1. 0 Social Marketing
1.1 What is social marketing?
In the book Social Marketing: Influencing behaviours for good, Kotler & Lee (2008, p. 7) provide a list of useful definitions from social marketing academics. These include
“Social marketing is a process for creating, communicating and delivering benefits that a target audience(s) wants in exchange for audience behaviour that benefits society without financial profit to the marketer” (Bill Smith 2006 cited in Kotler & Lee 2008, p. 7)
“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 audience in order to improve their personal welfare and that of their society” (Alan Andreasen 1995 cited in Kotler & Lee 2008, p. 7)
“Social marketing is the systematic application of marketing concepts and techniques to achieve specific behavioural goals relevant to a social good” (Jeff French & Clive Blair-Stevens 2005 cited in Kotler & Lee 2008, p. 7)
The current definition upheld by the Social Marketing Institute is:
“The planning and implementation of programs designed to bring about social change using concepts from commercial marketing” (O’Reilly & Madill 2007, p. 6)
Each of these definitions has commonalities with one another. These include:
1. A systematic planning process based in the application of traditional marketing principles
3. Intent to deliver a positive benefit for society
A systematic planning process based in the application of traditional marketing principles: Traditional marketing forms its basis in the ‘4Ps’, product, place, price, and promotion. These ‘4Ps’ are independent variables which are strategically altered to achieve a desired reaction from a target public. This strategic alteration of the ‘4Ps’ is commonly referred to as the ‘marketing mix’ (Kotler & Lee 2007, p. 12).
A product is “anything that can be offered to a market to satisfy a want or need” (Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. 2005 cited in Kotler, P. & Lee, N. 2008, p. 205). Traditional marketing theory suggests that when developing a product it should be examined on three levels: core product, actual product and augmented product (Kotler & Lee 2008, p. 206). Core product refers to the benefit that the target public expects to gain (Kotler & Lee 2008, p. 206). Actual product is the specific behaviour the marketer wants to influence (Kotler & Lee 208, p. 209).
Augmented product is the tangible goods and services sold to reduce barriers to and complement the uptake of the desired behaviour (Kotler & Lee 2008, p. 210). Malleable products are often vital for customer satisfaction (Walsh et al 1993, p. 113). The following table (Kotler & Lee 2008, p. 207) provides examples of all three product levels:
Core Product Actual Product Augmented Product
Prevention of alcohol poisoning
Drink less than five drinks at one sitting
Breathalysers in bars
Price is the amount the consumer is expected to pay to obtain the product. Both low and high pricing can be seen as points of differentiation. Hooley, Saunders & Piercy (1998, p. 382) advise that lower pricing as a means of differentiation should only be used as the basis for strategy where the company enjoys a cost advantage. Alternatively, premium pricing is generally only successful when the product has unique actual or perceived advantages. In addition to monetary costs it is important for marketers to consider non-monetary costs such as the time and effort required to perform a desired behaviour (Kotler & Lee 2008, p. 228). Psychological risks and loses should also be considered (Kotler & Lee 2008, p. 228).
Place refers to where the product is obtained or where the target public puts their motivation into action (Kotler & Zaltman 1971 cited in Neiger & Thackeray 2003). The wider process involves identifying how to reach the target market and how to make the product (or behaviour) available to them (Wilson & Olds 1991 cited in Neiger & Thackeray 2003).
The final element of the mix is promotion. This involves the different types of
communications employed to inspire a target public into action (Kotler & Lee 2008, p. 268). Promotion should highlight the beliefs and features of a product as well as providing
information about access to the product (Kotler & Lee 2008, p. 268). Direct mail, television of breast cancers self-exam for placement on shower
advertising, public relations, print media and the Internet are all forms of promotion (Hooley, Saunders & Piercy 1998, p. 383).
The elements of the marketing mix are co-dependent and should not be considered in
isolation. Hooley, Saunders and Piercy (1998, p. 52) use the example of a high end positioned product which differentiates from its competition due to its superior product quality. This product may be unsuccessful if it retails for too low a price as the target public may perceive low price to mean low quality.
Essentially, just as traditional marketers sell goods and services, social marketers sell behaviours (Kotler & Lee, 2008, p. 8).
The influencing of behaviour: The primary aim of social marketing is behaviour change. This is the key differentiating factor between social marketing and other corporate social
initiatives such as corporate philanthropy and volunteering. These other social initiatives exist to spark awareness (of a cause or brand), generate goodwill amongst stakeholders, or raise money. They generally do not aim to change behaviour (Kotler & Lee 2004). In addition to motivating behavioural changes within a target public, social marketing can also bring about changes to secondary target publics whose cooperative actions can contribute to the success of a campaign. These publics can include, but are not limited to, the media, family members of target, funders, and policymakers (Andreasen 2002, p. 8).
