Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Social marketing is predicated on the ideals of commercial marketing, with the needs of the
market being paramount in the creation of a message, idea or product that will lead to social
change for the greater good. As an adaptation of commercial marketing, social marketing
acquired the understanding of commercial exchange and the freedoms to accept and reject the
offers in an open market. With the 2004 revision of the definition of commercial marketing,
social marketing also acquired the need to create, communicate and deliver value to the
consumer that directly benefited the organisation. Whilst direct benefit was historically the
anthema to social marketing, social change outcomes can be seen as directly benefiting the
organisation who promoted the original ideal.
To complicate matters, at the same time social marketing has needed to become more
outcomes focused, the rise in upstream marketing has created a situation where marketing can
be used to restrict the available choices in the social marketing marketplace. Yet at the same
time direct benefit to the campaign is a necessary prerequisite for marketing, and the
temptation to modify the market to limit competition to increase direct benefit, social
marketing cannot afford to lose sight of the fundamental need to remain a force for voluntary
behaviour. This paper overviews the conflicting dynamics of the changes required for
marketing under the AMA (2004) commercial marketing definition, and the possible clash
between upstream marketing, social marketing, and the revised marketing definition.
Social Marketing: One Social Change Technique, not The Social Change Technique.
Social marketing is one of a range of methods for changing the attitudes, beliefs and
behaviours of the broader public, or a smaller societal group. As a social change technique, it
sits alongside the process of education, legal reform and structural change as a mechanism for
the adjustment of society. Increasing pressures on outcomes based measures have seen many
marketers consider reaching into other aspects of the social change toolkit to enhance the
success of voluntary change through upstream marketing to alter the market conditions
(voluntary change through involuntary removal of choice) or implement legislative
enforcement (voluntary change through compliance with law). As effective as these
mechanisms may be for achieving social change outcomes, they are not marketing techniques.
In fact, the alteration of a market to remove competitor messages is usually regulated against
by government as anti-competitive and anti-monopoly – in the commercial sense, the
upstream sentiment is to actively encourage choice.
Kotler, Roberto and Lee (2002) contributed to the contemporary social marketing debate by
offering the following definition of social marketing as “the use of marketing principles and
techniques to influence a target audience to voluntarily accept, reject, modify, or abandon a
behaviour for the benefit of individuals, groups or society as a whole.” The consistent
elements of the definition of social marketing have been the use of commercial marketing
principles and techniques, voluntary action by the target of the social change, and the accrual
of benefit to the individual, and the broader society. Within the context of the Kotler and
Andreasen’s definitions, commercial marketing was defined as the process of planning and
executing the conception, pricing, promotion, and distribution of ideas, goods, and services to
create exchanges that satisfy individual and organizational objectives’ (AMA, 1985, p. 2).
Consequently, the marketing tools and techniques adapted for use in social change programs
were based on the 1985 conceptual model of marketing, with its emphasis on the creation of
exchange of goods, services and ideas (where exchange can be direct or indirect) through the
application of the marketing mix.
The new definition broadens the role of the marketing orientation beyond the dynamic
between client/customer and the organisation. The expansion of the concept to include
stakeholder benefit as an explicit role of marketing impacts on the type and nature of the
strategies that can be considered to be marketing strategy. A core imperative to arise from
the new marketing definition is the need to define the organisation' s stakeholders. Freeman
(1984) defines stakeholders as "any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the
achievement of the firm’s objectives". This is a noticeable departure from the narrow view of
stakeholders as shareholders, stockholders or owners of the organisation (Clement, 2005).
Stakeholders can be further split into primary stakeholders, who are directly involved in the
ongoing survival of the organisation (e.g. employees, customers and suppliers etc.); and
secondary stakeholders, who are influential, but not essential for the survival of the
organisation (e.g. activists, communities and governments). The definition of "stakeholders"
is now a critical element in determining what marketing can do to create benefit for the
organisation and the stakeholders. From a social marketing perspective, incorporating
stakeholders has been a central tenet of indirect benefit exchange, and as such, represents the
inclusion of aspects of social marketing’s involvement in promoting marketing exchanges that
lead to benefits accruing to the individual and broader society. Both social marketing
(individual and society) and relationship marketing (individual and partners) have contributed
to the inclusion of the stakeholders.
