Introduction to the special issue from the World Social Marketing Conference 2013

Citation

Basil, D.Z.B.M.D. (2014), "Introduction to the special issue from the World Social Marketing Conference 2013", Journal of Social Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSOCM-05-2014-0030

Introduction to the special issue from the World Social Marketing Conference 2013

Article Type: Editorial From: Journal of Social Marketing, Volume 4, Issue 2

This special issue comprises key articles from the 2013 World Social Marketing Conference. “World 2013” was a vibrant event, bringing together nearly 500 participants from around the globe, all interested in how social marketing can help us to benefit society. Despite the tremendous efforts put forth in 84 papers at World 2013, including those presented here, the field is still grappling with issues that seem to defy resolution. Key among these are questions that cut to the very essence of the field: “What is social marketing?” and “What should social marketing be called?” It seems we do not know our own domain, nor the appropriate name for this field of study. This is not a new revelation. The field has been struggling with these issues for years. We have decided to use this brief special issue introduction as our opportunity to take a stand.

First, it is time to define our domain. One of the most common phrases one sees in social marketing articles is “social marketing is defined HERE as […]”. This is necessary because social marketing is undoubtedly defined as something else in someone else’s article. This is not to say that we are strongly at odds with one another, or vastly discrepant. There is certainly more common ground than not. Our Venn diagrams overlap a great deal. One definition that has wide support and seems to be gaining broad traction is the (relatively) newly proposed consensus definition of social marketing.

Social marketing seeks to develop and integrate marketing concepts with other approaches to influence behaviors that benefit individuals and communities for the greater social good. It seeks to integrate research, best practice, theory, audience and partnership insight, to inform the delivery of competition sensitive and segmented social change programs that are effective, efficient, equitable and sustainable. (#B3).

This is a wonderfully ambitious definition. Ambitious in the making – it is a collaborative effort by three of the world’s leading social marketing associations. It is also ambitious in scope, covering all facets of a social marketing effort. It addresses ultimate goals (greater social good), program inputs (research, best practice and theory), program components (competition sensitive, segmented) and final program quality (effective, efficient, equitable and sustainable). It is an ideal toward which one should strive.

Many programs, case studies and research papers will not, by themselves, attain this somewhat lofty ideal. Are they still social marketing? In our opinion – absolutely! Or at least – probably! Given that the “gold standard” definition may be relatively difficult to attain, at what point does a social change effort become “NOT social marketing”? The cry “that is not really social marketing” is often heard among social marketing academics critiquing the work of others. Is it justified? Where do we set that cut-off bar? If, for example, an effort is effective, efficient and sustainable, but not equitable, would that count? Logic suggests yes. A social change effort that covers a large majority of the key components should be considered social marketing. Would this mean that we then have to decide where the boundary is? Is it enough to have 80 per cent of the definition components covered? What about 75 per cent? Does it matter which 75 per cent is covered? If it built solely on a single P, such as promotion, can it still be considered a social marketing effort? Clearly, this could devolve into a very complex analysis. The collaborative definition, then, is perhaps better labeled as an ideal or at least an aggregation of our efforts.

A simpler definition may be needed for assessing individual programs. That should not be difficult to come by – there are so many out there. Many definitions have been developed by social marketing scholars with much more experience than us. Therefore, we will not create yet another definition here. Rather, we will merely highlight what seem to be core components of most of the definitions, essential for a social marketing campaign. These are the things that everyone generally seems to agree upon. First and foremost is the beneficiary. The goal must be some sort of societal benefit, whether that benefit comes in the way of helping individuals to be healthier and happier or helping common societal resources. Next is behavior change. This stipulation is necessary to discriminate social marketing from simple education and attitude change efforts. Then there is the notion that the behavior change is voluntary. If you could effectively mandate it, as in the “law” component referred to by #B4, that would usually be the easier route, but few of us would care to live in a state that mandates 30 minutes of daily exercise or forces us to eat our vegetables. Finally, an integrative combination of efforts that include (but are not necessarily limited to) core marketing principles must be used.

You may argue that important factors are missing from this list. What about selecting a target market? Conducting formative research? Identifying barriers? Measuring outcomes? Yes, we agree that these are all very commonly used and can be important aspects of effective social marketing programs. We believe, however, that these things represent what makes a social marketing program successful, rather than cutting to the core of what makes a program social marketing. Because social marketing is a practice, it can be done well or it can be done poorly. Like any tool, the way in which it is used determines the valence of the outcome.

