definition of social marketing

8/12/2019 Definition of Social Marketing

1/8

Social Marketing: Its Definition and DomainAuthor(s): Alan R. AndreasenReviewed work(s):Source: Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Spring, 1994), pp. 108-114Published by: American Marketing AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30000176.

Accessed: 24/09/2012 09:09

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Marketing Associationis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Journal of Public Policy & Marketing.
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=amahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/30000176?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/30000176?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ama


2/8

o c i a l

Marketing

t s

Definition

n d o m a i n

Alan R. Andreasen

The author

argues

that social

marketing

has been

defined

improperly

n much

of

the

literature.

A

revised

definition

is

proposed

and the

domain

of

social

marketing

defined.

He

concludes

with

suggestions or implications or future growth of

the

discipline.

It

is

clear that the term social

marketing

s now a well-

established

part

of the

marketing

vocabulary

n univer-

sities,

governmentagencies,privatenonprofitorganiza-

tions,

and

private or-profit

irms. Thereare now socialmar-

keting

textbooks

(Kotler

and Roberto

1989;

Manoff

1975),

readings

books

(Fine

1990),

chapters

within mainstream

texts

(Kotler

and Andreasen

1991)

and

a

Harvard

eaching

note

(Rangun

and Karim

1991).

There have been reviews

of the accomplishmentsof social marketing Fox and Kot-

ler

1980;

Malafarinaand

Loken

1993)

andcalls to research-

ers to become more

deeply

involved

in

studiesof social mar-

keting

to advance the

science

of

marketing

(Andreasen

1993).

Major

international

and

domestic

behavior

change

programs

now

routinely

have social

marketing omponents

(Debus

1987;

Ramah

1992;

Smith

1989).

People

with

titles

like

Manager

of

Social

Marketing

now can be

found

in

pri-

vate

consulting

organizations.

Why

DefinitionsMatter

There

have been critics

of

the

expansion

of

marketing

be-

yond

its traditional

private

sector

origins

from

the

begin-

ning (cf. Bartels1974;Luck 1974).However,today,a great

many

scholars and

practitioners

now see social

marketing

as a viable

subject

of

research,

eaching,

and

practice.

They

see the field as

growing

and

expanding

and

thereby

ncreas-

ing

the relevance of

marketing

ducationand

scholarship

o

the

problems

of

the broader

ociety.

It also has been

argued

that involvement n

these

new

areas

has

had

an

important

e-

ciprocal

effect on

marketingscholarship.

I note

one

exam-

ple

of the latter n

my

1992 Association for Consumer

Re-

search

PresidentialAddress

on social

marketing

Andreasen

1993,

p.

1):

Therise of

exchange heory,

believe,

was

given

a

major

tim-

ulus

by marketing

cholars

rying

o

expand

he

concept

f 'con-

sumerbehavior' nd'marketing'o encompassomething s

nontraditional

s

going

to

college,

wearing

eat

belts,

or

giving

blood.For

example,

promoting

looddonations eemed

o be

an

opportunity

or

'marketing,'et

therewereno

products

r ser-

vices offered

ndno

monetary

ayment

made

by

the consumer.

In

fact,

the consumer ften

voluntarily

ufferedwhen

making

the

'purchase.'

raditionalnidirectional

iewsof consumer e-

havior ouldnot

encompass

ucha

strange

ase. We needed

a

new

paradigm.

he

old

way,

ike

earth-centered

stronomy

e-

fore

Copernicus,

as

simply

not

elastic

nough

o

contain hese

new

transactions.

hus,

we

slowly

embraced

xchange heory.

However,

despite

the

rapid growth

of interest in

social

marketing

or

perhaps

because of

it),

there is still

consider-

able

disagreement

about what social

marketing

s

and

how

it differs

from similar ields like

communications nd behav-

ior

mobilization.

This

disagreement

s not

uncommon for a

new discipline. Debates about definition and domain in

other fields are

quite

common within

university

walls. Care-

ful

definition

of

any

field

is

important

o

the advancement

of

scholarship

and the

training

of future researchers.How-

ever,

in

the

present

case,

the issue has an

additional,

mpor-

tant

implication.

Many

believe that social

marketing

can have a

major

m-

pact

on

society's myriad

social

problems.

However,

this im-

pact

can

be

seriously

compromised

f

the

technology

is

ap-

plied incorrectly

or to areas n which

it is not

appropriate.

f

practitioners

misuse the

concept,

its effectiveness

may

be

limited. If researchersand

scholars

assess its

performance

in

areas

for

which it should not be

responsible,

social

mar-

keting may be blamedfor failures for which it should not

be held accountable.

