Exploring the Cross compatibility of the Andreasen (1995) definition of social Marketing and the AMA...

8/15/2019 Exploring the Cross compatibility of the Andreasen (1995) definition of social Marketing and the AMA (2004) defini

1/10

Exploring the Cross compatibility of the Andreasen (1995) definition of social

Marketing and the AMA (2004) definition of Commercial Marketing.

Dr Stephen Dann, The Australian National University

Abstract

Social marketing is the adaptation and adoption of commercial marketing theory and practicefor social change programs, campaigns and causes. By its very nature, social marketing is

connected to the commercial practice of marketing, and, at the end of the day, social

marketing remains a sub discipline of commercial marketing. When the rules of commercial

marketing change, social marketing needs to adjust, adapt or evolve. In order to survive,

social marketing must be willing to re-examine classic concepts and ideas against the

changing environment of commercial marketing. This paper sets out to examine the impact of

the American Marketing Association (2004) definition of marketing on Andreasen's (1995)

definition of social marketing, to see just how far social marketing needs to adapt the newly

adopted commercial marketing definition in order to stay part of the parent discipline.

Introduction

One of Andreasen's (2006) four criticisms of the development of social marketing is the

inconsistency between the many and varying definitions of the sub discipline. As with

service marketing, relationship marketing and other sub disciplinary areas of marketing, the

jockeying for the ownership of the definitive definition of the twenty five year old sub

discipline is still intense. In light of the opportunity presented by the change in commercial

marketings core definition, there is a strong temptation to use this paper to proclaim

ownership of a(nother) new understanding of social marketing. However, in recognition of

Andreasens (2006) statement, this paper will not attempt to construct a new definition of

social marketing. Instead, it will assess the durability and applicability of the definitional

work of Andreasen (1995), to see if this classic interpretation of the meaning of social

marketing still holds relevance when applied to the American Marketing Association (2004)

definition of commercial marketing.

Rationale for the Research

In late 2003, the American Marketing Association nominated Dr Robert Lusch to revise the

18 year old definition of marketing, to bring it forward into line with the practices of

commercial marketing. According to Keefe (2004), the process involved considerable

consultation and feedback across a range of marketing sub disciplines and national

boundaries, with the AMA eventually releasing and endorsing the revised definition in

September 2004. At the 2005 Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference,

a full special session was devoted to the discussion of Broadening the Boundaries for

Marketing: Challenging the New Marketing Definition and Dominant Logics. Subsequent

calls for papers have issued the challenge to marketers to debate and deliberate on the

meaning, impact and effect of the changed definition. This paper contributes to the ongoing

debate and understanding associated with the new definition by borrowing a method from the

computer sciences industry examining the level of backwards compatibility between the

AMA (2004) definition, and one of the core foundation definitions of the social marketing

discipline.


2/10

Examining the definitions of commercial marketing

The first official definition of commercial marketing in 1935 defined the concept as:

the performance of business activities that direct the flow of goods and services from

producers to consumers. (Keefe, 2004).

Over the next fifty years, two reviews of the definition left the original concept in place untilit was revised and updated in 1985, to be defined as

the process of planning and executing the conception, pricing, promotion, and

distribution of ideas, goods, and services to create exchanges that satisfy individual

and organizational objectives (AMA, 1985).

Finally, in 2004, the AMA relaunched the definition of marketing as:

an organizational function and a set of processes for creating, communicating and

delivering value to customers and for managing customer relationships in ways that

benefit the organization and its stakeholders. (AMA 2004).

This paper posits that the shift from the AMA (1985) definition has introduced five shifts in

the role, application and understanding of commercial marketing, expanding it from a process

to include organisational functions, moving from the marketing mix to the value concept,

incorporating relationship marketing, organisational and shareholder benefit, and removing

the explicit recognition of the exchange concept.