Commercial marketing and social marketing have often been the most uncomfortable of
travelling companions. The dichotomy between the direct benefit “profit” orientation of
commercial marketing, and the indirect benefit “social benefit” orientation of marketing has
always strained the relationship between the parent and child discipline. Consequently, social
marketing has always been based on the simultaneous adoption of marketing philosophy and
the adaptation of marketing tools. This is done in order to develop programs which, whilst
the programs are targeted at specific market segments, will lead to socially beneficial
outcomes for the broader community in the eyes of the social marketer – potentially then, if
society exhibits a willingness to change, then the organisation proposing the change can take
a direct benefit from the groundswell of support for the idea.
Modification to the structure and nature of the social change marketplace that enhance the
connection between the social marketing product (idea, behaviour) and the individual and
societal reward would constitute a valuable use of the upstream approach. There is also
considerable potential for inappropriate upstream social marketing to act in a manner contrary
to both the social and commercial marketing parameters. Limiting the voice of the rival
messages “for the greater good” may conflict with the fundamental principle of direct benefit.
Does silencing a critic, or a contrary message, create a direct benefit for the organisational and
its stakeholders? Possibly, although a brief analysis of stakeholder theory would suggest that
the stakeholders groups of competitors and media may not see the benefit in restrictions on
the communication of rival messages. In addition, questions need to be asked regarding the
value that is created, communicated or delivered to the customer through the reduction in
their freedom to accept or reject a social marketing message.
However, if the upstream social marketing campaign was targeted at the smoker – does the
removal of freedom constitute the creation of value? Even if it does, the removal of the choice
means that the smoker cannot voluntarily adopt the non-smoking behaviour, thus effectively
ceasing any pretence that they are adopting a social marketing product. In essence, even the
non smoker is prohibited from engaging in a voluntary adoption of the social marketing
campaign – without the freedom to reject the behaviour, they have no freedom to adopt the
product either.
Unfortunately for social marketing, the core principles of the discipline require it to forgo the
expediency of mandatory social change in favour of the higher risk, higher reward strategy of
voluntary compliance. Inherent in the social marketing approach is the consumer orientated
creation of a social product that creates, communicates and delivers superior value to the
market – and which forces the marketer to address the needs of the market and maintain the
relationship in order to receive the direct and indirect benefit of compliance with the social
marketing message. Whilst social upstream marketing can be used to facilitate the creation,
communication and delivery of value, and to strength and reinforce the relationship,
ultimately, the marketer must give the freedom to accept or reject to the consumer. If the
customer has no freedom to reject the offer, then marketing does not take place, and social
marketing simply ceases to exist where legislation or coercion takes precedence over
voluntary choice.
Reference
American Marketing Association, (1985). “The definition of marketing”, Marketing News,
March 1, 1985, p 2.
American Marketing Association (2004), "Definition" Marketing News, September 15, 2004
Clement, R.W. (2005) 'The lessons from stakeholder theory for U.S. business leaders'
Business Horizons 48, 255-264
Dann, S & Dann, S “High–Speed Car Advertising and Road Safety” Australia New Zealand
Marketing Academy Conference, December 2 - December 4
Graham P, and Dann S (1997) "Banning Tobacco Advertising: The Australian Example"
Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business & Government Volume 3, Number 2, November
Griffin, B.L., Hall, N, and Watson, N (2005) "Health at work in small and medium sized
enterprises: Issues of engagement" Health Education 105 (2) 126-141.
Kotler, P. & Zaltman,G. (1971), “Social marketing: An approach to planned social change”,
Journal of Marketing, 35, 3-12.
Kotler, P., Roberto, E. & Lee, N. (2002) Social Marketing: Improving the Quality of Life,
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Redmond, E.C. and Griffith, C.J. (2005) “Consumer perceptions of food safety education
sources: Implications for effective strategy development”, British Food Journal 107 (7)467-
483