See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228763993

Social marketing: Implications for contemporary marketing practices

classification scheme

Article in Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing · February 2008

DOI: 10.1108/08858620810850254

CITATIONS READS
61 1,660

1 author:

Christine T Domegan
National University of Ireland, Galway
86 PUBLICATIONS 640 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

SIMPle View project

PIER: Public health Impact of Exposure to antibiotic Resistance in recreational water View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Christine T Domegan on 27 December 2013.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Social marketing: implications for
contemporary marketing practices
classification scheme
Christine T. Domegan
National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to reflect upon social marketing and its implications for the contemporary marketing practices (CMP)
classification scheme.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper adopts a theoretical approach. Examples from the public engagement with science are used in the
reflection.
Findings – A phenomenon not commonly associated with social marketing is the growing number of science communication, outreach and public
activities to engage the public with science. These scientific initiatives, established to drive knowledge-based societies around the world, are charged
with changing the public’s behaviour towards science. This analysis shows the application of the CMP classification explicitly to the broader context of
social marketing.
Originality/value – This paper examines how complex multiple exchanges, and social and environment influences, associated with social marketing
provide a broader context to examine marketing practice. Further investigation is needed as to whether a sixth aspect of marketing practice is required
to fully capture social marketing practice.

Keywords Social marketing, Marketing strategy, Networking

Paper type Research paper

An executive summary for managers and executive
readers can be found at the end of this issue.
Introduction
Social marketing is, broadly speaking, the application of
marketing principles and exchange to social issues. It is best
known for its use in campaigns related to public health and
the environment. Successful strategies dealing with obesity,
tobacco consumption, family planning, safe sex, recycling,
waste management and water purity are the more common
applications (Kotler et al., 2002; Andreasen, 2002; Hastings,
2003). It is widely accepted that many social problems have
underlying behavioural causes. As social marketing is about
influencing behavioural exchange outcomes, we have
witnessed dramatic growth in its use (Gordon et al., 2006).
Both commercial and non-profit organisations alike are
undertaking social marketing, especially in areas where
educational and legal interventions have failed (Diamond
and Oppenheim, 2004).
Extensive qualitative and quantitative multi-country
empirical research in the last decade, clearly point to a
variety of marketing practices under the auspices of
contemporary marketing practices (CMP) (Brodie et al.,
2007). The findings consistently demonstrate that there is no
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0885-8624.htm
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
23/2 (2008) 135– 141
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0885-8624]
[DOI 10.1108/08858620810850254]
paradigm shift from transaction marketing to relationship
marketing[1]. Rather the findings signal that both transaction
and relational marketing are comfortably pursued by
organisations, depending upon the market, customers,
competition and environment in question.
The CMP classification scheme features five different
aspects of marketing practice (Coviello et al., 1997). These
are:
1 Transaction marketing (TM). This is the “4P” approach to
customers. Classically explained as an economic goods
exchange process, TM utilises the traditional marketing
mix management approach. It strongly connected with
discreet transactions, lending itself to mass marketing.
Customers are characterised as passive and the exchange
is centred on a physical, tangible good. Communications,
trust, relationships, the number of parties participating in
the exchange process, together with time, are very limited
in nature and extent.
2 Database marketing (DM). Similar to TM, DM
concentrates upon the traditional 4P’s and the economic
transaction. DM does, however, take the first tentative
steps towards personalising the exchange process between
the firm and customer. This is achieved through the
application of database tools to attract and retain specific
customers. Communication is individualised with the help
of technology (Coviello et al., 2002). For example, loyalty
card schemes, typical of DM, close the divide between the
organisation and the end consumer. The exchange
process, while featuring elements of service, is still very
focused on a tangible good and the DM processes are
heavily economic-driven.
3 eMarketing (eM). This is where the marketing exchange
makes extensive use of the Internet and interactive
technologies (e.g. electronic systems, sophisticated

