Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

1 Introduction

Any ‘mythunderstandings’ of social marketing were tackled by Donovan (2011) where Rothschild’s (1999) separation of marketing from law and education is roundly dismissed and the exchange process with a consumer orientation reaffirmed. Education, law, advocacy and environmental influences are all to be enlisted to achieve socially desirable goals. As Hastings moves from tunes to symphonies (Hastings and Domegan 2014), Dove is hailed as a commercial social marketing success (Anker and Kappel 2011) and many social marketers from the UK recognise the increasing impact of nudge and practice theory at government level. Recent commentary published in the Journal of Social Marketing recommends brokering new collaborations and extensions to social marketing’s reach, most particularly through ‘upstream’ influence. However, social marketing’s increasing influence is not without its critics. In a general marketing context, Crane and Desmond ask what happens when those who defend social interest fail to secure sufficient power to have marketers taken them seriously (2002, p. 558) and find that relying on the individual as the moral agent “veils the social context” and the imbalance of power relations (2002, p. 562). Critics posit that this is the case for social marketing as well (Tadajewski et al. 2014).

There is dearth of critical, published social marketing that reviews its own performance as a social actor and influencer of social norms with the intention of improving its contribution to our quality of life. Especially lacking is critically derived research that aims to support social marketing in avoiding inadvertent, uncalculated effects that result in reactance, counternormative uptake, stigma or discrimination. Recognising that this type of engagement relies on debates more active in other disciplines around social relations of power and ethical decision making, this chapter argues for the incorporation of critical theory. Two theoretical debates are drawn from other disciplines to show a way forward that embraces critical thinking and analysis. One theoretical debate from critical management studies is summarised to show how organisational power might be discussed and how thoughtfulness around the empowerment of organisational members is required in order that ethical decisions can be arrived at with the least compromise of virtuous action. The other, from macromarketing, highlights some key ideas for ethical decision making and is extended to take moral intensity into account. It is a contribution of this chapter to engage with conceptions of power that identify the role of organisations. This moves beyond the current over-individualised view of social marketers’ responsibilities to recognise the separate and important responsibility of social marketing organisations, particularly when those are configured as collaborating consortia, and their ability to wield power under neoliberalism.

The chapter will proceed firstly with a brief history of social marketing to set the scene and recognise its beginnings in commercial marketing also identifying several promising directions that are emerging in response the challenges, particularly in the Journal of Social Marketing. After noting the comparative lack of critical debate and the depth of some critiques of social marketing, the role of critical marketing in addressing these shortcomings is asserted. The implications of moving ‘upstream’ are reviewed before frames of power, ethics and morality are considered as important, interlinked and indicative of a need for both education and evaluation.

2 From the Beginning and Setting the Scene

The history of social marketing is widely reported (see for example Dann 2010; Dibb 2014; Lefebvre 2011; McAuley 2014; McDermott et al. 2005; Moor 2011) and typically the initiation of social marketing is attributed to Kotler and Zaltman (1971) who first proposed a controversial approach to planned social change that incorporated the principles of marketing. Distinguishing social marketing from commercial marketing focussed on social marketing’s commitment to behaviour change (Andreasen 1994, 1995, 2002), a distinction used to identify ‘genuine’ social marketing (McDermott et al. 2005; Lefebvre 2011; Luca and Suggs 2010). Definitions also incorporated the aim of behaviour change through social marketing as benefitting society and individuals (Andreasen 2006; Donovan and Henley 2010; French et al. 2006; Hastings 2007; Kotler and Lee 2008; Sargeant 2005). The increasing institutionalisation and consolidation of social marketing has led to international and local professional associations using fairly consistent definitions of social marketing. The International Social Marketing Association (iSM) (2014) offers this:

Social Marketing seeks to develop and integrate marketing concepts with other approaches to influence behaviours that benefit individuals and communities for the greater social good. Social Marketing practice is guided by ethical principles. It seeks to integrate research, best practice, theory, audience and partnership insight, to inform the delivery of competition sensitive and segmented social change programmes that are effective, efficient, equitable and sustainable

This flexible and broadly encompassing definition reflects some of the debates social marketers have engaged in over the years. An over association with communication (McAuley 2014; Luca and Suggs 2010), a fixation with the 4Ps (Peattie and Peattie 2003, 2009) and the complications of engaging with communities are some of the challenges debated by social marketers.

In response to the additional complexities of social marketing Sargeant (2005, p. 193) suggested extending the usual marketing mix of the 4 Ps (product, price, place, and promotion) by adding policy and partnerships to create 6Ps. These additions recognised that social marketing campaigns often bring together multiple different organisations focussed on changing the same behaviour through partnerships and, that influencing policy through persuasion or political lobbying upstream was often crucial to achieve enabling regulatory change (Donovan and Henley 2010; Hoek and Jones 2011). A good example are anti-smoking campaigns where upstream the regulations around tobacco packaging and smoking in buildings were altered by government, while downstream support for individuals who smoked was tailored to different segments of the population defined by variations in stages of quitting. A further extension to the complexity of social marketing, when compared to commercial marketing, resides in manipulating the concept of exchange. In commercial marketing this is perceived to be “the act of obtaining a desired object from someone by offering something in return” (Kotler et al. 2009, p. 882). Social marketing attempted to retain the concept of exchange but recognised that this varied considerably. It could demand significant personal change, such as quitting smoking, or it could be comparatively low as in littering, or of more immediate benefit to the community than the individual (Rangan et al. 1996). The emphasis on exchange and individual change utilised theories of behaviour change drawn from psychology and widely utilised by public health, such as health belief model, theory of reasoned action, and theory of planned behaviour (Spotswood and Tapp 2013, p. 277).

