] Bernhardt, 2011;
[26] Young, 2011). One keynote speaker ([22] Phiri, 2011) chastised
social marketers for allowing these social media upstarts to poach our
name! Well, this may or may not be true, it is too late now – we may not
like them but they are bigger than us! If many people talk about social
media marketing when we think they mean social marketing and vice versa
– whose fault is that – theirs or ours? I would argue the latter. If
politicians and civil servants still fail to grasp the fundamentals of
social marketing and confuse it with communication and promotion, why is
that? It is absolutely pointless telling the rest of the world that
they are wrong and we are right, especially as we are not sure what we
are actually right about ourselves. Reality is what exists and, like
everybody else, social marketers have to come to terms with this.
For decades we have argued that social marketing is more than
promotion yet seminars are full of researchers and practitioners talking
about advertising campaigns and posters. If somebody took the time to
count the number of times the word “campaign” was used compared with
“intervention” or “service” I think there would be a marked bias toward
the former. Again, I would argue this is reality. Health – and other
non-profit – promotion and social advertising takes place, whether or
not we are prepared to allow it into the social marketing club. If it is
not social marketing according to the latest definition why do these
papers and presentations feature so prominently? If it is social
marketing, then the definition is flawed, in other words, there is more
confusion. Surely, the point is this: there is an important role for
public sector advertising and promotion and rather than criticising
campaigns because they do not “fit the bill” we should be helping
practitioners understand how to develop, test, implement and evaluate
their communications activity.
Are we keeping good company?
Most definitions of social marketing refer to commercial marketing
approaches whilst emphasising its non-profit goals ([14] Kotler and Lee,
2008; [1] Andreasen, 1994; [7] French and Blair-Stevens, 2007). Others
have argued that social marketing should not rely on commercial
marketing theory ([27] Wymer, 2011; [21] Peattie and Peattie, 2003; [25]
Wood, 2008). The intangible, non-profit nature of social marketing
means that commercial marketing strategies cannot be bolted on to
behaviour change programmes. The language of commercial marketing theory
can be off-putting or confusing to health and other public sector
professionals, who do not have a product to sell and want to help people
make positive changes for their own benefit. Further, commercial
marketing shifted away from the product-oriented 4Ps approach – if it
ever was more than an academic framework – years ago when it was
replaced by relationship marketing ([29] Hastings, 2003; [28] Gronroos,
1994). So, there has been a tendency to adopt outdated, irrelevant
theories which does not help social marketing establish itself as an
important and unique discipline. As mentioned earlier, there was a lack
of agreement amongst keynote speakers on these issues: social marketing
may be a division of general/commercial marketing; commercial marketing
could be a derivative of social marketing; social marketing may be
unique and substantially different from commercial marketing. The plot
thickens!
In Dublin there appeared to be more commercial agencies than at
previous conferences, and a dominance of marketing generally compared to
other disciplines we are meant to draw upon (for example, there were
few social psychologists and behavioural economists). The “Non-profit”
part of the conference title had largely been ignored. The newly formed
International Social Marketing Association featured several company
representatives on its board of directors. Senior executives from global
companies made keynote speeches ([26] Young, 2011). Delegates and
speakers called for even greater participation from the commercial
sector in future conferences. However, not all social marketers are
happy to get into bed so readily with companies. The pre-conference
survey showed that the vast majority of social marketers are primarily
interested in helping people change their lives for altruistic reasons,
rather than financial reward ([26] Young, 2011). Private sector
companies are driven by the need to make money – this is why they exist.
Social marketing and social responsibility may be important
considerations to some commercial enterprises at this particular time,
but ultimately the bottom line is the bottom line. They have an interest
in social marketing so long as – maybe indirectly – it helps maintain
or increase return on investment for shareholders. That is not a moral
judgement, just commercial reality.
Commercial marketing encourages increased consumption, which
ultimately is responsible for many of the world’s most serious
environmental and health problems. Some Dublin speakers ([18] Lefebvre,
2011) argued that McDonald’s (for example) did not set out to make
children fat and by implication should not be held accountable or
excluded from social marketing. The reality is that global companies
like McDonald’s and Coca Cola do market products that contribute to
rising obesity levels and other negative health trends. They know this
and, of course, they make their commitments to social responsibility.
But where do we draw the line – would we be happy working with tobacco
and alcohol companies (well they do want us to drink responsibly!) and
inviting them to social marketing conferences? Commercial organisations
can use their power in an attempt to influence politicians and public
opinion to accept their products and marketing strategies. Social
marketing is (and should be) about social justice, reducing inequalities
and helping people to have healthier, happier lives ([9] Hastings,
2011). This is not to say there can never be a role for commercial
organisations in some social marketing situations. However, ethical and
social concerns must take precedence over profit and public service
managers should be in the driving seat. Social marketing principally
concerns public and voluntary sector professionals and organisations who
want to help people make positive behaviour changes because they care.