135
 Social marketing: implications for CMP classification scheme
Christine T. Domegan
software programmes) to create dialogue with customers.
Here, communications becomes a two-way process and
the role of the customer shifts from being passive to active
in the exchange. Tangible and intangible elements
compliment either the product and/or service, all
resulting in closer relationships between the buyers and
sellers (Coviello et al., 2001; Brady et al., 2002; Brookes
et al., 2004; Brodie et al., 2007).
4 Interaction marketing (IM). Here, personal relationships
are a defining characteristic. This requires face-to-face
personal formal and informal communication with
individualised, active customers to facilitate extensive
interactions and relationships between employees and
customers (Coviello et al., 2002). This empowers the
customers to be highly participative in all aspects of the
consumption process, giving rise to the co-creation of
value and benefits between the organisation and customer.
5 Network marketing (NM). This involves active,
participative customers and firms where the relational
exchange occurs and is orchestrated at two simultaneous
levels – both the interpersonal and inter-organisational
relationships between firms within an industry or across a
market segment (Coviello et al., 2002).
The contemporary marketing framework allows for TM, DM,
eM, IM and NM to be practised together, at varying levels of
use or different degrees of intensity. “The different practices
may complement or substitute for each other” (Brodie et al.,
2007, p. 4), implying these forms of marketing represent
distinctive but not independent or discreet categories of
practice. To this end, the CMP model has an inherent logic
when one accepts that marketing is “exchange” within the
context of the economic and social structures of society
(Macneil, 1980). The different forms of CMP represent
varying degrees of “economic” and “relational” combinations
along the marketplace exchange matrix. The different
practices are varying reflections of value creation “before”
“in” and “after” exchanges. Thus, marketing managers are
presented with the task of managing a portfolio of relationship
types, from discreet, distant economic exchanges to close,
personal social and economic exchanges (Morgan and Hunt,
1994; Donaldson and O’Toole, 2002; Holden, 2006).
The purpose of this paper is to reflect upon the CMP
research in light of Social marketing literature and practice.
Specifically, with CMP empirical findings of the last decade
dominated to a large extent by profit-orientated companies,
this paper investigates the relevance of Social marketing using
the CMP lens. It seeks to inform how social marketing relates
to CMP. Specifically, the paper looks to social marketing
literature and practice to identify CMP areas for future
development over the coming decade. The paper focuses on
following question:
Do the existing aspects of marketing practice (TM, DM, eM, IM, NM) in
the CMP classification scheme accommodate Social Marketing practices or
are they lacking in some way?
The structure of the paper takes two forms. First, the central
differentiating characteristics of social marketing are
investigated to see where they “fit” within CMP. Second, to
deepen the reflection, examples of social marketing practices
are examined. These are drawn from exploratory case study
work from the growing number of science-society
programmes aimed at the general public and established to
drive knowledge-based society, representing a major
136
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 23 · Number 2 · 2008 · 135 –141
investment of resources (Beetlestone et al., 1998; Edwards,
2004). Better known as science communication, outreach and
public engagement activities, because they are charged with
raising public engagement with science, they allow children,
teachers and parents experience science in a fun, hands-on
exciting way, to stimulate their interest and participation in
science as career options and research avenues. Behind this
worldwide science movement, there is an accepted, implicit
assumption – a seamless link between science interest,
enthusiasm, science literacy levels, science careers and
economic and social prosperity (Layton et al., 1993;
Beetlestone et al., 1998; Edwards, 2004; Evans and Durant,
1995).
Social marketing and the CMP classification
scheme
Theoretically, there is no generalised definition of social
marketing (McDermott et al., 2005). The term social
marketing first appeared in a pioneering article, “Social
marketing: an approach to planned social change” co-
authored by Philip Kotler and Gerald Zaltman in 1971 in
the Journal of Marketing (Kotler and Zaltman, 1971). In the
1970s, social marketing was about selling “ideas”. With the
nature of social marketing being “to sell brotherhood the way
we sell soap” (Wiebe, 1951/1952, p. 679) these early
beginnings for social marketing are now referred to as “tell
and sell” marketing (National Social Marketing Centre,
2006). This initial conceptualisation of social marketing
defined itself based on discreet, economic marketing
transactions. Like commercial marketing, it focused upon a
“market to” consumer’s managerial perspective. This
inevitably resulted in social marketing in its infancy being
strongly concerned with the “communication of a message”.
For this reason, non-marketing professionals tended to
confuse social marketing with social communication. Social
communication does not use the principles of marketing. As
Sargeant (2005, p. 184) suggests:
[. . .] the social marketer is concerned not only with the communication of a
message; she must also attempt to make the adoption of a behavioural
change relatively easy to achieve.
In the past, social marketing has also been wrongly defined as
social propaganda and education (O’Shaughnessy, 1996).
Despite this nebulous beginning, most (but not all) welcomed
the expansion of economic transaction marketing into non-
traditional and non-commercial areas such as public health
and family planning (Kotler and Levy, 1969; Luck, 1969).
The conceptually modern view of social marketing has
matured and now delineates its domain around the exchange
process of voluntary behavioural change. Currently, the three
most accepted meanings of social marketing manifesting this
modern view have been advanced by Kotler et al. (2002, p. 5),
Andreasen (2002, p. 296) and Hastings (2003, p. 12).
Kotler’s view is that:
Social Marketing is the use of marketing principles and techniques to
influence a target audience to voluntarily accept, reject, modify, or abandon a
behaviour for the benefit of individuals, groups, or society as a whole.
Andreasen perceives social marketing as:
[. . .] the application of commercial marketing technologies to the analysis,