To address highly demanding interventions and improve uptake, suggestions were made to broaden social marketing through community based models. In addition to engaging with the complexity of changing people’s lifestyle, key to this strategy was recognition that communities have a significant role in shaping social norms. An early example is the Community Readiness Model (Kelly et al. 2003) based on the Stages of Change. In essence the market research, intervention and evaluation stages of a social marketing campaign extend the focus to incorporate the engagement of community leaders. This created socially relevant champions for the intervention who work with the campaign to actively integrate the intervention into multiple facets of community life. For example, a youth drug initiative could be centred on a school, be extended to public discussion forums, incorporate additional recreational facilities for young people and establish parent support groups (Kelly et al. 2003, p. 419). The community model embraced the broader social context, midstream, and has been used extensively in sustainability initiatives (McKenzie-Mohr 2000; McKenzie-Mohr and Schultz 2014). Thus the political, legal, demographic, economic, social, cultural, technological and political factors would be considered (Donovan and Henley 2010). While this acknowledges a multiplicity of inputs, it is less clear what their relation to each other is except that within that mix there is a target audience.

The interplay between individuals and their context is also addressed at the intersection of public health, health promotion and social marketing. While this relationship between the disciplines continues to evolve, and even though Andreasen (2002) called for social marketing to assert its dominance, nevertheless efforts to combine the forces of behaviour change are available. For example the People and Places Framework (Maibach et al. 2007) engages multiple levels of research and a range of approaches. Described as a framework for “public health action rather than a theory or theoretical framework for research purposes” (Maibach et al. 2007, p. 3), importantly, social marketing is argued to be a key skill for health promotion professionals. The model, shown below in Fig. 6.1, combines many attributes of either people or places (Maibach et al. 2007). This omnibus framework identifies attributes of people in the categories of individuals, social networks, community, and the attributes of place through the local level and population level.

Fig. 6.1
figure 1

A people and places framework for public health influence (Maibach et al. 2007)

Full size image

The National Social Marketing Centre (NSMC) (undated) also embraced a diversity of elements, and developed criteria to define a social marketing approach, extending and refining Andreasen’s original six benchmarks to eight. Also an omnibus model, the NSMC model lays out the key underlying tenets of social marketing drawn from its commercial cousin (marketing mix; segmentation; exchange; customer orientation; market/audience research). The relative openness of definitions leaves social marketers able to utilize multifarious and diverse resources for their toolkit (Dibb 2014), making this also a flexible, responsive model.

Moving beyond reliance on commercial marketing’s 4Ps was a challenge for social marketing with which Peattie and Peattie (2003, 2009, 2011) engaged. Noting the usefulness of social marketing to the wider social policy agenda, particularly in health, they proposed that social marketing could develop its own ‘marketing mix’ to better address its functionality (Peattie and Peattie 2003, 2009, 2011). In brief, they suggest propositions instead of products, accessibility instead of place, costs of involvement instead of price, and social communication instead of promotion, by which they intended a more interactive style where the focus was on building relationships (Peattie and Peattie 2009, pp. 263–264). Working through the key tenets of relationship marketing identified the value of collaboration and cooperation with the target audience, and also emphasised the importance of partnerships. Hastings (2003) was amongst the first to develop a relational approach that incorporated interaction, dialogue and value creation, arguing that such a framework was strategic and holistic (cf. Marques and Domegan 2011).

Recently, other approaches have been suggested for social marketing. For example, the burgeoning importance of service dominant logic (Vargo and Lusch 2004) has been taken up and a services approach to social marketing proposed (Russell-Bennet et al. 2013a, b). Drawing from the 7Ps of services marketing Russell-Bennett et al. (2013b) argue for the centrality of the service experience, the criticality of the service employee, the quality of the service and the customer as an active participant in the delivery of service. Others have also noted the applicability of value co-creation in developing social marketing interventions, although not without some reservations around the transfer of these commercial marketing developments into the social change arena (McHugh and Domegan 2013; Domegan et al. 2013). For example, noting that customer orientation could be a misnomer given that interventions are “designed and managed by experts” rather than by the targeted participants and communities, thus questioning the actual extent to which co-creation occurs (Domegan et al. 2013, p. 246). Nonetheless the interest in meaningful and productive engagement with communities and their quality of life continues to attract new approaches, such as Fry’s (2104) consideration of communities of practice as a means to intervene and connect individuals in their efforts to change drinking habits.

Asserting the limitations of the 4Ps, Tapp and Spotswood have made two further propositions in this debate. One relies on sociological theory to draw attention to the need for cultural understanding through Bourdieu (Spotswood and Tapp’s 2013), and the other offers a wheel model derived from a systematic review in public health (Tapp and Spotswood 2013). While Dibb (2014, p. 1165) notes the wheel could be conceived of as a competitor, the effort to integrate this into social marketing is a good example of the interrelationship with public health, particularly as this is presented as an alternative to the 4Ps. The Behaviour Change Wheel (Michie et al. 2011) was devised from a systematic review of frameworks for behaviour change that generated 19 different approaches to intervention for assessment and is shown in Fig. 6.2 below.

Fig. 6.2
figure 2

The behaviour change wheel (Michie et al. 2011)

Full size image

The inner circle of the figure (Michie et al. 2011) is derived from a combination of behavioural theorists and US criminal law assertions that in order to commit a crime, volitional behaviour relies on capability (means), opportunity and motivation (Michie et al. 2011, p. 4). The definitional separation of interventions and policies identifies nine types of intervention aimed at behavioural change and seven types of policy where responsible authorities enable or support interventions, thus arguing that interventions lie between policies and behaviour (Michie et al. 2011, pp. 6–7). But, the atomistic, individualised decision focus at the centre of this model downplays the social context within which individuals must live, even though it is suggested that a strength of this “framework is that is incorporates context very naturally” (Michie et al. 2011, p. 8 {emphasis added}). While it is noted that “context is key to the effective design and implementation of interventions” they also remark that this “remains under-theorised and under-investigated” (Michie et al. 2011, p. 8). This latter comment echoes Spotswood and Tapp’s (2013) concern where they identify the most significant role of culture (a more complex concept than context) in achieving successful and lasting behaviour change.

Absorbing social context into models has the potential to make spurious assumptions, particularly about motives and influences (cf Bourdieu in Spotswood and Tapp 2013) and the values that underpin perceptions of what is quality of life. The theorisation of cultural context is strong in disciplines such as geography or sociology, which have recently turned their focus to considering how to achieve social and behavioural change for the sustainability of the environment and to address issues of over-consumption. Indeed Shove (2010) initiated a heated debate over what she termed psychology’s simplistic ABC of behaviour change. Challenging theorists to more fully engage with the habits, lived contexts and taken-for-granted social norms, as well as the role of artefacts and technology, Shove was scathing of the ability of individualist models that relied on rationality to address the significance of the change required. Behavioural economics has also investigated habits and their resistance to change (Thaler and Sustein 2008) noting that it often takes significant disruption, like moving house, to alter some ingrained habits (Verplanken and Wood 2006). These alternatives to social marketing have come to governments’ attention and there are calls to broaden and deepen the field (Dibb 2014), as well as to extend upstream (Gordon 2013; Hoek and Jones 2011).

