Editorial

Social Marketing Quarterly

2018, Vol. 24(3) 127-131
Policy, Systems, and ª The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:

Environmental Change: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1524500418793306
journals.sagepub.com/home/smq
Reflections and Suggestions
for Social Marketers

I would like to thank the Editors and Editorial Board of Social Marketing Quarterly (SMQ) for inviting
me to serve as Guest Editor for this Special Contribution on “Social Marketing for Policy, Systems,
and Environmental Change.” In particular, I would like to thank Sameer Deshpande, Editor, and Ryan
Hollm, Managing Editor. This has been a terrific opportunity not only because SMQ is the field’s
longest running journal but also because its Founding Editors—Carol Bryant and Jim Lindenberger—
are two people I have come to admire, starting with our time together at the University of South
Florida. For this Special Contribution, SMQ invited submissions investigating the use of social mar-
keting to stimulate behavior change through improving policies, systems, and macro-environmental
factors. Had it not been for Carol, Jim, and so many other wonderful people at the University of South
Florida’s Florida Prevention Research Center, I doubt that I would have started down the path of
studying participatory social marketing frameworks and the use of social marketing to influence
behavior through policy, systems, and environmental change.
In the past, social marketing was subjected to the following types of critiques:

Social marketing has a number of limitations that inhibit its usefulness . . . . The relatively narrow, reduc-
tionist approach of social marketing tends to reduce serious health problems to individual risk factors and
ignore the proven importance of the social and economic environment as major determinants of health
(Wallack, 1990, pp. 157–158).

Notwithstanding the fact that social marketing today is applied to a myriad of issues beyond the
public health realm, awareness seems to be at an all-time high regarding the potential use of social
marketing to stimulate behavior change through improving policies, systems, and macro-
environmental factors. For example, many of the newest social marketing textbooks refer to the
“upstream/downstream” metaphor (e.g., French & Gordon, 2015; Hastings & Domegan, 2018). In
“Strategic Social Marketing,” French and Gordon (2015) observe:

. . . academics and practitioners have begun to advocate that social marketing should go beyond just a focus
on developing effective social behavioural interventions to embrace and make a contribution to social
policy selection and development. (p. 126)

Beyond awareness, though, the social marketing profession needs case studies (i.e., known cases)
regarding the actual use of social marketing to stimulate behavior change through improving policies,
systems, and macro-environmental factors. Such work will attract new clients (e.g., governmental
agencies), who will then ask for more such work, which pulls in additional new professionals. In
“Social Marketing: Rebels with a Cause,” Hastings and Domegan (2018) provide two such case
studies: one regarding salt consumption and reduction, the other devoted to “fast fashion” and sustain-
ability. With SMQ’s Special Contribution on “Social Marketing for Policy, Systems, and
128 Social Marketing Quarterly 24(3)

Environmental Change,” we hope to add to the social marketing profession’s ‘stock’ of known cases as
a contribution to the advancement of the field. Next, I will briefly reflect upon the accepted papers,
followed by some suggestions for the future.
Our first contribution, from Borden, Cohn, and Gooderham (2018), is a welcome addition in the
area of global sustainability. Initially, the authors observed that their “downstream efforts” to encour-
age individuals to compost at a university dining facility were less effective than desired in changing
behavior. They had surveyed university dining facility patrons regarding knowledge, attitudes, and
stated behaviors and barriers, which revealed distinct types of composters. Subsequent interventions
were developed, primarily targeting the cluster, “needing assistance.” Downstream efforts to influence
individuals (e.g., modeling the composting behavior) and educational interventions were not as ben-
eficial as desired. In search of greater impacts, efforts to shape the patrons’ choice environment were
implemented, with the addition of an individual to prompt patrons to compost. A significant increase in
desired behavior was observed. Moreover, the demonstrated return on investment was used to leverage
this institutional change; and this campaign created opportunities for securing grants to improve
technological infrastructure, further encouraging behavior through additional environmental changes
aiming to alleviate barriers of inconvenience. The topic of global resource consumption and produc-
tion is one long investigated by systems scientists (Meadows, Randers, & Meadows, 2004), and this
paper by Borden and colleagues is a welcome contribution from a social marketing perspective.
Speaking of systems science: the challenge of translating deep, systems insights into the imple-
mentation of solutions is not remedied by more persuasively communicating one’s recommendations
but rather by involving stakeholders in the process(es) that led to the discovery of those solutions
(Hovmand, 2014). Our second contribution, from McHugh, Domegan, and Duane (2018), provides
readers with concrete protocols for the systematic mapping of potentially influential actors (i.e.,
stakeholders) who can affect or be affected by interventions. The authors provide a thorough review
of a literature that reveals the widely known presence and interrelatedness of multiple stakeholders but
also reveals the lack of approaches and tools to systematically identify and encourage stakeholder
participation in social marketing initiatives. McHugh and colleagues then describe and demonstrate
seven different protocols designed to identify, classify, and map stakeholders, as applied to marine
environmental social marketing domains. In the words of the authors, “The participatory research
context illustrates that working ‘with’ stakeholders rather than ‘on’ their behalf can build bridges and
transform societies.” McHugh and colleagues make repeated use of the term social marketing systems,
which I interpret as being similar to Waddell‘s (2018) term societal change system—that is, all the
diverse efforts to create change on the same, difficult issue such as climate change or poverty.
Another difficult issue for which diverse efforts are being applied to create change is the mental
health needs of children, youth, and young adults; and Rubenstein and colleagues (2018) provide our
third contribution—a case study of a federal program that provides social marketing training and
technical assistance to enable grantees to implement systems change in the field of children’s mental
health service delivery. The social marketing program (“Caring for Every Child’s Mental Health”) is
funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, a federal agency within
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The authors illustrate how a program at a national
level can provide support to local, state, tribal, and territorial grantees to facilitate grassroots systems
change using a social marketing approach. Rubenstein and colleagues share the lessons learned that
can be applied to social marketing efforts across different issues, including ways to incorporate story-
telling and data to effect systems change. Particularly valuable is their inclusion of a logic model
illustrating the social marketing strategies for expansion and sustainability of “systems of care” for
children’s mental health.
Through this SMQ Issue’s specially contributed papers, we hope to add to the social marketing
profession’s known number of cases of social marketing for policy, systems, and environmental
change as a contribution to the advancement of the field. Newton, Newton, and Rep (2016), in their
Editorial 129

