"Combining product distribution with a health communication campaign results in greater behavior change than using a health communication campaign alone."
That is the conclusion of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services in their statement Health Communication & Social Marketing: Health Communication Campaigns That Include Mass Media & Health-Related Product Distribution. Their finding is based on a systematic review of 22 studies from 1982 - 2009 that combined communication campaigns to increase awareness of, demand for, and appropriate use of a health-related product that was distributed free of charge or at a reduced price. The Task Force found a median increase of 8.4% in the proportion of people who engaged in a healthy behavior related to use of the product distributed (child safety seats, condoms, pedometers, recreational safety helmets, sun safety and smoking cessation campaigns with nicotine replacement therapies were included in their analysis. Services such as mammograms, products that required a prescription or administration by a health care professional, one-time behaviors such as installing smoke alarms and specific food products were excluded in the analysis).
The Task Force goes on to note:
Overall, results were consistently favorable across products with various characteristics (e.g., reusable versus single-use products; inherently protective products versus those that facilitate behavior change; those that promote the adoption of healthful new behaviors and the cessation of risky behaviors) and across a wide range of baseline usage rates (median baseline usage rate of 9.7 pct pts [IQI: 5.1 to 18.2]). These results suggest that combining mass media health communication campaigns with distribution of any of a variety of health-related products that meet the inclusion criteria specified above is likely to be effective in influencing the intended health behaviors.
This report is immensely important to social marketers. It is the first time that social marketing programs have been reviewed and, better yet, found to be effective by a leading policy-setting group [the Guide to Community Preventive Services, supported by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, serves a similar function to groups organized to review the evidence and make recommendations for preventive services and medical interventions.] Though I would be the last to argue that simply adding a product to a communication campaign makes it 'social marketing,' I do take satisfaction in their finding that it takes us beyond 5% solutions.
More detailed reporting of the details of the intervention - including the methods used to develop it, and more consistent use of terminology within the field
Assessing the sustainability and effectiveness of long-term programs
Improving the collection of information about priority, or target, groups to improve the understanding of possible differential effects of programs based on age, gender and race/ethnicity (though I would argue that there are more important variables to consider than the old epidemiological standbys)
Comparing the intensity of different study arms. Though their discussion simply focuses on the different levels of promotion that might be necessary for audiences “to receive the message in order to help increase the likelihood of behavior change,” I suggest that intensity can also be reflected in the prices at which products are offered, as well as the amount of access and opportunities there are to use them - and of course the differences in features and branding that may distinguish one product from another and affect its relevance and appeal to different groups of people.
I begin many talks on social marketing and social media with the 5% solution. The 5% solution refers to the finding that health communication campaigns can, on average, result in increases or decreases of the target behavior by five percentage points (for example, moving from 50 percent prevalence of the behavior among the priority group at the beginning of the campaign to either 45 or 55% at the conclusion of the campaign; Snyder, 2007). My point about the 5% solution is that while a 5% change in market share may send commercial marketing managers into ecstasy, in the public health and social change space 5% is usually seen as a beginning. We need to look at how social marketing, social media and mobile technologies can grow this 5% into a much larger and positive social impact.
However, many people still cling to the hope that mass media campaigns – given enough resources and support – will be the answer to wicked public health and social problems. Indeed it is still common to find many practitioners of social marketing who think of their work as the development and implementation of mass media campaigns. And it is especially these people that I suggest take a close look at the review of mass media campaigns to change health behaviors that recently appeared in The Lancet [link to pdf with free registraion].
In this article, Wakefield, Loken & Hornik (2010) summarize the literature from 1998 that report the use of mass media to change health behaviors such as tobacco use, heart disease risk factors, sex-related behaviors, road safety, cancer screening and prevention, child survival and organ or blood donation. After reviewing the evidence for each of these classes of health behaviors, they conclude that mass media can directly or indirectly produce positive changes or prevent negative changes among large populations (though they do not attempt to estimate an effect size as was done by Snyder). By direct effects they refer to using mass media campaigns to influence the decision-making processes at the individual level – e.g., by targeting knowledge, beliefs, intentions, attitudes, emotional responses. More importantly from my POV, they also highlight the indirect effects of mass media on health behaviors. These indirect effects include (1) set an agenda and increase the frequency of conversations about specific health issues within one’s social network, (2) shift norms in one’s social network about engaging (or not) in specific health behaviors – for more on injunctive and descriptive norms and their influence on different behaviors, and (3) prompt public discussions that lead to policy changes that support or discourage specific health behaviors – see social marketing and the policy maker audience for more on this topic.