Because social marketing results in changed behavioural patterns, it is regarded by many as a highly effective marketing mechanism (Kotler & Lee 2004). Kotler and Lee state that
although increasing knowledge, and altering existing beliefs and attitudes may be
encouraging proxies – the ultimate bottom line for a social marketing campaign is: did the target public adapt to or ‘buy’ the desired behaviour? (Kotler & Lee 2008, p. 8).
Kotler suggests that the reason for this (in a corporate setting) is that when people change the way they act, and then personally (either directly or indirectly as a member of society) benefit from this change, they are likely to have a strong positive association with the company that motivated the change (Kotler & Lee 2004).
To put this in the (non-corporate) context of this report, a child’s caregiver may observe a particular set of benefits when they follow advertised recommendations. A bicycle company may become involved in an initiative with the state government to encourage children to ride to school A caregiver may observe the promotional campaign around the initiative and encourage their child to ride to school. They may also notice that after a month of riding their bike to school, their child has more energy, is more social, and has lost weight. Therefore they are likely to develop a positive image of the particular brand of bicycle. They now associate it with a more energetic, social and healthy child.
Intent to deliver a positive benefit for society: Social marketing is most commonly utilised for the sake of improving health, public safety, community involvement, or for environmental
causes (Kotler & Lee 2004). The standing of each of these social issues is improved through an increased adaptation of desired related behaviours (Kotler & Lee 2008, p. 16).
Kotler (2005, p. 146) saw social marketing as an alternative to coercion, illegal actions and education. The former two options were inherently unethical. The latter he believed was too slow in appropriating desirable change. Social marketing generally achieves its behavioural change goals through the use of incentives, facilitation and promotion (Kotler 2005, p. 145). Incentives are important not only for motivating individual targets but also the support networks that facilitate change, for example schools and community groups (Walsh et al 1993, p. 112) Social marketing relies heavily on “rewarding good behaviours”, as opposed to “punishing bad ones” which is commonly the purpose of involuntary legal recourse (Kotler & Lee 2008, p. 8).
One of the most distinguishing features of social marketing is its ethical focus, “Social marketers must regard themselves as being ethically responsible for all aspects of social marketing efforts” (Kotler & Roberto 1989, p. 363). Murphy and Bloom (1990, p. 69) note that marketing is essentially an exchange. The central concept of any exchange relies on the ethical element of fairness. They state that three conditions must be present for fair exchange, these are: 1. The transaction must be entered into freely by both parties, a coerced exchange is unfair. 2. The marketer and the consumer should both benefit from the exchange. 3. Both marketer and consumer must have access to appropriate levels of knowledge regarding the exchange (Murphy & Bloom 1990, p. 69). Ethical responsibility ensures that social marketers command respect as a discipline. Social marketers should be viewed as responsible,
on ethics is that social marketing campaigns have the ability to impact a public’s long-term well being and satisfaction (Kotler & Roberto 1989, p. 342).
Kotler (2004) states that corporate social marketing is also useful when used in partnership with government and the non-profit sector. He notes that the greatest benefit of social
marketing is that (over time) it is the surest way to have a measurable impact on a social issue because it increases the number of people who are willing to act in a way that benefits society (Kotler & Lee 2004). Persistence and a long time frame are critical elements of social
marketing, Walsh et al (1993, p. 111) reference numerous studies into cardiovascular risk reduction programs that take up to 10 years for “effective diffusion of new ideas and
practices to produce measurable and consequential social change” (Walsh et al 1993, p. 111). Walsh et al (1993, p. 109) also note that throughout the entire social marketing effort the process must be one of discipline, build on clearly stated objectives.
1.2 History:
The wider concept of marketing emerged after the industrial revolution when mass
production caused the supply of goods began to exceed customer demand (Fine 1990, p. 2). Before this time, products were made to order. However, when there were more products then needed by society it became necessary for organisations to kindle demand for their particular offering in order to remain in business (Fine 1990, p. 2).
Social marketing was first examined as an academic concept in the 1951 article by G.D Weibe (Andreasen 2002, p. 3). However, it wasn’t recognised as a distinct marketing
discipline until the 1970’s when Philip Kotler defined and gave name to the term (Kotler & Lee 2004).
