Defining And Defending The Boundaries

Defining and Defending the Boundaries: Holding Social Marketing Together in the Age of Direct Benefit 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. 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. However, increasing pressures on outcome 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 either alter the market conditions (voluntary change through involuntary removal of choice) or implement legislative enforcement (voluntary change through voluntary compliance of 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. At the social marketing level, choice seems to become an anathema. However, social marketing with its parentage in commercial marketing and adaptation of commercial techniques remains committed to freedom of choice, competition of messages, and non-monopolistic practices. At least in theory, if increasingly less so in practice. Defining the parameters of Social Marketing Social marketing, as the name implies, is grounded in commercial marketing theory and practice. However, given that the application of social marketing is predominantly in non commercial sectors, social marketing practice draws on a range of related disciplines i4ncluding sociology, psychology and other social welfare related activities. Social marketing has had a range of definitions over the past thirty years, from the foundation definition in 1971, where social marketing was defined as “the design, implementation, and control of programs calculated to influence the acceptability of product planning, pricing, communication, distribution and marketing research. (Kotler and Zaltman, 1971)” through to the definition used most widely and consistently which defines social marketing as "the application of commercial marketing technologies to the analysis, planning, execution, and

evaluation of programs designed to influence the voluntary behaviour of target audiences in order to improve their personal welfare and that of their society." (Andreasen, 1995) 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. Social Marketing 2006: Now with Direct Benefit and Stakeholders In 2004, the nature of commercial marketing was radically altered by the American Marketing Association (AMA) releasing a revision of the formal definition of marketing. The AMA, with the tacit or otherwise endorsement of the global marketing community, relaunched the marketing definition as “an organizational function and a set of processes for creating, communicating and delivering value to customers and for managing customer relationships in ways that benefit the organization and its stakeholders.” (AMA 2004). With the significant repurposing of the definition of marketing, does commercial marketing remain compatible with social marketing, and vice versa? Benefiting the Organisation and the Stakeholder On the whole, social marketing fared reasonably poorly when commercial marketing realigned itself as a business discipline focused on organisational and stakeholder benefit. The introduction of direct benefit to the organisation as a core tenet of the marketing concept is the antithesis of the social marketing principle of indirect benefit. The previously immutable boundary between societal marketing (social causes for commercial gain) and social marketing (social causes for societal benefit) has been blurred, if not erased entirely. Whilst problematic, this may not prove to be an insurmountable challenge for social marketing. 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 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. Compatibility and Incompatibility of Direct Benefit Frequently, social marketing is the inversion of commercial marketing – profit, direct benefit and shareholder benefit leads to long term sustainability of the business. Social marketing instead seeks to solve a problem, present a cure for a disease, a reduction in the incidence of an event, or the ultimate cessation of the social campaign once it has “solved” the social problem. Few commercial marketers would regard a market need as “a problem to be solved” ahead of being an ongoing opportunity to serve for gain. 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 willingess to change, then the organisation proposing the change can take a direct benefit from the groundswell of support for the idea. Change by any means possible is not Direct Benefit Perhaps the greatest challenge to the social marketing community will arise from the adoption of direct benefit as a core outcome of social change campaigns that use social marketing techniques. If direct benefit is narrowly construed as the adoption of the change campaign’s social message or behaviour, then social marketing may be tempted away from the core disciplinary message of voluntary change, towards an outcomes driven approach of “change at any cost”. Increasingly, as the consumer becomes more resistant to the marketing messages of commercial and social marketers, interest is growing in the upstream marketing approach. Goldberg (1995) defined upstream marketing as manipulating the environmental variables, market conditions and market needs by targeting the level above the consumer, rather than consumer directly. In commercial marketing, upstream is usually seen as the process of expanding the market, thus improving the size of the market even if the individual percentage shares stay the same. However, the fundamental nature of upstream marketing is the manipulation of the environmental variables for the benefit of the marketer. As a commercial marketing technique, it can, and has, been adapted and adopted by social marketers to achieve social marketing outcomes. Unsurprisingly, upstream social marketing has tended towards the inverse of commercial marketing by focusing effort on altering the environment for the benefit the delivery of the social marketing message, behaviour or idea product by reducing, rather than expanding the competition. For example, whilst a commercial marketer will use