A second conclusion they reach is that mass media campaigns are more effective when the target behavior is a one-off or episodic occurrence such as screening or inoculation. More habitual or ongoing behaviors such as making food choices or engaging in regular physical activity are less susceptible to the influence of mass media campaigns.
Their third conclusion is to call for the use of multiple interventions to increase the effectiveness of any attempt to use mass media for health behavior change. They specifically mention the need to ensure the availability and access to services and products that will support behavior change, putting into place supportive public policies, and utilizing media advocacy, entertainment-education and social marketing approaches.
They also note several challenges to the 5% solution (a.k.a. mass media campaigns). These challenges include:
Achieving adequate exposure to messages in a fractured and complex communication environment
Competition from competing products or opposing messages
The power of social norms to maintain the status quo
The qualities of addictive behaviors that make them particularly difficult to change on a sustained basis
The article directs policy recommendations to national governments, practitioners and professional bodies that include:
Mass media campaigns should be included as key components of comprehensive approaches to improving population health behaviors
Sufficient funding must be secured to enable frequent and widespread exposure to campaign message continuously over time, especially for ongoing behaviors
Adequate access to promote its services or products must be insured
Changes in health behavior might be maximized by complementary policy decisions that support opportunities to change, provide disincentives for not changing, and challenge or restrict competing marketing
Campaign messages should be based on sound research of the target group and should be tested during campaign development
Some readers will seize on this article as providing further rationale for their insistence on advocating for more mass media campaigns in public health and social change programs. I suggest instead that we pay attention to the analysis these authors present that provides independent support for the idea that we need new ways of dealing with social problems that have at their core the social marketing model.
Takeaway:
The 5% solution should be embedded in programs that are designed around a solid understanding of priority groups, tested (or co-created) with them to ensure they are relevant to their lives, account for and address competitive forces in the environment, ensure access to and availability of products and services that will support positive behavior change, focus on the social elements of behavior change (and not be exclusively directed towards individual behavior change), and include the development of supportive public policies that can both ‘nudge’ change as well as sustain it. And yes, they can also include social media and mobile technology tactics as well.
Sources
Snyder, L.B. (2007). Health communication campaigns and their impact on behavior. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 39 (2 Supplement): S32-40.
Wakefield, M.A., Loken,B. & Hornik, R. (2010). Use of mass media campaigns to change health behaviour. The Lancet, 376:1261-1271.
A question popped up on the social marketing list serve today that deserves a wider conversation:
In these budget constrained times I have been thinking about stuff.
I am wondering about promotional items and their usefulness in creating behavior change, especially health behaviors.
Do you think promotional and giveaway items make a difference in social marketing campaigns? I am not questioning items like pedometers that have a functional purpose in supporting a new behavior. What I wonder about is if giving out mugs, t-shirts, bags and the like supports our work in an important way? Are there certain age groups that “require” stuff to get their attention? Does a fridge magnet prompt me to screen my child for lead? Does an emery board message about mammograms get me to make an appointment?
We know awareness alone does not create change but how does it support contemplation or some other interim action?
My response was:
Four things 'stuff' can do:
1.mark tribal or brand identity ("I am one of us") - if I self-identify as one, I will be more likely to act as one. 2.become a social object ('I want to talk about this with you') - when
you see it, ask me about it. I want to share what I know or
passionately believe in. 3. create ubiquity ('It's everywhere I go')
- raises the salience (not the same as awareness) of the
issue/product/service/behavior and thus the normative judgment. 4. cue action (Whoops, almost forgot to do it') - the best intentions still need prompts for behavior.
How do you successfully use stuff in your programs? What have you found to be a waste of time and money? What factors do you consider when deciding to 'buy stuff?' And can you measure their success?
Following Gordon Brown's meeting at Downing Street with
Britain's top drinks industry executives he called for them to harness their
considerable marketing powers to drive for change in social norm and cultural
attitudes towards alcohol in the UK. This has resulted in Project 'N' - a
collaboration of the not inconsiderable resources of top companies throughout
the UK…
The campaign will use outdoor advertising, signs, drink mats
in pubs and bars, on-pack and point of sale displays in retailers to deliver its
message under the strapline "why let good times go bad?"…The campaign
will not talk down to young adults or tell them what to do, which has been
shown not to work. Instead it will emphasise the benefits of responsible
enjoyment and offer practical tips such as reminders to drink water or soft
drinks, eat food and plan to get home safely…
The goal is to reduce public acceptance of drunkenness and
to shift public attitudes in order to reduce excessive consumption for 18-34
year olds. It aims to encourage young people to take responsibility for their
own behaviour and to pose questions that encourage them to think about their
drinking habits. The campaign is working in conjunction with the Department of
Health and Home Office to identify KPIs in order to measure the success of the
campaign.