In sum then, social marketing emerged from commercial marketing. Initially reliant on the traditional marketing mix, social marketing began to expand its definition to better reflect its additional complexities and the valuable work it was undertaking both downstream and upstream. Lefebvre (2011) suggests that there were two streams of social marketing: one in developing countries where the exchange base of the 4Ps was appropriate for the tasks; and another in developed nations which required more varied approaches. Through HIV/AIDS and anti-tobacco campaigns social marketing’s compatibility with public health extended its sphere of activities to encompass all manner of interventions to improve quality of life, including for example the renewed interest around sustainable living behaviours. However, with that expansion, particularly with the intention to engage at the group, community, midstream level came challenges that seemed to require adjustments to the underpinning approaches, models and rationales.

While this wider uptake has had the most positive effect of establishing social marketing internationally and professionally, it has also had paradoxical effects. Such as drawing social marketing closer to public health (Wymer 2010, 2011) thus increasing the need for professional collaboration while concurrently distinguishing the contribution of social marketing and, at the same time, exposing the shortcomings of the individualised rational exchange approaches. However, social marketing’s increasing usefulness to the implementation of public policy has opened up some critique of its influence. Tadajewski et al. (2014, pp. 8–10) issue strong warnings and accuse social marketing of downplaying power relations, neglecting moral reflection, and institutional actors (organisations and governments) colluding in an ideology of pseudo-participation to manipulate people. A contribution of this chapter is to consider how social marketing can take such a damning critique on board and proactively adjust. It is suggested that, accusations that social power has been overlooked or misconstrued needs to be more closely examined from a perspective which clearly acknowledges interaction effects and avoids descending into relativism. To address this first we will turn to a brief history of reviews and critiques, following which a useful lens for continued self-review is offered by critical marketing, which concurrently can serve as a means to consider the impacts of wielding power in social arenas that affect quality of life.

3 Reviews, Critiques and Implications

In spite of close connections to public health and the prevalence of reviews in that discipline, published reviews that go beyond considering the definition of social marketing are limited, which could be attributed to reluctance on the part of editors, authors or funders. A review of social marketing for nutrition (McDermott et al. 2005) addressed the question of identifying “genuine” social marketing using Andreasen’s (2002) six benchmarks. These benchmarks are: behaviour change; audience research; segmentation; exchange; marketing mix (4Ps); and competition. Interestingly, a systematic review of nine electronic databases requiring that only two out of six benchmarks for a social marketing study were met generated only 16 studies. Broadening the search beyond studies that self-described as social marketing but also requiring that all six benchmarks were met generated 27 studies. A more recent review of 15 databases across a broad range of interventions also used Andreasen’s (2002) benchmarks and generated 17 interventions out of which the ‘complete’ marketing mix (6Ps) was found in only four interventions (Luca and Suggs 2010). The study found that Promotion (17 studies) was addressed most thoroughly, and that Product (17 studies), Place (17 studies), Partnerships (17 studies) and Price (13 studies) received good attention, but Policy was almost overlooked with only four studies discussing this facet out of the set of 17. Important to this discussion is the very small number of studies that either review found that met the stated criteria of social marketing. The implications are that either a great deal of high quality social marketing is conducted without being published, or that a significant number of studies are unable, for whatever reason, to cover all aspects of high quality social marketing in the published version, both of which are possible.

Moving beyond identifying studies that meet definitional criteria, a review by Pechmann and Slater (2005) pointed out how rare it was to find discussion of negative or unintended consequences of social marketing. Understated in most published work are concerns that social marketing campaigns have unintended consequences such as stimulating interest in, or weakening resistance to, targeted undesirable behaviour, like illicit drug use (Pechmann and Slater 2005, p. 185). Pechmann and Slater speculate that there is limited published evidence on the negative effects because adverse effects are rare or limited, or editors are unwilling to publish null effects, or research is not designed to capture such evidence (2005, p. 186). They suggest eight different negative effects including counternormative reactions and reactance. Counternormative reactions occur when a social marketing campaign describes an undesirable behaviour as prevalent and those who were not actually engaged in that behaviour start to perceive themselves as deviating from a norm and take up the undesirable behaviour (such as long showers or taking drugs). Reactance is when people feel so pressured to make a change that they are motivated to act in the opposite way, especially if it appears that their freedom is threatened (Pechmann and Slater 2005, pp. 193–195). Better quality messaging with high quality pre-testing is given as the remedy (Pechmann and Slater 2005, p. 202). While the criticisms are well made, it is unclear how more of the same will transform the crucial interaction.

However, for an industry and academic discipline that shoulders the burden of adjusting social attitudes and norms with the clear intention of changing behaviour this is inadequate. The lack of research on the deleterious effects of social marketing is a seriously neglected area deserving of attention, especially as the intention of most programs is to alter peoples’ ideas around social norms, thus making social marketing complicit in the creation of deviance and the negative labelling of those who do not comply (Gurrieri et al. 2013). Open and available self-review is a fundamental and crucial democratic obligation for any discipline that aims to direct human behaviour so that wider critical debate about the negative, unintended consequences of interventions is possible. Publishing in social marketing therefore needs to move beyond recording activities and the search for the perfect definition, to debate short-comings, inadvertent effects and the responsible, moral means of wielding significant social power, whether on their own behalf or on the behalf of funding partners. There are several implications here. One implication of this is that high quality evaluations need to be incorporated into social marketing campaigns and made available through publication. Clear professional ethical requirements would support social marketers in achieving this goal. Another implication is that a deeper debate around moral intention and ethics is required, which relies on and is deeply connected to the third implication that an overt discussion of power needs to be undertaken.

