Management DecisionSocial Marketing: What makes it different?Frederick E. Webster

Article information:To cite this document:Frederick E. Webster, (1975),"Social Marketing: What makes it different?", Management Decision, Vol.13 Iss 1 pp. 70 - 77Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb001066

Downloaded on: 10 February 2015, At: 12:38 (PT)References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 750 times since 2006*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:(2005),"Editorial Statement", Political Power and Social Theory, Vol. 17 pp. xi-

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 471881 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emeraldfor Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submissionguidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as wellas providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of theCommittee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative fordigital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time ofdownload.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F L

EIC

EST

ER

At 1

2:38

10

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

70 | Management Decision 13, 1

Social Marketing: What makes it different? Frederick E. Webster

After briefly reviewing the recent development of interest in social marketing, some areas where it differs from business marketing are explored. "Social" and "societal" marketing are said to be distinct developments but both have substantial implications for the marketing concept. Four distinct types of social marketing are identified depending largely upon the marketeer's sources of financial support.

Beginning in the late 1960s, renewed interest has developed in applying marketing concepts and techniques to a variety of non-business and not-for-profit activities. Such applications have often been discussed under the label of "social marketing", a phrase which is potentially misleading because it is often confused with "societal marketing", implying business marketing decisions which have a heightened concern for the social implications of business action. In fact, both social and societal marketing concepts have often been discussed in the same article, further confusing the picture.

This article has several purposes: (1) to review and summarise briefly the current discussions of social marketing; (2) to examine critically the various definitions of social marketing that have been

proposed; (3) to identify similarities and differences between business marketing and social

marketing; (4) to suggest the philosophical implications of social marketing concepts for the

marketing profession.

Development of Interest in Social Marketing The current upsurge of interest in applying marketing concepts in non-business environments was heralded with a seminal article by Kotler and Levy in the January, 1969, issue of Journal of Marketing[1]. It was noted that promotion, one part of marketing, had been practised in a variety of public service and political activities but that such efforts could be made more effective by thinking of them in a total marketing context and by replacing a traditional product orientation with a consumer orientation. The authors argued that all organisations are "concerned about their 'product' in the eyes of certain 'consumers' and are seeking to find 'tools' for furthering their accept-

This article is based on research supported by the Tuck Associates Program.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F L

EIC

EST

ER

At 1

2:38

10

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

Social Marketing | 71

ance[2]". The article identified several key concepts for effective marketing manage­ment in non-business organisations including:

—generic product definition in terms of customer need satisfactions, not physical product features;

—market segmentation strategy involving definition of market target groups, and seeking unique competitive advantage through differentiated marketing effort in specific market segments;

—customer behaviour analysis; —use of multiple marketing tools; —continuous feedback of marketing information; —audit of the marketing function.

Forces Encouraging a Broader Concept Several forces have been pushing marketing thought beyond its traditional business boundaries. The broadening process actually began with the articulation of the marketing concept which said that the major purpose of all business activity was to create a satisfied customer. This redefinition of marketing purpose shifted the focus away from products, companies, and selling activities towards the customer's needs, wants, communication patterns, and buying habits. In the process, the philosophical underpinnings of marketing began to bend away from the firm towards the larger social purpose served by marketing, that is, consumer satisfaction.

The broadened marketing concept has reflected several mutually consistent forces including:

(1) increased emphasis within the European and American economies on services as opposed to products, many of these services being provided by non-business organisations such as hospitals, universities, and governmental agencies;

(2) increased awareness within non-business organisations of the value of profess­ional management approaches and increased management mobility between business and non-business sectors;

(3) heightened criticism of business marketing activities which has caused marketing scholars to look beyond the business firm for social justification of marketing functions;

(4) publicity about successful marketing approaches in such fields as politics, conservation, and fund raising;

(5) developing recognition within the marketing profession that marketing is a form of applied behavioural science analogous to engineering as applied physical science and medicine as applied biological science;

(6) a maturing of marketing as an intellectual discipline which has brought with it sharpened concern for philosophical issues, especially the need for metatheory in marketing; that is, theory which deals critically with marketing as a discipline.

It was to be expected, of course, that not all marketing scholars would find the extension of the marketing concept acceptable as an intellectual development. Profes-

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F L

EIC

EST

ER

At 1

2:38

10

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

7 1 | Management Decision 13, 1

sor Luck's criticism of the Kotler and Levy article found it "based on premises which may lead to confusion regarding the essential nature of marketing". "Further, it suggests a disparaging attitude towards the social benefits of our professional field", he said. He saw the Kotler and Levy effort as part of a "we're not yet societal" syndrome[3]. This comment shows how, as noted earlier, the social and societal dimensions of marketing often overlap.

