Exploring The Cross Compatibility Of The Andreasen (1995) Definition Of Social Marketing And The Ama (2004) Definition Of Commercial Marketing

Exploring the Cross compatibility of the Andreasen (1995) definition of social Marketing and the AMA (2004) definition of Commercial Marketing. Dr Stephen Dann, The Australian National University Abstract Social marketing is the adaptation and adoption of commercial marketing theory and practice for social change programs, campaigns and causes. By its very nature, social marketing is connected to the commercial practice of marketing, and, at the end of the day, social marketing remains a sub discipline of commercial marketing. When the rules of commercial marketing change, social marketing needs to adjust, adapt or evolve. In order to survive, social marketing must be willing to re-examine classic concepts and ideas against the changing environment of commercial marketing. This paper sets out to examine the impact of the American Marketing Association (2004) definition of marketing on Andreasen's (1995) definition of social marketing, to see just how far social marketing needs to adapt the newly adopted commercial marketing definition in order to stay part of the parent discipline. Introduction One of Andreasen's (2006) four criticisms of the development of social marketing is the inconsistency between the many and varying definitions of the sub discipline. As with service marketing, relationship marketing and other sub disciplinary areas of marketing, the jockeying for the ownership of the “definitive” definition of the twenty five year old sub discipline is still intense. In light of the opportunity presented by the change in commercial marketing’s core definition, there is a strong temptation to use this paper to proclaim ownership of a(nother) new understanding of social marketing. However, in recognition of Andreasen’s (2006) statement, this paper will not attempt to construct a new definition of social marketing. Instead, it will assess the durability and applicability of the definitional work of Andreasen (1995), to see if this classic interpretation of the meaning of social marketing still holds relevance when applied to the American Marketing Association (2004) definition of commercial marketing. Rationale for the Research In late 2003, the American Marketing Association nominated Dr Robert Lusch to revise the 18 year old definition of marketing, to bring it forward into line with the practices of commercial marketing. According to Keefe (2004), the process involved considerable consultation and feedback across a range of marketing sub disciplines and national boundaries, with the AMA eventually releasing and endorsing the revised definition in September 2004. At the 2005 Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference, a full special session was devoted to the discussion of “Broadening the Boundaries for Marketing: Challenging the New Marketing Definition and Dominant Logics”. Subsequent calls for papers have issued the challenge to marketers to debate and deliberate on the meaning, impact and effect of the changed definition. This paper contributes to the ongoing debate and understanding associated with the new definition by borrowing a method from the computer sciences industry – examining the level of backwards compatibility between the AMA (2004) definition, and one of the core foundation definitions of the social marketing discipline.

Examining the definitions of commercial marketing The first official definition of commercial marketing in 1935 defined the concept as: “the performance of business activities that direct the flow of goods and services from producers to consumers.” (Keefe, 2004). Over the next fifty years, two reviews of the definition left the original concept in place until it was revised and updated in 1985, to be 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). Finally, in 2004, the AMA relaunched the definition of marketing 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). This paper posits that the shift from the AMA (1985) definition has introduced five shifts in the role, application and understanding of commercial marketing, expanding it from a process to include organisational functions, moving from the marketing mix to the value concept, incorporating relationship marketing, organisational and shareholder benefit, and removing the explicit recognition of the exchange concept. Change I: Function and Process Commercial marketing is now self-defined as an organisational function and process where previously, it was perceived predominantly as an organisational process. Redefining marketing as an organisational function alters the use of marketing as a series of techniques and practices into a more formalised element of the organisation, although there is debate as to whether this requires the organisation to have a “marketing function” which is a recognised marketing department or marketing officer, or whether marketing is a function of the organisation (Darroch et al 2004; Dann, 2005). Change II: Create, Communicate and Deliver Value, not marketing mixes The second major change is that the new definition no longer explicitly recognises the marketing mix and “product, idea and service” trichotomy. Instead, the 2004 definition merges these components into the broad “value” concept. Value is undefined within the definition, and appears deliberately open to interpretation. Presumably, value in this context is meant to be the broader approach of Porter (1985) as “what the consumer believes that they have gained from the exchange”, rather than the narrow AMA Marketing Dictionary (2006) definition of value as “the power of any good to command other goods in peaceful and voluntary exchange”. Change III: Managing the relationship Grönroos (1994) defined relationship marketing as “a form of marketing to establish, maintain, and enhance relationships with customers and other partners, at a profit, so that the objectives of the parties involved are met. This is achieved by a mutual exchange and fulfilment of promises.” The third shift in focus is in recognition of the ascendancy of relationship marketing since the early 1990s, and its replacement of the previous notion of satisfying individual and organisational objectives.

