In 1969, Kotler and Levy argued that marketing is a prevalent societal activity that does more than sell soap and toothpaste to consumers, but has a wider, more influencing role in society than understood, hereby broadening the older concept of marketing to comprise the transfer of marketing practices and principles to include services (e.g. education), persons (e.g. political candidates), organisations (e.g. World Health Organization) and ideas (e.g. smoking cessation).
The concept of social marketing is still in its early phase in the Middle East. However, the concept of social marketing dates back to 1952, when it was first introduced in an article by a sociologist, G.D. Wiebe. Wiebe argued that selling brotherhood and rational thinking can take the very same process as selling soap (Wiebe, 1951). From then on, many scholars strove to understand and develop the field of social marketing (Andreasen, 2003; Bartels, 1974; Kotler and Levy, 1969; Kotler and Zaltman, 1971; Kelly and Lazer, 1973). Andreasen (1994) finally cleared some of the confusion related to the concept of social marketing by developing a new definition, emphasising the use of social marketing as an operative marketing tool, taking it beyond educational purposes for a greater impact on society. He described 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 the society in which they are part of”
(Andreasen, 1994, p. 110)
Four main highlights should be stressed from Andreasen’s (1994) definition. Firstly, social marketing uses the same technique and practice used in commercial marketing. Secondly, it is looked upon as a complete process (analysis, planning, execution and evaluation). Thirdly, it is
34
used to influence voluntary change in behaviour, not necessarily just promoting behaviour or aiming at actual change in behaviour (Andreasen 1994; 2002). This emphasis on the influence of voluntary behavioural change clearly distinguishes social marketing from its disciplinary competitors. The goal of a social marketing programme is to: “make the target audience willing to accept new behaviour, reject potential behaviour, modify current behaviour, or abandon old behaviour” (Kotler, Roberto and Lee, 2002, p. 5). Fourthly, social marketing programmes can benefit the targeted individual (e.g. breast cancer screening) or benefit the society (e.g.
recycling), or benefit both parties concurrently (e.g. stop littering campaigns). In other words, marketers mainly use commonly known marketing principles and techniques to help promote social wellbeing and solve societal ‘problems’, offering individuals ‘solutions’ –or, in this case, promoting positive behaviour– to help solve a currently occurring social predicament.
Fox and Kotler (1980) noted that social marketing was an extension of social advertising; where the use of advertising as an effective tool to reach wider audiences was realised. When concerned with social causes and issues, Fox and Kotler (1980) argued that social advertising alone was insufficient. For example, the message may not have been well researched; people do not know how to act after viewing an ad; or simply due to masses of ‘noise’ in the communication process the ad would not reach the target audience and would be screened out.
Therefore, Fox and Kotler (1980) encouraged a wider use of marketing principles and methods beyond the sole use of advertising. Social marketers, both scholars and practitioners, have recognised that though products are often involved in behaviour change processes (such as condoms and pills in family planning campaigns), social marketing can also apply to such purely behavioural challenges such as resisting smoking (Moodie, MacKintosh, Brown and Hastings, 2008; Veer, Tutty and Willemse, 2008) and promoting healthier eating to adolescents (Chan, Prendergast, Grønhøj and Bech-Larsen, 2009). However, intervention programmes should be supported by more than just advertising in order to help those who seek behavioural change. For example, in a WTS cessation campaign, different forms of ads would be accompanied by hotlines for people who need to ask questions or direction, seminars that are hosted by health and social psychology experts who discuss the effects and challenges that are associated with WTS and the youth and young adults, and possible educational institutional visits for awareness.
35
Any social marketing effort that is done mainly addresses one or more of these four major arenas: health promotion, injury prevention, environmental protection and community involvement (Kotler and Lee, 2008). These efforts are usually done by three main sources:
1) Public Sector Agencies: such as the Ministry of Health in Egypt and local jurisdictions such as schools and community health clinics.
2) Nonprofit Organisations and Foundations: such as the American Heart Organization and the Food Bank in Egypt.
3) Professionals working in a for-profit organisation: holding positions that are responsible for activities such as corporate social responsibility, marketing and community relations.
4) Professionals who provide services to organisations engaged in social marketing campaigns: such as marketing agencies and marketing research firms.
To fully understand social marketing and its significance, it is important to note other approaches that are used to change public behaviour. This is because, in some behaviour, people need to be educated or need policies that will support this behavioural change. For example, people would be willing to efficiently use their home water supply, but do not know how to do that. In this example, education will need to go hand in hand with marketing interventions. Kotler et al.
(2002) mentioned the use of technology, economics, legal (policymaking), and education as other substitutes for behavioural change. These alternates are a development from Rothschild’s (1999) conceptualisation of the three mechanisms of education (inform or encourage people to voluntarily adopt a behaviour without incentive), marketing (involves attempts to influence behaviour in a voluntary exchange situation by providing the favourable choices, satisfactory cost-benefit ratio, convenient access and communication), and the law (use of coercions or punishment to reinforce behaviour).