Subsequent development of the social marketing idea has consisted mainly of identifying analogies between business marketing and activities of non-business organisations. Several anecdotal articles have appeared describing marketing in a variety of contexts such as health care delivery, fund-raising, family planning, and solid waste recycling[4].

Following the initial Kotler and Levy effort at broadening the concept of marketing, Professor Kotler and others have offered several other definitions and extensions including:

(1) "social marketing [is] . . . the design, implementation, and control of pro grammes calculated to influence the acceptability of social ideas . . . the explicit use of marketing skills to help translate present social action efforts into more effectively designed and communicated programmes that elicit desired audience response[5]".

(2) marketing is concerned with how all of the organisation's transactions are created, stimulated, facilitated, and valued, not just transactions with customers but with all publics including shareholders, employees, suppliers, special interest groups, and the public-at-Iarge[6].

Sources of Confusion In reviewing the several definitions of marketing offered by Kotler and others, a good deal of confusion and contradiction becomes apparent. This is by and large inevitable in dealing with so complex and dynamic an activity as marketing. One source of confusion has already been mentioned—the dual forces of social and societal concerns. Some of the redefinitions of marketing seem to be an attempt to kill two birds with one stone—to make marketing actions more consistent with the social good and to extend marketing competence into non-business organisations.

To define marketing so broadly as to encompass all human exchange, all trans­actions, both business and non-business, both market and non-market, is to go too far beyond the accepted boundaries.

Another source of confusion seems to be the interaction of different types of organisations, products, and client publics. Some definitions have been based upon distinctions among types of organisations and others upon product types, and these not being mutually exclusive further complicates matters. What is needed is a typology of marketing problems and activities which recognises important similarities and important differences depending upon the type of organisation and its objectives, the products and services being offered, and the client public being served.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F L

EIC

EST

ER

At 1

2:38

10

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

Social Marketing | 73

A Typology of Social Marketing Just as a profit-seeking organisation must attempt to serve simultaneously the interests of several publics including customers, shareholders, employees, suppliers, and the public-at-large, so must the non-profit organisation. For the non-profit organisation these relevant publics include clients, donors, and the public-at-large, as well as employees and suppliers. Furthermore, the client may be an "involuntary" customer, either in the sense that even when the product/service is available, he hopes not to need it, or in the sense that he would not pay for it if given a choice, or in the sense that he uses it whether he likes it or not. Examples of these three include ambulance service, military protection (for some taxpayers at least), and bridges.

It is an axiom of profit-seeking enterprise that the price paid by the customer is adequate to cover the full costs associated with producing the product or service (over the long-run) and to provide profit adequate to reward the owners for their risk-taking. This basic assumption is not true in social marketing where it is not common for the customer-client to pay a price equal to the cost of providing the service. In contrast, it is likely that the costs are borne by donors, or the public-at-large, or perhaps shared between these two and the client. For many products and services in social marketing, such as libraries, fire services, parks, and various public health services, making use of the product or service is entirely independent of the ability to pay. Clients may be asked to make a contribution, to pay a token fee, or not to pay at all.

Here, then, is an important distinction between social marketing and business marketing—being a customer (or "client") is not dependent on ability to pay, a distinction which has substantial implications for the nature of the marketing task. This fact influences social marketing in three important respects. First, the pricing decision is directed by different conditions and criteria. Second, specific attention must be devoted to raising funds from sources other than the customer. So, promotional effort may be directed not only at customers but also at sources of funds. Furthermore, this condition heightens the dependency of the not-for-profit organisation on favourable attitudes among special publics (such as alumni) and among the public-at-large. Third, to the extent that social marketing is aimed at the public-at-large as both donors and clients (as in governmental marketing) there will be a relative absence of competition.

Among the various kinds of social marketing institutions, those that are tax-supported probably depend most heavily for their long-term survival on a broad base of public support for their efforts. Over time, this causes them to develop a "product line" which has the broadest public appeal. Likewise, certain services which must be available to all citizens, regardless of ability to pay, such as fire service, are clearly the most likely to be supported by taxation.