Change IV: Benefiting the Organisation and the Stakeholder The new definition broadens the role of the marketing orientation beyond the dynamic between client/customer and the organisation, to incorporate "any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the firm’s objectives" (Freeman, 1984; Clement, 2005). Perhaps the most disruptive change in the redefinition of marketing has been the removal of exchange as understood by Bagozzi (1975) and its replacement with the concept of benefit to the organisation and the stakeholder. Change V: The End of Exchange? As noted above, the initial examination of the AMA (2004) definition appears to end the role of the exchange as a core of marketing theory. However, it appears that the redefinition has moved exchange from an explicit element to an implicit and assumed component, depending on how the concept of “value” and “managing the relationship” are defined (Dann, 2005). For example, Grönroos (1994) specifies that relationship marketing is achieved by mutual exchange as does the AMA (2006) narrow interpretation of value and the broader Porter (1985) interpretation. Exchange, although less visible, remains a functional element of the marketing process. Definition Elect: Andreasen (1995/2006) Social Marketing Andreasen (1995) defined the sub discipline of 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) Andreasen further extrapolates the nature of social marketing as the adaptation, rather than direct transference, of marketing tools and techniques for social change campaigns. Due to the substantial differences in the environments within which social marketing operates and the issues or causes which form the focus of campaigns, it has never been possible to import commercial marketing practice wholesale into the social marketing environment. Consequently, Andreasen’s definition of social marketing has been selected specifically for the meta level approach of applying the internal logic of the discipline (adaptation and adoption of “commercial marketing technologies”) to social marketing. The Compatibility of Social Marketing and Marketing 2004 With the significant repurposing of the definition of marketing, does commercial marketing remain compatible with social marketing, and vice versa? Historically, the fundamental difference between social marketing and commercial marketing has been a matter of focus. Commercial marketing has a bottom line of direct benefit measured in dollar values. Social marketing has a bottom line measured according to whether or not the target adopter changes their behaviour. Andreasen (1995)’s definition is broadly compatible with four of the five fundamental changes to commercial marketing brought on by the AMA (2005) redefinition. The most obvious point of compatibility is the crossover between “organisational function and set of processes” with “application of commercial marketing technologies”. Following on from this, Andreasen (1995) outlines a range of processes for value creation, where value is assumed to result in the improvement of the personal welfare of the individual, and the

mechanisms specified are assumed to be organisational functions or processes. In addition, social marketing perspective has historically automatically incorporated somelevel of stakeholder benefit through the central tenet requiring improvement in the welfare of society.. Further, the management of the relationship is an implicit component of the maintenance aspects of the ongoing influence of the voluntary behaviour. Finally, neither social marketing nor commercial marketing explicitly include the recognition of exchange, as it was always an inherited component of social marketing – the adaptation of the 1985 definition of commercial marketing brought with it the necessity for exchange theory. Table 1 outlines the definitions of social and commercial marketing into their core component elements for a brief, and perhaps superficial overview of the areas of compatibility. Table 1: Social Marketing versus Commercial Marketing

AMA 2004 an organizational function and a set of processes a set of processes for creating, communicating and delivering value to customers a set of processes for managing customer relationships in ways that benefit the organization a set of processes for managing customer relationships in ways that benefit the organization’s stakeholders. Absence of Exchange

Social Marketing 1995 the application of commercial marketing technologies analysis, planning, execution, and evaluation of programs designed to influence the voluntary behaviour of target audiences in order to improve their personal welfare programs designed to influence the voluntary behaviour of target audiences

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 Absence of Exchange

Change I

Change

Change II

Yes

Compatible?

Yes

Uncertain

Change III Change IV

Yes

Change V

Yes

The Great Divide: Benefit ….influence the voluntary behaviour of target audiences in order to improve their personal welfare and that of their society." (Andreasen, 1995) …for managing customer relationships in ways that benefit the organization and its stakeholders. (AMA 2004). The adaptation of the commercial marketing definition creates one possible area of conflict between the AMA (2004) definition, and the Andreasen (1995) concept. To use the language of the AMA (2004) definition, social marketing creates, communicates and delivers value (improvement of personal welfare) whilst managing relationship for the benefit of stakeholders (society). Andreasen (1995) specifies a one way value flow from the organisation to the social change marketplace – which effectively removes organisational benefit from social marketing. The obvious, immediate reaction to the ideological gap between the AMA (2004) and Andreasen (1995) would be to simply inherit “organisational benefit” as part of “commercial marketing technology” ambit. However, social marketing has previously addressed the concept of direct organisational benefit insofar as this outcome is used to determine whether a social change program is “societal marketing” or “social marketing”.