Fundamentally, the key overlooked dimension here is the unequal distribution of power in the social marketing process. In this social marketing follows the commonplace, agnostic approach to power exhibited through most commercially focussed micro marketing (Dholakia 2012). The underlying power and influence that is exerted through the ‘exchange’ mechanism was recognised by Brenkert (2002) who correctly identified that, unlike commercial marketing, there are more than two parties to this exchange process (if exchange can even be asserted to exist). Brenkert (2002) notes that behind the ‘exchange’ between the consumer and the social marketing intervention there is another usually unacknowledged and often powerful partner in the government or funding agency. Moreover, the intention to alter behaviour and this asymmetrical relationship creates a moral relation between social marketers and their target audiences (Brenkert 2002, p. 21, 2008, pp. 211–215).

Overall then, social marketing has evolved from its commercial cousin to encompass all manner of upstream, midstream and downstream strategies and tactics. There are ongoing discussions around the complexity of social marketing that focus on partnerships either through working with communities or with decision makers. Drawing from other disciplines is valuable, but less attention has been paid to the disciplines that clarify the relationship between elements, contexts and social impacts, such as sociology, politics or management. There is a distinct lack of focus on the effects of power, particularly that wielded by organisations, and a reluctance to examine the unintended consequences of shifting social norms. Despite the profound lack of discussion of the politics of social change, nonetheless the significance of this power is unconsciously acknowledged through considerations of the ever widening scope of social marketing. Thus upstream lobbying, the involvement of community are all discussed with the intention of increasing the chances of achieving the targeted behaviour. The unacknowledged facet here is the power that has to be grasped and wielded, albeit with good intentions, and this raises two important and connected questions: how will power be theorised and; how will this impact on the ethics of the social marketing organisation? A well-established interdisciplinary way into these discussions is through critical theory and the next section briefly considers critical marketing and critical social marketing before moving on to examine theories of power and the implications of upstream.

4 Critical Marketing’s Connection to Social Marketing

Any critical contribution of social marketing needs to move beyond utilising a “degree of realism” achieved through experience (Hastings and Saren 2003, p. 315) and engage more deeply with social theory. In order to scrutinize the wider effects of social marketing adopting a critical stance has much to offer (Gordon 2013) and could challenge what Wymer (2011) calls the filters of mental models and tacit assumptions that bias social marketing towards individual behaviour. A key contribution is the ability of critical perspectives to adopt a panoramic view through engagement with macro-level studies where other disciplines can enhance theorisations (Dholakia 2012). Thus critical social marketing would need move well beyond simply studying the impact of commercial marketing with a view to influencing policy, as suggested by Gordon (2011, p. 92). Engaging with a critical discourse is not to be confused with using a critical theory to demystify an ideological position, question the nature of reality and knowledge, and through critique envision new possibilities (Burton 2001, p. 726). Critical theory is not a single definable entity and so pursing definitions is illusory (cf. Gordon 2011). Critical theory is not “a single unified theory”, rather it comprises theories “about values and what ought to be” (Burton 2001, p. 726), and draws from a range of politicised viewpoints with the clear aim of emancipation. Such a perspective shifts critical social marketing closer to activism than advertising (cf. Wymer 2010).

Therefore critical marketing challenges the marketing concept (4Ps) and customer orientation as ideological and part of a normalising discourse (Ellis et al. 2011) that legitimates and legitimises marketing and marketers (Marion 2006). Fundamental to the carriage of the marketing discourse is the neoliberal commitment to the free market and lean government. Sociological analysis of the rise of neo-liberalism and its “vociferous attack” on welfarism is widely documented (Centeno and Cohen 2012, p. 325). Through the neo-liberal oeuvre, faith in market mechanisms has been profound (Centeno and Cohen 2012, p. 330) normalising market effects to the status of a “natural law of social life” whereby free markets became synonymous with democracy (Centeno and Cohen 2012, p. 329). Moreover the concept of ‘individual choice’ underpinned much of the persuasive rationale of governments, not least within the public sector where ‘consumer choice’ was touted as the means to generate competition and so achieve high quality service and lean financial management in services previously provided by government under the welfare model. Labelled the New Public Management (Laing 2003), this style of management was enabled through specific finance and quality processes and rested on the conceptualisation of individual choices as unconstrained. Beyond the management of government institutions, the citizen is hailed as a consumer and the responsibilities of government are shifted away from provision. Through critical discourse analysis social marketing was identified as a vehicle to bring market rationalities into the public sphere and thus change the relationship between government and citizens (Raftopoulou and Hogg 2010, p. 1210). In this study the complexity of framing, citizenship and surveillance are juxtaposed to reveal social marketing as a tool in restricting the political dialogue and promoting the incumbent government (Raftopoulou and Hogg 2010, p. 1219). Reliance on individualism largely ignores relevant and potentially defining social and economic contexts (cf. Bourdieu 1984; Moor 2011, p. 307; Wymer 2010, 2011). In addition, by locating the source of the problem in individual choice, the debate around other causes of social problems, and the means to address these, is suppressed (Centeno and Cohen 2012; Moor 2011, p. 312; Raftopoulou and Hogg 2010, p. 1211).

Moor’s (2011) detailed critical analysis of social marketing identifies several implicit assumptions and oversights. For example, the assumption that people lack “motivation” and “information” individualises issues and turns a blind eye to the effect of social structures and institutions (Moor 2011, p. 303). The lack of a “robust social basis” for social marketing concepts (Moor 2011, p. 302) but the neat fit of these concepts with “prevailing political philosophies and modes of governance across a range of national contexts” (Moor 2011, p. 304) brings her to assert that social marketing is not “simply a body of knowledge about the world but also a form of action that is constitutive of the spheres in which it seeks to intervene” (Moor 2011, p. 306 {emphasis in original}). Thus as a source of expertise and a legitimated, institutionalised source of intervention social marketing is deeply implicated in reframing socio-moral issues as the responsibility of the individual and away from the rights of citizens to care and support (Moor 2011). A crucial part of the technologies of government, social marketing supported the emergence of the entrepreneurial self whose citizenship is manifest in personal fulfilment (Rose and Miller 1992).