It

is

time, therefore,

to

introduce

precision

into

the

dia-

logue by establishing

a

clear consensus on what social

mar-

keting

is and is not andwhat its

legitimate

domains are

and are not. These definitions

and

distinctions

have

impor-

tant

implications

for

present

and

future

practical applica-

tions,

academic

discussions,

and field research.

The

central

premise

of the article is that social

marketing

stands

a

sig-

nificant chance of

failure if

existing

issues

of

definition

and

domain

are not

adequately

resolved.

The

Emergence

of Social

Marketing1

Although

in

the

1960s,

marketing

scholars

wrote

and

car-

ried out researchon

topics

that

today

would be considered

social

marketing

e.g.,

Simon

1968),

the

origins

of

the

term

social

marketing

an be traced

o Kotler and Zaltman'sclas-

sic 1971 article in

the

Journal

of Marketing

titled

Social

Marketing:

An

Approach

o Planned Social

Change

(Kot-

ler

and

Zaltman

1971).

As Elliott

(1991)

points

out,

the

emergence

of social

marketing

at

just

that

moment in time

was

a

logical outgrowth

of

the

attempt

of

the

Northwestern

School to broaden

the

discipline

of

marketing

(cf.

Kotler

and

Levy

1969).

Elliott

suggests

that this

development

re-

ALAN

R. ANDREASEN

s

Professor

of

Marketing,

Georgetown

Univer-

sity.

The author

hanks

WilliamSmithof the

Academy

or

Educa-

tional

Development

or comments

on an earlier draft

of this

article.

'This

section

draws

significantly

from Elliott

(1991).

108

Journal

of Public

Policy & Marketing

Vol. 13 (1)

Spring

1994,

108-114


3/8


4/8

110

Social

Marketing

Most

scholars

and

researchers,however,

believe

that so-

cial

marketing

involves much

more than

ideas-specifi-

cally,

attitudes and behavior.This broadenedreview is re-

flected

in

Kotler and

Roberto's

(1989)

social

marketing

text.

Here,

the authors

equate

social

marketing

with a social

change campaign,

which

they

define as an

organized

ef-

fort

conducted

by

one

group

(the

change agent),

which

in-

tends to

persuade

others

thetargetadopters)

o

accept,

mod-

ify,

or abandon ertain

deas,

attitudes,

practices,

and behav-

iors

(p.

6).

They

indicate that

a social

marketing ampaign

can include the mere

provision

of informationon

impor-

tant issues

or,

in

some

cases,

just change

values and beliefs.

Although

an

improvement,

Kotler and Roberto's

(1989)

expanded

definition still

leaves

unanswered ome other

m-

portant questions

about

social

marketing's legitimate

do-

main.

For

example:

1. Is social

marketingeally

any

differentromother echnolo-

gies,

such as health

education r

health

promotion,

with which it shares

many

common

eatures

cf.

Glanz,

Lewis,

andRimer

1990)?

2. Is

any

technique

fair

game

to

be called

social

marketing

if it helps o achieve ocialmarketingbjectives?orexam-

ple,

is the

imposition

f a

government

egulation

uchas a

banon

smoking

n

public

buildings legitimate

ocialmar-

keting trategy?

3.

Is it

appropriate

o use

attempts

o include deas and atti-

tudesas

legitimate bjectives

f social

marketing

rograms?

4. Should he domain f

social

marketing

e

limited,

s

many

government gency

directorswould have

it,

only

to

pro-

grams

hatmarket

roducts,

uch

as condoms

ndbirth on-

trol

pills

or oral

ehydration

olutions,

r

services,

uchas

m-

munizationsnd

vasectomies?

A

Proposed

Definition

In

my

view,

what is needed

is a definition of social

market-

ing that would (1) keep practicingsocial marketers ocused

on the outcomes

they

arebest suited to

influence,

(2)

keep

the

discipline

of social

marketing distinguishable

from its

academic

competitors,

and

(3)

keep

social

marketingpro-

grams

out of areas

in which

their likelihood

of failure is

high.

With

these

objectives

in

mind,

I

propose

the follow-

ing

definition:

Social

marketing

s the

adaptation

f commercial

marketing

technologies

o

programs

esigned

o influencehe

voluntary

e-

havior

f

target

udiences

o

improve

heir

personal

welfare nd

thatof the

society

of

which

hey

are

a

part.

Key

elements of

this

definition merit furtherelaboration.