Restrictions on Adapting Benefit: Corporate Societal Marketing Corporate societal marketing (CSM) has been defined as “encompass[ing] marketing initiatives that have at least one non-economic objective related to social welfare and use the resources of the company and/or one of its partners” (Drumwright and Murphy 2001 in Hoeffler and Keller, 2002). In a related area, Maghrabi (2006) saw societal marketing as an outcome of commercial organisations moving into traditionally social marketing territories – although they did not question the rationale for the corporate incursion into non profit marketing. In general, social marketing practitioners have accepted societal marketing, which is the inclusion of pro-social goals in parallel to profit and/or organisational gain is an accepted, and acceptable, as part of a “philanthropy for profit” approach that leads to social change. With that in mind, social marketing has tended to be positioned to occupy the not for profit sector with a “benevolence for individual and societal benefit” in conjunction with socially beneficial corporate outcomes. Conclusion: Resolving the divide At the core of the conflict between social marketing and commercial marketing is the nature of benefit. Earlier criticisms of the new definition were based on the notion of “benefit” as a direct transfer between recipient and marketer (Dann, 2005). However, under the exchange paradigm, social marketing could lay claim to Bagozzi’s (1975) concept of complex exchange where multiple parties to the value transfer exchanged with each other in a system (A to B, A to C, B to A, B to C, C to A, C to B). Whilst no direct benefit was received, social marketing organisations “benefited” when an individual adopted a socially beneficial product. Unfortunately, the simplicity of the solution may not be tied to the reality of social marketing. Although social marketing campaigns may succeed where change occurs, that does not draw a recognisable benefit in the commercial sense. At the core is the conflict between the long term objectives of social marketing and commercial marketing. Commercial marketing is ingrained with the longevity-as-success mantra, where increased demand and broadened marketshare is a positive outcome. In contrast, social marketing is often directed towards the provision of a solution to a social problem, where the outcome is to reduce the incidence of the problem, lowering market demand and/or decreasing the size of a market for a product. Campaigns aimed at the provision of a solution, the cessation of a problem or a change in behaviour are ultimately (and optimistically) targeted towards a measure of success that no longer requires the campaign to continue. Although maintenance social marketing programs are necessary, few social marketers would look to encourage speeding, drug taking or obesity in order to continue the demand for their social campaigns. The uncertainty raised in this paper requires further exploration and debate. Can successful social marketing, which reduces the ongoing need for the campaign, realistically be considered as producing a "benefit" to the organisation? At the same time, failure to address the market need will continue the market demand for organisation's existence, but equally does not equate to a benefit. Clarification of the meaning of “benefit” in the context of commercial marketing and social marketing is needed. Whilst benefit to the stakeholders is clear – deliver value to the consumer, and if society gains, then stakeholders benefit – does the gain of society, through the solution of a social marketing problem can constitute benefit to the social marketing organisation?

References American Marketing Association 1985. “The definition of marketing”, Marketing News, March 1, 1985, 2. American Marketing Association 2004, "Definition" Marketing News, September 15, 2004 American Marketing Association 2006 Dictionary of Marketing Terms, Online: http://www.marketingpower.com/mg-dictionary.php, Accessed: 30/6/2006 Andreasen, A. 1995, Marketing Social Change: Changing Behavior to Promote Health, Social Development and the Environment, San Francisco: Jossey Bass Andreasen, A. 2001, Ethics in Social Marketing, Washington: Georgetown University Press. Andreasen, A. 2002 Marketing Social Marketing in the Social Change Marketplace, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 21 (1), 3-14. Andreasen, A. 2006 Social Marketing in the 21st Century, Sage Publications, Bagozzi, R. 1975, “Marketing as exchange”, Journal of Marketing, Vol.39, October, pp.3239. Clement, R. 2005 "The lessons from stakeholder theory for U.S.business leaders", Business Horizons 48, 255—264 Dann, S 2005 “Social Change marketing in the age of direct benefit – where to from here?” Social Change in the 21st Century, QUT Carseldine 28 October 2005 Darroch, J., Miles, M.P., Jardine, A., and Cooke, E.F. (2004) “The AMA definition of marketing and its relationship to a market orientation: An extension of Cooke, Rayburn and Abercrombie (1992), Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 12 (4), 29-38. Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Marshfield, MA7 Pittman Publishing. Grönross, C, 1994 "From marketing mix to relationship marketing: towards a paradigm shift in marketing", Management Decision, Vol.32, No.2, pp.4-20. Hoeffler, S and Keller, K. L 2002 Building brand equity through corporate societal marketing” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing. 21(1) 78-90 Keefe, L. M 2004, "What is the Meaning of Marketing?" Marketing News, September 15, 2004 Maghrabi. A.S. 2006 “Compelling Claims on Multinational Corporate Conduct” Journal of American Academy of Business, 8 (2) 307-313 Porter, M. 1985 Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. New York, Free Press.