Classifying organisations on the basis of the source of their financial support is therefore useful in developing a typology of social marketing, as this influences: (1) the target market; (2) the product/service mix; (3) the selectivity of distribution; (4) the pricing decision; and (5) the nature of the promotional task. Such a typology is

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F L

EIC

EST

ER

At 1

2:38

10

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

74 | Management Decision 13, 1

Figure 1. A Typology of Social Marketing Type of Social

Marketing

Governmental

Charitable

Quasi-public service

Social cause

Major Objective

To provide essential community service

To support a useful service which lacks broad public support

To satisfy special interests and needs

To change beliefs, attitudes, or behaviour

Main Source of Funds

Taxpayers

Donors

Donors Fees for service

Donors

Taxpayers

Target Clients for Service

Public-at-large; all with need

All with a specifically defined need

All with a special interest

Public-at-large

Examples

Fire services, highways, sewers

Red Cross, boy scouts

Private colleges, symphony orchestras, libraries, recreational facilities

Political parties, religious groups, conservation groups

suggested in Figure 1. This classification scheme (which is offered only as a first step into this complicated area) suggests why, as noted earlier, social marketing may be more dependent than business marketing upon a strong base of favourable public opinion—in the last analysis, the public as donors or taxpayers is often asked to provide social support for such activities. For this reason, a political dimension is usually present in social marketing. In a sense there are two "marketing" jobs to do when the clients are not the supporters of the organisation, for there is now a need to develop two marketing mixes (products, distribution, promotion, and prices) for two different market targets, and these two marketing mixes must be mutually supportive and consistent. In such instances, it is important to remember that the raison d'etre of the organisation is provided by the clientèle and not by the donors. To avoid confusion, it may be best to reserve the term "marketing" for those activities aimed at clientèle and to call activities aimed at financial supporters "fund-raising".

To summarise this section, it has been said that social marketing differs from business marketing, in degree if not in kind, in several respects:

(1) clients are not always asked to pay for products and services; (2) a political dimension is usually present because social marketing needs broad

public support; (3) product/service use and consumption is often involuntary or not desired by

potential clients; (4) marketing type efforts must be directed at both clients and sources of financial

support, and these two marketing mixes must be mutually consistent; (5) increased demand for products and services is not always desired because funds

may not be readily available.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F L

EIC

EST

ER

At 1

2:38

10

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

Social Marketing \ 7$

Implications for Marketing Strategy It becomes obvious that social marketing is in several respects different from tradi­tional marketing. While similarities to business marketing are also clearly present, it is a potentially dangerous over-simplification to assume that traditional business market­ing practices can be applied without modification in non-business environments. Some of the more important differences in social marketing strategy are suggested below:

In market definition and client selection: The social marketeer with limited resources may find that a careful definition of market targets is a major requirement for efficient operations and for effective competition with other social marketeers. On the other hand, there will usually be social and political pressures to define target clients in the broadest possible manner. The presence of these pressures can create a unique problem for social marketeers, at both the public policy level and the organisational-operational level. Nonetheless, as in business marketing, market definition and client selection are likely to be the critical strategic decisions determin­ing the nature of the organisation.

In product policy and strategy: It is typical of social marketing to want to have a product of maximum appeal and usefulness to the broadest public, especially for governmental marketing and quasi-public service marketing. Market segmentation of client markets is therefore not as critical a strategic problem as in business marketing which is motivated by the search for unique competitive advantage. But resource limitations are likely to constrain the range of products and services that can be offered as well as the extent of the market to be served. In social marketing which depends upon donations, special attention must be devoted to defining the product (benefits) to be offered to donors as distinct from clients. Segmentation in donor markets is perhaps a more critical decision for some social marketeers.

In pricing policy and strategy: Whether to charge for a product or service is often the critical decision rather than how much to change. No such choice is necessary in most business marketing. Related to the pricing issue is the question of how aggressively to pursue past due accounts.

In distribution policy and strategy: Marketing channels are not so likely to be readily available for social marketing. Instead of relying on various middlemen, the social marketeer will probably have to develop his own distribution agencies and facilities. When distribution is accomplished through volunteers, unique problems of organisation, supervision, compensation, and control are likely to be present.

In promotional policy and strategy: Special requirements may exist in the need to establish a broad base of public understanding and support. In social cause market­ing communication where the objective is one of changing beliefs, attitudes, and behaviour, the specific action to be taken by the receiver must be made clear. In the absence of an actual product or service, the articulation of client benefits is an exceptionally important and difficult task. In governmental and charitable marketing

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F L

EIC

EST

ER

At 1

2:38

10

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

76 | Management Decision 13, 1

aimed especially at underprivileged segments of the population, media selection becomes very difficult. It seems fair to conclude that strategic choices in social marketing may be quite

distinct from those in business marketing, both in terms of available options and in terms of the decision criteria to be applied in choosing among them. These differences reflect differences in organisational objectives and the unique aspects of some social goods and services as noted earlier. Simple analogies which suggest that social market­ing is similar to business marketing because both use the same tools to sell products to markets can be quite misleading.

