Journal of Marketing Management 2005, 21, 545-553

Laura McDermott1, What Is and What Is Not

Martine Stead and
Gerard Hastings
Institute for Social Marketing,
University of Stirling and
The Open University
Social Marketing: The Challenge
of Reviewing the Evidence
This paper describes our experience in
undertaking a review of the effectiveness of
using social marketing to tackle nutrition
problems. One of the biggest challenges was
identifying programmes which could be
genuinely defined as ‘social marketing’. Here
we describe how we applied and tested a
framework for identifying and assessing
legitimate social marketing research.
Implications for both social marketing theory
and practice are discussed.

Keywords: Social marketing, nutrition, systematic review

Background
Clearly there is a need for the public health community to intervene on
matters relating to nutrition. The rapid growth of obesity and the increased
risk of chronic diseases including cardiovascular disease, diabetes and cancer
have reinvigorated efforts to improve dietary health (WHO/FAO 2003).
These problems can be tackled using various approaches, including health
education, community interventions and policy change. This systematic
review was commissioned by safefood Ireland (the Food Safety Promotion
Board) to examine the effectiveness of social marketing interventions designed
to influence knowledge, perceptions and behaviour in relation to nutrition.
The focus of this paper is on our experience of undertaking this research.
One of the biggest challenges we faced was deciding which studies should be
included in the review: how could we identify genuine social marketing
interventions? We describe how we tackled this problem and highlight some
of the important lessons for both social marketing theory and practice.

What is Social Marketing?

We began by revisiting social marketing theory to consider how the field’s
leading thinkers conceptualise the approach. Social marketing is ‘the

1 Correspondence: Laura McDermott, Institute for Social Marketing, University of

Stirling and The Open University, Stirling FK9 4LA, Tel: 01786 467390, Fax: 01786
466449, Email: laura.mcdermott@stir.ac.uk
ISSN 1472-1376/2005/5-6/00545 + 08 £8.00/0 ©Westburn Publishers Ltd.
546 Laura McDermott, Martine Stead and Gerard Hastings

application of marketing to the solution of social and health problems’ (Kotler and
Zaltman 1971). This definition first emerged during the early 1960s when
academics considered how marketing tools and techniques might apply to
health, social and political issues (MacFadyen et al. 2003). As many social and
health problems have behavioural causes - and marketing influences human
behaviour - social marketing offers a promising strategy for promoting
improvements in health and wellbeing.
Social marketing is a process for developing social change programmes
(Andreasen 1995). Like commercial marketing, it provides a strategic
planning framework comprising consumer research, segmentation and
targeting, objective setting and the manipulation of the marketing mix
(MacFadyen et al. 2003). However, there are several key departures from
commercial sector marketing. The social marketing product is often
inherently more complex than a commercial product. It may be intangible
(eg. a change in attitude); it may require considerable involvement and effort
on the part of the consumer (eg. attending cancer screening); or it may
represent a change in behaviour to which people are resistant, such as giving
up smoking. Furthermore, the benefits of behaviour change may not always
be immediate or direct (eg. recycling to help protect the environment).
The evolution of social marketing has been somewhat hindered by a lack
of definitional clarity and consensus. It has often been confused with related -
but quite distinct - marketing concepts such as societal marketing, socially
responsible marketing and non-profit marketing (MacFadyen et al. 2003). In
addition to this, the term ‘social marketing’ is sometimes erroneously used to
refer simply to the promotional aspect of multi-component interventions or
to campaigns that are purely communications-based.
Social marketing experts have attempted to pinpoint what differentiates
social marketing from other approaches to social change such as legislation
and education. Andreasen (2002) argues that it is its emphasis on voluntary
behaviour change that makes it unique, and he proposes six ‘benchmarks’ for
identifying a genuine social marketing programme (see Figure 1). These
benchmarks provided a starting point for our review.

Our Approach to the Research Problem

Our first approach to identifying eligible studies was to include all

interventions which labelled their approach as social marketing. However,
we recognised the possibility that interventionists may not always label their
approaches as clearly as possible, for a variety of reasons, and were keen to
avoid adding to the confusion about the nature of social marketing. We
therefore decided to assess these ‘self-defined’ social marketing studies
against Andreasen’s benchmarks. Andreasen suggests that it would be
 What is and What Is Not Social Marketing? 547

1. Behaviour change is the benchmark used to design and evaluate

interventions.
2. Audience research is undertaken to (i) assess the needs of the
target group (ii) pre-test the programme materials and ideas and
(iii) monitor the ongoing implementation of the programme.
3. Segmentation principles are applied.
4. The intervention strategy creates attractive motivational exchanges
with the target group.
5. The intervention strategy attempts to use all four Ps of the
traditional marketing mix.
6. Careful attention is paid to the competition faced by the desired
behaviour.