Well, despite the headline, not much social marketing there; one might generously label it 'social advertising,' or perhaps health communication. But the campaign clearly does not take advantage of what we know is involved in successful large-scale behavior change campaign [So when is it social marketing?].
So how does a major public health issue become the target of an expensive, industry designed and conducted effort? There may be some history to explain it that I came across when looking for more information about Project 'N' - which I did not find btw.
Two reports were published in England in March [2004]: one by the
Academy of Medical Sciences, the other by the prime minister's strategy unit.
The academy's report concluded that to control alcohol problems one needed to
control alcohol; that is, reduce the average level of consumption in the
population. The academy reached this conclusion on the basis that a strong
correlation exists between average consumption, the prevalence of heavy
drinking, and associated harm. It found the evidence for education unconvincing
and therefore called for raising the price and limiting availability. The prime
minister's strategy unit, with access to the same evidence, concluded that controlling
average consumption through the mechanism of raising the price and limiting
access would have unwanted side effects and was not a viable option. They
therefore called for education, more policing, improved treatment, and the
alcohol industry entering into voluntary agreements to behave reasonably. The
academy working group would agree that all of these actions were necessary. But
they took the view, based on evidence, that such actions should complement
measures to control overall level of consumption.
Note that the policy-makers opted for an approach that may reduce the problem by 5% [what I call the 1P solution]. It is also interesting to note that it was the scientific community that highlighted the evidence that other parts of the marketing mix needed to be addressed - notably the pricing and availability of alcohol. It was the scientists who called for a bottom line of reducing consumption; yet Project N is all about 'responsibility' and shifting 'public acceptance' and 'attitudes.' Bull shiitake! as Guy Kawasaki might say.
Consider what their pitch for the campaign was (though they would never be this obvious); We are going to craft and deliver a series of tactics driven by the Socratic Method to help young adults develop more rational ways of thinking about their drinking and illuminate new ways to control it. Would you really invest millions of pounds (or dollars) in that? Or even endorse someone else doing it (with a straight face that is)?
There is a systematic way of thinking through this issue that leads to more than advertising, messages and promotional channels. But as Dr. Marmor points out in his piece: It is reasonable to surmise that they [policy-makers] found the prospect of raising the tax on alcohol unattractive, as they did reversing the trend of making it ever easier to buy alcohol. The policy implications of the science may well have influenced their view of the evidence.
Sometimes I think that policy-makers and bureaucrats are not afraid of social marketing because of its connotations ('It's social!' 'It's marketing!'), but because somewhere, somehow they really understand its potential power to change the game. And the costs of fear can have many consequential effects on individuals, families, communities and society.
I often get asked about the difference between health communication, or health education, and social marketing. The first thing is that a social marketer does not feel like a fish out of water – even when perhaps he should.
The field of education reform is one area where I have not been involved nor seen much use of social marketing. Yet, I was invited to a “Media meeting to promote mathematics and science education” convened by the Promoting Rigorous Outcomes in Mathematics and Science Education (PROM/SE) project. It was chaired by Bill Schmidt, a Michigan State University Distinguished Professor who, among other things, was the national research coordinator for the Third International Mathematics and Science Study - one of the world's most influential global assessments of student achievement in math and science (Note: the latest TIMSS results were released this week). The TIMSS data are referred to when people talk about country rankings of student achievement in science and math.
I was one of two marketers in the room, Jim Taylor from The Harrison Group being the other. The other eight participants represented various agencies all involved in math and science education reform projects. The first few hours reviewed the TIMSS and other data documenting the historically low performance of many American students. The research presented identified the core drivers of this lower performance as being due to (1) the nature of the curriculum – ‘it’s a polyglot,’ (2) low teacher knowledge of the subject matter, and (3) low parental and public engagement on the issue. The data point Bill emphasized was that national surveys have consistently documented 80% of respondents agreeing that ‘schools are failing,’ though they typically have not said that about ‘my own school (where their child goes).’ However, now 60% of parents say their own school is failing. The question that was posed to the group was – how do we leverage ‘the upset’ to engage parents to demand change? The subtext was: how do we develop a media campaign to do this?