Social

Marketing

s an

Adaptation

f

Commercial

MarketingTechnologies

Implicit

in most definitions of social

marketing

s that we

borrow our

technology

from the

private

sector.

However,

other authors

appear

o

forget

that the bottomline of all

pri-

vate sector

marketing

s the

productionof

sales. To achieve

their sales

objectives, private

sector

marketers

ngage

in a

great many

activities that are

designed

to

change

beliefs,

at-

titudes,

and values. But their

only

reason for

doing

this is

that

they expect

such

changes

to

lead to increased sales.2

Sales are

examples

of consumer

behavior,

and it

is

my

con-

tention

that,

if

we are

borrowing

commercial

technology,

we

should hold

social

marketing

to the same

objectives;

that

is,

social

marketing

should be

designed

to have as its

bottom

line

influencing

behavior.

Social

Marketing

s

Applied

o

Programs

Social

advertising

is

synonymous

with

campaigns.

Cam-

paigns

have

a fixed termination

point. Programs,

by

con-

trast,

may

last decades and contain several

campaigns

within them.

Thus,

the American

Cancer

Society

has a

long-

run

social

marketing

program

to reduce the

incidence of

smoking,

within which

they

have annual

campaigns,

such

as each

year's

Great American Smokeout. An

important

strength

of social

marketing

s that

it

takes a

programmatic

rather

han

campaign

view of its mission.

Social

marketing

s not

synonymous

with

organizations.

Many organizations

hat are

primarily

social

marketersalso

carry

on activities that are not social

marketing.

Thus,

in the

1970s,

contraceptive

social

marketingprograms

n

Colom-

bia,

Thailand,

and Pakistan

experimented

with

various sales

programs

hat were

strictly

commercial but would enhance

the limited revenues

they

were

deriving

from social market-

ing contraceptive

ales

(Andreasen1988).

Although suppor-

tive of the overall mission

of the

organization,

such

pro-

grams

would

not be considered social

marketing.

Social

Marketing

ocuses on Behavioras

its

Bottom

Line

The bottom

line of social

marketing

s

behavior

change.

A

major

shortcoming

of

a wide

range

of social

marketing

programs

that

I

have observed

in the field is

that,

though

their

managers

consider themselves at least

in

part

social

marketers,

they

fail

to

keep

their

eye

on the

bottom line.

They think that all they must do is provide information

(ideas)

or

change

beliefs. Sometimes

they

think

this

way

be-

cause

they

were trained

in other

disciplines

and tend to

equate

marketing

with

advertising.

So

they

think

their

goal

is to

get

the

word out or to

change

attitudes

without

asking

whether either

of

these

activities

is

likely

to lead to

the desiredbehavior.

They

seem to assume

that

this will

hap-

pen

in some

mystical long

run.

Ironically,

in

my

view,

a factor

contributing

o this con-

fusion

is the

original

definition of social

marketing pro-

posed by

Kotler

and

Zaltman n

1971,

a definition hat s rou-

tinely

(often

uncritically)repeated

by

others

(e.g.,

Malafar-

ina

and Loken

1993).

This

overly

broaddefinition

only

en-

courages practicingsocial marketers o think that all they

have to do is

change

attitudes

and ideas to be successful. It

keeps

them

from

asking

the

question

every

first-rate

private

sector marketer sks: Does

the communication

of an

idea

or

the

changing

of an

attitude

really

influence behavior?This

neglect

of

the bottom

line can lead to enormouswaste of in-

evitably

scarce resources.

In

my judgment,

it is sinful for

marketing

cholars

to

neglect

their true

private

sector

her-

itage

and contribute-even

indirectly-to

such waste in

areas that are so

crucial

to the welfare of

society.

The sole

emphasis

on behavior

as social

marketing's

bot-

tom line also

helps keep

the field distinct from other disci-

plines.

As I have noted elsewhere

(Andreasen

1993,

p.

2):

2As

with social

marketing,

ometimes

rivate

ectormarketers

onduct

campaigns

hatare

designed

o

prevent hange, .g.,

switching

o a

newly

introducedrand.


5/8

Journal

of Public

Policy

&

Marketing

111

Too

many

n social

marketing

onfuse

marketing

ith

ommu-

nication.

While

marketers

ommunicate

nformation,

e

are

not

n

the ducationusiness.

hile e

attempt

o

convince

eo-

ple

of the

ightness

f certain

eliefs,

e

are

lsonot n

the

prop-

aganda

usiness.