Kotler is the recognised authority on social marketing. His book Social Marketing: Strategies for Changing Public Behaviour, which he wrote in partnership with Eduardo L. Roberto, was the first text book devoted to the role of marketing in social campaigns (Bates 1991, p. 108).
During its introductory period (the 1970’s and 1980’s), social marketing struggled to establish a separate identity from generic marketing practice (Andreasen 2002, p. 3). Early academic works distinguishing social marketing as a divergent marketing practice include Kotler and Levy’s ‘Broadening the concept of marketing’ in 1969, and Kotler and Zaltman’s ‘Social Marketing: An approach to planned social change’ in 1971. However, It wasn’t until the 1990’s that a wide and general acceptance of the concept was realised. This acceptance became apparent through: the publication of books devoted entirely to social marketing, the inclusion of social marketing chapters in marketing text books, a journal on social marketing (Social Marketing Quarterly, founded in 1994), executives within communications firms with ‘social marketing’ in their titles, the establishment of social marketing centers (Scotland, Canada, and Poland), and finally the establishment Social Marketing Institute in 1999 (Andreasen 2002, p. 3).
From a theoretical developmental perspective, the discipline steamed from social advertising which had a heavy focus on the message as opposed to behaviour (Walsh et al 1993, p. 109). Social advertising gave way to social communications which extended the focus from purely
message dissemination to the study of effective channels and mediums upon which to
platform the message. Social marketing built on social advertising to include market research, attention to product development, and the use of incentives (Walsh et al 1993, p. 109).
The development of social marketing aimed to provide a more proactive tool kit for social action, creating voluntary and ethical behavioural change within society (Kotler 2005, p. 146). According to Andreasen (2002, p. 4) the development of social marketing fits
consistently with the general pattern of inter-sector transfer of marketing concepts where by the concept takes on a broader application. In the case of social marketing, it has moved from being viewed purely as an agent for marketing products of social change (for example
contraceptives) into a multiple sector encompassing behavioural change model.
An extensive timeline of significant academic works and publications around social marketing can be found in Appendices xxx of this report.
1.3 Social marketing as distinct from other change strategies
In addition to social marketing, a number of other concepts have been utilised by
organisations to induce voluntary change. Certain similarities can be drawn between social marketing and elements of these alternate concepts (Andreasen 2002, p. 6). Change agents generally seek to influence their target public to do one of four things.
1) Accept a new behaviour (encourage your child to walk to school once a week)
3) Modify a current behaviour (Encourage your child to order fruit instead of chips with a fast-food meal)
4) Abandon an undesirable behaviour (Use fat-free cooking methods like baking or steaming) (Kotler & Lee 2008, p. 8).
Some alternative concepts include:
1. Social learning theory which emphasises building on the target publics belief that they can make behaviour happen (Bandura 1997).
2. Behavioural reinforcement theory which is based on a model of reward and punishment for certain behaviours (Rothschild 1999).
3. Enter-educate programs which combine educational messages with entertainment to bring about behavioural change (Piotrow and Coleman 1992).
More generally, Rothschild’s (1999) theoretical framework is inclusive of social marketing as well as the law and education, as a strategic apparatus for influencing behaviour. Rothschild considers each of these approaches to change based on whether or not members of a target market have the motivation, opportunity, and ability to potentially change their behaviour (Rothschild 1999 cited in O’Reilly & Madill 2006, p. 20). O’Reilly and Madill (2006, p. 21) further clarify this statement by adopting Rothschild’s (1999) definitions of each of the key proponents of behavioural change. ‘Motivation’, is the goal-directed arousal of the target public, ‘opportunity’ is dependent on environmental factors being receptive to change, and
‘ability’ is the degree to which the individual is empowered to solve problems (Rothschild 1999 cited in O’Reilly & Madill 2006, p. 21).
Education can be used to communicate a message or build a particular skill set, however Kotler and Lee (2008, p. 22) state that it does not pay enough attention to creating and maintaining behaviour change. It is more concerned with informational transfer and awareness campaigns.
In circumstances where voluntary change strategies are not adopted legal intervention is sometimes required. It is not uncommon for target adopters to resist behaviour change. If a presented message runs against the individual values of the target adopter it is unlikely that the social marketer will be able to institute behavioural change. In such a circumstance, social change agents may be required to use legal sanctions to promote the new behaviours. Kotler and Roberto (1989, p. 19) note that in time compliance with a law can produce the desired changes in attitudes and values. This is especially true when a large majority have adopted high consensus behaviour and only a small minority resist (Kotler & Lee 2008, p. 17). Mill (1863), however, notes that state intervention should be a measure of last resort. This, he argues, is because policy makers rely on generalisations when making law. Unlike social marketing, which target specific populations, governments do not segment. They do not tailor for the individual, rather they create a blanket policy for the approximation of the individual (Mill 1863).