This is not the first time the question of improving student scores in math and science has been addressed, and the National Math and Science Initiative and the National Science Foundation are among the key players and funders. Most of the work focuses on the first two issues. What was interesting to me in this overview is that only recently has the idea of parental engagement received the type of funding to study how to scale up such programs, and in fact, the PRISM project is one of the only projects in the country (and a pilot underway by PROM/SE) to draw lessons from about audiences and what works.
After about a half hour of discussion that focused on how to develop a media campaign to increase parental engagement (that was, after all, where the data led and where the gaps and levers seemed to be), Jim threw up his hands and said: You can do what you want, but if you go down this road the effort is DOOMED!
After some people picked themselves off the floor, he continued: Look, all the research tells us that kids drive the process now. You can fix the curriculum, make the teachers smarter, create smaller classrooms, get the parents engaged, BUT if the students don’t see the benefit in it for themselves, it will make no difference whatsoever. If a marketer were doing this, we’d focus on the kids as the audience – not the parents, teachers, administrators or school board. That brought me in with the work in the tobacco wars, the truth campaign and what we know in marketing about what kids really want - not what adults think they need. You can legislate, educate and pontificate, but in the end what works is when the kids see that they are being manipulated by the tobacco industry, that they are the ones who need to rebel against the deceptions, they need to become the solution and drive the campaign. Then we see ownership, social norms change and teen smoking rates decline.
So after another half hour of kicking all of that around, the group seemed to be coming around to the idea that maybe this needed to be a campaign for kids, not parents. A good place to stop for a group dinner and digest it all.
The next morning at breakfast Bill asked me if I would lead the discussion to create the architecture for the campaign. After some process checking – are we all still in agreement about where this is now going, any other thoughts before we dig in? – I pulled out my social marketing playbook. In 2 ½ hours we had the outline of a plan, down to what the current brand image of math might be – spoiled child, authoritative parent (do it my way, the right and only way or you are wrong)? The insight we based our campaign on is that students in 4th-8th grade, some research and anecdotal evidence from PROM/SE and PRISM tell us, are absolutely pissed when they find out they lag behind students in other countries. They get the implications for jobs, income and country immediately. And they feel cheated! If we can tap into that, they can drive change. They will tell their parents about their poor math and science preparation – then the parents will get engaged - it’s personal now. The parents will go to the teachers, school administrators, legislators and others demanding that their child get a fair chance in this new world, and the kids will be right in front of them. In response, the curriculum and instructional methods will have to change, teacher knowledge and motivation will change, administrators and school boards will have to change. And, quite likely, achievement scores will improve.
At the end of the session Bill called the proceedings mind-altering (I would say world-changing). He, nor any of the others in the room, had ever conceived of the problem from the students' pov and that they might be the solution. Of course neither do most people in education it appears. Even while we went radical (audience-focused rather than expert driven), Bill Gates was in Washington, DC calling for government to become a dynamic agent of school reform including federal incentives to boost recruitment and retention of effective teachers, aligning state standards with top international standards, rewarding college graduates and pushing school overhaul through performance measures (Robert Guth in The Wall Street Journal - subscription required). Call it the Microsoft or engineering approach. From the outside, it is impressive to watch debates over ideology and structural reform as if schools were a widget production facility.
Clayton Christensen of Harvard Business School makes a[n] ... argument for K-12 education, where we mindlessly follow a century-old way of doing business. Get rid of this manufacturing era, "value chain" model -- where we take inputs (students), add value (sometimes), and spit them out the other end -- in favor of a "user network" model where unique students with distinct learning styles plug in to smart software and tutoring tools that deliver a customized education. – Bret Swanson in The Wall Street Journal (subscription still required).
The moral of the story? It’s interesting being a social marketer where being armed with only an eye for the (true) audience and an interest in advocating for them you can change people’s world. Where with just 6 questions you can move people to think about solutions in a completely new way and believe in it when they are done. That the group (or others) will now (hopefully) be able to do some much needed research about what students think about this issue and its solution (we have a campaign based on some hypotheses – now it’s time to concept test it). And that social change seems to be most disruptive when the audience is allowed to have control. And yes, we talked a lot about the Obama campaign and change, using new media and the world of the digital native [NB: these links added after original post]. But when I left it was with the feeling that perhaps something really good happened in the room, something that energized everyone and had concrete next steps, something that might not of occurred if the marketing mindset had not been invited. Kudos to Bill and the PROM/SE staff for taking the chance. And Jim who lit the fuse!
So maybe the difference between social marketers and health communicators and educators is that we have a labyrinth organ? Or call it a playbook that is pretty robust.