planning, execution and evaluation of programs designed to influence the
voluntary behaviour of target audiences in order to improve their personal
welfare and that of their society.
 Social marketing: implications for CMP classification scheme
Christine T. Domegan
According to Hastings:
Social Marketing’s most fundamental feature is that it takes learning from
commerce . . . such as consumer orientation, mutually beneficial exchange,
the need to focus on behaviour change and address the context as well as the
individual.
As defined above, the very core of social marketing –
voluntary behavioural change and the exchange context –
implicitly and explicitly embraces relationships. Recent
debates within the literature (Kotler et al., 2002; Andreasen,
1995, 2002; Hastings, 2003) confirm the conceptual
movement towards the “market with” relational approach
(Lusch and Vargo, 2006). Not surprisingly then, these
definitions reflect many of the existing CMP activities and
practices – interaction, communication, value and exchange
processes to a greater or lesser extent. Social marketing’s
economic and social exchange is, in turn, reflected in a
number of broad resonating elements. These are complex,
multi-level engaged exchange beyond the individual
consumer; competition; time; partnerships and evaluation
(McDermott et al., 2005; Andreasen, 2002).
Complex multiple exchanges
One characteristic agreed by all in the social marketing
literature is that the voluntary behavioural change occurs at
both individual and society level (Lawther and Lowry, 1995;
Murray and Douglas, 1988; Hastings et al., 2000). Levy and
Zaltman (1975) identify three dimensions in society that are
affected by the change sought in social marketing campaigns:
micro level, group level and macro level. They capture this
distinctive trait of social marketing in their examination of the
impact of social marketing campaigns as displayed in Table I.
Like commercial marketing, the unit of analysis in social
marketing begins at the micro level of the customer, as in TM
and DM. Social marketing also pays attention to the next level
of analysis or impact, the inter-organisational relationships of
varying content, duration and strength, as seen in NM (Ford
et al., 2003). This has to be managed with the micro or
customer unit. As a sign of this, the term community-based
social marketing now exists. However, social marketing, while
incorporating both these levels of analysis, adds yet a third
level or unit of analysis, that of the whole system – a macro,
society level, constituting those who control the social context
influencing the other two units (Brenkert, 2002). This third
social context level signals a further complexity for social
marketing managers, not normally seen by commercial
managers. This is attributable to the fact that individuals
influence and are influenced by those surrounding them,
thereby requiring this three-tiered analysis approach to the
exchange process. Hastings and Saren (2003, p. 315) believe
this three-unit impact at different levels is social marketing’s
biggest contribution, bridging the “gap between the corporate
sector and public welfare” and understanding both worlds.
Table I Types of social change, by time and level of society
Change Micro level (individual) Group level (group/organisation)
Short-term Behaviour change Changes in norms/administrative change
Example: Attendance at stop-smoking clinic Removal of tobacco advertising from outside a school
Long-term Lifestyle change Organisational change
Example Smoking cessation Deter retailers from selling cigarettes to minors
137
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 23 · Number 2 · 2008 · 135 –141
This multiple impact results in social marketing having an
extensive constellation of stakeholders and relationships to
satisfy. Social marketing stresses relationships beyond the
consumer into the traditional market place, including
suppliers, distributors, supporting firms, and extending to
the broader social context of local communities, regional
bodies and government. The relationships are simultaneously
active at all levels with the customers, communities and policy
makers to achieve synergy between the multiple change agents
and bring about the desired behavioural change (National
Social Marketing Centre, 2006). Bagozzi (1975, p. 35) refers
to this co-creation of value as a complex marketing exchange,
where more than three parties are involved in a network of
relationships and there is not “the simple quid pro quo notion
characteristic of most economic exchanges”.
In a very real sense, social marketing is as much about
community, relational and value dimensions, as well as
economic relationships of a society-wide network (Penaloza
and Venkatesh, 2006). However, this is not to deny the
significant economic impact arising from exchanges such as
the elimination of smoking and the positive health effects for
individuals and society. These relations are formal and
informal. Based upon a customer focus that considers the self-
interested perspective of a target segment, social marketing
has to successfully manage a multitude of varied,
individualised target audiences. Communications and
interactions are extensive and vital to the proper function of
the relations (Coviello et al., 1997). Social marketing is the
co-creation of complex social and economic benefits and
value “with” customers among/throughout an entire
community network of relationships. It is more than a firm-
level network – it is a marketing process that works up, down
and in-stream, throughout an entire holistic system of
relationships (National Social Marketing Centre, 2006). It is
a system of deep collaboration, problem solving and passion,
entirely centred on, among and concerned with the real and
true needs of the customer (Smith, 2000, 2006). The “pre”
and “post” exchange circumstances, processes and
participants are as important (if not more) as the activities
“in” the exchange itself, a characteristic not linked to discreet
economic exchange marketing activities.
Another facet that Social marketing’s multiple concurrent
co-creation of benefits has to contend with, is the complexity
of the relationships reflected in the continuum of self-
interested stakeholders that vary from customer segments that
“behave as we wish” to “resistant to behave as we wish”, to
programme designers and policy makers who fund such
strategies (Rothschild et al., 2006, p. 1220). In a free society,
the customer has the choice to refuse to change behaviour and
maintain the current undesirable behaviour. The product or
intervention from the social marketer must deliver greater
immediate benefit, greater perceived value, than the
alternative behavioural choices. This could be seen to be
Macro level (society)
Policy change