Adapted from Andreasen 2002

Figure 1: Andreasen’s Benchmarks for Identifying a Genuine Social

Marketing Programme

Database Description
Eric Database of educational research
IBSS (BIDS) International bibliography of social science research
Ingenta Global research gateway
Social Science Multidisciplinary database covering the journal
Citation Index literature of the social sciences
Science Citation Index Multidisciplinary database covering the journal
literature of the sciences
PsycINFO Database of psychological abstracts
Pubmed Database of the life sciences literature
Sociological Abstracts Multidisciplinary full text database, with a strong
focus on social science research
Zetoc (British Library) Database providing access to the British Library
Electronic Table of Contents (ETOC)

Figure 2: Electronic Databases

548 Laura McDermott, Martine Stead and Gerard Hastings

unreasonable to expect programmes to provide strong evidence of all six

benchmarks (Andreasen 2002). After piloting the criteria on a small sample
of studies we decided that – in addition to self-defining as social marketing –
interventions had to provide evidence of at least two of Andreasen’s
benchmarks to be included in the review.
A systematic search for literature was then undertaken. The primary
source for relevant literature was electronic databases. Nine electronic
databases (see Figure 2) were searched for studies relevant to the review
questions.
The databases were systematically searched using combinations of the
following search terms and phrases:

Social Marketing Promotion Policy

Health Promotion Nutrition Health Outcome
Intervention Obesity Behaviour
Communication(s) Food
Campaign Diet

In addition to these searches, personal contact was also made (usually via
email) with key academics to identify further research including any
unpublished literature not contained in the academic databases. The
reference lists of included studies were also examined to identify other
potentially relevant research. The titles and abstracts generated through
searching (and full text where necessary) were assessed to determine
whether:

1. The programme was self-defined as social marketing

2. The programme provided evidence of at least two of Andreasen’s
social marketing criteria.

Twenty papers (describing sixteen studies) passed these initial criteria 2.

The Initial Evidence Base: Self-Defined Social Marketing Studies

Of the twenty papers, around half described North American research and
the other half described research from the developing world (including
India, Thailand and some African Countries). The literature tended to fall
into two broad groups:

• Research from developing countries in which the social marketing

programme aimed to improve nutrient intake among rural
communities.

2 A full list is available from the corresponding author.

 What is and What Is Not Social Marketing? 549

• Research from North America in which the social marketing

programme aimed to get school children to improve their daily diet
(eg. to consume more fruit and vegetables or reduce fat intake).

At this stage, no European studies were identified (although several leading

European experts were contacted over the course of the research). This
absence of European research clearly raises issues of cultural relevance and
limits the potential to explore how different social marketing principles
apply cross-culturally. Closer inspection of the studies also revealed that –
although all self-defined as social marketing – only around half actually
attempted to explain what was meant by a social marketing approach. The
idea of social marketing was interpreted differently by different authors. In
some cases, social marketing was conceptualised fairly narrowly as a largely
communications-based approach, while in others, it was interpreted more
broadly and included some key generic marketing principles (such as use of
the four Ps). This analysis also revealed that some of Andreasen’s six
benchmarks featured more often than others. The following were common
to most of the initial set of programmes:

• The programme aimed to change behaviour.

• Formative research had been undertaken to guide the intervention
strategy.
• The intervention strategy was based on more than just
communications (eg. product samples were distributed, training was
provided for those involved in implementing the programme).

Arguably, these features are common to many other social change

approaches. Interventions often have specific behavioural outcomes, and
many are based on research of some kind. However, it was interesting that
the features that are often considered as the key defining features of a social
marketing approach - identifying a clear target group and tailoring the
approach to match their requirements, removing the competition to
behaviour change and emphasising the benefits - were often missing in these
self-defined programmes.

Revising our Approach

These limitations led us to reconsider our approach. We reasoned that we

were interested in whether social marketing ideas work rather than whether
social marketing labels work. Although relying on self-definition seemed like
an obvious starting point, it led to a limited evidence base and authors’
interpretations of social marketing were often disappointingly narrow.
550 Laura McDermott, Martine Stead and Gerard Hastings

Benchmark Explanation
1. Behaviour change Intervention seeks to change behaviour and has
specific measurable behavioural objectives.

2. Audience research Formative research is conducted to identify target

consumer characteristics and needs.
Intervention elements are pre-tested with the target
group.

3. Segmentation Different segmentation variables are considered

when selecting the intervention target group.
Intervention strategy is tailored for the selected
segment/s.

4. Exchange Intervention considers what will motivate people to

engage voluntarily with the intervention and offers
them something beneficial in return. The offered
benefit may be intangible (eg. personal satisfaction)
or tangible (eg. incentives for participating in the
programme and making behavioural changes).

5. Marketing mix Intervention consists of promotion

(communications) plus at least one other marketing
‘P’ (‘product’, ‘price’, ‘place’). Other Ps might
include ‘policy change’ or ‘people’ (eg. training is
provided to intervention delivery agents).

6. Competition Intervention considers the appeal of competing

behaviours (including current behaviour).
Intervention uses strategies that seek to minimise
the competition.