An Afterword: After the meeting, another set of data I came across documents the gaps in perceptions among the players about STEM education. The Speak Up 2007 National Findings for the question: Is your school doing a good job of preparing you/your students/your child for future jobs? The percent answering "Yes:"
School principals – 66%
District administrators – 48%
Teachers – 47%
Parents – 43%
Advanced tech students – 23%
That’s an awfully tempting core audience!
And if that has you thinking - this is worth watching.
Postscript:Sam Dillon in the Sunday New York Times looks at the debate and drama surrounding the choice of an Education Secretary. He quotes Bruce Fuller who describes it as pitting “professionalization advocates such as Darling-Hammond,” who
believe the policy emphasis should be on raising student achievement by
helping teachers improve their instruction, against “efficiency hawks
like Klein and Rhee.” The efficiency hawks, he said, emphasize
standardized testing, cracking down on poor school management and
purging bad teachers.
...his success alone commands my respect for his ability and perseverance.
But that he managed to do so by inspiring the hopes of so many millions
of Americans who had once wrongly believed that they had little at
stake or little influence in the election of an American president is
something I deeply admire and commend him for achieving.
Yes, inspiration and aspiration are clearly incentives for people and, at least this time for most of the people, trumped fear. But developing a campaign that transformed his vision and personal qualities into an intimate relationship with millions of volunteers and voters should be what social marketers and other change makers need to focus on. The use of new communication technologies by his campaign was not the essential ingredient for their success. Consider what The Wall Street Journal editorial page (subscription required) grudgingly had to admit about him a few days ago:
...while community organizing may not be much of a credential for the
Presidency, Mr. Obama's ability to organize a campaign speaks well of
his potential to manage a government.
From where I am standing today, I think the key to his successfully building the campaign and mobilizing a diverse group of Americans was in using technology in new ways - to build a community not seen before in American politics. Not to use new technologies as another channel to communicate at people, but to do it with them. We are use to hearing candidates of all stripes talk about respecting voters, but I was convinced of the essential element of the man last night at 11:54 PM (EST) when I received this text message:
We just made history. All of this happened because you gave your time, talent and passion to this campaign. All of this happened because of you. Thanks, Barack.
This is not using new technology, this is using technology in new ways - to build relationships and honor the people formerly know as the audience as co-creators of their experience.
The email from him also is instructive as well:
I'm about to head to Grant Park to talk to everyone gathered there, but I wanted to write to you first.
We just made history.
And I don't want you to forget how we did it.
You made history every single day during this campaign -- every day you
knocked on doors, made a donation, or talked to your family, friends,
and neighbors about why you believe it's time for change.
I want to thank all of you who gave your time, talent, and passion to this campaign.
We have a lot of work to do to get our country back on track, and I'll be in touch soon about what comes next.
But I want to be very clear about one thing...
All of this happened because of you.
Thank you,
Barack
This is what builds the relationship between change and the individual. Not simply repudiation of the old, or aspiration for the better. But the collaborative spirit that is expressed through all of his communications - not just on the web, or in stump speeches or in town hall meetings. What came through to many of us, though the cynics will disagree vigorously, was authenticity. President-Elect Obama stated last night in his victory speech [video and transcript]:
This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance
for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the
way things were.
It can't happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice.
So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility, where
each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only
ourselves but each other.
The campaign fever will quickly subside among many people, but change will not now come naturally or organically. The challenge, I believe, for the Obama administration will be how to continue this dialogue with people, continue to engage in relationship-building with the American people and sustain it when the inevitable conflicts and hard choices must be made. His promise to us last night was: I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will
listen to you, especially when we disagree. And, above all, I will ask
you to join in the work of remaking this nation, the only way it's been
done in America for 221 years -- block by block, brick by brick,
calloused hand by calloused hand.
He may not call it social marketing, but the clarity of the call he is making for a mutual exchange - the reciprocal sharing of truth, honesty and hard work - will lead to change if that exchange builds and reinforces trust and generates value for both parties. I am excited by the idea of a new relationship being forged between people and this government to make America a better home and global neighbor. As I tweeted last night, it is time for us to get to work to make it happen.
I was recently asked to present on what are the essential ingredients for a health communication campaign and what type of impact should be expected from them. For the answer, I turned to Leslie Snyder who has studied the effectiveness of health communication campaigns. In her most recent publication on the subject, she combined the results of several reviews of the literature that together examined over 400 campaigns on a variety of health topics.