Banning of all forms of tobacco marketing
“Socio-cultural evolution”
Eradication of all tobacco
 Social marketing: implications for CMP classification scheme
Christine T. Domegan
different from commercial marketing where the main source
of greater benefit or value comes from other organisations and
businesses who offer similar goods and services (Szydlowski
et al., 2005). This internal customer-competition, behaviour
versus behaviour, often results in negative demand, inertia
and/or high involvement for the target audience(s) and social
marketer (Fine, 1990). The self interest of customers/target
markets requires the social marketer to work harder, faster,
deeper and more extensively, in understanding the
motivations of the target customers and designing a market
offering or intervention to appeal to them. As customers
become more individualised, the need to understand and
invest in motivations, commitment and trust rise (Hjelmar,
2005; Hastings, 2006).
Exchange context – social and environment influences
beyond the marketplace
Behaviour and relationships are socially as well as
economically determined (Maibach and Cotton, 1995;
Hastings, 2007). In social marketing, partnerships manifest
the social context of complex multiple exchanges.
Partnerships occur simultaneously at five levels:
1 intrapersonal/individual;
2 interpersonal (family and friends lend social support);
3 institutional/organisational;
4 community (local or regional social networks more distant
from family and friends); and
5 public policy (Morgan and Hunt, 1994; McLeroy et al.,
1988).
Downstream partners concentrate upon creating and
distributing the interventions (Wallack et al., 1993).
Upstream behaviour is aimed at altering the environment
and policies affecting the target audience to encourage and
support the required individual behaviour change. Upstream
partners have to include the public, the media and the policy
makers (Andreasen and Herzberg, 2005; Andreasen, 2006).
Such partnerships, especially upstream, are time-
consuming and expensive to develop and manage (Haytko,
2004). The best social marketing strategies advocate ten years
duration. Lusch and Vargo (2006) suggest that lengthy time
frames for adaptive learning and flexibility are necessary for
some marketing practices. The ability to adapt and learn from
the community of partnerships and exchange parties is the
result of extensive formative, impact and process evaluation in
social marketing (Weinreich, 1995; Sargeant, 2005).
Evidence-based, actionable insights using considered
judgement, supporting decision making and performance is
vital to social marketing (Hastings, 2007).
Case study
Background
Under the auspices of the Centres for Science, Engineering
and Technology (CSETS) of Science Foundation Ireland
(SFI), REMEDI, Regenerative Medicine Institute (see www.
remedi.ie) was set up in 2003 through a e14.9 million award.
REMEDI conducts basic and applied research in regenerative
medicine, an emerging field that combines the technologies of
gene therapy and adult stem cell therapy. Part of REMEDI’s
strategy is science initiatives to create awareness of and
promote science to school children, teachers, parents, the
local community and general public through interventions,
138
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 23 · Number 2 · 2008 · 135 –141
e.g. forensic crime solving workshops for school children,
microscope training for teachers, and hands-on cell
experiments. REMEDI’s target audiences for public
engagement with science are:
.
the general public;
. students at primary, secondary and third level education;
.
teachers;
.
career guidance officer;
.
parents;
.
industry, e.g. American Chamber of Commerce; and
finally
.
policy makers, such as the Minister for the Department of
Education and Science.
A different example of social marketing’s three levels of
analysis in science/society is visible in the “Our Universe”
campaign by PharmaChemical Ireland. With 16 of the top 20
pharmaceutical and chemicals companies in the world
currently based in Ireland, PharmaChemical Ireland, a non-
profit organisation, established within the Irish Business and
Employers Confederation (IBEC) in 1994 to expand and
develop the sectors” business activities, thus enabling it to
maintain international competitiveness and to improve the
industry’s communications with all sectors of society. The
“Our Universe” campaign, provides business volunteers to
visit local schools to deliver a range of activity based enterprise
and science offerings for young people aged five to 18 years in
partnership with the class teacher. These are designed to
encourage young people to make the successful transition
from education into the science workplace. Table II shows
how PharmaChemical Ireland’s “Our Universe” campaign is
aimed at multiple groups and communities as well as
individuals.The campaign allows members to be “caring and
open to one another and to people in the community” outside
of PharmaChemical Ireland:
Industry benefits because the campaigns will hopefully lead to an increased
supply of employees. The volunteers have a good time and that creates
employee satisfaction. Schools benefit because the science campaign takes
pressure off teachers and also creates further teacher resources. The students
benefit because, in the modern world, to have a firm science grounding is
essential (Domegan and Corry, 2006, p. 20).
Like REMEDI, Pharmachemical Ireland has dedicated full-
time educational and outreach officers to mange their science
and public engagement strategies.
These outreach science initiatives capture the essence of
social marketing – the central role of community networks
and interaction in value creation and exchange. At the micro
level, primary and secondary school children, their teachers
and their parents constitute different target audiences, with
different social and economic needs. At the macro level,
relationships between community groups and regional bodies
facilitate the exchange process, with national agents at the top
end of the value co-creation chain, shaping the context for
such exchanges to occur.
Implications for the CMP classification scheme
To capture the discussion so far and elucidate these subtle yet
central distinctions between social marketing and CMP,
Table III suggests the issues that distinguish the CMP
extremes of TM and NM with social marketing practice.
Under the banner of “complex multiple exchanges”, the more
obvious common denominators between social marketing
practice and CMP include the unit of analysis, the role and
individualisation of the customers and the range of
 Social marketing: implications for CMP classification scheme Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Christine T. Domegan Volume 23 · Number 2 · 2008 · 135 –141