Private sector organisations can play a valuable role in helping
public sector social marketers in the resourcing and implementation of
projects. For example, supermarkets, other retailers and commercial
sports clubs, etc. are well placed to reach target audiences. They often
have insight, deep pockets and a need to work with communities [...]
and their customers trust them. They can be a key “public” who can help
us to help others. We should not put ourselves in a subservient
position; useful partners who can help companies achieve profits through
a visible demonstration of their “commitment” to corporate social
responsibility. This sort of commercially-driven social marketing is
really an extended or modified form of cause-related marketing. There
may be spin-off benefits for social marketers and those audiences who
are in need of support but it is unethical and ultimately
self-defeating. It will ensure social marketing is swallowed up by
mainstream commercial and academic marketing once and for all – the very
thing social marketers are desperate to avoid. Furthermore, it will
“confirm” what the sceptics thought all along: “marketing” stands for
persuasion, profit and greed whether tagged “social” or not.
Social marketing for public good: mission possible
It is time to accept the fundamental principles of what social
marketers attempt to do and why. The vast majority of social marketers
are motivated by helping people for individual or social good, not by
making money. They typically work with or for public and voluntary
sector organisations to improve people’s lives through better services
and reduced social inequalities. Our stated aim is to support people to
make voluntary behaviour change for their own or societal benefit. As
discussed above private sector corporations and agencies increasingly
demonstrate an interest in social marketing – but ultimately they are
motivated by profit. This is a critical difference and, in my view, too
big an obstacle to include them as mainstream participants (potentially
leaders?) in the process of “social marketing”. But it is too late –
they are already there! So, given the prevailing confusion, doubts and
debates why not clear things up? We need a vision and mission that
articulates our commitment to using marketing skills and thinking to
design and deliver better public, non-profit and voluntary services. The
aim of this paper is to encourage social marketers to consider our core
purpose and to refocus on the things that really matter. To do this we
should develop a clear vision or mission statement for social marketing
which could usefully be constructed around the following key words.
Public
We want to serve and help people. “Publics” can include stakeholders,
politicians, companies, agencies, employees and media, etc. but the
principal focus is on the recipients (and providers) of public and
voluntary services rather than the customers (and partners) of
profit-making commercial companies. Further, we should take a holistic
view of those people and what matters to them, rather than focussing on
“problems” and issues as defined by politicians and service
organisations.
Non-profit services
The discipline concerns the cost-effective provision of non-profit
services to help and support people. These services are typically
delivered by public and voluntary organisations, and should be developed
and implemented on the basis of insight and “customer” engagement. A
service focus would help us move away from product-oriented models such
as the 4Ps to more relevant theories.
Social good
Social marketers aim to make the world a better place; this means we
want to help people rather than enabling commercial organisations to
make a profit. An important part of our role is to challenge those
people and organisations who contribute to the devastating health and
environmental problems threatening society.
Marketing
Yes, it is about marketing but we can be more certain about the scope
and theoretical foundations of our discipline. By focusing on behaviour
change and relationships we can draw on solid theories and models from
services, non-profit and organisational marketing. Relationship and
internal marketing concepts are particularly relevant, in addition to
social marketing theory. This approach enables us to think about a much
more logical structure for organising the discipline and associated
conferences, journals and interest groups into clearer sectors and
functions:
Suggested sectors
National/state government; local authorities/councils; health
providers, schools and colleges; charities; voluntary and community
groups; agencies/consultancies; environmental bodies; emergency
services.
Functions and technologies
Policy and advocacy; planning and strategy; project management;
distribution and logistics; partnerships and relationships; social media
and networking; communications, promotion and traditional media;
insight and formative research; economics and evaluation.
Conclusions
To summarise: recently social marketers have failed to convince key
policy makers, we have (inadvertently) confused the practitioners and we
are struggling to agree what we are or would like to be. We want to be
different – better, even – than commercial marketing and its associated
theory [...] but we want to use commercial marketing principles and work
with profit-making companies in practice. “Social Marketing” is not
achieving its full potential: we are in danger of losing momentum and
our ability to continue the progress made over 40 years. It is time to
refocus, reposition and rebrand. Developing a vision and mission around
the suggested key words, aims and activities may be helpful. It could
enable social marketing to be built on a firm theoretical foundation
derived from services and non-profit marketing, alongside organisational
and consumer behaviour change models. Our focus should be on people and
enabling non-profit organisations to help and support their client
groups. Ultimately, we want to make the world a better place; we should
be part of a movement campaigning for social justice, environmental
improvement and health equality. To achieve this we need an upstream
policy focus (changing the attitudes and behaviours of leaders and
policy makers) in addition to equipping practitioners with the tool and
theories to deliver cost-effective, client-centred services. It is all
about behaviour change and relationships: upstream, downstream and
across stakeholder and organisational sectors. A social marketing
discipline organised around these core themes will enable us to be
preaching and pioneering, yet practical, in our quest for a healthier,
happy society for everyone.