Reviewers Comments

Purpose, overall aim – contribution Score: 8. Comments: The purpose of the article is clearly stated. However, the author(s) should consider amending the paper’s tile as it does not talk directly to the contribution made by the articles. The title is polemic, rather that being descriptive of the article’s main argument. Polemic. Polemic. Now where have I heard myself described as that recently?

polemic. 1. A controversial argument, especially one refuting or attacking a specific opinion or doctrine. 2. A person engaged in or inclined to controversy, argument, or refutation. Yeah, I am a bit polemic. Actually, the truth of the matter is that I’m too far ingrained into the dance music/remix culture to have realised that not everyone would recognise the “JayZ versus Linkin Park” style heading as a cultural reference. If I could change the title, I would, but can I? There doesn’t appear to be an option in the paper upload/edit.

New title: Exploring the Cross compatibility of Social Marketing (1995) and Commercial Marketing (2004) Novelty value - originality, uniqueness: Score: 6. Comments: This is topical and has been addressed at recent conferences (i.e. ANZMAC 2005, ANSM2006). I confess. ANSM2006 was me. Conceptual development, grounding in literature method, analysis, discussion, implications drawn, formatting: Score: 6. Comments: The author has overviewed the relevant literature to support the argument. Using the table synthesizes the literature well. The conclusion requires some refinement. Specifically the following statement: “As a social change organisation is more successful, it reduces the longer term need for its existence, so that ultimate success for social marketing is to make the market need obsolete and the organisation defunct. Given this is in direct opposition to commercial marketing, and the success-as-longevity orientation of commercial marketing, can successful social marketing realistically be considered as producing a "benefit" to the organisation? Social marketing is a tool that is used to benefit society and an organization. This statement needs to be engaged in more detail. Whilst discrete social change might be successful — I do not think that social marketing is a panacea that will cure societal problems. This above statement implies such think as the basis to draw an argument about commercial marketing; it does

not do justice to the early discussion and thinking. There is room to clarify the point: please do so. Clarification underway. I’ve remixed the conclusion, drawn together the request for further research and debate over the meaning of benefit, raised the commercial marketing growth orientation versus social marketing reduction orientation. That s

Nominate this paper for the best paper award: No. Purpose, overall aim - contribution: Score: 3. Although the purpose of this paper is clear - a comparison of definitions of commercial marketing and the extent to which a definition of social marketing corresponds to these - the value of this exercise is less obvious. The paper seems to make a fundamental assumption that social marketing ought to have some relationship with commercial marketing, but it is not clear why this should be the case, or why it might be necessary or desirable. I guess I have this fundamental assumption in the paper because it’s one of the core central tenets of the sub disciplinary area of social marketing. The fact that the paper is engaged in examining a definition of social marketing that contains the words “the application of commercial marketing” might also have been a really good solid fundamental reason why the twain are meeting. In fact, it is seriously tempting to write off the rest of the statements made by this reviewer on the grounds that they appear to not understand social marketing in the slightest. However, although tem

The emphasis on definitions overlooks the common theoretical traditions social and commercial marketing employ and it might be more interesting and rigorous if the authors examined theory, rather than simply definitions. It might be, but it’s also not the paper that’s in front of you. This comment is akin to the reviewer going to see Snakes on a Plane and complaining about the serpent content of the film. For example, both types of marketing aim to bring about behaviour (purchasing one brand instead of another, practising safe sex instead of engaging in riskier sexual habits). Like commercial marketing, social marketing theory draws heavily on the more cognitive models of consumer behaviour (trans-theoretical model underpins Andreasen' s theory and has much in common with the Theory of Planned Behaviour). However, both traditions also draw on behaviour modification theory too. Yeah, that’s quite accepted territory, and the crossover of theoretical frameworks and the use of TPB/TRA etc is well established. What’s this got to do with a paper examining the interaction of the revised AMA definition with the classic social marketing definition? It might be interesting to explore how the cognitive-behavioural debate is

