Social Marketing

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.