Table II Complex simultaneous exchanges – “Our Universe” campaign

Students
Students awareness/interest
in science is directly
affected by the campaign
Teachers
Teachers have access to
new equipment and living
scientists to achieve
interaction between
students and materials in
classroom and everyday life
Parents
Parents have given positive
feedback to volunteers and
shown an increased
awareness of the initiative,
endorsing science as a
suitable career option
Community
Initiative has strengthened
relationships with local
school and community and
increased the community’s
awareness of science and its
value to students
undertaking science
projects via equipment
access
Society
The campaign has
contributed to a
nation-wide effort to have
science introduced as an
obligatory subject at
primary school level

Table III Complex multiple exchanges and exchange context

Issues TM NM Social marketing practice
Unit of analysis Customer Customer, organisation Customer, organisation and society
Role of customers Passive Active Active
Prei, in- and post-exchange Pre-, in- and post-exchange Pre-, in- and post-exchange
Individualisation of customers None Extensive economic Extensive economic
Wide relational Extensive relational
Level of motivational investment Limited Wide Extensive
Range of relationships Narrow, limited to buyers and sellers Firm level specific Extensive across all layers of society
Exchange context Marketplace Marketplace and community Marketplace, community and society
Time Short-term Long-term Expands to longer time, adaptive
learning, and flexibility
Partnerships Strategic alliances; networks Upstream partnerships
Evaluation/performance Sales, market share success/failure Customer retention, customer loyalty, Behaviour change
success/failure Evidence-based insight, adaptive
learning, flexibility