played out in social marketing. Indeed. I suggest the reviewer heads off and does this. There’s plenty of time before the ANZMAC2007 deadline. For example, many social marketing campaigns aim to foster attitude change in the belief this will lead to behaviour change (healthy eating campaigns, smoking cessation and non-initiation campaigns often follow a cognitive approach while campaigns involving regulatory change, such as restriction of smoking environments, adopt a more behavioural approach). Yes. The ol’ stages of change model covers this, along with perhaps the education-law-social marketing triangle, and maybe a bit of the upstream (environment change/regulation) downstream (behaviour change) debate. So, old and established territory here – you better not be complaining about my work retracing existing paths. Given these similarities with commercial marketing, there would seem to be value in exploring and critically evaluating how commercial strategies might usefully be employed in a social context; I would encourage the authors to consider this latter question in more detail. This approach would seem better oriented to the conference theme (use of theory to enhance practice). Did I misread this, or did the reviewer just ask me to go off and write a totally different conference paper? In which case, the reviewer’s suggestions are very kind, but really, they should head off and do the paper themselves. The conclusion that "benefit" is at the core of conflict between social and commercial marketing is not novel and has been discussed in many different social contexts. Right. Not novel. The fact you wanted me to go and explore whether there should be a relationship between commercial marketing and social marketing hasn’t escaped your mind has it? That debate is over, and it ended it the 1990s. Other novel research suggestions you’ve mentioned include “exploring and critically evaluating how commercial strategies might usefully be employed in a social context”. You’re trying to tell me that the exploration of the components of a definition released in 2004 is less novel than pursuing the work that’s had three decades of coverage? The core conflict here is not the composition of benefit per se. It’s the fact that “benefit to the organisation “ was not previously a core of the commercial marketing definition, exchange was the core. Hence the novelty of a paper exploring how the 2004 definition meets the 1995 definition. Something that can’t have had 30 years of research on it beats a three decade old suggestion for novelty Exchange!= “benefit to the organisation”. Exchange theory allows for complex indirect exchange, and that’s fine. The new definition of marketing requires the management of customer relationships for benefit to the organisation, and the definition of “benefit” has yet to be fully explored or defined. Given the Andreasen (1995) social marketing definitions explicitly recognises the improved welfare of the individual (value) and the society (benefit to the organisation’s stakeholders), the reason for the paper and the debate to see where “benefit to the organisation” fits into a structure that traditionally

delimitated its boundaries by not taking benefit from the exchange. If benefit can be constructed as indirect exchange, then we’re fine. But the state of play is that we have no definitive construction of “benefit to the organisation”. So if “benefit to the organisation” turns out to be financial benefit or direct benefit, there’s a problem. To argue that the goal of social marketers is to make themselves obsolete overlooks fundamental issues in both commercial and social marketing (the need for reinforcement to maintain behaviour change). The conclusions section is very weak and neither offers insights into how commercial marketing could be used to inform social marketing nor suggests research that could examine this question in more detail. Finally, you’ve said something useful. Agreed, the conclusion needed work, and the conclusion has been reworked. I’m going to continue to ignore your request that I revisit dead arguments of the 1990s by asking how commercial marketing could inform social marketing. That debate is over. Novelty value - originality, uniqueness: Score: 2. Because this paper summarises definitions from others'work, its novelty is very limited and the comparison of definitions is not sufficient to create an original contribution that would inform theory or practice. You might want to discuss this with reviewer 1. If I thought you had a credible word to say about social marketing theory, I’d consider what you wrote here as valid. However, examination of how theory does or could inform practice has the potential to improve the paper' s rating on this dimension. Well, see, there’s this thing called “theory” and the paper is an examination of the two conceptual domains of the definitions of commercial marketing and social marketing. Not everything we do in marketing theoretical development needs to automatically be able to be applied to practice. Over in maths, they have this thing called “Pure maths” and “Applied maths”. This is a “pure marketing” paper rather than an “Applied marketing”. Conceptual development, grounding in literature method, analysis, discussion, implications drawn, formatting: Score: 2. The paper is generally well-written, but its overall contribution is very weak. Opinion logged, noted and totally ignored. The correct referencing style has not been used. Changes made Nominate this paper for the best paper award: No. No kidding.