Figure 3: Revised Relevance Criteria and Scoring Procedure

Fortunately, our original search strategy was broad enough to capture

interventions that did not necessarily label themselves social marketing but
which were of potential relevance to our review. We revisited this wider
pool of studies and found that, often, social marketing characteristics were
present in these studies regardless of the intervention label used. We
therefore decided to examine systematically this larger set of studies against
Andreasen’s criteria.
This required a revision of the original relevance criteria for the review. It
 What is and What Is Not Social Marketing? 551

was decided that interventions did not necessarily have to describe

themselves as social marketing, but had to provide evidence of meeting each
of Andreasen’s six benchmarks. In order to assess this we had to translate
each of the benchmarks into a precise statement against which its absence or
presence in an intervention strategy could be assessed (see Figure 3). This
was more challenging for some criteria than others. For example, it was
relatively easy to produce a specification for the presence or absence of
audience research, but less easy to specify how an intervention could be
deemed to have satisfactorily offered an ‘exchange’ with its target group or
addressed competition to the behaviour change, not least because these
concepts are in themselves particularly complex and nebulous within the
social marketing context.
The review team assessed over 200 studies against these criteria. Two
reviewers independently carried out this task and consistency checks were
also undertaken. Our experience revealed that applying the social marketing
criteria was not always straightforward and it was often difficult to make
judgements based on the amount of information in the paper. We found that
there were degrees to which each programme met the different criteria. For
example, in the case of ‘behaviour change’, it was not a simple matter of
whether the study had behavioural aims but whether specific objectives were
set and how well these were described in the paper. As anticipated, we also
found that some criteria (eg. identifying whether research has been
undertaken) were more straightforward and easier to judge than others (eg.
determining whether a meaningful exchange was being offered). In these
cases, second and even third opinions were critical.
Applying these revised criteria resulted in a set of 27 studies.
Interestingly, four of these were labelled ‘social marketing’ and had been
included in the original set. The vast majority were new inclusions which
would have been omitted had the original approach been adopted.

Discussion

This paper describes some of the challenges we faced in systematically

reviewing the effectiveness of social marketing as an intervention approach.
To our knowledge it is the first attempt to translate a generalised definition
of the social marketing approach – Andreasen’s six benchmarks – into a
series of precise measures against which potential social marketing
interventions can be judged. Important lessons for social marketing theory
and practice emerged:

• When preparing social marketing research for publication, authors

must endeavour to clearly define their approach and to provide
552 Laura McDermott, Martine Stead and Gerard Hastings

specific information about what social marketing principles have been

applied. As this review has demonstrated, the authors’ label alone is
not necessarily the best guide for understanding the particular
intervention approach which has been adopted.
• There is a need for clearer agreement among social marketers on the
key defining features of a social marketing approach (ie. what is it
about social marketing that makes it different?) and on what social
marketing is not. Several key writers have recently attempted to
resolve some of this misunderstanding (eg. Andreasen 2002;
MacFadyen et al. 2003), but more vigorous debate, accompanied by
active dissemination among both academics and intervention funders,
is needed.
• This study tested the feasibility and utility of one model, Andreasen’s
six benchmarks, for defining a social marketing intervention. More
precise definitional work may be needed on this model, particularly
regarding the more complex and nebulous criteria such as exchange
and competition, and this is a promising route for future work in the
field.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank our colleagues Kathryn Angus and Ray Kent at the
University of Stirling and Dr Somen Banerjee and Dr Mike Rayner at the
University of Oxford for their contribution to this research. The study was
funded by safefood Ireland (the Food Safety Promotion Board).

References

Andreasen, A. R. (1995), Marketing social change: Changing behaviour to promote

health, social development, and the environment. San Fransisco: Josey-Bass.
Andreasen, A. R. (2002), “Marketing social marketing in the social change
marketplace”. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 21(1), pp.3-13.
Kotler, P., and Zaltman, G. (1971), “Social marketing: An approach to
planned social change”. Journal of Marketing, 35(July), pp.3-12.
MacFadyen, L., Stead, M., and Hastings, G. B. (2003), “Social marketing”.
Chapter 27 in Baker, M. J. (ed), The Marketing Book, 5th edition. Oxford:
Butterworth Heinemann.
WHO/FAO (2003), Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases.
Report of a Joint Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health
Organization Expert Consultation. WHO Technical Report Series 916.
Geneva: World Health Organization, WHO.
 What is and What Is Not Social Marketing? 553

About the Authors

Laura McDermott is a Research Officer at the Institute for Social Marketing

at the University of Stirling where she specialises in social marketing
research in relation to food and nutrition. Laura has undertaken research in
this area of behalf of clients which include the UK Government and the
World Health Organization.

Martine Stead is Deputy Director of the Institute for Social Marketing at the
University of Stirling. Her research interests include the development and
evaluation of complex interventions, particularly those using social
marketing theory, and the influence of marketing on health. She has
published in both health and marketing journals including Social Marketing
Quarterly and Psychology and Marketing.

Gerard Hastings is the first UK Professor of Social Marketing and

Founder/Director of the Institute for Social Marketing (1980) at the
University of Stirling. Gerard teaches and writes about social marketing both
in the UK and internationally. He is also advisor to the UK government on
the use of social marketing within public health. He has published over
eighty referred journal articles including ones in the European Journal of
Marketing, Marketing Theory, the International Journal of Advertising, and Social
Marketing Quarterly.