Social marketing 717
(Kotler and Roberto, 1989). Where intermedi-
aries are to act primarily as distribution agents
for media products, key variables such as
accessibility and appropriateness should be
considered. When these intermediaries have a
more complex role (e.g. youth workers and
teachers delivering a sex education curricu-
lum), place variables such as source visibility,
credibility, attractiveness and power (Percy,
1983; Hastings and Stead, 1999) should guide
the selection of appropriate agents and inform
the sort of support and training which is
offered to them. For example, the drugs preven-
tion literature has examined the relative merits
of teachers, youth workers, police and peers as
delivery channels for drugs prevention mes-
sages (e.g. Bandy and President, 1983; Shiner
and Newburn, 1996).
Social marketers are often dependent on
the goodwill and co-operation of intermedi-
aries for access to their end targets. This is
particularly the case when dealing with sensi-
tive health issues or with vulnerable groups
such as young people, where there is usually a
need to communicate not only with young
people themselves, but also with key groups
such as parents, teachers and politicians. These
groups may act as ‘gatekeepers’, controlling or
influencing the distribution of a message to a
target group, or as ‘stakeholders’, taking an
interest in and scrutinizing the activities of the
prevention agency (McGrath, 1995). If an initia-
tive is to be effective, it needs to satisfy the
information and other needs of these two
groups, and to maintain their support. Commu-
nicating with gatekeepers and stakeholders is
therefore just as important as communicating
with the direct target group, and it should be
approached in the same way in order to be
effective (Hastings and Stead, 1999).
In Figure 27.2 above, one category of social
marketing objectives is concerned with influ-
encing policy and social norms. Here, ‘place’
becomes the centres of influence on public
opinion and policy. In this context, media
advocacy is likely to become particularly
important (see below).
Promotion
Of the four marketing mix tools, promotion has
received the most attention in social marketing.
Indeed, the prominence of social advertising in
social marketing practice and literature has
contributed to a tendency among non-market-
ers to perceive the two as synonymous (Stead
and Hastings, 1997; Sutton, 1991; Andreasen,
1994). In turn, this perception has given rise to
criticisms of social marketing as ineffective
because media interventions alone are deemed
to be insufficient to change behaviour (Tones,
1994), expensive and difficult to do well (Bloom
and Novelli, 1981; Stead and Hastings, 1997),
and lacking new insights (Tones, 1994).
Three decades of mass media social adver-
tising campaigns on smoking prevention,
smoking cessation, exercise, nutrition, drug
use, safer sex and other health issues have
refined theoretical and practical understanding
of how communication campaigns should be
developed, designed, targeted, implemented
and evaluated in order to have the best impact
on public awareness, opinions and behaviour
(e.g. Atkin and Freimuth, 1989; Backer et al.,
1992; Flay, 1987; Hastings and Haywood, 1991;
Leathar and Hastings, 1987; Maibach and Cot-
ton, 1995; Reid, 1996; Slater, 1995; Solomon,
1989; Worden et al., 1996). The conclusions are
broadly in accord with mainstream marketing
communication theory, so require no repetition
here (see Chapter 17).
However, two aspects of social marketing
communication do warrant further examina-
tion: branding and media advocacy. The first
because it is underdeveloped in the social sector
and would benefit from further thought by
mainstream marketers, and the second because
it is well advanced in social marketing and
therefore may provide some useful insights.Branding
In commercial marketing, branding provides a
crucial means of enhancing the product. Brands
are deliberately designed to hone the emotional