In addition to the aforementioned education and legal models of change Kotler and Lee (2008, p. 17) highlight the media, as an alternate form of inducing change. Individual
behaviours are in part a result of personal values which are often gleaned from current events, trends and social norms depicted through the media (Kotler & Lee 2008, p. 22).
Kotler and Lee (2008, p. 22) believe that each of these mechanisms can work in cooperation with social marketing. For instance, the success of a social marketing campaign may lie in whether or not the target public has been educated or equipped with the learned skills to interpret the message and correctly implement the initiative (Walsh et al 1993, p. 113).
1.4 Social marketing as distinct from other forms of marketing:
In the early 1970’s Kotler began to distinguish social marketing from traditional commercial marketing, non-profit marketing, and societal marketing (Kotler 2005, p. 141).
There is little academic dispute about the classification of traditional commercial marketing which primarily aims to achieve financial outcomes (however it should be noted that
commercial marketing can also contribute to social good) through the output of a tangible product or service. Social marketing is distinguished by its focus on nontangible products such as ideas, attitudes and behavioural changes (Lefebvre & Flora 1988, p. 300).
Kotler defines non-profit marketing as “the efforts of non-profit organisations to attract clients and funds to support social and cultural services” (Kotler 2005, p. 142). He
distinguishes this from social marketing (a discipline of his own creation). Social marketing, rather than support social and cultural services, aims to encourage healthy behaviour (for example healthy eating) and discourage unhealthy behaviour (for example watching excessive amounts of television) (Kotler 2005, p. 142).
Kotler also distinguishes social marketing from societal marketing. Societal marketing
focuses on the impacts that marketing practices have on the well being of society. It is closely associated with corporate social responsibility and other corporate social initiatives. Societal marketing is the process by which practitioners look at the difference between satisfying a person’s needs, weighting up the impact on a person’s well being, and the overall impact on the wider publics wellbeing (Kotler 2005, p. 142). The concepts of social marketing and societal marketing appear to be closely related however there are disparities. Societal marketing is often used in a corporate setting and is closely related to issues of overall brand/cause perception through corporate social responsibility initiatives. Conversely, social marketing is primarily focused on changing behaviours for purposes of wider social good, “social marketing is the application of marketing techniques to increase adoption of the high-consensus ideas and causes” (Kotler 2005, p. 145).
1.5 Social marketing in the corporate environment:
While this report is largely focused on social marketing in a non-corporate environment, it is important to understand social marketing in its wider context. Increasingly non-profit
organisations are calling for more professional, business like behaviour from managers and trustees (Bates 1991, p. 109). Due to a rapidly shifting economic climate and social needs, it
is becoming harder for non-profits to operate “outside the “rules and regulations” of for-profit enterprise” (Bates 1991, p. 109).
It has only been in the last 15 years that social marketing has been prevalent in the corporate arena. Perhaps, in part due to its relevant infancy corporate social marketing (CSM) is often misunderstood (Kotler & Lee 2004). Essentially, CSM is a “strategy that uses marketing principles and techniques to foster behaviour change in a target population, improving society while at the same time building markets for products or services” (Kotler & Lee 2004). As with other forms of social marketing, behaviour change is the primary aim of CSM (Kotler & Lee 2004). The foundations of CSM can be traced back to the same techniques corporations use to persuade us to consumer their product, “It is all based on an in-depth understanding of the behaviours of the ‘customer’” (Lilley 2007, p. 22).
Another suggested reason for the late development of CSM is a basic misunderstanding around its goals and challenges. Often corporations who undertake corporate social marketing label their initiative something else: ‘cause marketing’ or ‘corporate social responsibility’. This is a result of companies failing to distinguish between raising awareness (which is often more closely related to societal marketing) and changing behaviour (which is the goal of social marketing) (Kotler & Lee 2004). The distinction between commercial marketing and CSM is often blurred, such as in the case with condom manufacturers who provide
information on AIDS while making a profit from a tangible product output (Lefebvre & Flora 1988, p. 300). In order to identify if a campaign can be classified as CSM it is necessary to closely examine the objectives of the source marketer to identify if there is an interest in motivating socially beneficial behaviours (Lefebvre & Flora 1988, p. 300).