Change I: Function and Process

Commercial marketing is now self-defined as an organisational function and process where

previously, it was perceived predominantly as an organisational process. Redefining

marketing as an organisational function alters the use of marketing as a series of techniques

and practices into a more formalised element of the organisation, although there is debate as

to whether this requires the organisation to have a marketing function which is a recognisedmarketing department or marketing officer, or whether marketing is a function of the

organisation (Darroch et al 2004; Dann, 2005).

Change II: Create, Communicate and Deliver Value, not marketing mixes

The second major change is that the new definition no longer explicitly recognises the

marketing mix and product, idea and service trichotomy. Instead, the 2004 definitionmerges these components into the broad value concept. Value is undefined within the

definition, and appears deliberately open to interpretation. Presumably, value in this context

is meant to be the broader approach of Porter (1985) as what the consumer believes that they

have gained from the exchange, rather than the narrow AMA Marketing Dictionary (2006)

definition of value as the power of any good to command other goods in peaceful and

voluntary exchange.

Change III: Managing the relationship

Grnroos (1994) defined relationship marketing as a form of marketing to establish,

maintain, and enhance relationships with customers and other partners, at a profit, so that

the objectives of the parties involved are met. This is achieved by a mutual exchange and

fulfilment of promises. The third shift in focus is in recognition of the ascendancy of

relationship marketing since the early 1990s, and its replacement of the previous notion of

satisfying individual and organisational objectives.


3/10

Change IV: Benefiting the Organisation and the StakeholderThe new definition broadens the role of the marketing orientation beyond the dynamic

between client/customer and the organisation, to incorporate "any group or individual who

can affect or is affected by the achievement of the firms objectives" (Freeman, 1984;

Clement, 2005). Perhaps the most disruptive change in the redefinition of marketing has been

the removal of exchange as understood by Bagozzi (1975) and its replacement with theconcept of benefit to the organisation and the stakeholder.

Change V: The End of Exchange?As noted above, the initial examination of the AMA (2004) definition appears to end the role

of the exchange as a core of marketing theory. However, it appears that the redefinition has

moved exchange from an explicit element to an implicit and assumed component, depending

on how the concept of value and managing the relationship are defined (Dann, 2005).

For example, Grnroos (1994) specifies that relationship marketing is achieved by mutual

exchange as does the AMA (2006) narrow interpretation of value and the broader Porter

(1985) interpretation. Exchange, although less visible, remains a functional element of the

marketing process.

Definition Elect: Andreasen (1995/2006) Social Marketing

Andreasen (1995) defined the sub discipline of 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." (Andreasen, 1995)

Andreasen further extrapolates the nature of social marketing as the adaptation, rather than

direct transference, of marketing tools and techniques for social change campaigns. Due to the

substantial differences in the environments within which social marketing operates and the

issues or causes which form the focus of campaigns, it has never been possible to importcommercial marketing practice wholesale into the social marketing environment.

Consequently, Andreasens definition of social marketing has been selected specifically for

the meta level approach of applying the internal logic of the discipline (adaptation and

adoption of commercial marketing technologies) to social marketing.

The Compatibility of Social Marketing and Marketing 2004

With the significant repurposing of the definition of marketing, does commercial marketing

remain compatible with social marketing, and vice versa? Historically, the fundamental

difference between social marketing and commercial marketing has been a matter of focus.

Commercial marketing has a bottom line of direct benefit measured in dollar values. Social

marketing has a bottom line measured according to whether or not the target adopter changestheir behaviour.

Andreasen (1995)s definition is broadly compatible with four of the five fundamental

changes to commercial marketing brought on by the AMA (2005) redefinition. The most

obvious point of compatibility is the crossover between organisational function and set of

processes with application of commercial marketing technologies. Following on from

this, Andreasen (1995) outlines a range of processes for value creation, where value is

assumed to result in the improvement of the personal welfare of the individual, and the


4/10

mechanisms specified are assumed to be organisational functions or processes. In addition,

social marketing perspective has historically automatically incorporated somelevel of

stakeholder benefit through the central tenet requiring improvement in the welfare of

society.. Further, the management of the relationship is an implicit component of the

maintenance aspects of the ongoing influence of the voluntary behaviour. Finally, neither

social marketing nor commercial marketing explicitly include the recognition of exchange, as

it was always an inherited component of social marketing the adaptation of the 1985definition of commercial marketing brought with it the necessity for exchange theory. Table 1

outlines the definitions of social and commercial marketing into their core component

elements for a brief, and perhaps superficial overview of the areas of compatibility.