Implications for Marketing Philosophy The preceding discussion has perhaps shed some light on the confusing connection between social marketing and "societal" marketing. Societal marketing was, early in the paper, defined as business marketing with a heightened concern for the social implications of marketing actions. Now we have seen that social marketing is differen­tiated from traditional business marketing by a greater degree of dependence on favourable public opinion and political support. Thus as business marketing becomes more oriented towards societal considerations, it becomes more like social marketing.

These two evolutionary forces, the societal and the social, are therefore mutually consistent in the demands they ultimately make on the marketing concept. Both call for adding explicit concern for political acceptability and public welfare to the tradi­tional marketing concept's concern for creating a satisfied (individual) consumer.

Likewise, marketing philosophy's traditional concern for profitability does not fit well with the characteristics of social organisations. Other economic concepts such as efficiency and optimisation subject to budget constraints may be more appropriate here.

For many social marketeers, demand stimulation, which is perhaps the most characteristic element of business marketing, may become relatively unimportant and even counter-productive. Especially where budget constraints or other resource limitations are severe, the more important marketing task may be to discourage demand to the extent consistent with the public welfare[7]. In the search for more efficiency, promotional resources may be used to educate clients to make more selective and more intelligent use of organisational resources. Likewise, market research effort may be expended to develop a better understanding of potential clients' needs, in order to maximise client satisfaction within resource constraints by making the organisation more responsive to its market. Here the roles of marketing in the profit-seeking firm and in the budget-constrained not-for-profit organisation are similar.

Both social marketing and societal marketing are bringing a new set of requirements to professional marketing practices—those associated with defining "the public welfare" in an operational sense as related to goods and services. For in addition to all of the technical problems involved in conducting market research to this end, there is

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F L

EIC

EST

ER

At 1

2:38

10

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

Social Marketing | 77

an ethical dimension involved. This ethical dimension requires the marketing decision maker to have his own definition of the social good. Whereas he could previously rely upon consumer choices in the marketplace to make this judgment for him, the market­eer who wishes to serve the public welfare must now bring his own personal values to bear on his professional decision making. There is therefore an increasingly urgent need for a marketing philosophy to help the professional marketeer think about his newly emerging social and societal responsibilities, a need not well served by the marketing concept.

References 1. Kotler, Philip, and Levy, Sidney, "Broadening the Concept of Marketing", Journal of Marketing,

Vol. 33, January 1969, pp. 10-15. 2. Ibid., p. 12. 3. Luck, David J., "Broadening the Concept of Marketing—Too Far", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33,

July 1969, pp. 53-5. 4. An entire issue of Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35, July 1971, was devoted to these topics: Farley, J. U.

and Leavitt, H. J., "Marketing and Population Problems", pp. 28-33; Mindak, W. A., and Bybee, H. M., "Marketing's Application to Fund Raising", pp. 13-18; Zaltman, G., and Vertinsky, S., "Health Service Marketing: A Suggested Model", pp. 19-27; Zikmund, W. G., and Stanton, W. J., "Recycling Solid Wastes: A Channels-of-Distribution Problem", pp. 34-9. See also Shapiro, Benson P., "Marketing for Nonprofit Organisations", Harvard Business Review, L1, September-October 1973, pp. 123-32.

5. Kotler, Philip, and Zaltman, Gerald, "Social Marketing: An Approach to Planned Social Change", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35, July 1971, pp. 3-12, at p. 5.

6. Kotler, Philip, "A Generic Concept of Marketing", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35, April 1972, pp. 46-54.

7. For an exposition of this concept in a business context, see Kotler, Philip and Levy, Sidney J., "Demarketing, Yes, Demarketing", Harvard Business Review, Vol. 49, November-December 1971, pp. 74-80.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F L

EIC

EST

ER

At 1

2:38

10

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

This article has been cited by:

1. Effi Raftopoulou, Margaret K. Hogg. 2010. The political role of government‐sponsored socialmarketing campaigns. European Journal of Marketing 44:7/8, 1206-1227. [Abstract] [Full Text][PDF]

2. Andrew T. Kaczynski. 2008. A More Tenable Marketing for Leisure Services and Studies. LeisureSciences 30:3, 253-272. [CrossRef]

3. George G. Brenkert. 2002. Ethical Challenges of Social Marketing. Journal of Public Policy &Marketing 21:1, 14-25. [CrossRef]

4. Gareth Smith. 1988. Applying Marketing to the Public Sector: The Case of Local Authority LeisureCentres. International Journal of Public Sector Management 1:3, 36-45. [Abstract] [PDF]

5. C.M. Octon. 1983. A Re‐Examination of Marketing for British Non‐Profit Organisations. EuropeanJournal of Marketing 17:5, 33-43. [Abstract] [PDF]

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F L

EIC

EST

ER

At 1

2:38

10

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)