relationships. Under “exchange context”, partnerships, time
and evaluation are central.
The CMP classification scheme as it has emerged to-date,
accounts for exchanges that occur at either the individual,
customer level, TM or across one level, the firm-to-firm NM
practice. Social marketing demonstrates another layer of
marketing exchanges, adding a third unit of analysis, the
community or society level. Thus, the range of buyer/seller
relationships can be narrow (TM) firm specific (NM) or
extensive (SM). In TM, the customer adopts a passive role to
the exchange. The focus is upon a product, as defined by the
firm. Either the consumer buys or does not buy. In NM, the
customer is active pre and post exchange with the seller. The
aim is to bring about the best match between them. The
exchanges are often no longer seen as independent of each
other, no longer discreet. But the exchanges are still
dominated by products or services defined by the firm and
modified by customer. The social marketer has to find
behavioural changes that do more than match the consumers;
the exchanges have to be required by consumers. Significant
flexibility on the social marketers’ behalf is a necessary
condition to the engaged exchange. This is given further
expression through the amount of customer motivational
investment. In SM, behavioural change can only occur when
there is significant and on-going customer motivational
investment – the direct opposite to TM, where there is little
investment beyond the economic outlay. Thus, the true
individualisation of the customer, not present in TM, evident
to a large degree in NM through customisation, could be
more fully engaged, in all its complexity at multiple levels in
social marketing. The implications of social marketing’s
attention to the context of the exchange is greater
understanding of the societal, policy, environmental and
contextual factors (Andreasen, 2006). Social marketing uses
and manages time, partnerships and evaluation/performance
more extensively than TM, and in different, richer ways than
NM in CMP.
Conclusions
Fasten your seat belt. Wash your hands. Don’t drink and
drive. Safe sex. Reduce, Recycle, Reuse. Exercise. Eat five
fruit and veg a day. Science is fun.
The above are popular themes requiring a voluntary
behavioural change of benefit to the individual and society.
They go to the very heart of social marketing, an increasingly
important development in the field of marketing. This
exploratory paper examined the relevance of relational