manuscript evaluating social marketing’s use of the upstream/downstream metaphor, have stated that
the metaphor

has reached the end of its usefulness . . . . What is needed instead are new frameworks that can explicate the
multidirectional relationships that give rise to the ill-defined problems facing society and provide guidance
as to how these problems could be addressed (Newton, Newton, & Rep, 2016, p. 1117).

Such frameworks are currently being developed by social marketers across the globe. For example,
the University of South Florida’s Florida Prevention Research Center is developing a participatory
planning framework that incorporates the use of computer simulation modeling of the complex
systems in which health disparities are embedded, in order to identify evidence-based interventions
appropriate for addressing behavioral determinants at multiple levels in that system (NIH Research
Portfolio Online Reporting Tools, 2017).
Until such frameworks become more ubiquitous, what’s a social marketer to do in order to untangle
the “multidirectional relationships” that give rise to the social problems on which we work and to find
“guidance as to how these problems could be addressed” (Newton et al., 2016)? Regarding the former,
there now exist many fine examples of websites, presentations, and training modules that can help
increase one’s systems thinking skills—that is, “the ability to see the world as a complex system, in
which we understand that ‘you can’t just do one thing’ and that ‘everything is connected to everything
else’” (Sterman, 2000, p. 4). At a pragmatic level, here are three things that you the reader can do to
start building your knowledge, skills, and abilities to stimulate behavior change through improving
policies, systems, and macro-environmental factors:

1. Today: Visit one website devoted to systems thinking and explore its contents for applicability
to your social marketing research, teaching, or practice. For example, The Systems Thinker is an
archive of great material published over the years and includes insightful articles, case studies,
how-to guides, and pocket guides (Leverage Networks, 2018).
2. Next week: Review one of the many available presentations on systems thinking. For example,
within the public health realm, the Northwest Center for Public Health Practice at the Uni-
versity of Washington has an archive of webinars including one on simulation-based learning
in public health (Soderquist, 2010).
3. Next month: Complete one of the open online courses on integrating systems thinking into your
teaching, research, or practice. For example, þAcumen offers world-class online courses
including one titled, “Systems Practice”—designed to help learners map a complex system
to gain clarity and identify leverage points in the system where you can make a big impact
(þAcumen, 2018).

Regarding the latter, I know of no easy formulas or shortcuts for finding leverage points—that is,
“places in the system where a small change could lead to a large shift in behavior” (Meadows, 2008,
p. 145). However, based on decades of rigorous analysis of many different kinds of systems (done by
many different people), Meadows (2008) has proposed a list of potential places to intervene in a
system, as an invitation to think more broadly about systems change. Numbers (e.g., parameters such
as tax rates and subsidies) are dead last on Meadows’s list of potential leverage points. Despite being
popular intervention points—for example, think of how many health marketing initiatives are focused
on increasing “rates” such as screening rates—changing these variables rarely changes the structure of
systems to produce more of what we want and less of that which is undesirable. Higher up on
Meadows’s list of potential leverage points is information flows—that is, the structure of who does
and does not have access to information. Based on just this one systems insight regarding the power of
delivering feedback to a place where it was not going before, consider how many more social
130 Social Marketing Quarterly 24(3)

