Social marketing 697
with social marketing often being equated with
social advertising. Correcting these misappre-
hensions is a key challenge for the 1990s, and
the instigation of two annual conferences, one
targeting academics and the other practitioners,
and the founding of a peer reviewed journal –
Social Marketing Quarterly– will help meet it.
Defining social marketing
Kotler and Zaltman’s (1971) early definition of
social marketing emphasized the marketing
mix and the marketing planning process. The
authors observed the tendency for ‘campaign-
ers’ to focus solely on the role of advertising
and the mass media. They argued that the role
of the mass media had been overestimated, and
that more attention should be given to develop-
ing the social product, price and distribution, as
well as to the role of market research. The
authors’ emphasis on the ‘design, implementa-
tion and control of programs’ (p. 7) illustrated
their belief that social marketing should take
the form of long-term programmes rather than
short-term campaigns, and that strategic plan-
ning was required to manage this.
As social marketing developed, this early
conceptualization was criticized for its impreci-
sion (Andreasen, 1994). In particular, Rangun
and Karim (1991) noted the potential for the
operationalization of this definition to confuse
social marketing with societal marketing and
socially responsible marketing. Societal market-
ing is concerned with the ethical or societal
implications of commercial activity. So, the
‘societal marketing concept’ encourages firms
to ‘market goods and services that will satisfy
consumers under circumstances that are fair to
consumers and that enable them to make
intelligent purchase decisions, and counsels
firms to avoid marketing practices which have
dubious consequences for society’ (Schwartz,
1971, p. 32). In short, societal marketing is
concerned with ensuring that commercial mar-
keters go about their business properly, without
prejudicing either their customers or society as
a whole.
Socially responsible marketing harnesses
desirable social causes, such as the environ-
ment and consumerism, to advance the inter-
ests of a commercial organization (Kotler et
al., 1996). Public concern about the environ-
ment or the social implications of commercial
activity can lead to bad publicity for the
organization. Some organizations have chosen
to act proactively and position themselves as
socially responsible or ethical organizations –
the Body Shop or ice-cream producers Ben &
Jerry’s are typical examples. However, this
does not constitute social marketing, because,
as with other for-profit organizations, the
success of the Body Shop or Ben & Jerry’s is
measured by shareholder value and profitabil-
ity and not, for example, by improvements to
the environment. Similarly, commercial organ-
izations which market ethically sound prod-
ucts, such as condoms, are not engaged in
social marketing because their success is
measured in terms of commercial goals rather
than reductions in the prevalence of sexually
transmitted diseases.
To confuse things further, however, it is
possible for commercial marketers to do social
marketing. Procter & Gamble, for example,
have contributed to a major social marketing
drugs prevention initiative in the north-east of
England (Home Office, 1998). Nonetheless,
such activities will always remain marginal
compared with the company’s main concern of
commercial success. Engaging in it does not
make them social marketers any more than
corporate donations to good causes would
make them a charity.
Social marketing should also be differ-
entiated from non-profit marketing (Fox and
Kotler, 1980), of which it is sometimes con-
sidered a subset (Blois, 1994). Non-profit mar-
keters are concerned with the marketing man-
agement of institutions or organizations in the
non-profit arena: hospitals, cancer charities or
educational institutions. As with socially
responsible marketing, the difference lies in the