Article Review: Social Marketing Theory

The article being reviewed is a discussion of the common ground and differences
between social marketing for health and specialized health promotion as applied in the United
Kingdom. The intended audiences of the said paper are professional staff, academics and policy-
makers in UK. It also hoped to be of benefit to the international community.
The paper was used to inform a dedicated discussion and debate session during the World
Social Marketing Conference in England. A comparative analysis is presented to show the
background, the similarities and differences of social marketing for health and specialized health
promotion on the following aspects: general approach, values and ethics, focus on people and
consumers, theory base, use of formative research, complexity, dimensions of problems;
sophisticated use of the concept of place, and approach to the wider determinants of health. It
also presented the definition of social marketing for health with the National 8 point Benchmark
Criteria and specialized health promotion based on the Ottawa Charter and Jakarta Declaration.
The authors then asked the stakeholders to participate in the study by answering the following
questions:
The similarities and differences between specialized health promotion and social
marketing for health – do you agree with our views?
Our general argument – do you agree with our conclusions?
The Venn Diagram – how would you personally draw this?
Next steps – what do you think should happen next?
The responses coming from the stakeholders were also shared including the ways of describing
the relationship between SM and HP.
The authors have concluded that specialized health promotion and social marketing are
highly complementary and it is ripe for further integration based on the following:
 Both are concerned with the role of human behaviour in social change, both have
a coherent body of knowledge, and systematic methods and processes.
 The strengths of specialized HP are its focus on health inequalities, empowerment
and social determinants of health which can significantly enhance SM for health.
 The strengths of SM for health are its particular approach to achieving and
sustaining behavioral goals, by understanding target audiences and ensuring
behavioral change which can significantly enhanced specialized HP.
 Stronger together, weaker apart: a whole system approach. It gave an example of
a multilevel approach on addressing the obesity epidemic. How can upstream,
midstream and downstream approach be achieved if both will be used.
The three critical points I have observed in this article:

 The similarities and differences of SM for health and specialized HP based on the seven
aspects presented. It gave a better understanding of how these two approaches are
perceived or applied in practice in UK. It showed how these two are slightly different and
yet can be complementary.

 The Venn Diagram showing a large common core to both SM for health and specialized
HP, but with areas that are separate and distinct. This diagram gives a visual
representation of the similarities and differences and how they complement each other.
 This is supported by the reactions given by the stakeholders. This is so appropriate and
supports the authors claim that it is indeed ready for integration.

 To integrate health promotion and social marketing for health is to bring together
behavioral, environmental and community interventions. This will allow a better
understanding of its target audience and evaluation of its programs towards a continuous
cycle of learning about implementation. The impact will be greater because local and
national programs are systematically integrated.

This article gives a preview of how to develop a health education or health promotion
model or theory. It also showed how to make a comparative analysis or study in the process of
developing one or maybe in this case integration of theories or approaches. This will somehow
prepare us for the requirement in MPH especially towards developing a conceptual framework
for the thesis later on.

Aside from that, I also like this article because it presented a better understanding of the
two models and how it is applied on the ground. At some point the two theories or models is
complete but how it is applied varies depending on who is using it and on what context. It has
pointed out some of the shortcomings of the ones implementing or adapting these theories.
Nonetheless, the paper presented the actual application and gave a proposal on how to better use
it to achieve better outcomes and to become more encompassing in its goal of creating social
change not just at the individual level but on the societal level.

The learnings on this paper can also be applied in our efforts to social change. There is a
probability that integration of these two can be done in our Philippine context. We can glean
some insights here and apply it in our own health education or health promotion programs. This
prepares us really as to how to put into better use social marketing in health promotion or use
health promotion in social marketing.