There are a number of differences between CSM and commercial marketing. Kotler and Lee (2008, p. 13) point to the type of product sold as the largest distinguishing factor between the two. They note that in the commercial sector the marketing process revolves around financial gain from the selling of a good or service. Conversely, social marketing aims to sell a desired behaviour for the benefit of society (Kotler & Lee 2008, p. 13). Where in commercial
marketing the marketer (or the company they represent) is often a profiteer, a CSM campaign serves primarily to benefit the target adopter and society as a collective (O’Reilly & Madill 2007, p.6). A further distinction is the selection of target audience, “commercial marketers often favour choosing primary target market segments that will provide the greatest volume of profitable sales. In social marketing segments are selected based on a different set of criteria including prevalence of the social problem, ability to reach the audience, readiness for change” (Kotler & Lee 2008, p. 13).
While there are differences between social marketing and commercial marketing there are also marked similarities. In both cases the marketer seeks to gain the greatest output for their input of resources. The principals and techniques that influence each strain of marketing are the same. They include a customer orientation, a basis in exchange theory (target audience must perceive benefits that equal or exceed perceived cost associated with performing behaviour), market research is utilised heavily, audience require segmentation, each of the ‘4Ps’ are considered and finally results are measured and used for future improvement (Kotler and Lee 2008, p. 14).
1.6 Social marketing in the non-profit environment:
According to Kotler and Lee, “When a public-sector agency considers the wants, needs, problems, and preferences of citizens in developing and delivering programs and services, its needs are served and its performance improves” (Kotler & Lee 2007, p. 12). Social marketing was first employed by governments and non-profit organisations for health and
environmental campaigns, such as childhood immunisations and recycling (Kotler & Lee 2004). The utilisation of social marketing by non profits is becoming increasingly frequent. government agencies, charities and other organisations that fall under the non-profit umbrella are under increasingly intense scrutiny from the public. They need to be accountable and prove that they produce tangible outcomes that benefit a wide section of society (Bates 1999, p. 109). This is especially important for organisations that are taxpayer funded. Taxpayers want to know that their money is going towards causes and initiatives that are making a marked difference in the community (Bates 1999, p. 109).
In Social marketing: promoting the causes of public and nonprofit agencies, Fine highlights the fact that marketing theories are similar for both non-profit and for-profit organisations (cited in Bates 1991, p. 109). However, the way these two sectors manage themselves is vastly different, “the nonprofit sector is also known for the vaguely defined character of its product offerings, absence of competition, short-term planning, and difficulty in measuring performance or cost benefits” (Bates 1991, p. 109).
Fine separates the non-profit sector into two distinct categories.
2. Private organisations (such as charities) funded by government grants and personal contributions
1.7 Elements of social marketing:
Kotler and Roberto (1989) provide a list of the central elements of a social marketing campaign. These are cause, change agent, target adopters, channels, and change strategy.
Cause: A social objective aimed at providing a desirable answer to a social problem (Kotler & Roberto 1989, p. 17). Kotler and Roberto (1989, p. 18) list three types of causes: The first is those that aim to present new information to people to raise awareness of a cause and affect a cognitive change in the target adopter. The second class of campaigns seeks to “persuade a maximum number of individuals to perform a specific act...” (Kotler & Roberto 1989, p. 19). A social marketer must go beyond cognitive attitude change. The target adopter must perform a discrete act. The final category of cause requires a social marketer to convince target
adopters to positively change their behaviour and maintain the new behaviour over an extended period of time (Kotler & Roberto, 1989, p. 19). Social marketing efforts should begin with a presentation of data to relevant target publics that depicts the severity of the problem (Fine 1990, p. 293).
Change Agent: An individual, organisation or alliance that seeks to bring about social change (Kotler & Roberto 1989, p. 18).
Target adopters: There is a widely advocated (by academics such as Donovan & Henley 2003; and Kotler & Lee 2007) view that the scope of target adopters should be expanded to also include individuals within communities who have influence over institutional policy and legislative changes and social structures. For reasons of clarity, in this report, target adopters are the people whose behaviour a campaign aims to change. Target publics refer to any persons (or organisations) with whom the social marketer needs to communicate. Target publics include target adaptors and the institutions which support and facilitate their
behavioural change. In order to induce change among a target adopter group, Fine (1990, p. 293) suggest that they must possess the following:
1. The knowledge and ability to make the desired change
2. The desire to upset old habits in order to take up the promoted behaviour
3. Permission to make the change
Efforts should go beyond simply influencing the behaviourally problematic individual to influencing those who can facilitate a change in their behaviour (for example a school principal) (Kotler and Lee 2008, p. 11). An effective social marketing effort requires leadership and support, “A visible imprimatur for national and local decisions workers, political figures, and opinion leaders can be crucial to a social marketing programs success (Walsh 1993, p. 113). Kotler and Roberto (1989, p. 27) suggest a number of influence groups that need to be appropriately consulted to aid in the successful execution of a social
marketing campaign. These groups include:
• Permission granting groups – whose permission or legal authorisation may be required (Kotler & Roberto 1989, p. 27).
