Social marketing represents many things to many different people - an academic discipline, a practical guide, a mindset, a philosophy, a vehicle for social change, a science, a philosophy, a religion! This post represents an ongrowing collection of social marketing definitions and descriptions from leading lights in our field as they grapple with the deceptively simple question, “what is social marketing?”

‘Social Marketing is a process that applies marketing principles and techniques to create, communicate, and deliver in order to influence target audience behaviours that benefit society as well as the target audience.’
Philip Kotler, Michael Rothschild and Nancy R. Lee, 2006

‘Social Marketing is the application of commercial marketing technologies to the analysis, planning, execution and evaluation of programs designed to influence the voluntary behaviour of target audiences in order to improve their personal welfare and that of their society.’
Alan Andreasen, 1995

‘Social Marketing is the systematic application of marketing concepts and techniques to achieve specific behavioural goals relevant to a social good.‘
Jeff French and Clive Blair-Stevens, 2005

‘Social Marketing is a process for creating, communicating and delivering benefits that a target audience wants in exchange for audience behaviour that benefits society without financial profit to the marketer.’
Bill Smith, 2006

‘Marketing that emphasizes that consumer or target audiences should be the focus of the planning, strategizing, and implementation of a marketing program.’
www.case.edu/

‘A marketing message designed to promote a social concern or political idea as well as a product.’
www.glencoe.com/sec/busadmin/marketing/dp/ad_serv/gloss.shtml

‘Social Marketing is the systematic application of marketing along with other concepts and techniques to achieve specific behavioural goals for a social good.’
Wikipedia

‘The primary aim of ’social marketing’ is ’social good’, while in ‘commercial marketing’ the aim is primarily ‘financial’. This does not mean that commercial marketers can-not contribute to achievement of social good.’
Wikipedia

‘Social marketing is being described as having ‘two parents’ - a ’social parent’ = social sciences and social policy, and a ‘marketing parent’ = commercial and public sector marketing approaches.’
Wikipedia

‘Like commercial marketing, the primary focus is on the consumer–on learning what people want and need rather than trying to persuade them to buy what we happen to be producing.’

Nedra Kline Weinreich

‘Social Marketing’s primary aim is to achieve a particular ’social good’ rather than a commercial benefit, with clearly defined behavioural goals.’
National Social Marketing Centre

‘Social Marketing uses a range of marketing techniques and approaches. In the case of health-related social marketing, the ‘social good’ can be articulated in terms of achieving specific, achievable and manageable behaviour goals, relevant to improving health and reducing health inequalities.’
National Social Marketing Centre

“Health-related social marketing is the systematic application of marketing concepts and techniques to achieve specific behavioural goals relevant to improving health and reducing health inequalities.”
The Department of Health

‘Social marketing works to help people change their behaviors to become healthier or to improve society or the world in some way.’
Squidoo

“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 the analysis of the social consequences of marketing policies, decisions and activities.”
Lazer and Kelly

‘Social Marketing is more difficult than generic marketing. It involves changing intractable behaviours, in complex economic, social and political climates with often very limited resources.’
Lefebvre and Flora, 1988

‘While social marketing is not a panacea or ‘magic bullet’ it has real potential to strengthen the impact and effectiveness of interventions and approaches.’
Michelle Greenwood, Programme Manager, National Diabetes Support Team

Suicide

Alarmed by the fact that ‘Young men who have been out of work for more than six months, are 40 times more likely to commit suicide than employed men of the same age’, we decided to set ourselves the task of producing some adverts to represent this shocking statistic in a thought provoking and creative way.

See some of our responses below. Click on an image to enlarge it.

The appeal of the shock tactics approach is understandable for a number of reasons:

• The initial impact of the ads is undeniable, and the emotional response it creates feels rich in motivational potential.
• Given that we are dealing with extremely serious issues and deeply ingrained behaviours, there is an apparent logic in ‘waking/shaking people up’ – bringing them face-to-face with the consequences of their behaviour – giving them a reality check – bringing on an epiphany - switching on a light.
• This convincing common sense logic gives the approach a strong populist appeal, especially when dealing with highly emotive issues such as drink driving and substance misuse. It gives the public (and the people to whom commissioners are accountable) a strong sense that “something is being done” - that the establishment is taking this issue seriously and standing up for the ‘victim’.
• And, let’s face it, everyone in the industry knows that it’s good PR. Ad executions that are challenging in this way get column inches which further boost the reach of the campaign.

However, when we scratch the surface of this common sense logic we soon start to realise that all that glitters is not gold. There’s a rapidly growing canon surrounding this issue which I intend to post on more comprehensively elsewhere. However, two presentations I attended at the recent World Social Marketing Conference in Brighton raised some fascinating insights as a starting point.

Geoff McLean from the University of Wollongong presented the findings of Jennifer Algie, Sandra Jones and John Rossiter on the use of fear appeals in Australian road safety campaigns. Their research departed from previous studies in its comparison of the relative effectiveness of fear patterns and fear levels in terms of advertising ‘wear-out’. I.e. does the impact of advertisements that oscillate between emotions of fear and relief recede more quickly than those that simply focus on fear levels alone?