marketing initiatives could be designed differently for greater impact—for example, think of well-
known examples such as the importance of electric meter placement in a household, sharing infor-
mation regarding neighbors’ average household water consumption, and so on.
Even higher up on the list of potential leverage points is paradigms—that is, the mind-set out of
which a system arises (Meadows, 2008). If you agree with me that the social marketing profession
itself is a system (which it is) comprised of subsystems (e.g., academics, clients, and practitioners),
then the shared ideas in the minds of our profession’s members constitute social marketing’s paradigm.
Paradigms are the sources of systems. If the basic concepts and practices of social marketing are that
we as a discipline do small change programs focused on small-scale strategies, then that paradigm will
dictate our system goals, feedbacks, and everything else about the system. However, if the basic
concepts and practices shift so that we as a discipline do more large change initiatives focused on
large-scale strategies (e.g., policy, systems, and environmental change), how then might the social
marketing system look and behave?
By highlighting the power of paradigms as a potential leverage point, I hope that this Guest
Editorial and, more importantly, these authors’ three special contributions to SMQ (Borden, Cohn,
& Gooderham, 2018; McHugh, Domegan, & Duane, 2018; Rubenstein et al., 2018) will somehow
influence the paradigm out of which the social marketing system operates. I leave you the reader with
the following potential research questions to ponder for future debate and investigation:

 To what extent can the application of critical social marketing (Gordon, 2011) play a role in
efforts to facilitate policy, systems, and environmental change?
 What is the comparative effectiveness of social marketing initiatives that facilitate policy,
systems, and environmental change versus those that do not?
 What are the trade-offs associated with pursuing policy, systems, and environmental change
using a participatory social marketing approach (e.g., community-based social marketing)?
 What are the moral and ethical implications of social marketing initiatives that attempt to
stimulate policy, systems, and environmental change?
 What are the most effective teaching modalities for helping social marketing students and other
adult learners improve their knowledge, skills, and abilities to stimulate behavior change
through improving policies, systems, and macro-environmental factors?

Brian J. Biroscak, PhD, MS, MA

Department of Emergency Medicine, Yale School of Medicine

References
þAcumen. (2018). Systems Practice. Retrieved from https://www.plusacumen.org/courses/systems-practice
Borden, D. S., Cohn, S. I., & Gooderham, C. (2018). Transitioning “upward” when “downstream” efforts are
insufficient. Social Marketing Quarterly, 24(3), 151–163. doi:10.1177/1524500418761625
French, J., & Gordon, R. (2015). Strategic social marketing. London, England: Sage.
Gordon, R. (2011). Critical social marketing: Definition, application and domain. Journal of Social Marketing, 1,
82–99. doi:10.1108/20426761111141850
Hastings, G., & Domegan, C. (2018). Social marketing: Rebels with a cause (3rd ed.). London, England:
Routledge.
Hovmand, P. S. (2014). Community based system dynamics. New York, NY: Springer.
Leverage Networks (2018). The systems thinker. Retrieved from https://thesystemsthinker.com/
McHugh, P., Domegan, C., & Duane, S. (2018). Protocols for stakeholder participation in social marketing
systems. Social Marketing Quarterly, 24(3), 164–193. doi:10.1177/1524500418761626
Editorial 131

Meadows, D. H. (2008). Leverage points—Places to intervene in a system. In D. Wright (Ed.), Thinking in

systems: A primer (pp. 145–165). White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green.
Meadows, D. H., Randers, J., & Meadows, D. L. (2004). Limits to growth: The 30-year update. White River
Junction, VT: Chelsea Green.
Newton, J. D., Newton, F. J., & Rep, S. (2016). Evaluating social marketing’s upstream metaphor: Does it capture
the flows of behavioural influence between ‘upstream’ and ‘downstream’ actors? Journal of Marketing
Management, 32, 1103–1122. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2016.1186105
NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools. (2017). Community based prevention marketing for systems
change: Reducing disparities (Parvanta, Claudia fishman). Retrieved from https://projectreporter.nih.gov/
project_info_details.cfm?aid¼9319037&icde¼40217965
Rubenstein, L., Dukes, S., Fearing, C., Foster, B. K., Painter, K., Rosenblatt, A., & Rubin, W. (2018). A case study
for social marketing: Key strategies for transforming the children’s mental health system in the United States.
Social Marketing Quarterly, 24(3), 132–150.
Soderquist, C. (Producer). (2010). Simulation-based learning in public health [Webinar]. Retrieved from https://
www.nwcphp.org/training/opportunities/webinars/simulation-based-learning-in-public-health
Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Boston, MA:
McGraw-Hill.
Waddell, S. (2018). Four strategies for large systems change. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Spring.
Retrieved from https://ssir.org/articles/entry/four_strategies_for_large_systems_change
Wallack, L. (1990). Improving health promotion: Media advocacy and social marketing approaches. In C. Atkin &
L. Wallack (Eds.), Mass communication and public health: Complexities and conflicts (pp. 147–163).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.