• Support groups
• Opposition groups
• Evaluation groups
Kotler and Roberto (1989, p. 177) highlight the important role professionals (doctors, lawyers, other credible people) play in persuading target publics to embrace the cause of a social marketer. However, they note that often it is difficult to get the co-operation of professionals. The two most common ways of achieving professional involvement are
achieving cooperation by legal means and encouraging cooperation through rewards, benefits and professional appeals (Kotler & Roberto 1989, p. 177).
Kotler and Robert (1989, p. 27) note that for a social marketing campaign to be successful a practitioner must be able to predict how target adopters will behave. Because social
marketing is entrenched in behavioural change it is important to collect enough data to predict how consumers will react to particular stimuli. Kotler and Roberto (1989, p. 27) suggest that target adopters be separated according to their sociodemograpic characteristics (including class, education, age), psychological profile (including values, motivation and personality), and behavioural characteristics (buying habits and decision making skills). According to Lilley the entire concept of social marketing supersedes normal methods of communication, “data is key...social marketing is nothing if it is not backed up with accurate data” (Lilley 2007, p. 22). A crucial element of social marketing is the voice of the target adopter (and wider target public). To be know the target adopter’s sociodemographic, psychological and behavioural characters enables the social marketer to make accurate behavioural predictions (Kotler & Roberto 1989, p. 27). After publics are segmented
qualitative and quantitative data collection techniques are implemented to create a profile of the target public (Walsh et al 1993, p. 109). O’Reilly and Madill suggest that target adapters should be analysed in terms of whether they are, “prone, resistant, or unable to comply with the policy makers objectives”. They support this view by quoting Rothschild (2001), “Prior levels of motivation, opportunity, and ability in the target will determine behaviour...” (Rothschild 2001 cited in O’Reilly & Madill 2006, p. 21).
When undertaking any social marketing campaign target adopters must be communicated to in a personal manner though every stage of the promotion and adaptation of the social
product (Bates 1991, p. 109). Kotler and Roberto (1989, p. 19) note that mass communication messages on their own are often insufficient for appropriating long-term behavioural change. Such communication needs to be complimented by personal communication (Kotler & Roberto 1989, p. 19). Kotler and Lee (2008, p. 53) suggest that a “simple, clear, action orientated message is most likely to support your target market to adopt, reject, modify or abandon a specific behaviour” (Kotler & Lee 2008, p. 53). The message should be presented in such a way that target adopters know exactly what they need to do and whether or not they have done it. This is best achieved when simple, doable behaviours are promoted one at a time (Kotler & Lee 2008, p. 53).
Channels: This refers to both communication and distribution channels. Channels are pathways though which messages are exchanged and influence imparted between change agents and target adopters (Kotler & Roberto 1989, p. 18). The media is an example of a channel. The media is regarded as the prime channel for marketing and distributing intangible social products (Kotler & Roberto 1989, p. 167). Access via channels should be made as easy
and effortless as possible for target adopters. This may be in the form of a ‘convenient location’ or an ‘easy way to sign up’ to attain tangible products and receive services (Kotler & Lee 2008, p. 59). According to Lefebvre & Flora (1988, p. 305), public health programs require an assortment of channels through which to promote messages, products and services. The range of channels is broad. Potentially any person or organisation having access to a target public is a potential channel (Lefebvre & Flora 1988, p. 305). Rogers (1983 cited Lefebvre and Flora 1988, p. 305) suggest that while informational appeals can be effectively and thoroughly transmitted through media channels, behavioural change adaptations
generally require the utilisation of interpersonal networks to be influential.
Change Strategy: A deliberate program implemented by the change agent to cause a change in the attitudes and behaviours of target adopters (Kotler & Roberto 1989, p. 18).