upstream to increase the number of distribution channels for their product, many social marketers are using upstream techniques to decrease the number of channels open to rival products. For example, a number of upstream social marketing campaigns regarding childhood obesity has focused on decreasing the range of high fat foods that can be made available to children, or decreasing the volume of advertising of these products. In contrast, safe sex social marketers have historically used upstream marketing to broaden the distribution base of condoms and safe sex information. As a technique, upstream social marketing is as inherently neutral as pricing, promotional or market research. With the neutrality of the tool in mind, the priority must be placed on grounding the use of upstream marketing within the context of the social marketing discipline. Upstream Social Marketing: Broaden, not narrowing for direct benefit As a pragmatic tool for social change, upstream marketing which results in legislative controls over rival social message is a tempting form of social change. However, with voluntary adoption of the product at the very core of commercial and social marketing, the marketer cannot alter conditions to the point that “voluntary” becomes a question of compliance via lack of alternative options. This is the point of departure between social marketing, and social change through alternative methods such as social propaganda. Social propaganda is based on the notion of the promoter of the message being “convinced of the essential righteousness of the message” (O’Shaughnessy, 1996). The notion of “inherent righteousness” overrules any marketing led decisions to modify the social message to meet the need of the market. In fact, it emphasizes the modification of the market to fall into line with the needs of the message – changes to the market are appropriate and desirable since the message is inherent correct, appropriate and “what’s best” for the target audience. In essence, social propaganda would seek to modify the conditions of the market to reduce the competition between the “true” message and the distorting voices of competitive ideas. It’s not voluntary change if you have no choice Upstream social marketers walk a fine line between social marketing (adjusting the message to the needs of the market) and social propaganda (adjusting the market to the message). At the core of a variety of social marketing definitions is the role of the discipline as a persuasive force (Holdford, 2005) driven from understanding the consumer (Redmond and Griffth, 2005). The social marketing process requires the market to either be aware of, or informed of a problem and to recognise the social product as good solution to that specific problem (Weinreich 1999 in Griffin, Hall and Watson, 2005). Putting the needs of the consumer into the development of the social product and solution has been the defining hallmark of the social marketing as a change agent (Redmond and Griffth, 2005). Consequently, upstream social marketing needs to be constrained by the needs of the consumer, and by the parameters of both commercial and social marketing. Commercial marketing, with requirement of benefit for the organisation and stakeholder, limits what upstream marketing can be used to achieve. Using upstream to create bnefit for the organisation has a proactive bias towards increasing opportunity, broadening distribution channels and increasing the way in which the consumer can interact with the social marketing message. In addition, social marketing needs to use upstream marketing with care to ensure that the fundamental principle of voluntary adoption for the benefit of the individual and society is retained. 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 groupings 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. Upstream versus Smoking: A Mini Case One of the most visible applications of upstream marketing has been the push to limit the available spaces where a smoker may legally consume legal tobacco products. If the aim of the social marketing campaign is the voluntary cessation of smoking, does the removal of the ability to smoke in public places create value for the smoker? Does it in fact, destroy an existing level of value the target consumer (the smoker) currently enjoy? Further, upstream marketing that limits the behaviour of the smoker serves only to reduce the utility of the current (smoking) behaviour. It does not create, communicate or deliver value for the smoker, and as such, is it even a marketing behaviour? Certainly, the social marketing product of non-smoking which is targeted at the non-smoker will receive benefit from the upstream marketing - there is a clear creation, communication and delivery of value to the target customer, and this will manage the ongoing relationship between the non-smoker and the non-smoking campaign. However, if the upstream social marketing campaigns 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 nonsmoking 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 (2004), "Definition" Marketing News, September 15, 2004 American Marketing Association, (1985). “The definition of marketing”, Marketing News, March 1, 1985, p 2. Andreasen, A. (1995), Marketing Social Change: Changing Behavior to Promote Health, Social Development and the Environment, San Francisco: Jossey Bass Clement, R.W. (2005) ' The lessons from stakeholder theory for U.S. business leaders' Business Horizons 48, 255-264 Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Marshfield, MA7 Pittman Publishing. Goldberg, M (1995) ' Social Marketing: Are We Fiddling While Rome Burns?'Journal of Consumer Psychology 4 (4) 347-370 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. Holdford, D (2005), "Understanding the dynamics of the pharmaceutical marketing using a social marketing framework" Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(7) 388-396 Kotler, P. & Roberto, E. (1989) Social Marketing: Strategies for Changing Public Behaviour, New York: Free Press. 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. O’Shaughnessy, N (1996) "Social propaganda and social marketing: a critical difference?", European Journal of Marketing 30(10/11), 54-67 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)467483