Many

f thehealth

rograms

have

bserved

or

worked itharoundheworld

re,

n

fact,

argely

ducation

and

propagandarograms....

ducationnd

propaganda

re

only

useful

o marketersf

they

ead to behavior

hange.

The

emphasis

n behavior lso forces ocialmarketers

o

adopt

whatI would

argue

s commercial

marketing's

ec-

ond

major

ontribution,

ts fanatical

mphasis

n the

cus-

tomer.

What

believe

distinguishes

hebest

professional

o-

cial

marketersroma

greatmany

others haveencountered

in

social

marketing rograms

s their natural

endency

o

ask

constantly,

How

will

this

(strategy,

actic)

affect

con-

sumers? hiscustomerocus eads hem o

beginevery

o-

cial

marketingrogram

ith

ormative

esearch

esigned

o

understand

arget

udiences

ully

before he

development

f

expensive

programs.

t

encourages

hem o test

key

strate-

gies

and actics

against

eal

consumers

ndmonitor

ehav-

ior as

programs

nfold o make ure hat

hey

are

on

track.

The behavioral mphasisalso ensuresthat marketers

havethe

appropriate

valuation riteria or

everythinghey

do. Thosewithout

behavioralottom ine aremore

n-

clined o evaluate

program

uccess n

nonbehavioral

erms

suchas

number

f

messages

istributed,

eliefs

hanged,

m-

ages mproved,

r

ectures

iven.

They

end o measure

uc-

cess

by

whatcan be

measured

ather

han ackle

he

harder

problem

f

figuring

ut whatshouldbe

measured nd

hen

attempting

o do so. It is

a

tendency

einforced

y

well-

meaning

onsultants

ho

forget

or

never

earned)

hatso-

cial

marketing

s

really

all about

nfluencing

ehavior.

This

ocuson behavior asa fourth

dvantage.

t

keeps

o-

cial

marketing

rom

being

given

responsibility

or

objec-

tives

in

areas

n

which do notbelieve t

hasanyparticular

differential

dvantage-education

and

propaganda.

on-

sider he

challenge

f

persuading

womanwhohas ittleun-

derstanding

f

conception-let

alone

he

prevention

f

con-

ception-to

undertake

amilyplanning.

A

moment's

eflec-

tion

suggests

hat hereare

several

teps

nvolved

n

taking

a woman romthe

stage

at

which

she does not understand

howbabiesaremadeall the

way

to the

point

at whichshe

is

correctly

and

continuallypracticing

amily planning.

These

steps

canbe

grouped

ntofive broad

ategories:

asic

education,

alue

change,

attitude

hange,

motivationo

act,

and

training

nd

reinforcement.

In

my opinion,

social marketers

should not be tasked

with the burden

of

carrying

out either basic education or

value change if these present massive challenges. First,

such

undertakings

an

be

very long

term,

and marketers re

best at

producing

sales in

the

relatively

short run. Sec-

ond,

as

arguedpreviously,

these tasks are more

properly

he

domain of educators and

propagandists.

The

latter know

how to informentire

populations

about new ideas or

prac-

tices,

for

example, through

extbooks or the school

system.

And

they

know how

to

bring

about

major

value

changes

through peeches

and

pronouncements y

government,

elig-

ious,

and civic leaders.

Social marketers hould be

brought

in to do their

thing

when these

other

specialists

have

achieved a considerableamountof

success.

My

fear is

that,

if

social

marketersare called in to achieve behaviorchange

objectives

wheremassive

hanges

n

knowledge

nd

values

havenot

already

een

achieved,

hey

will

misapply

heir

al-

uable

skills,

wastescarce

esources,

ndshow

very

imited

success,

at

least

in the

short erm. fearthat

such failures

will not

only discourage

hem and their

sponsors,

t

also

will

give

a black

eye

to this

fledglingdiscipline.

Let

me be clear: am not

arguing

hatsocial

marketing

shouldneverattempto educate rchangevaluesaspartof

a behavior

hangeprogram.

uch

components

re

essential

to most of the social

marketingrograms

ith

whichI

am

familiar. am

arguing nly

that ocial

marketing

hould

not

be the

technology

f choice f

dramaticallyarge

segments

of the

target

population

re

still

ignorant

f the

behavior

and/or

pposed

o it on the

grounds

hat t offends

central

community

alues.

Social

Marketing rograms

nfluence

Behavior-

They

Do Not

AlwaysChange

t

Social

marketing

ampaigns

need

not involve behavior

change.