1.8 Social marketing in practice
Identification:
Andreasen (2002, p. 7) suggests a criterion for identifying an initiative that could legitimately be categorised as social marketing:
1. Behaviour-change is the benchmark used to design and evaluate interventions
2. Projects consistently use audience research to a) understand target audience at the outset of interventions b) routinely pre-test intervention elements before they are implemented and c) monitor interventions as they are rolled out
3. There is careful segmentation of target audience to ensure maximum efficiency and effectiveness in the sue of scarce resources
4. The central element of any influence strategy is creating attractive and motivational exchanges with target audiences
5. The strategy attempts to use the ‘4Ps’ of the traditional marketing mix.
6. Careful attention is paid to the competition faced by the desired behaviour.
Andreasen also notes that, due to the relative infancy of the field, it is not imperative that all six elements be present in order to be labelled a social marketing initiative.
Plan Development
While social marketing utilise the design elements of traditional marketing when formulating a campaign plan, often a formal marketing plan is neglected. Kotler and Lee (2008, p. 27) suggest the following reasons for this:
• Lack of time
• Lack of funding
• A belief that administrators know what they are doing and preparing a plan would be a waste of resources.
In Social Marketing: Promoting the Causes of Public and Nonprofit Agencies, (1990, p. 5), Fine suggests a broad ‘how-to’ frame work for preparing a social marketing plan. The ‘7Ps’ model for social marketing is an extension of the traditional ‘4Ps’ marketing model.
1. Who is the producer, the source of the promotional message?
2. Who makes up the market of potential purchasers we are to address, and what needs and wants do these people have?
3. What products can we design specifically to help fill those needs?
4. What prices must our consumers sacrifice in order to purchase our product? 5. How can we promote (communicate with) our markets?
6. Which parties (institutions) will participate in the process of making the product available at the best place and time (best for the purchaser)?
7. What probing will be necessary to evaluate our campaign and to obtain feedback from our audiences?
Fine (1990, p. 4) believed the ‘4Ps’ model of product, price, promotion and place to be inadequate. In order to provide an optimum marketing mix he builds on this traditional model to include producer, which refers to the marketer, purchasers, those to whom the initiative must appeal, and finally probing or research.
Kotler and Lee (2008, p. 31) also provide a neat template for developing a social marketing plan. They suggest that the first step in planning any social marketing campaign should be a clearly clarified purpose and focus for the effort. This is followed by an analysis of the current situation and environment. Next target markets are identified then marketing objectives and goals set. This is followed by a position statement. This desired position is achieved through manipulation of the ‘4Ps’. The final stage of the planning process includes incorporating data driven evaluation plans into the model (Kotler & Lee 2008, p. 31).
The background focus and purpose should be a series of specific, well researched, and concise statements. Once these statements are set out the social marketer should engage in a situation analysis. This should be relevant to the pre-stated purpose and focus of the plan (Kotler & Lee 2008, p. 35). SWOT is one method by which a situation analysis may be conducted.
The third step is the selection of target adopters and target publics (see section 1.7). Kotler and Lee (2008, p. 34) state that it is important that target adopters are selected before establishing goals and objectives. This is because marketing objectives should influence the behaviours of a target adopter, it is therefore important to have a profile of current
behavioural patterns before appropriate objectives can be set (Kotler & Lee 2008, p. 3). Behavioural objectives are always included in social marketing plans (Kotler & Lee 2008, p. 38). Sometimes however, behavioural objectives can’t be met without first achieving
knowledge objectives (information the target public needs to be aware of) and belief objectives (related to feelings and attitudes) (Kotler and Lee 2008, p. 38). When setting objectives, it is important to ensure that they are specific, measurable and attainable (Kotler & Roberto 1989, p. 42). It is not enough to use phrases such as ‘improve productivity’ or ‘raise quality of life’ because these statements are not specific and therefore not measurable (Kotler & Roberto, p. 42). Attainability relates to the target adopters ability to achieve and maintain the promoted desirable behaviour, “Objectives should not be set so high that they cannot be obtained with the available resources or so low as to be unchallenging” (Kotler & Roberto 1989, p. 42). Objectives should also be ranked in order of importance, it is naive for an organisation to attempt to achieve all their campaign objectives at once therefore they must concentrate on those that are of the highest priority (Fine 1990, p. 5). According to Kotler and Lee (2008, p. 38), this is the ideal point in the plan to introduce goals relative to
the stated knowledge, belief, and behavioural objectives. Goals should be quantifiable and measurable. It is important to clearly distinguish between goals and objectives. Brady (1984, p. 45) states that goals are “long term outcomes, usually two years or longer; somewhat generally stated” while objectives are “short term, one year performance tasks; stated in more specific terms...” (Brady 1984, p. 45).
The design phase of a social product should be built upon the needs and motivators of target adopters (Kotler & Roberto 1989, p. 139). According to Kotler and Roberto (1989, p. 139) this is a duel element task. The first element is the identification of distinct needs that a specific social offering can satisfy. The second is to determine how to most effectively present the social product.