139
 Social marketing: implications for CMP classification scheme
Christine T. Domegan
marketing in this different setting, by questioning how social
marketing could expand the CMP classification scheme. The
question posed was: “Do the existing aspects of marketing
practice (TM, DM, eM, IM, NM) in the CMP classification
scheme accommodate social marketing practices or are they
lacking in some way?”
Social marketing puts the behavioural changing individual
at the centre of the process and orchestrates a society wide
network of relationships and partnerships to achieve such
goals, using extensive research, evidence based information
and evaluation in decision making. Hence it deepens the
understanding of networks, of relationships, of complex
economic and social exchanges, conflict, communication, and
of the link between performance and practice. Social
marketing delivers innovative insights into the communal,
relational and economic exchange process that underlies
marketing. These insights suggest that, marketing
practitioners and academics alike, need to give serious
attention to the marketplace context and social environment
of the exchange, regardless of whether it is a profit or non-
profit organisation engaging in the exchange. Interestingly
from the CMP perspective, social marketing has adopted and
developed this extensive relational approach to marketing
without significant reference to the mainstream relational
marketing debate. The social marketing literature is largely
devoid of any discussion of commercial marketing’s
embracing of relationships, with the one notable exception
being Hastings’s 2003 article, discussed in this paper.
The CMP scheme resonates with social marketing,
particularly NM, but social marketing offers the potential to
enrich and expand the horizons of the existing contemporary
marketing research agenda. This exploratory social marketing
analysis suggests that the CMP dimensions could be modified
in two main ways. First, the classification scheme could be
expanded by adding a third layer to the unit of analysis – a
community/society aspect. This takes cognisance that
marketing exchanges have both a consumption and social
component. Second, the CMP classification scheme could
attempt to capture the societal space, beyond the
marketplace, where marketing exchanges occur. This could
be achieved by the addition of a new dimension, exchange
context, embracing time, upstream partnerships and
evaluation/performance. As to whether social marketing is
sufficiently different to the CMP of TM, DM, eM, IM or
NM, further investigation is needed.
Note
1 See the CMP at http://cmp.auckland.ac.nz
References
Andreasen, A.R. (1995), Marketing Social Change: Changing
Behavior to Promote Health, Social Development and the
Environment, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Andreasen, A.R. (2002), “Marketing social change in the
social change marketplace”, Journal of Public Policy and
Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 3-13.
Andreasen, A.R. (2006), Social Marketing in the 21st Century,
Sage, London.
Andreasen, A.R. and Herzberg, B. (2005), “Social marketing
applied to economic reforms”, Social Marketing Quarterly,
Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 3-17.
140
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 23 · Number 2 · 2008 · 135 –141
Bagozzi, R.P. (1975), “Marketing as exchange”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 39 No. 4, October, pp. 32-9.
Beetlestone, J.G., Johnson, C.H., Quin, M. and White, H.
(1998), “The Science Centre Movement: contexts,
practice, next challenges”, Public Understanding of Science,
Vol. 7, pp. 5-26.
Brady, M., Saren, M. and Tzokas, N. (2002), “Integrating
information technology into marketing”, Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 18 Nos 5-6, pp. 1-23.
Brenkert, G.G. (2002), “Ethical challenges of social
marketing”, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 21
Nos 1, Spring, pp. 14-25.
Brodie, R., Winklofer, H., Coviello, N. and Johnston, W.
(2007), “Is e-marketing coming of age? An examination of
the penetration of eM and firm performance”, Journal of
Interactive Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 2-21.
Brookes, R.W., Brodie, R.J., Coviello, N.E. and Palmer, R.A.
(2004), “How managers perceive the impacts of
information technologies on contemporary practices:
reinforcing, enhancing or transforming?”, Journal of
Relationship Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 7-26.
Coviello, N.E., Brodie, R.H. and Munro, H.J. (1997),
“Understanding contemporary marketing: development of
a classification scheme”, Journal of Marketing Management,
Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 501-22.
Coviello, N.E., Milley, R. and Marcolin, B. (2001),
“Understanding IT-enabled interactivity in contemporary
marketing”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 4,
pp. 18-33.
Coviello, N.E., Brodie, R.H., Danaher, P.J. and Johnston, W.J.
(2002), “How firms relate to their markets: an empirical
examination of contemporary marketing practices”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 33-47.
Diamond, W. and Oppenheim, M.R. (2004), “Sources for
special topics: social marketing, nonprofit organisations,
service marketing and legal/ethical issues”, Journal of
Business and Finance Librarianship, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 287-99.
Domegan, C. and Corry, A. (2006), “The use of social
marketing to evaluate science outreach programmes”, paper
presented at the Irish Academy of Management
Conference, Cork, September.
Donaldson, B. and O’Toole, T. (2002), Strategic Market
Relationships. From Strategy to Implementation, Wiley,
Chichester.
Edwards, C. (2004), “Evaluating European public awareness
of science initiatives: a review of the literature”, Science
Communication, Vol. 25 No. 3, March, pp. 260-71.
Evans, G. and Durant, J. (1995), “The relationship between
knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of
science in Britain”, Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 4
No. 1, pp. 57-74.
Fine, S.H. (1990), Social Marketing: Promoting the Causes of
Public and Nonprofit Agencies, Allyn & Bacon, Needham
Heights, MA.
Ford, D., Gadde, L., Hakansson, H. and Snehota, I. (2003),
Managing Business Relationships, 2nd ed., Wiley, Chichester.