In broad strokes, the findings showed that in both situations both emotional and attentional wear -out occurred immediately, but that the executions with fear-relief patterns were more effective in reducing (simulated) speeding behaviour. Read the full paper here.

The concept of wear-out is both interesting and important in talking about the effectiveness of fear appeals. How quickly the impact of the ad diminishes in terms of its ability to attract/maintain attention (over multiple showings or executions), invoke an emotional response and actually have an effect on behaviour.

Geoff also talked briefly about the danger of ‘defence’ reactions. If the recipient is heavily involved with the undesirable behaviour (eg someone who really enjoys smoking) fear appeals can have a counterproductive effect. Pyschological defense mechanisms are activated and the recipient ‘digs their heels in’ even further. [See Brehm (1966) on Reactance Theory for more on this fear appeal caveat].

Dr. Gonzalo Díaz Meneses from the Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria delivered a delightful presentation arguing for a social marketing based on hope, rather than fear, summed up in the following quote:

This work proposes that greater effort be devoted to the heuristics of hope: it is not the fear of doomsday that should become the basis of the ecological ideology of the new millennium but rather the hope that the consumer can become more oriented to recycling.

Download the presentation here and read his abstract here.

His work focused on the motivations and barriers to recycyling behaviour and found that emotional appeals are more effective that cognitive (reinforcing our “information is not enough” mantra - rational decisions doesn’t entail behaviour change) and that appeals based on positive emotions are more effective that those based on negative.

Despite the refreshingly optimistic tone and content of the presentation, Dr Meneses raised a number of more general and more worrying problems with the fear-appeal approach.

• Attempts to scare people into (not) doing something creates an emotional distance between the audience and the authority – it runs counter to attempts to build open relationships built on affinity and trust that can be carried over to future campaigns, campaigns in other areas and the public health agenda in general.
• There is a simple ethical issue about government-sponsored scare-tactics -  ie the state using fear to induce desired behaviour. Philosophically, this puts us on an uncomfortably slippery slope.

In a keynote address at the World Social Marketing Conference, Philip Kotler outlined some initial parameters in which this answer could be formulated and delivered.

By way of context, he gave the historical background to our current fight against poverty. Early approaches included alms, workhouses and deficit financing. As social, economic and political theory developed the “major” approaches of the last century began to emerge:

1. Market driven economic development
2. Interventionist redistribution
3. Foreign aid (interesting and succinct defense of the efficacy of foreign aid from Jeffrey Sachs here)
4. Population control - from condom promotion to restrictions on child birth

If these are to be considered ideological positions driving policy at the level of state and government, more direct approaches have emerged from attempts to promote “poverty-escaping behaviour” at the micro level – eg micro financing, education (see Greg Mortenson and ‘Three Cups of Tea’) and health (the inspirational work of Paul Farmer recounted in Mountains Beyond Mountains.

Answering the question “why should we care?” – why is poverty reduction such a priority? – Phillip Kotler made it clear that, aside from the self-evident motivation of compassion for fellow human beings, poverty was at the root of most of the challenges currently facing the global community, from anti-social behaviour to failed states.

[‘Partnership’ was one of the salient flavours of the entire conference (I’ll discuss this in more detail in a dedicated post) and I think it’s clear that the role of the market and private sector corporations is a woefully untapped resource at present. We need to radically broaden our understanding of the sorts of mutual benefit that can result from commercial sector involvement in social issues. The old models of philanthropy and PR-driven CSR are an anachronism. I think the concepts and models behind the Total Market Approach are starting to point in some exciting new directions, but Philip Kotlers next point on poverty captured the make-up of this new paradigm perfectly:]

If for no other reason, we should care about getting people out of poverty because they represent a massive, untapped market.

If 4 billion people are currently living in poverty (a combination of “extreme”, “moderate” and “relative”), then there are 4 billion potential consumers of products and services. And the only thing preventing them entering the market, is the fact that they have no money – they cannot buy stuff.

[At a very basic level – not even touching on the more humanitarian considerations regarding the untapped talent and ambition that could be converted into economic activity – this frank acceptance of a non-altruistic, profit-driven motive for bringing about positive social change represents the way forward in terms of private sector involvement in this area and a significant step forward to more solutions that answer key questions of sustainability and scalability.]

In Philip Kotler’s view, we need a cohesive, sustainable framework for tackling poverty, and social marketing is well placed to offer it. Based on number of case studies outlining projects that had successfully tackled the spread of AIDS in Uganda; homelessness in the US; family planning in Romania, low yield crops in Malawi and contraception use in Thailand he proposed the following structural foundation for programmes that can make a difference:

1. Scope and segment
2. Target those who we can help the most
3. Determine specific desired behaviours
4. Develop deep insight – understand wants, needs, beliefs, barriers and understand barriers as competing behaviours, not just commercial brands.
5. Develop strategies that include all 4 Ps
6. Monitor and evaluate

In conclusion, he warned against focusing on the need for a customer-centred approach to the neglect of upstream factors – influencing micro and macro environments are equally important. He also, introduce the concept of ‘midstream’ factors and reminded us not to overlook the power of an individual’s sphere of influence – peers, family, community etc. (I’ll post elsewhere and in more detail on this is tripartite division of down, up and midstream factors and its usefulness as an ‘acetate’ ie a framework to be superimposed over ones we are already using.)