Table 1: Social Marketing versus Commercial MarketingAMA 2004 Social Marketing 1995 Change Compatible?

an organizational function

and a set of processes

the application of commercial

marketing technologies

Change I Yes

a set of processes for creating,

communicating and

delivering value to customers

analysis, planning, execution, and

evaluation of programs designed to

influence the voluntary behaviour of

target audiences in order to improve

their personal welfare

Change II Yes

a set of processes for

managing customer

relationships in ways that

benefit the organization

programs designed to influence the

voluntary behaviour of target

audiences

Uncertain

a set of processes for

managing customer

relationships in ways that

benefit the organizations

stakeholders.

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 theirsociety

Change III

Change IV

Yes

Absence of Exchange Absence of Exchange Change V Yes

The Great Divide: Benefit

.influence the voluntary behaviour of target audiences in order to improve their

personal welfare and that of their society." (Andreasen, 1995)

for managing customer relationships in ways that benefit the organization and its

stakeholders. (AMA 2004).

The adaptation of the commercial marketing definition creates one possible area of conflict

between the AMA (2004) definition, and the Andreasen (1995) concept. To use the language

of the AMA (2004) definition, social marketing creates, communicates and delivers value

(improvement of personal welfare) whilst managing relationship for the benefit of

stakeholders (society). Andreasen (1995) specifies a one way value flow from the

organisation to the social change marketplace which effectively removes organisational

benefit from social marketing. The obvious, immediate reaction to the ideological gap

between the AMA (2004) and Andreasen (1995) would be to simply inherit organisational

benefit as part of commercial marketing technology ambit. However, social marketing has

previously addressed the concept of direct organisational benefit insofar as this outcome is

used to determine whether a social change program is societal marketing or social

marketing.


5/10

Restrictions on Adapting Benefit: Corporate Societal MarketingCorporate societal marketing (CSM) has been defined as encompass[ing] marketing

initiatives that have at least one non-economic objective related to social welfare and use the

resources of the company and/or one of its partners (Drumwright and Murphy 2001 in

Hoeffler and Keller, 2002). In a related area, Maghrabi (2006) saw societal marketing as an

outcome of commercial organisations moving into traditionally social marketing territories

although they did not question the rationale for the corporate incursion into non profitmarketing. In general, social marketing practitioners have accepted societal marketing, which

is the inclusion of pro-social goals in parallel to profit and/or organisational gain is an

accepted, and acceptable, as part of a philanthropy for profit approach that leads to social

change. With that in mind, social marketing has tended to be positioned to occupy the not for

profit sector with a benevolence for individual and societal benefit in conjunction with

socially beneficial corporate outcomes.

Conclusion: Resolving the divide

At the core of the conflict between social marketing and commercial marketing is the nature

of benefit. Earlier criticisms of the new definition were based on the notion of benefit as a

direct transfer between recipient and marketer (Dann, 2005). However, under the exchange

paradigm, social marketing could lay claim to Bagozzis (1975) concept of complex exchange

where multiple parties to the value transfer exchanged with each other in a system (A to B, A

to C, B to A, B to C, C to A, C to B). Whilst no direct benefit was received, social marketing

organisations benefited when an individual adopted a socially beneficial product.

Unfortunately, the simplicity of the solution may not be tied to the reality of social marketing.

Although social marketing campaigns may succeed where change occurs, that does not draw a

recognisable benefit in the commercial sense. At the core is the conflict between the long

term objectives of social marketing and commercial marketing. Commercial marketing is

ingrained with the longevity-as-success mantra, where increased demand and broadened

marketshare is a positive outcome. In contrast, social marketing is often directed towards theprovision of a solution to a social problem, where the outcome is to reduce the incidence of

the problem, lowering market demand and/or decreasing the size of a market for a product.