Definitionssuch as

Kotlerand Roberto's

1971)

that

peak

f

social

marketingoals

as

necessitating

hat on-

sumers adopt,modify,or abandon omething gnores

the

fact that

some

social

marketing rograms

re

designed

to

discourage

ehavior. or

example, ampaigns

o

prevent

children

rom

using drugs e.g.,

the

Just

Say

No cam-

paign

n the

United

States)

are

clearly

ntended o discour-

age

change.

Social

Marketing

eeks

to

Influence Voluntary

Behavior

In

the

private

ector,

marketerseek to

influence

oluntary

consumer

pending

nd

choiceand

top

short f

outright

o-

ercion.

Coercion

ometimes s

employed

n

relationships

with

distributors,

hough

t

is oftencharacterizedsa tactic

of lastresort.)Marketersanattempto influence ehavior

through

ehavioral

haping

r

reinforcement

trategies

ut,

ultimately,

onsumers

o have he

choice

not to

buy.

Thus,

we shouldbe clear hatmarketer's

asic alents

ie

in influ-

encing

voluntary

ehavior,

and these are the

talents

hey

bring

o

social

marketing.

Experience

as

shown

hatcoercion anbe

very

effective

in

achieving

ocial behavior

oals,

for

example,

nducing

consumers

o wearseat

beltsor

stop smoking.

t should

be

clear,

however,

hat hese

arenot

parts

of social

marketing

campaigns.

nsome

cases,

hey

can

be

substitutesor

social

marketing

e.g.,

when

the

latterhas notbeen

effective)

or

combined ith ocial

marketing

fforts.

ndeed,

socialmar-

keter

may

wish

to

argue

that

legal

solutions would be more

effective

than social

marketing

o achieve

particular

ehav-

ioral

goals

and,

at this

point, step

out of the

program.3

Social

Marketing

eeks

to

Benefit Target

Consumers nd/or he

Society

as a

Whole,

Not

the

Marketer

Social

marketing

rograms

enefit

itherndividuals r so-

ciety.

In

some

programs,

he

primary

eneficiary

s

the tar-

get

consumer r

his

or

her

family.

This wouldbe the

case

3I have

argued

that

social

marketing

echnology

can be

applied

to

get-

ting

laws

passed

because

hereone

again

s

dealing

with

influencing

he

vol-

untary

behavior

of leeislators.


6/8

112

Social

Marketing

in

programs

designed

to

promote

breast

self-examination,

i-

eting,

or

the

immunizationof children.Other

programs

ar-

get

the

society

at

large

as the

major beneficiary,

as

in

ef-

forts to increase consumer

recycling

or

induce home-

builders

to

plant

more

trees.

Finally,

some

programs

have

joint

beneficiaries.

The

latter would include efforts

to

get

drivers to

obey

the 55 miles

per

hour

speed

limit,

which

would

help

save

the

lives of

drivers

and their

passengers,

re-

duce

society's

healthcare

costs,

free its

law

enforcementof-

ficers for

other

tasks,

and reduce the

country's dependence

on

foreign

oil.

Note that the

definition of

social

marketing

omits

cases

in

which the

beneficiary

is the social

marketingorganiza-

tion.

This is

a

major

distinction between

private

sector and

social

marketing

and,

as

Rangun

andKarim

1991)

argue,

t

prevents

us from

including

efforts

of

private

sector

organi-

zationsto achievesocial

ends,

as in the insurance

ndustry's

seat belt

campaign.

Also note that the

proposed

definition

would not include such

nonprofit marketing

activities as

fundraising

and

political campaigning,

n

which the

major

objective

is

to

benefit the marketer.

Finally, it shouldbe pointedout thatthe definitionis si-

lent

about

who is

to

define

well-being.

The

definition

of

so-

cial

marketingonly

requires

hat the

social marketer

not un-

dertake

programs

o benefit

him-

or

herself;

that he or she

must

believe

thatthe

program

will

improve

ong

run

ndivid-

ual

or societal

well-being.

This is

a

point

I return to

subsequently.

Social

Marketing

Criteria

Implicit

n

the definition

f social

marketing

utlinedhere

are the

following

criteria.To

be

labeled social

marketing,

a

program

must

*applycommercialmarketingechnology,

*

have

as its bottom

ine the

nfluencing

f

voluntary

ehavior,

and

*

primarily

eek o

benefit ndividuals/familiesr the

broadero-

ciety

andnot the

marketingrganization

tself.

These

characteristics,

however,

comprise

necessary

but not

sufficient criteriafor

labeling

a

program

as social

market-

ing.

A

great

many approaches

o

influencing

behavior

that

carry

other labels

like health communicationmeet

the last

two

criteria.