A strong proponent of critical marketing is Tadajewski (2010, 2014), but in pointing to the lack of consideration of power relations, Tadajewski et al. (2014, p. 9) accuse social marketing of “pseudo-participation” and “thinly veiled socialisation” (2014, p. 10) to be avoided by the nascent transformative consumer research. Given the arguments that social marketing has been complicit in generating and maintaining the neoliberal discourse, engagement with a theoretically critical view could enhance understanding of inadvertent or uncalculated effects of social marketing and thus enhance its contribution to quality of life.

Although a separation between macro and critical marketing can be made (Tadajewski 2014), there is also a valuable overlap where the societal level of macromarketing can engage with the critical theories of social sciences (Dholakia 2012). Moreover, critical macromarketing’s concern with questioning certain values that have flourished under neoliberalism is especially applicable here (cf. Kilbourne et al. 1997). Saren also surveys the critical marketing field for its usefulness to social marketing but, in contrast to the strong criticism above, he asserts that it is well-placed to utilize the opportunities more holistically than commercial marketing (2011, p. 96). Acknowledging the somewhat low profile of critical marketers within the discipline, Saren identifies a range of perspectives (feminism, radical ecology, literary criticism, and poststructuralism) that subscribe to “emancipatory aspirations” (2011, p. 98). Importantly then, while critiques from other disciplines can distil analyses and alert us to shortcomings, Saren directs us to the long standing, persistent critique that resides within the discipline itself, albeit with a comparatively quiet voice. Saren (2011, p. 103) draws our attention to the strong case for paradigmatic, and methodological pluralism made by Arndt (1985) and its value to our research. If social marketing is to broaden and deepen its engagement and thus extend its range, then it would behove us to consider these implications more carefully and critically. A first point of clarity would be to unpack what is intended by ‘upstream’ and then briefly consider the implications of a critical review with suggestions for the future.

5 Upstream to Power

Increasing social marketing’s relevance to the ever broadening field of behaviour change through collaboration across other disciplines (Dibb 2014; Domegan et al. 2013; Gordon 2013; Spotswood and Tapp 2013; Tapp and Spotswood 2013), often recommends engaging more deeply with upstream. Calls to move upstream aim to achieve regulatory change for example to food labelling (so the consumer knows what they are buying), to increase the price of energy-dense foods (so that if the consumer remains ignorant they are pushed by price to avoid these calories), to reduce, even remove, junk food advertising, particularly from children (so that they are protected) (cf. Hoek 2011). The parallels to the campaign against tobacco can be seen here. Upstream is a broad umbrella term for all kinds of decision making, policy generating, and funding of interventions. However, the label belies the power that resides here. Gordon (2013) bemoans the lack of training and guidance for upstream targeting to alter the structural environment calling it a gap in the knowledge base. But no consideration of the wider effects of power relations are undertaken, the point being that this is not unusual in discussions of this kind. On the other hand, criticism of commercial marketing and its transgressions of power to capture, persuade and distort perception abound (cf. Hastings 2013). The argument here, as shown above (Moor 2001; Raftopoulou and Hogg 2010; Tadajewski et al. 2104), is that critiques of marketing’s power cuts both ways. Social marketing needs to be explicit about the balance between power to generate changes, the socially constitutive role it plays (particularly under neoliberal governments) and the ethical responsibility that generates (Spotswood et al. 2012, p. 167). To properly engage with quality of life, social marketing needs to insightfully, critically and transparently review its role in social interventions, the effects, both intended and unintended, and the implications that entails. In short, social marketing needs to engage critically with the power that it wields at the levels of organisation and institution.

At this point, it is also important and pertinent to observe that the “right” kind of social marketing campaign was enlisted to support Gordon’s argument. In this instance anti-tobacco lobbying which now has widespread support as a result, it should be noted, of high quality sustained social marketing that employed upstream, midstream and downstream interventions. However, tobacco is a unique product and an extreme example because it kills even when used as the manufacturer intends (Hastings and Saren 2003, p. 314). Had a less vivid intervention been selected, or an intervention that is not popular with its target audience, where accusations of social control, paternalism and insensitivity could be made, would the argument have been as cogent? This observation is not a criticism of Gordon perse as the process of enlisting the “best” example is commonplace. The relevance is that, along with the innocuousness of the term ‘upstream’, there is dampening of a crucial concept: moral intensity. The moral intensity of the example increases the impact of the argument and hails the legitimacy of social marketing in this context, but this cannot always be assumed. Therefore a clearer conceptualisation of ‘impact’ needs to be pulled into the discipline through a more detailed engagement with ethics, but this will be dealt with in due course. First, the low key characterisation the term ‘upstream’ conveys underplays entirely the highly significant and powerful social role sought under this label. Determining how we behave, how we think about all manner of actions, how our attitudes are calibrated in many kinds of situations and the concomitant effects that this has on our value judgements of other human beings, is heady stuff. Nor is the suggestion here that it is without social value for our quality of life. The focus here is on a topic that remains under-researched and under-discussed in social marketing but is more often the focus of critical marketing – power, relations of power and social power. Within the constraints of space, two intersecting theorisations will be brought together to posit a way forward: one will outline a facet of power that pertains to organisations; and the other will sketch the key components of ethical decision making.

6 Power Through Organisations

From here, for the sake of clarity, the practical context (who or what has power and over whom) will be separated from the moral context (the responsibilities of being able to wield power). Also it should be emphasised that neither power, nor the ability to wield power, is necessarily negative, although often viewed as deleterious due to associations with the removal of freedoms. Without denying the controlling facets of power, it can also be imagined as a capacity, or a capability, and so be productive and achieve positive outcomes. Importantly, the focus will narrow further still to note that power is not simply held by individuals but is often a feature of organisations. It is a contribution of this chapter to engage more directly with organisationally based conceptions of power thus moving beyond the individualised responsibility of professional conduct to invoke the responsibility of organisations and consortia of organisations that collaborate; this is the significant imbalance that Brenkert (2002, 2008) observed. An example that revealed the sources and devices of power that initiate and sustain change would be of value here.