Campaigns aimed at the provision of a solution, the cessation of a problem or a change in

behaviour are ultimately (and optimistically) targeted towards a measure of success that no

longer requires the campaign to continue. Although maintenance social marketing programsare necessary, few social marketers would look to encourage speeding, drug taking or obesity

in order to continue the demand for their social campaigns.

The uncertainty raised in this paper requires further exploration and debate. Can successful

social marketing, which reduces the ongoing need for the campaign, realistically be

considered as producing a "benefit" to the organisation? At the same time, failure to address

the market need will continue the market demand for organisation's existence, but equallydoes not equate to a benefit. Clarification of the meaning of benefit in the context of

commercial marketing and social marketing is needed. Whilst benefit to the stakeholders is

clear deliver value to the consumer, and if society gains, then stakeholders benefit does

the gain of society, through the solution of a social marketing problem can constitute benefit

to the social marketing organisation?


6/10

References

American Marketing Association 1985. The definition of marketing, Marketing News,

March 1, 1985, 2.

American Marketing Association 2004, "Definition" Marketing News, September 15, 2004

American Marketing Association 2006 Dictionary of Marketing Terms, Online:

http://www.marketingpower.com/mg-dictionary.php, Accessed: 30/6/2006

Andreasen, A. 1995, Marketing Social Change: Changing Behavior to Promote Health, Social

Development and the Environment, San Francisco: Jossey Bass

Andreasen, A. 2001, Ethics in Social Marketing, Washington: Georgetown University Press.

Andreasen, A. 2002 Marketing Social Marketing in the Social Change Marketplace, Journal

of Public Policy & Marketing, 21 (1), 3-14.

Andreasen, A. 2006 Social Marketing in the 21st Century, Sage Publications,

Bagozzi, R. 1975, Marketing as exchange, Journal of Marketing, Vol.39, October, pp.32-

39.

Clement, R. 2005 "The lessons from stakeholder theory for U.S.business leaders", Business

Horizons 48, 255264

Dann, S 2005 Social Change marketing in the age of direct benefit where to from here?

Social Change in the 21st Century, QUT Carseldine 28 October 2005

Darroch, J., Miles, M.P., Jardine, A., and Cooke, E.F. (2004) The AMA definition of

marketing and its relationship to a market orientation: An extension of Cooke, Rayburn andAbercrombie (1992), Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 12 (4), 29-38.

Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Marshfield, MA7

Pittman Publishing.

Grnross, C, 1994 "From marketing mix to relationship marketing: towards a paradigm shift

in marketing", Management Decision, Vol.32, No.2, pp.4-20.

Hoeffler, S and Keller, K. L 2002 Building brand equity through corporate societal

marketing Journal of Public Policy & Marketing. 21(1) 78-90

Keefe, L. M 2004, "What is the Meaning of Marketing?" Marketing News, September 15,

2004

Maghrabi. A.S. 2006 Compelling Claims on Multinational Corporate Conduct Journal of

American Academy of Business, 8 (2) 307-313

Porter, M. 1985 Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. New

York, Free Press.


7/10

Reviewers Comments Purpose, overall aim contribution

Score: 8.Comments: The purpose of the article is clearly stated. However, theauthor(s) should consider amending the papers tile as it does not talk directlyto the contribution made by the articles. The title is polemic, rather that beingdescriptive of the articles main argument.

Polemic. Polemic. Now where have I heard myself described as thatrecently?

polemic.

1. A controversial argument, especially one refuting or attacking aspecific opinion or doctrine.

2. A person engaged in or inclined to controversy, argument, orrefutation.

Yeah, I am a bit polemic. Actually, the truth of the matter is that Im too faringrained into the dance music/remix culture to have realised that noteveryone would recognise the JayZ versus Linkin Park style heading as acultural reference. If I could change the title, I would, but can I? Theredoesnt appear to be an option in the paper upload/edit.