So the

trulydistinguishing

raitfor social mar-

keting

is

that it

applies

marketing echnology.

What, then,

are the

defining

characteristics

of such a

technology?

This

is a

topic

that heretoforehas not been addressed

systemati-

cally (although

cf. Hunt

1991).

In

my

own efforts to use so-

cial

marketing

o

influence

voluntary

behaviors,

I have de-

veloped

a

modest set of characteristics

hat

distinguish

the

very

best social

marketing:

1.

Programmanagers

nderstand

he

target

udience's

needs,

wants,

perceptions,

nd

present

ehavior

atterns

eforeact-

ing,

in

many

cases

through

he use of

specific

ormative

e-

search.

Managers

o notmake

ssumptions

bout

hesechar-

acteristics.

2.

Programmanagers egment arget

markets

wherever

oliti-

cally

feasibleanddevise

budgets

nd

strategies

hatare

spe-

cifically adapted

o the characteristics f each

defined

segment.

3.

Whenever

conomically

easible,

all

major

lements f

pro-

gram trategy

nd acticsare

pretested

withmembers f the

target

udience.

4.

Programmanagers

onceive of

the decision

process by

which

arget

onsumers

ome to undertake

target

ehavior

as

comprising

he

following teps:

a.

Acquire

he

necessary knowledge

to be

aware

of the

option;

b. Embracehe

values

hat

permit

hebehavioro

be

consid-

ered or

adoption;

c. Perceive hebehavior s

potentially

elevanto their

own

circumstances,

hoseof a member f their

amily

or those

of the

broader

ociety;

d. Conclude hat he

positiveconsequences

f

the behavior

exceed

he

negative

onsequences

o a

degree

hat

s

su-

perior

o

realistic

lternatives;

e. Believe hat

hey

have he

ability

o

carry

utthe

action;

and

f.

Believe

that otherswho are

important

o them

support

theiraction.

5.

The

program xplicitly ecognizes

hat t facesdirector

in-

directcompetition or the targetconsumer'sbehavioral

choices.

6.

Strategies esigned

o effectbehavioral

hange

always

om-

prise

all

four

elements

f the

marketing

mix

(the

four

Ps):

a.

Design

of a

product

i.e.,

the behavior o be

promoted)

that

s

fully

responsive

o the

target

consumers'

needs

and

wants,

n

other

words,

hat s

easy

and

satisfying;

b.

Making

he

place

at which the behavior an be carried

out convenient nd

accessible;

c.

Minimizing

o the extent

possible

he

economic,

ocial

and

psychological

rice

of the

behavior;

nd

d.

Seeking

o

promote

he behavior

with

messages hrough

personal

r

impersonal

media

appropriate

o the

target

audience's

ifestylepatterns

nd

preferences.

The need to

have a full

complement

of

marketing

mix el-

ements

is

very

often one of the

key

traits

on

which

pro-

grams

fail to be true

marketingprograms.

Too

many practi-

tioners are

really doing

social

advertising

and

think

it

is so-

cial

marketing.

This

misapplication

of the term

has caused

some

of

our

very

best

practitioners

to

despair.

Recently,

Bill Smith of

the

Academy

for

Educational

Development

(Smith

1993,

p.

2,

5)

said:

I think he future

f Social

Marketing

s in doubt. believe

hat

unless

we

do

something

ow,

t

will either

pass

away

as

ust

an-

other ad

of

the

80's,

or

worse

yet,

be institutionalizeds

a new

bureaucraticoutine f the 90's.

In bothcases t

may

die,

or be-

come

ossilized,

without ver

having

eenunderstood.

he

prob-

lem withsocial

marketingoday

s clear.Theres often ittleor

no

marketing....

ocial

Marketing

as takenover

by

socialad-

vertising

arly

n

its

history.

Whenever mention he FourPs

(Product,

lace,Price,

and

Promotion)

hese

days you

can see

the audience

laze

over,

sit backand

say

'wherehas

this

guy

been-the

FourPs-we're

way beyond

he FourPs.' We

have

come to believe

thatthe FourPs are

boring,

because

we are

only

truly

doinganything

bout he

fourth

P--promotion.

Smith's solution

(p.

8)

is to

go

back to basics-to

stop

stressing

awareness,

acceptance

and

knowledge

before we

figure

out what new services

people

need,

what benefits

they

want,

and

what barrierswe can make

easier to

over-


7/8

Journal

of Public

Policy

&

Marketing

113

come.

Marketing

is about

programs,

it's not about

posters.

