One of the buzzwords that surrounds social services is Social Marketing.
Generally, what is meant by this is dedicating resources to promote a particular behavior that has a social benefit.
So, how does Social Marketing operate?
The idea is that people, on the whole, can be persuaded engage in a particular desired behavior through a targeted media campaign. This is particularly prevalent for issues like smoking or illegal substance use. Many proponents of this approach argue that media campaigns can be used in this manner.
However, I do not particularly believe that this is how the public-at-large behaves. On the whole, I still believe that our choices are based more on perceived costs, monetary costs, and benefits. Maybe as a member of the "Just Say No" generation, I don't believe this has had a different effect on how we have behaved. Taking smoking for example, we have managed to inform the public through different media that there are many health problems associated with smoking. The result is that people have made a more informed decision either to smoke or not to smoke. The intended result, however was to make only the decision not to smoke. The marketing can either falsely inform this decision or accurately do so.
It could be that we use Pee Wee Herman, The Ninja Turtles, and mildly attractive, profoundly psychotic women simply because they sound like better ideas than resorting to a more rigorous approach.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hey Reggie,
ReplyDeleteGood to "see" you again. Social Marketing is an interesting social phenomenon. We have been trying to control social behavior since the beginning of time. The 10 Commandments is an example of societal rules designed to keep people in line. Today we have laws to regulate behavior. These laws can be changed by elected officials and can change at any time. Take for example, the campaign to legalize marijuana. It could possibly be passed, the laws changed and police would no longer make citations and arrests to correct this behavior.
However, laws are limited in their scope. They can be made to cover anything that does not infringe upon the Constitution. So how do we inform people about socially perceived "bad habits" like smoking, where the laws have no jurisdiction? I think that this void is where Social Marketing lives. Its effect or success depends on the program used. I agree with you that people make their own judgments based off of observable facts they perceive. People may recognize after seeing the public service message that most “normal” people don’t engage in this behavior. Whether they choose to follow the “advise” or not is up to them.
I don't remember what kinds of persuasion were used to teach me as a child not to smoke. However, I do remember some Social Marketing messages coming from GI Joe.
The point you make is a valid one. My critique is meant to aim at how we spend our extra unit of resources (be it time or money). In the public as well as the private sector, I see marketing as a way to inform decision making. This is a very important role, however in the case of marketing behavior to abstain poses interesting theoretical problems.
ReplyDeleteIt appears to me that most can identify with the experience of not partaking in a behavior such as eating a Snickers bar. So we already know the feeling of not trying Snickers. However, sending a mass message to continue not to consume Snickers seems to not be so rhetorically strong. Citing the health detriments of eating Snickers informs the decision, but doesn't necessarily prevent the decision. So,in simplest terms, I see an extra dollar would be best spent on another method to achieve our goal of reducing Snickers consumption rather than a secondary goal of informing the decision to consume Snickers.