Gordon, R., McDermott, L., Stead, M. and Angus, K.
(2006), “The effectiveness of social marketing interventions
for health improvement: what’s the evidence?”, Public
Health, Vol. 120 No. 12, pp. 1133-9.
Hastings, G.B. (2003), “Relational paradigms in social
marketing”, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 23 No. 1,
June, pp. 6-15.
 Social marketing: implications for CMP classification scheme
Christine T. Domegan
Hastings, G. (2006), “Ten promises to Terry: towards a social
marketing manifesto”, Health Education, Vol. 106 No. 1,
pp. 5-8.
Hastings, G. (2007), Social Marketing. Why Should the Devil
Get All the Best Tunes?, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Hastings, G.B. and Saren, M. (2003), “The critical
contribution of social marketing”, Journal of Marketing
Theory, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 305-17.
Hastings, G.B., MacFadyen, L. and Anderson, S. (2000),
“Whose behaviour is it anyway? The broader potential of
social marketing”, Social Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 2,
pp. 46-58.
Haytko, D.L. (2004), “Firm-to-firm interpersonal
relationships: perspectives from advertising agency
account managers”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 312-28.
Hjelmar, U. (2005), “The concept of commitment as a basis
for social marketing efforts: conversion model as a case”,
Social Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 58-63.
Holden, M. (2006), “Modelling the effects of primary
relations and inter-organisational communication on
relational norms”, PhD thesis, WIT, Waterford.
Kotler, P. and Levy, S.J. (1969), “Broadening the concept of
marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33, January,
pp. 10-15.
Kotler, P. and Zaltman, G. (1971), “Social marketing:
an approach to planned social change”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 35, July, pp. 3-12.
Kotler, P., Roberto, N. and Lee, N. (2002), Social Marketing,
Improving the Quality of Life, 2nd ed., Sage Publications,
London.
Lawther, S. and Lowry, R. (1995), “Social marketing and
behaviour change among professionals”, Social Marketing
Quarterly, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 10-11.
Layton, D., Jenkins, E., Macgill, S. and Davey, A. (1993),
Inarticulate Science? Perspectives on the Public Understanding of
Science and Some Implications for Science Education, Studies
in Education, Driffield.
Levy, S. and Zaltman, G. (1975), Marketing, Society and
Conflict, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Luck, D. (1969), “Broadening the concept of marketing: too
far”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33, July, pp. 53-5.
Lusch, R.F. and Vargo, S.L. (2006), “Service-dominant logic:
reactions, reflections and refinements”, Marketing Theory,
Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 281-8.
McDermott, L., Stead, M. and Hastings, G. (2005), “What is
and what is not social marketing: the challenge of reviewing
the evidence”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 21
No. 5, pp. 545-53.
McLeroy, K.R., Bibean, D., Steckler, A. and Glanz, K.
(1988), “An ecological perspective on health promotion
programmes”, Health Education Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 4,
pp. 351-77.
Macneil, I.R. (1980), The New Social Contract: An Inquiry into
Modern Contractual Relationships, Yale University Press,
New Haven, CT and London.
Maibach, E. and Cotton, D. (1995), “Moving people to
behaviour change: a staged social cognitive approach to
message design”, in Maibach, E. and Parrott, R. (Eds),
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
141
View publication stats
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 23 · Number 2 · 2008 · 135 –141
Designing Health Messages. Approaches from Communication
Theory and Public Health Practice, Sage, Thousand Oaks,
CA.
Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The commitment-
trust theory of relationship marketing”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 58, July, pp. 20-38.
Murray, G. and Douglas, R. (1988), “Social marketing in the
alcohol policy arena”, British Journal of Addiction, Vol. 83,
pp. 505-11.
National Social Marketing Centre (2006), It’s Our Health:
Realising the Potential of Effective Social Marketing, National
Social Marketing Centre, London.
O’Shaughnessy, N. (1996), “Social propaganda and social
marketing: a critical difference?”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 30 Nos 10/11, pp. 54-67.
Penaloza, L. and Venkatesh, A. (2006), “Further evolving the
new dominant logic of marketing: from services to the social
construction of markets”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 6 No. 3,
pp. 299-316.
Rothschild, M., Mastin, B. and Miller, T. (2006), “Reducing
alcohol-impaired driving crashes through the use of social
marketing”, Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 38 No. 6,
pp. 1218-30.
Sargeant, A. (2005), Marketing Management for Non-profit
Organizations, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, New York,
NY.
Smith, W.A. (2000), “Social marketing: an evolving
definition”, American Journal of Health Behaviour, Vol. 24
No. 1, pp. 11-17.
Smith, W.A. (2006), “Social marketing: an overview of
approach and effects”, Injury Prevention, Vol. 12 No. 1,
pp. 138-43.
Szydlowski, S.J., Chattopadhyay, S.P. and Babela, R. (2005),
“Social marketing as a tool to improve behavioral health
services for understanding populations in transition
countries”, The Health Care Manager, Vol. 24 No. 1,
pp. 12-20.
Wallack, L., Dorfman, L., Jernigan, D. and Themba, M.
(1993), Media Advocacy and Public Health, Sage, Newbury
Park, CA.
Weinreich, N.K. (1995), “Building social marketing into your
program”, Social Marketing Quarterly, July, pp. 2-9.
Wiebe, G.D. (1951/1952), “Merchandising commodities and
citizenship in television”, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 15,
Winter, pp. 679-91.
Further reading
Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (2006),
Strategy for Science, Technology and Innovation, 2006-2013,
Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment,
Dublin.
Economist Intelligence Unit (2006), “The world in 2006, the
world in figures: countries”, The Economist, pp. 105-22.
Corresponding author
Christine T. Domegan can be contacted at:
christine.domegan@nuigalway.ie