Clearly,practitioners

of

social

marketing

ind that

good

definitions,

like

good

theories,

have

very practical mplica-

tions. It is

important

that the field come to a clear

agree-

ment aboutwhat social

marketing

omprises

and how it dif-

fers from its rivals. A

clear,

accepted

definition

will ensure

that social

marketing

s

applied

where it is

appropriate

nd

withheld where

it is

not. And

it will

ensure that those

carry-

ing

out

social

marketing

are

not

misapplying

its

basic ten-

ets.

Only

under

these

circumstances will social

marketing

have a fair

chance

to

fulfill the

greatpotentialmany

of us be-

lieve

that

it

has

for

doing

social

good.

An

Ethical Concern

Social

marketing

s

supposed

to be

applied

to

achieving

so-

cial

good

(cf.

Murphy

and Bloom

1990).

But social

market-

ing

is in

one sense

merely

a

technology

to

be

employed by

those who wish to achieve social

good.

As

such,

it can be

used

by

anyone

who

claims

(or believes)

that

it is

being

used for such an end. The determinationof what is social

good

is

entirely

in

the hands of the

would-be

social mar-

keter. This means

that,

inevitably,

social

marketing

echnol-

ogies

will be

appliedby partisanspromoting

heirown

par-

ticular visions of

social

welfare,

which can differ

signifi-

cantly

from

those held be the

general society.

Thus,

social

marketing

could

be used

by

the Ku Klux

Klan,

the German

National

Socialist

(Nazi)

Party,

Mother

Teresa,

and

both

pro-life

and

pro-choice

forces.

This

possi-

bility

raises a critical ethical

issue: How do

we ensure

that

this

exciting

new

technology

is

used for

good

ends?

Those

of us who wish to

promote

the use of

social market-

ing

are

faced with two

challenges.

First,

we must ensure

that

the

characteristics

f

good

social

marketing

enunciated

previously

are adhered o-that

is,

thatwe teach and advise

others in

the

very

best social

marketing

practice.

Second,

we

must make

personal

ethical

judgments

about

the

kinds

of

organizations

and individuals

to whom we offer our so-

cial

marketing

ervices.

Leo

Szilard was

instrumental to

the

development

of

atomic

bomb

technology.

However,

at

the end of his

career,

he also

spent

much

of

his

time

lobbying

to ensure that his

legacy

was

put

to

peaceful

usage.

There

is

a

lesson

here

for

those of

us

who wish to be

social

marketing xperts.

We

must devote our

energies

to

building

the best

technology

that we can.

But

we

also owe it to

ourselves and our com-

munities to

see

that

it is used for what a broadconsensus of

society agreesis its own social good.

References

Andreasen,

Alan R.

(1988),

AlternativeGrowth

Strategies

or

Contraceptive

ocial

Marketing

rograms,

ournal

f

Health

Care

Marketing,

8

(June),

38-46.

(1993),

A

Social

Marketing

Research

Agenda

or

Con-

sumer

Behavior

Researchers,

in

Advances in

Consumer Re-

search,

Vol.

20,

Michael

Rothschildnd

Leigh

McAlister,

ds.

Provo,

UT:

Associationor

Consumer

esearch,

-5.

(forthcoming),Marketing or

Social

Change.

San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Bartels,

Robert

1974),

The

Identity

Crisis n

Marketing,

our-

nal

of Marketing,

38

(October),

73-76.

Bernays, Eugene

(1952),

Public

Relations.

Norman,

OK:

Univer-

sity of Oklahoma ress.

Bloom,

Paul

andWilliamD. Novelli

1981),

Problems nd

Chal-

lenges

in Social

Marketing,

Journal

of Marketing,

45

(Spring)

79-88.

Brown,B. (1986), SocialMarketingnd heConstructionf a

New

Policy

Domain:An

Understanding

f the

Convergence

WhichMadeSocial

Marketing

ossible,

doctoral

hesis,

Vir-

ginia

Commonwealth

niversityquoted

n Elliott

1991).

Davison,

P.

(1959),

On he Effectsof

Communications,

ublic

Opinion Quarterly,

23,

3343-60.

Debus,

Mary

(1987),

Lessons Learned

rom

the Dualima

Condom

TestMarket.

Washington,

C:

SOMARC/Theutures

Group.

Elliott,

Barry

J.

(1991),

A

Re-examination

f

the Social

Marketing

Concept. Sydney:

Elliott

&

Shanahan

Research.

Fine,

Seymour

(1981),

The

Marketingof

Ideas and

Social

Issues.