Derived from historical analysis Humphreys (2010) teases out the synergies between organisations, government and the media in bringing about a profound change to the legitimacy of casino gambling in the USA. In brief, the connections and linkages amongst networks of powerful players, their enacted practices and frames of meaning created, maintained and evolved into a marketplace. Moreover, the enactment of systemic power (discussed further below) is shown to be a dialectical effect between organisations, government and the wider culture whereby the circulating flow of effects simultaneously reinforce and move practices along (Humphreys 2010). In theorising how a market was legitimised and created a new Humphreys (2010) drew out the circulations of power effects through the social, cultural and legal frameworks. Humphreys shows that “stakeholders use specific frames to shape the perceived legitimacy of an industry and that these frames are effective in negotiating the political environment” (2010, p. 3). Thus the re-formulation of a disparaged market into a legitimate source of profit is shown to be an institutional and an informational process in which the activities of organisations interact with shifts in legislation and discussion in the media.

Locating sources of power in circuits of reproduction through critical analysis can also be future focussed, evaluative and, contain managerial intent. Power and power relations are deeply complex, have been debated for centuries, and are inflected in all aspects of social life. Therefore what is covered here can only be indicative and selective; several excellent sources offer more detailed accounts (Clegg and Haugaard 2009; Scott 2001). Given that social marketing campaigns are planned and contracted action that relies on expertise and is most often conducted as part of a partnership, the conceptualisation of agency needs to broaden beyond the individual. Rather the organisation or consortium is the social actor. There is a vast and complicated literature on power so, focusing on organisational power, a potted history locates a few key concepts, then a contemporary framework orders the field and situates a narrow focus on a specific facet of organisational power.

An early key contribution to debates about power was Bachrach and Baratz’s (1962) Two Faces of Power where, in addition to a social actor being able to exercise power over another to achieve an intention (first face of power), they argued that organizations could mobilise bias over the choice of which issues were in range, and which were not. Thus an effect of power was to limit the choices available to others by removing options (second face of power). Lukes (1974) seminal, first work Power: A Radical View observed that latent power was exercised where practices, actions, ideas, were influenced indirectly by structural and cultural institutions (third face of power). This thesis was much debated, and Lukes offered a revision in 2005 that accommodated Morriss’ (2002) critique that power was also a type of ‘ableness’, or capacity for action, that is not always exercised – the power to. Approaching power from quite a different position was Foucault whose contribution to understanding the performative and productive aspects of power has been profound (Foucault 1979). Binding knowledge and power together, Foucault’s analyses examined the constitution of the subject through its subjectification (fourth face of power). This is a significant shift away from the agentically laden power of the first three dimensions offering insights into how the subject is constituted through their everyday understandings and performances (Foucault 1979). Foucauldian theories of biopower and governmentality have been shown to be useful in explaining and identifying the effects of power over populations (Rose and Miller 1992), particularly under neoliberalism.

A review of the extant literature on organisations and power generated a useful framework (Fleming and Spicer 2014). Power is asserted to be “a resource to get things done” (Fleming and Spicer 2014, p. 239). Encapsulating the long running theoretical debate alluded to above, this focus on organisations is especially relevant here. Across their framework of the four faces and four sites of power Fleming and Spicer (2014) distinguish 16 different facets by combining the site where power is evident and the ways by which power is exercised. Several of the labels used in this framework appear quite loaded with meaning, however, these are the jargon used with this theoretical debate and will be retained here for clarity. The first distinction is between the direct exercise of power called Episodic and the influences of institutional structures labelled Systemic. Within episodic power there are two faces that shape the behaviour of others: coercion which directs others to act in a particular way (noted above as the first face of power) and manipulation which seeks to limit and direct the issues and boundaries (the second face of power). Under systemic power the face of domination develops Lukes’ third dimension as organisational ideology where shared assumptions are an important facet of institutionalisation and legitimacy. In labelling the fourth face, also under systemic power, Fleming and Spicer (2014, pp. 244–245) draw in conceptualisations of subjectification where the very shaping of the subject is evident in their micro-practices and the discourses they enlist, clearly echoing Foucault.

Coupled with the four faces are the four sites of organisational power. Power in organisations focuses on the maintenance of, and resistance to, internal hierarchies. Power against organizations are efforts from outside the organization to alter its activities through activism for example. Power over organisations are struggles over the composition and direction of the organization and could be instigated by government through regulation or shareholder activism. Although all sites have potential value to a critical analysis, the focus here will be on the remaining site: Power through organizations “when an organization as a whole becomes a vehicle or agent to further certain political interests and goals” (Fleming and Spicer 2014, p. 246). Under this rubric power through organisations is a means to achieve objectives by utilising organisations and their resources. Power through organisations can be asserted through any one of the four faces: coercion, manipulation, domination or subjectification.

Analyses of coercive power through organisations reveals the importance of resources and the ameliorating potential of mediating factors such as social, or professional networks (Fleming and Spicer 2014, p. 252). Manipulation through organisations is identifiable in lobbying and asserted to be more effective than coercion in changing political views due to the “appearance of democratic deliberation” (Fleming and Spicer 2014, p. 256). This face of power also relies on what Nye (1990) termed “soft” power and draws its effectiveness from influence, particularly through the connections that exist amongst social elites or professional networks. Domination through organisations emphasises the ability of organisations to affect the civil society through ideological framing thus shaping social values and preferences, as shown in the gambling example above. Often not straight forward, shaping social norms was also noted as achieved through “informal bonds of trust and cooperation” (Fleming and Spicer 2014, p. 264) as might be found in professional networks. Subjectification through organisations is envisaged as bringing about changes in a broader organisational field by using the organisation as a focal point, or role model. Implications from this include a need for activism and protocols to avoid reversals in practices (Fleming and Spicer 2014, p. 270). Fleming and Spicer use the example of the rhetoric around professional multi-disciplinarity invoked for accounting/law partnerships and the role of expertise as a boundary shifting identity (2014, p. 271).