When positioning a product using the ‘4Ps’ (or Fine’s earlier discussed ‘7Ps’ model) it is important not to consider individual elements of the marketing mix in isolation, putting together disparate elements will not necessarily result in an optimal plan for a social change campaign (Kotler & Roberto 1989, p. 275).
The final phase of managing a social marketing plan is the data-driven evaluation (Kotler & Roberto 1989, p. 342). Evaluation is a measurement and final report on what happened (Kotler & Lee 2008, p. 327). The first step in an evaluation plan should be to define what will actually be measured (Fine 1990, p. 174). Too often more emphasis is place on evaluating the efficiency (the relationship between inputs and output) to the neglect of the programs impact (Fine 1990, p. 174). It is important to distinguish this from monitoring which refers to “the measures that are conducted sometime after you launch your social marketing effort but
before it is completed (Kotler & Lee 2008, p. 327). Monitoring is an important part of any social marketing effort as it allows the marketer to track results and make adjustments if necessary (Kotler & Lee 2008, p. 65). According to Kotler and Roberto (1989, p. 34) two issues are chief in a social marketing campaign evaluation:
1. Has the campaign brought about the intended changes?
2. Has the campaign brought about changes that are desirable from a social and ethical view point?
A social marketing evaluation should fall into one of three categories: outputs, outcomes and impacts. Outputs focus on quantifying marketing activities (Kotler & Lee 2008, p. 329). An example of output is the number of flyers distributed. Outcomes measure the customer response to outputs and should be related to specific and measurable goal and objectives (Kotler & Lee 2008, p. 30). An example of an outcome may be the number of primary schools that stop selling sugary drinks in their canteen. Impacts attempt to measure the effect that the change in behaviour (primary schools no longer selling sugary drinks in their
canteen) have had on the wider social issue (the health of primary school students) (Kotler & Lee 2008, p. 332).
1.9 Issues with Social Marketing
Theorists such as Kotler and Lee (2008), Andreasen (2003), and Levy (1969) argue for the expansion of traditional marketing practice via social marketing. Like traditional marketing, one of the most fundamental principles underlying social marketing is identifying barriers
preventing publics from taking up desired behaviours. However, unlike many traditional marketing efforts social marketing upholds an ethical imperative (Kotler & Lee 2008, p. 10).
There are also scholars (Bartels 1976, Luck 1969) who question the long term affects of applying marketing principals in a broadened context (O’Reilly & Madill 2007, p. 5). Such theorists believe the definition of marketing should not extend past buy-and-sell transactions (O’Reilly & Madill 2007, p. 5).
According to Andreasen, social marketing as a discipline is at risk of not meeting its full potential due to issues of perception (Andreasen 2002, p. 3). These issues relate to the role of social marketing in relation to other approaches to social change (see section 1.3).
In 1999 the Social Marketing Institute was established. One of the first undertakings of the Institute was the identification of major problem areas that threaten to curdle the growth of social marketing (Andreasen 2002, p. 4). Andreasen has identified four problem areas:
1. A lack of appreciation of social marketing at top management levels. This lack of appreciation can lead to promising campaigns or initiatives forgoing a social marketing approach, or not receiving the funding or resources to adequately
implement a social marketing campaign (Andreasen 2002, p. 4).
2. A lack of clarity around the concept leading to poor branding. “Social marketing as an approach to social change lacks clarity and is perceived by key influential people as having several undesirable traits”(Andreasen 2002, p. 4).
Andreasen (2002, p. 4) notes that there are too many definitions of the term, a lack of differentiation from other marketing concepts and an image of being manipulative and non-community based.
3. Lack of material evidence and publicity surrounding the successes of the practice.
4. A lack of academic legitimacy. As a standalone discipline it is rarely included in academic curriculum.
Rothschild offers a further set of barriers (O’Reilly & Madill 2007, p. 8).
1. Reliance on education and the law as approaches to social change. There is a need to show evidence that social marketing works to compliment legal and
educational recourse.
2. There is a difficulty in distinguishing social marketing from education.
3. Managers lack formal marketing training.
4. The ethics of social marketing.
Another issue that is apparent lies in the socially beneficial nature of social marketing. Kotler and Lee (2008, p. 11) state that it is not always easy to define weather the outcomes of a social marketing project are beneficial. While social marketing generally supports high consensus notions there are circumstances where parties may have (strongly supported) opposing views on what initiatives contribute to the good of society. They cite abortion as an example (Kotler & Lee, p. 11).