Next, a name; everything needs a name, if only to discern what it is not. Social marketing, perhaps calling attention to its founders in the field of marketing, was a grand name in its day, but that day may have passed. A competitor entered the picture, with much more flash and much broader appeal (#B1). Ask people outside the field of behavior change to define social marketing. The definitions may differ greatly, but they will undoubtedly include the Internet, with allusions to Facebook and Twitter and virtually connecting with friends from far and wide. The name “social marketing” has slipped through our fingers, and there is no retrieving it. It may be time to move on. This is not a first. We remember when the acronym CRM, when voiced in the circles of marketing academics, clearly referred to cause-related marketing. That is, until customer relationship management became an essential tool for all marketers. Now, if you hear CRM, you will most likely assume it relates to managing relationships with customers. Let us hasten to acknowledge that this position is far from novel; it has been voiced strongly by many others, many times, in many places. As #B5 of Ogilvy pointed out in her “Reflections on World”, we are “brand challenged”. We are marketers for Heaven’s sake; let us do a better job of marketing the field. In our opinion, this includes knowing when to rebrand. That time is now. We are no longer social marketing, no matter how hard we wish it. Something else has stolen that moniker, and it will not be returned to us. Wayman suggested “Social Change Marketing”. This new name more clearly represents the field; it is sufficiently similar to facilitate easy recognition and transition, yet sufficiently different to demonstrate that a change has indeed occurred. Social change marketing – let it be so.

The social change marketing articles in this issue apply the tools of social change marketing in different ways, to very different contexts, demonstrating as a whole the tremendous power of our toolbox. The articles herein demonstrate how we can use these tools to better serve individuals, society and our natural environment. Some even suggest new tools to add to our toolbox.

This issue begins with an article proposing a new perspective for assessing situations to which we may apply social change marketing. “Cultural capital and strategic social marketing orientations”, by Kamin and Anker, proposes that cultural capital theory (#B2) can serve as a useful frame to remind us of the differential distribution of various forms of capital within society, and how this unequal distribution not only impacts but often underlies our social change marketing efforts.

The next article continues to place focus on the community level. “Identifying upstream factors using the Community Readiness Model: the case of reducing alcohol use among college students”, by Stanley and Kelly, uses the Community Readiness Model to assess upstream factors that impact student drinking, and the effectiveness of social change marketing efforts. Consistent with Kamin and Anker, Stanley and Kelly encourage us to look at the factors within the community and society that impact an individual’s ability and desire to act.

In keeping with this focus on the importance of community to the success of social change marketing efforts, the third article applies a community-based social change marketing strategy to examine social change marketing in a sustainability context. The article “Developing benchmark criteria for assessing community-based social marketing programs: a look into Jack Johnson’s ‘All at Once’ campaign” by Lynes, Whitney and Murray provides a case study of the inspirational efforts put forth by the musician Jack Johnson and his team to minimize their environmental footprint. Additionally, Jack Johnson and his team encourage their fans to take proactive steps to benefit the environment. This social action campaign is analyzed through the lens of a community-based social marketing model. Despite concern within our field over labels and definitions for social change marketing, this article demonstrates that perhaps one can do social change marketing without necessarily knowing it.

The fourth article, “The taboo question: condom retailing in Vietnam and social marketing implications” by Nguyen, Parker, Brennan and Clements, examines the specific case of condom retailing in Vietnam. In keeping with the previous articles, this article highlights the need to consider societal level, macro issues, as well as meso and micro issues necessary to launch an effective social change marketing campaign for a highly sensitive topic. Here the culture provides a backdrop upon which efforts to bring about changes in retail marketing are laid.

Finally, “Best practices in social marketing among Aboriginal peoples” by Madill, Wallace, Goneau-Lessard, MacDonald and Dion, is an examination of a variety of social change marketing efforts in an aboriginal context. This comprehensive literature review emphasizes the important role culture plays in the success of social change marketing efforts, in keeping with the other articles in this issue. It offers a clear view of best practices, as well as an avenue for future research. It also may bring us back full circle to the cultural capital issues raised in the first article by Kamin and Anker.

These articles together demonstrate how the cultural backdrop is important for social change marketing efforts. Together they demonstrate that the toolbox of social change marketing can effectively address a diverse array of issues. In this essay, we have put forward issues to consider regarding how our field is defined and what it is called, but what really matters is that we continue to move forward with inspiring work such as this, to benefit individuals and the society in which they live.

Debra Z. Basil and Michael D. Basil

References

Basil, M.D. (2012), “Coverage of social marketing in the mainstream media”, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 295-302.

Bourdieu, P. (1986/1997), “The forms of capital”, in Halsey, A.H., Lauder, H., Brown, P. and Stuart Wells, A. (Eds), Education. Culture, Economy, and Society, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 46-58.

International Social Marketing Association, European Social Marketing Association & Australian Association of Social Marketing (2013), “Consensus definition of social marketing”, available at: http://www.i-socialmarketing.org/social-marketing-definition

Rothschild, M. (1999), “Carrots, sticks and promises: a conceptual framework for the management of public health and social issue behavior”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 24-37.

Wayman, J. (2013), “10 reflections on the 2013 World Social Marketing Conference”, Social Marketing exCHANGE News and Views, available at: http://smexchange.ogilvypr.com/2013/04/10-reflections-on-the-2013-world-social-marketing-conference/