It was encouraging to hear a recommendation the we incorporate the ‘co-creation’ into the social marketers conceptual tool box. Of course, most of us are doing this anyway as a natural extension of a customer-centred approach, but to demarcate the concept as ‘co-creation’ is useful and points to a significant and practical extension of customer-centrism. The co-creation concept is being used to devastating effect by consumer brands and we can all take direction from the ways in which are commercial counterparts are employing it. See here for more on this.

Having just returned from the same conference, my observation on the unity of the social marketing community is more abstract, but equally central to the success of our endeavour. Talking with and listening to academics, practitioners and policy makers for the last two days, it struck me that the thread through it all is a genuine and passionate desire to change things for the better.

What’s more, this passion - palpable up and down the halls and corridors of the Brighton Hilton over the last two days - is contagious. As such, we’ve created another ‘magpie’ post - an ongrowing collection of inspirational words from inspirational people which we hope will help keep this fire burning far away from the white heat of the conference hall. Please feel to add to the collection through the comments box.

“I became involved in the poverty issue not as a policymaker or a researcher. I became involved because poverty was all around me, and I could not turn away from it. In 1974, I found it difficult to teach elegant theories of economics in the university classroom, in the backdrop of a terrible famine in Bangladesh. Suddenly, I felt the emptiness of those theories in the face of crushing hunger and poverty. I wanted to do something immediate to help people around me, even if it was just one human being, to get through another day with a little more ease.”
Muhammad Yunus on the origins of the Grameen Bank

Regardless of what the producers, critics or Jamie Oliver consider the rationale to be, at a fundamental level this show is about health inequalities - the urgency with which they need to be addressed and (thankfully) the intractable complex of factors that create and perpetuate them.

And whilst  Jamie Oliver and his team aren’t perhaps the most likely band of social marketers you could imagine, they are unwittingly ticking many of the boxes that characterise a solid social marketing approach in their attempts to do something about the cooking and therefore eating habits of the residents of Rotherham.

Just to head to the critics off at the pass: For us as social marketers, all arguments regarding the misrepresentation of Rotherham and the caricaturing of its residents miss the point completely. The focus on Rotherham is incidental - an expedient hook to hang the concept on - a production company’s angle to transform an abstract concept into a viable (sellable) TV show. Considering the primetime backlash to Jamie’s previous healthy eating ‘movement’ found its expression here with the mashing of burgers through school railings, this is strategy is completely understandable.

However, this show isn’t really about Rotherham, it’s about the perennial issue regarding the relationship between food and class and, to this extent, transcends the location that is its setting and even the individuals that are its subjects. Jamie’s Ministry of Food is about real families all over the UK who live on the wrong side of the health inequalities equation. To analyse this issue through a lens of media concepts (stereotyping, misrepresentation, judicious editing) is to run the risk of neuteuring the potential this show has to raise awareness a serious and enduring social issue and the ensuing debate that may result in a more effective solution.

So, what does social marketing ala Oliver consist in? Through his quasi steering group of 8 residents and ad-hoc walkabouts, he’s building an intimate understanding of his audience and letting the insight that this leads to direct the action that is taken. In this way, he’s beginning to appreciate how the real barriers to behaviour change (for the individuals involved and for the the outsiders like us trying to bring about change on their behalf) are the the socio-cultural norms and values that surround a particular behaviour in a particular subculture (be it class, region, commmunity or even family).

In terms of development, they are coming face-to-face with the complex of socio-economic factors that stand behind an individual’s apparent freewill to make the right choices (how can a person teach others to cook when they can’t afford the ingredients or can’t read the recipe?) and are having to adapt their interventions accordingly - to mould them around their audience. Their approach is developing from the realisation that giving people information on the assumption that this will lead to a rational choice and, as a matter of course, more desirable behaviour is both naive and patronising.

In terms of implementation, they understanding the importance of empowering the audience to take ownership of the issue for themselves and are leveraging the power of peer-to-peer transmission to spread the message with authenticity and create passionate champions (influencers) for the cause within the target audience.  (Jamie’s plan is to get each of his 8 participants to teach 2 people 10 recipes and for those 2 people to teach two people, and so on.) He’s even set up a drop-in centre-type intervention (the physical “Ministry of Food”) as a focal point for the campaign.

The extent to which he succeeds in his mission remains to be seen, but his intentions (and many of his methods) should be applauded. Outside the real difference it could make to the cooking/eating habits of his target audience, there could be a nice halo effect for the profile of social marketing in general. If, that is, the press commentators can sharpen the analysis, see beyond the obvious “misrepresentation” angles and tease out the real significance of this show as a prime time social marketing campaign.