From this all too brief excursion into organisational power, it is evident that the push to move upstream seems a most effective means to achieve organisational goals. Moreover, given the appreciable institutionalisation and expansion of social marketing, the potential to utilise professional networks to achieve increased levels of influence is high, and in keeping with recommendations to collaborate more widely. However, the capacity to wield power carries with it responsibility (Lukes 1974, 2005). Even when intentions seem compliant with a utilitarian sense of the greatest good, relying on fear, guilt and shame can have negative effects (Brennan and Binney 2010). The effect of emancipating those who do not wish to be emancipated is that their autonomy is disrespected and disregarded (Benton 1981) and has the potential to generate reactance, or counternormative uptake, or unintended deviance and stigma. This point resonates with critical marketing’s assertion that the individual consumer is rarely king (Ellis et al. 2011) and queries about whether community interventions run by experts can actually constitute co-creation (Domegan et al. 2013, p. 246). Furthermore, following up on the proposition to incorporate analyses of culture, Hayward (1998) famously identified that different social classes are schooled into different relationships to power on the basis of whether they can expect to be subject to power or wield power. In the first instance these comments draw our attention to the notion that, despite some social problems being wicked, or complex, facilitative or productive power needs to secure compliance and consensus without coercing those who need persuasion. It also needs to recognise its own strength and the deficits socialisation creates in specific populations. Clearly engagement with communities has been a potentially appropriate response but this review of power through organisations should alert us to the potential for professional networks to become sources of self-reinforcement, not necessarily critical insight. There is an implication here that a clear understanding of the moral and ethical landscape is needed to explicate and make transparent the machinations of power. Earlier the concept of moral intensity was raised, and we now turn to examine this notion, ethical codes of conduct and ethical decision-making.

7 Morality, Ethics, Codes and Dialogues

Ethical issues such as paternalism and moral imperialism are noted by leading social marketers (Donovan and Henley 2010; Hastings and Domegan 2014), although the medical adage of ‘do no harm’ in the first instance is the most common position. Beyond the social marketer’s own conscience and assessment of the intervention there is limited guidance or advice. Some have even asserted the neutrality of social marketing and its ‘toolkit’ (Dann 2007). Notwithstanding the positive quality of life outcomes of many social marketing interventions and the success of social marketing as an industry (McAuley 2014), others are more reflective of the impact that interventions have, and the accuracy of the depictions of their activities (Szmigin et al. 2011). At a practical level Hastings and Angus (2011) are critical of industry-funded social marketing campaigns and question the value of corporate social responsibility programmes undertaken by the perpetrator of harms. Indeed, about marketing in the hands of powerful corporations Hastings (2013) is quite adamant that the soft power, or influence, of marketing needs to be challenged, curbed, and reclaimed for ‘our own good’. However, to claim that social marketing is without blemish was challenged by Gurreiri et al. (2013, 2014) who described and identified the inadvertent negative effects of social marketing in three cases that focussed on women. Usher goes further to assert that “ethics is immanent, it is always already in practices” (2006, p. 136 {emphasis in original}). In other words, ethics is already embedded in organisational practices, whether acknowledged or not.

The extent to which social marketing draws on commercial marketing for its practices and processes remains a concern, particularly given the agnostic approach micro (commercial) marketing takes towards issues of power (Dholakia 2012). Some have pointed to the need for a societal-based morality for any kind of marketing arguing that the marketing decision-making process tends to exclude, degrade and marginalize morality (Crane and Desmond 2002, p. 562). They draw on Etizoni to argue, counter-intuitively, that weaker corporate cultures allow better engagement with more nuanced moral decision making (Desmond and Crane 2004, p. 1227), because less rigid cultures are open to questioning, innovation, and contextually sensitive decision-making. This highlights the need for social marketing to focus less energy on finding a single, universal definition, and rather expend greater energy on self-review, critique and critical engagement with their interventions.

Laczniak and Murphy (2006) offer a way forward through normative perspectives for ethical and socially responsible marketing. They propose seven basic premises and offer a protocol for a strategic ethical evaluation (Laczniak and Murphy 2006, p. 169), see Figs. 6.3 and 6.4 below.

Fig. 6.3
figure 3

Essential basic perspectives for evaluating and improving marketing ethics (Laczniak and Murphy 2006, p. 157; Murphy et al. 2012, p. 7)

Full size image
Fig. 6.4
figure 4

Protocol for ethical evaluation (Laczniak and Murphy 2006, p. 169; Murphy et al. 2012, p. 42)

Full size image

A book length version offers a worked example and several cases (Murphy et al. 2012). Interesting features include the assessment of marketing managers’ ethical thinking that sorts different approaches into four hierarchical categories: egoistic or relativist; legalist; moral strivers and; principled managers. An overview of several different approaches to ethical thinking, including religious traditions, usefully moves beyond the usual comparison of deontology with teleology, as well as showing the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Lastly, a process for moral reasoning is distilled into seven steps and stimulates moral imagination beyond adherence to simple protocols.

Ethical responsibility based on reflection and critique needs to recognise the singularity of the case at hand (Messner 2007). Moral and social issues are not ‘one size fits all’. Rather, they are open to varying ethical perspectives (cf. Laczniak and Murphy 2006), and varying moral imperatives. Recognising moral intensity is an important, additional component of any social marketing ethical decision-making process. Jones (1991) argues for the significance of moral intensity and extends Rests’ (1986) four steps of moral decision making. The steps are, once a moral issue has been recognized, a moral judgement is made, moral intention is established and finally moral behaviour is engaged (Rest 1986, as cited in Jones 1991, p. 379), which matches well with the Laczniak and Murphy (2006) protocol (see Fig. 6.4 above). Moral intensity will affect each one of the steps in ethical decision-making. When moral issues are of high intensity they are more emotional, concrete, proximate and immediate (Jones 1991, p. 381). However, the vividness of moral intensity can be exaggerated through overly simple presentation (Jones 1991, p. 381), therefore care must be taken to represent the intensity of the issue at an appropriate level so as to avoid inadvertent over-engagement, such as stigmatisation or reactance.

Recalling our focus on the organisational level of power, organisational settings can create impediments to engaging with moral decision-making (Jones 1991, p. 390) and individuals often make complex moral choices in the context of organisations (Cohen 2006). With the rise of new public management came an increasing interest in installing organisational codes of ethics, particularly where contracted service agencies are involved (Muetzelfeldt 2006, p. 106). However, it cannot be assumed that organisational codes of ethics necessarily resonate at all with employees. Therefore, moral choice exists simultaneously at the level of the organisation and the individual (Cohen 2006). Nor do organizations always facilitate the best ethical behaviour (Jones 1991, p. 390). Codes of ethics can be experienced as a career risk in that noncompliance will threaten future employment (Muetzelfeldt 2006, p. 106). But, remembering the assertion that weaker organisational cultures allow more responsive thinking, it has also been asserted that without deviant behaviour corporations/organisations cannot grow and develop (Babeau 2007). Thus, while on the one hand organisational ethical codes are necessary, at the same time, sufficient institutional flexibility must be incorporated to allow open, responsive discussion that addresses the singularity of the social context and its culture, and the moral intensity of the issue.