The primary difference between education and marketing is that marketing involves the parties receiving something in return when involved in the process. And contradictory to the use of law, social marketing depends on the participant’s adequate and voluntary change in behaviour, without the use of oppression. However, it is important to note that sometimes social marketing may not always be the best choice for behavioural change (Kaczynski, 2008). For example, when
36
the target audience lacks understanding in a certain social issue, education maybe a necessary alternative strategy to social marketing (Andreasen, 1994).
For further clarification and distinction between social marketing and other related or similar concepts, Andreasen (2002) proposed six benchmarks for identifying social marketing. Table 3-1 explains that any intervention or approach towards social marketing must embrace:
1) Behaviour change as a cornerstone used as an analysis and evaluation for interventions.
2) Consumer research (based on formative research) to understand full consumer experience and innermost needs and values. Intervention elements are routinely pretested before implementation and keen monitoring takes place throughout implementation.
3) Segmentation and targeting strategies to ensure effective reach of the aimed audience and efficient resource allocation.
4) Attractive and beneficial exchange proposition.
5) Four P’s of the traditional marketing mix; as well as the addition of ‘policy change’
and ‘people’ or ‘partnership’ when needed (Luca and Suggs, 2010; McDermott, Stead and Hastings, 2005; Stead, Gordon, Angus and McDermott, 2007). This implies that there is a need to offer benefiting proposals and solutions to existing social problem (product), while minimising both the costs and price charged of adapting the behaviour (Kaczynski, 2008) (price); making the exchange accessible and convenient (place); and communicating the message that illustrates the desired behaviour through the right media vehicles preferred by the targeted audience (promotion). Policy change can be used if the desired behaviour can be further emphasised using a change in a policy. For example, introducing more fruit in the vending machine on a college campus could encourage healthier nutrition. This has been executed by changing the policy of the food service department at college (Shive and Morris, 2006). Using that same example, people or partnership at college would be the campus administration or the community in which this intervention took place. Their help is needed for a more effective intervention.
6) Dealing with the competition facing the desired behaviour to be adopted.
37 Table 3- 1: Six Social Marketing Benchmarks
Social Marketing Benchmarks Description
1) Behaviour Change Clear focus on behaviour, based on a strong behavioural analysis, specific behavioural goals
2) Consumer Research Based on formative research to understand the consumer experiences, values and needs. Intervention elements are pretested with the target group
3) Segmentation and Targeting
Segmentation variables to select the target group; tailoring for the selected segment
4) Exchange Incorporate an “exchange” analysis; understand what the person has to give to get the benefits proposed; consider incentives, rewards and disincentives
5) Marketing Mix The traditional marketing mix, in addition to ‘policy change’,
‘people’ or ‘partnership’
6) Competition Both internal (psychological factors such as pleasure, desire, addiction etc.) and external (other influencers); competing forces to the behaviour change are analysed; strategies to remove or minimise the competition
Source: Luca and Suggs (2010), as adapted from Andreasen (2002)
With regard to the traditional marketing mix, some criticisms were stated regarding social marketing applicability. Among the various assessments of the model, Gordon (2012) argued that the four Ps model is short-term. Social marketing involves behaviour change that requires making long term commitments. In addition, criticism has been made that the marketing mix’s internal focus is on the seller rather than the buyer (Constantinides, 2006). Many scholars critiqued this issue (Gordon, 2012). Kotler (2003), the main supporter of the traditional marketing mix, acknowledged this limitation as well. As such, Gordon (2012) proposed a new – or expanded– social marketing mix that: “not only offers more tools to use in the behaviour change arena, but recognises strategies that are already being used. The various Ps of product, price, place, promotion, policy and people undoubtedly have a role to play. Other strategies such as stakeholder and community engagement, relational thinking, co-creation, advocacy, lobbying, public and media relations, and engagement in the policy agenda are often equally as important” (p. 124). Figure 2-5 illustrates the new social marketing mix proposed.
38
Figure 3- 2: The New Social Marketing Mix Proposed Source: Gordon (2012)
In summary, prior studies in promoting prosocial behaviour found that marketing tactics can be helpful and effective tools in endorsing favourable behaviours and in creating social awareness.
When discussing tobacco smoking cessation marketing practices, some of these social marketing efforts still need research to test their effectiveness. Nevertheless, prior anti-tobacco marketing campaigns, such as the Truth (will be discussed in Section 3.2.2), have proven their success in decreasing smoking rates over time. Hence, the next section provides a review of the effectiveness of various social marketing campaigns and interventions. These reviews discuss
39
anti-smoking movements that are handled through social marketing. However, this review of social marketing interventions is only done to further illustrate how this marketing study can help curb WTS among the youth and young adults by understanding consumer behaviour associated with WTS and the application of social marketing techniques for WTS cessation.