New York:

Praeger.

ed. (1990), Social Marketing:Promoting he Causesof Pub-

lic and

NonprofitAgencies.

Boston:

Allyn

&

Bacon.

Fox,

Karen .

A. and

Philip

Kotler,

1980),

The

Marketing

f

So-

cial Causes: The First Ten

Years,

Journal

of

Marketing

44,

24-33.

Glanz,Karen,

rancesMarcus

Lewis

and

Barbara .

Rimer,

ds.

(1990),

Health

Behavior and

Health Education.San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass

Publishers.

Hirschman,

Elizabeth

1991),

Secular

Morality

and the Dark

Side of Consumer

Behavior:Or

How

Semiotics Saved

My

Life,

Advances in

Consumer

Research, 18,

1-4.

Hunt,

Shelby

D.

(1991),

Modern

Marketing Theory.

Cincinnati:

South-Western

ublishing

o.

Hyman,

Herbert ndPaul

Sheatsley

1947),

SomeReasons

Why

Information

Campaigns

Fail,

Public

Opinion Quarterly

11,

412-23.

Kotler,

Philip

and

AlanR.

Andreasen

1991),

Strategic

Marketing

for

NonprofitOrganizations,

th ed.

Englewood

Cliffs,

NJ: Pren-

tice-Hall,

nc.

and

Sidney Levy

(1969),

Broadening

he

Concept

of Mar-

keting,

Journal

of

Marketing,

33,

10-15.

and

Eduardo Roberto

(1989),

Social

Marketing: Strategies

for Changing

Public

Behavior.

New

York:The Free Press.

and

Gerald Zaltman

(1971),

Social

Marketing:

An

Ap-

proach

o

PlannedSocial

Change,

Journal

of Marketing,

5,

3-

12.

Luck,

David J.

(1974),

Social

Marketing:

Confusion Com-

pounded,

Journal

of Marketing,

38

(October),

70-72.

Magnuson,

WarrenG. and

Jean

Carper

1968),

The Dark Side

of

the

Marketplace.

Englewood

Cliffs,

NJ:

Prentice-Hall,

nc.

Malafarina,

Katryna

and BarbaraLoken

(1993),

Progress

and

Limitationsof Social

Marketing:

A Review of

Empirical

Liter-

atureon the

Consumption

of Social

Ideas,

in

Advances n Con-

sumer

Research,

Vol.

20,

Michael Rothschild and

Leigh McAI-

ister,

eds.

Provo,

UT: Association for Consumer

Research,

397-

404.

Manoff,

RichardK.

(1985),

Social

Marketing.

New York:

Praeger

Publishers.


8/8

114

Social

Marketing

Merton,

Robert,

M.

Fiske,

and A. Curtis

(1946),

Mass Persuasion.

New York:

Harper

& Row.

Murphy,

Philip

and Paul Bloom

(1990),

Ethical Issues

in

Social

Marketing,

n

Social

Marketing:Promoting

he Causes

of

Pub-

lic and

Nonprofit

Agencies,

Seymour

Fine,

ed. Boston:

Allyn

&

Bacon,

68-86.

Ramah,

Michael

(1992),

Social

Marketing

and the

Prevention

of

AIDS.

Washington,

DC:

Academy

for Educational

Develop-

ment

AIDSCOM

Project.

Rangun,

V.K. and S.

Karim

(1991),

Teaching

Note:

Focusing

the

Concept of

Social

Marketing.

Cambridge,

MA: HarvardBusi-

ness School.

Rogers,

Everett

M.

(1962),

Diffusion

of

Innovations.

New York:

The Free Press.

Rothschild,

Michael

(1979),

Marketing

Communications n Non

Business Situations

or

Why

It's

So

Hard to

Sell Brotherhood

Like

Soap,

Journal

of Marketing

43,

11-20.

Simon,

Julian

(1968),

Some

'Marketing

Correct' Recommenda-

tions for

Family

PlanningCampaigns,

Demography,

,

504-7.

Smith,

William A.

(1989),

Lifestyles or

Survival:

The

Role

of

So-

cial

Marketing

n Mass Education.

Washington,

DC:

Academy

for Educational

Development.

---

(1993),

The Future of Social

Marketing,

paper presented

to the

Marketing

Conference on

Creating

Successful

Partner-

ships,

Carleton

University,

Ottawa,

Canada.

Weibe,

G.D.

(1951/52),

Merchandising

Commodities

and Citi-

zenship

in

Television,

Public

Opinion Quarterly,

15

(Winter),

679-91.

definition of social marketing

Documents