New title:

Exploring the Cross compatibility of Social Marketing (1995) and

Commercial Marketing (2004)

Novelty value - originality, uniqueness:Score: 6.Comments: This is topical and has been addressed at recent conferences(i.e. ANZMAC 2005, ANSM2006).

I confess. ANSM2006 was me.

Conceptual development, grounding in literature method, analysis,discussion, implications drawn, formatting:Score: 6.Comments: The author has overviewed the relevant literature to support theargument. Using the table synthesizes the literature well.

The conclusion requires some refinement. Specifically the followingstatement:As a social change organisation is more successful, it reduces the longer

term need for its existence, so that ultimate success for social marketing is tomake the market need obsolete and the organisation defunct. Given this is indirect opposition to commercial marketing, and the success-as-longevityorientation of commercial marketing, can successful social marketingrealistically be considered as producing a "benefit" to the organisation?

Social marketing is a tool that is used to benefit society and an organization.This statement needs to be engaged in more detail. Whilst discrete socialchange might be successful I do not think that social marketing is apanacea that will cure societal problems. This above statement implies suchthink as the basis to draw an argument about commercial marketing; it does


8/10

not do justice to the early discussion and thinking. There is room to clarify thepoint: please do so.

Clarification underway. Ive remixed the conclusion, drawn together therequest for further research and debate over the meaning of benefit, raisedthe commercial marketing growth orientation versus social marketing

reduction orientation. That s

Nominate this paper for the best paper award: No.

Purpose, overall aim - contribution: Score: 3.

Although the purpose of this paper is clear - a comparison of definitions ofcommercial marketing and the extent to which a definition of social marketingcorresponds to these - the value of this exercise is less obvious. The paperseems to make a fundamental assumption that social marketing ought tohave some relationship with commercial marketing, but it is not clear why thisshould be the case, or why it might be necessary or desirable.

I guess I have this fundamental assumption in the paper because its one ofthe core central tenets of the sub disciplinary area of social marketing. Thefact that the paper is engaged in examining a definition of social marketingthat contains the words the application of commercial marketing might alsohave been a really good solid fundamental reason why the twain are meeting.In fact, it is seriously tempting to write off the rest of the statements made bythis reviewer on the grounds that they appear to not understand social

marketing in the slightest. However, although tem

The emphasis on definitions overlooks the common theoretical traditionssocial and commercial marketing employ and it might be more interesting andrigorous if the authors examined theory, rather than simply definitions.

It might be, but its also not the paper thats in front of you. This comment isakin to the reviewer going to see Snakes on a Plane and complaining aboutthe serpent content of the film.

For example, both types of marketing aim to bring about behaviour(purchasing one brand instead of another, practising safe sex instead ofengaging in riskier sexual habits). Like commercial marketing, socialmarketing theory draws heavily on the more cognitive models of consumer

behaviour (trans-theoretical model underpins Andreasen's theory and hasmuch in common with the Theory of Planned Behaviour). However, bothtraditions also draw on behaviour modification theory too.

Yeah, thats quite accepted territory, and the crossover of theoreticalframeworks and the use of TPB/TRA etc is well established. Whats this gotto do with a paper examining the interaction of the revised AMA definition withthe classic social marketing definition?

It might be interesting to explore how the cognitive-behavioural debate is


9/10

played out in social marketing.

Indeed. I suggest the reviewer heads off and does this. Theres plenty of timebefore the ANZMAC2007 deadline.

For example, many social marketing campaigns aim to foster attitude changein the belief this will lead to behaviour change (healthy eating campaigns,

smoking cessation and non-initiation campaigns often follow a cognitiveapproach while campaigns involving regulatory change, such as restriction ofsmoking environments, adopt a more behavioural approach).

Yes. The ol stages of change model covers this, along with perhaps theeducation-law-social marketing triangle, and maybe a bit of the upstream(environment change/regulation) downstream (behaviour change) debate.So, old and established territory here you better not be complaining aboutmy work retracing existing paths.