Labelling formal codes of conduct monologic, Muetzelfeldt (2006) calls for dialogic ethical knowledge whereby critical, reflexive professional thinking is embraced. In a similar vein, Statler and Oppegaard (2007) posit phronesis, or virtue ethics which locates moral good in actions where the virtuosity is assessed through community held values (cf. Murphy et al. 2012, pp. 30–33). This has the advantage of being flexible and responsive to shifting community views. Consequently, should the target community of a social marketing campaign hold alternate views (cf. Szmigin et al. 2011) these may be disregarded as the power through the organisation is directed to manipulate a shift in views to align with those promulgated by the social marketing organisation or consortium. Importantly then we are returned to the discussion of social power and the interlinked nature power/ethics. “Power relations play an important role in the constitution of ethics” and “ethics takes shape through power relations that are played out between different actors” (Seemann et al. 2007, p. 204).

In sum, organisations need to be cognisant of the diverse sources of morals which can be converted into ethical codes of conduct. But, for social marketing organisations any formalisation and development of protocols should be approached with an innovative agenda because being overly formulaic can limit moral imagination and ethical action, especially in response to issues of moral intensity where social marketers are not in alignment with the target audience (cf. Szmigin et al. 2011). While the current focus on individualised ethical responsibilities reflects an awareness of this complexity, the collaborative organisation or consortium needs to be overtly and sensitively engaged due to the nexus of power and ethics. Fundamentally, and through deliberation, the intersection of power relations, ethics and moral action requires careful consideration by social marketers, and critical theories with their intention to emancipate have much to offer. However, relying heavily on professional reflection requires a further steps: intervention into the social marketers’ education and active thorough evaluation of programs.

8 Education and Evaluation

The formal explicit knowledge garnered through educational curricula is not only an essential first step but also in need of diversification. One crucial extension is to move beyond marketing, and its helpmate psychology, and engage deeply with disciplines that examine society, community and social power such as sociology, anthropology, political science and cultural studies and are generally the source of critical theories. Curiously, in their 10 year review Fox and Kotler made such a suggestion for societal marketing (1980, p. 32). As much critical marketing with emancipatory ambitions shows, these disciplines have long traditions and highly developed theories that are essential for understanding the implications of wielding the power to alter social norms. Critical marketing has resources and a history of offering marketers a solid foundation in this arena (Ellis et al. 2011; Saren 2011), which could in turn be an essential facet of professional credentials. A key contribution to a critical social marketing curriculum would be a well-developed ethical decision-making education, such as that offered in Murphy Lacziniak and Prothero (2012).

A second, connected step, is to develop extended ethical dialogues and to ensure that social marketing is properly funded to undertake relevant and informative critical reviews of its social interventions. This kind of research, fully funded and published for wider review, offers a source of ongoing professional education and engagement that can fully examine issues of ethics and organisational power in social change arenas. It is also a sound means to avoid inadvertent negative outcomes, thus better enabling overall quality of interventions. Indeed there is scope here to conduct critically based evaluative research that fully acknowledges “power is everywhere” (Lukes 2005, p. 123). Such a research agenda could take up Fleming and Spicer’s (2014, p. 285) comment that institutional theory has recently neglected the role of class and corporate power, thus overlooking the impact of elite groups. While it can be helpful to examine a range of practices and artefacts to identify their role in social contexts, it can also be depoliticising. In spite of the impact that many devices and habits may have, nonetheless some social agents have more power than others and furthermore the power to alter and affect the social context exists, whether or not it is recognised. A deeper engagement here could excavate and articulate social marketing’s role, train high quality professionals, avoid extreme criticism and consider more carefully the impacts of upstream activism.

9 Conclusion

Opening with a brief overview of the evolution of social marketing, this chapter noted recent suggestions to broaden and deepen social marketing. Without denying social marketing’s successes, and recognising the complexities with which social marketing must wrestle, critical theory was proposed as a means to better evaluate the implications of social marketing interventions, particularly recommendations to move upstream. Despite the potential of a critical lens for social marketing, others are less enthusiastic (Tadajewski 2014) suggesting that social marketing is too wedded to an agnosticism about its power and social effects and there were some indications that this is the case.

However, the argument here is that if social marketing was to fully engage with conceptualisations of power and processes of ethical decision-making, then much of this criticism could be neutralised. Introducing some frameworks of power is a contribution that offers a starting point to think through different kinds of circulations of power and the dynamics within the practices of deliberate change. Given the broader role of ‘upstream’ confluences identified through Humphreys (2010)) historical work, if intervention strategies that rely on coalitions of organisations are to undertake altering social norms, which can inadvertently create deviance, then a program of research that better understands the machinations of power and the professional practices that allow this to eventuate would be a valuable undertaking. Undoubtedly all faces and sites of power (Fleming and Spicer 2014) would be relevant to a critical analysis of the social marketing organisation. Important too is Lukes’ (1974, 2005) insistence that power entails responsibility. It is argued here that responsibility has moral and ethical implications, and that a mature discipline can engage with its responsibilities through published critical debate.

A second, linked contribution is consideration of ethical-decision making within the context of complexity and as an organisation, rather than simply as individuals. Organizational practices, for either the social marketing firm or a collaborative consortium, should allow for nuanced, complex moral responsiveness. Or, to put this another way, if organisations adhere too closely to overly-defined formulaic protocols then individual social marketer’s moral decision-making is inevitably constrained by the limits of the organisational culture. Acknowledging the significance of social marketers as individual moral agents points clearly to the importance of a critical education for novices and ongoing critical, evaluative research as informative for professionals. Future research would also benefit from a deeper consideration of the convergence of professional elites in the field of behaviour change and the power relations inherent in this endeavour to improve our quality of life.