Given these similarities with commercial marketing, there would seem to bevalue in exploring and critically evaluating how commercial strategies mightusefully be employed in a social context; I would encourage the authors toconsider this latter question in more detail. This approach would seem betteroriented to the conference theme (use of theory to enhance practice).

Did I misread this, or did the reviewer just ask me to go off and write a totallydifferent conference paper? In which case, the reviewers suggestions arevery kind, but really, they should head off and do the paper themselves.

The conclusion that "benefit" is at the core of conflict between social andcommercial marketing is not novel and has been discussed in many differentsocial contexts.

Right. Not novel. The fact you wanted me to go and explore whether there

should be a relationship between commercial marketing and social marketinghasnt escaped your mind has it? That debate is over, and it ended it the1990s. Other novel research suggestions youve mentioned includeexploring and critically evaluating how commercial strategies might usefullybe employed in a social context. Youre trying to tell me that the explorationof the components of a definition released in 2004 is less novel than pursuingthe work thats had three decades of coverage? The core conflict here is notthe composition of benefit per se. Its the fact that benefit to the organisation was not previously a core of the commercial marketing definition, exchangewas the core. Hence the novelty of a paper exploring how the 2004 definitionmeets the 1995 definition. Something that cant have had 30 years ofresearch on it beats a three decade old suggestion for novelty

Exchange!= benefit to the organisation. Exchange theory allows for

complex indirect exchange, and thats fine. The new definition of marketingrequires the management of customer relationships for benefit to theorganisation, and the definition of benefit has yet to be fully explored ordefined.

Given the Andreasen (1995) social marketing definitions explicitly recognisesthe improved welfare of the individual (value) and the society (benefit to theorganisations stakeholders), the reason for the paper and the debate to seewhere benefit to the organisation fits into a structure that traditionally


10/10

delimitated its boundaries by not taking benefit from the exchange.

If benefit can be constructed as indirect exchange, then were fine. But thestate of play is that we have no definitive construction of benefit to theorganisation. So if benefit to the organisation turns out to be financialbenefit or direct benefit, theres a problem.

To argue that the goal of social marketers is to make themselves obsoleteoverlooks fundamental issues in both commercial and social marketing (theneed for reinforcement to maintain behaviour change). The conclusionssection is very weak and neither offers insights into how commercialmarketing could be used to inform social marketing nor suggests researchthat could examine this question in more detail.

Finally, youve said something useful. Agreed, the conclusion needed work,and the conclusion has been reworked. Im going to continue to ignore yourrequest that I revisit dead arguments of the 1990s by asking how commercialmarketing could inform social marketing. That debate is over.

Novelty value - originality, uniqueness: Score: 2.

Because this paper summarises definitions from others' work, its novelty isvery limited and the comparison of definitions is not sufficient to create anoriginal contribution that would inform theory or practice.

You might want to discuss this with reviewer 1. If I thought you had a credibleword to say about social marketing theory, Id consider what you wrote hereas valid.

However, examination of how theory does or could inform practice has thepotential to improve the paper's rating on this dimension.Well, see, theres this thing called theory and the paper is an examination of

the two conceptual domains of the definitions of commercial marketing andsocial marketing. Not everything we do in marketing theoretical developmentneeds to automatically be able to be applied to practice. Over in maths, theyhave this thing called Pure maths and Applied maths. This is a puremarketing paper rather than an Applied marketing.

Conceptual development, grounding in literature method, analysis,discussion, implications drawn, formatting: Score: 2.

The paper is generally well-written, but its overall contribution is very weak.

Opinion logged, noted and totally ignored.

The correct referencing style has not been used.Changes made

Nominate this paper for the best paper award: No.

No kidding.

Exploring the Cross compatibility of the Andreasen (1995) definition of social Marketing and the AMA...

Documents

Transcript of Exploring the Cross compatibility of the Andreasen (1995) definition of social Marketing and the AMA...