Her conclusion: The question isn’t whether health communication campaigns are effective – it’s what is the average effect size they achieve (how much change do they result in)?
Across all these studies she found that targeted behaviors increase above baseline by an average of about 5 percentage points; a baseline level of a behavior usually is increased, for example, from 60 to 65%. Campaigns for seat belt use (15%), dental care (13%) and adult alcohol reduction (11%) campaigns have had the strongest effects, while youth alcohol and drug campaigns have had the least (1-2%).
Among other risk behaviors that were included in a sufficient number of studies to allow her to arrive at estimates of impact:
Family planning (6%)
Youth smoking prevention (6%)
Heart disease reduction (including nutrition and physical activity (5%)
Sexual risk taking (4%)
Mammography screening (4%)
Adult smoking prevention (4%)
Youth alcohol prevention and cessation (4-7%)
Tobacco prevention (4%)
Preliminary findings on risk behaviors among an even smaller number of studies are that in international breast feeding campaigns the average effect size is r = .17 (or 17%), for fruit and vegetable campaigns r = .08 and for in-school nutrition programs aimed at 4th-5th graders the r = .12.
Obviously, there are several caveats to these conclusions including the reach and frequency of messaging, the audience, the number of channels that were used and differences in measurement and evaluation. However, as a rule-of-thumb, the 5% figure may be a good place to start when you are trying to estimate the impact of a health communications campaign. And another reason to suggest you move beyond 1P marketing.
Leslie also found a number of factors that are associated with improved outcomes.
Promote adoption of healthier behaviors or substitutions over stopping or preventing unhealthy ones.
Habitual behaviors are more difficult to modify than one-off ones (e.g., screening behaviors)
Have behavior change as an explicit goal or objective
Use formative research in design and planning
Focus on homogeneous population groups
Communicate directly with your audience and not just through intermediaries
Have multiple executions of messages
Have a high frequency of exposure to the messages
Practice media multiplexity (using multiple channels)
Strive for sustained activity to mitigate the observed declines in behavior change after the campaign ends
Developing a marketing plan explicitly, and implicitly, captures many of the core assumptions and understandings of social marketing. In its essence, a social marketing plan is a translation documentthat distills...
1. Understanding of the epidemiology of the disease 2. The context in which the intervention is being planned 3. Organizational strengths and competencies 4. Partners' capabilities 5. Behavioral determinants 6. And audience insights
...into strategies and tactics that lead to positive impacts in health behaviors among priority audiences. What is included and excluded in it, how terms are defined, its implications for research and evaluation, how interventions are designed and resourced, and what it says as a statement for 'what is social marketing' are taken quite seriously, and literally, by many (and I have been in more than several impassioned debates and discussions over the years on all of the above).
Phil Kotler and Nancy Lee have taken the lead on developing a model outline of a social marketing plan that they will present at the World Social Marketing Conference later this month. The outline builds on the one presented in their book along with their principles of success for social marketing programs that I have talked about before. This latest version was reviewed, and contributions to it made, by a larger group of social marketers including Alan Andreasen, Carol Bryant, Mike Newton-Ward, Michael Rothschild, Bill Smith and myself. This, I am told by Nancy, is the final version, and with her permission I am posting it below for you to review, comment on and hopefully adopt in your practice of social marketing.
Executive Summary Brief summary highlighting plan stakeholders, background, purpose, target audience, major marketing objectives and goals, desired positioning, marketing mix strategies (4Ps), and evaluation, budget, and implementation plans.
1.0 Background, Purpose and Focus Who’s the sponsor? Why are they doing this? What social issue and population will the plan focus on and why?
2.0 Situation Analysis 2.1 SWOT: Organizational Strengths & Weaknesses and Environmental Opportunities & Threats 2.2 Literature review and environmental scan of programs focusing on similar efforts: activities & lessons learned
3.0 Target Audience Profile (See Note #1 below regarding alternative terminology.) 3.1 Demographics, geographics, relevant behaviors (including risk), psychographics, social networks, community assets and stage of change (readiness to buy) 3.2 Size of target audience
4.0 Marketing Objectives and Goals 4.1 Campaign Objectives: specifying targeted behaviors and attitudes (knowledge and beliefs) 4.2 SMART Goals: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time bound changes in behaviors and attitudes
5.0 Factors Influencing Adoption of the Behavior (See Note #2 below regarding the iterative process.) 5.1 Perceived barriers to targeted behavior 5.2 Potential benefits for targeted behavior 5.3 Competing behaviors/forces 5.4 Influence of important others
6.0 Positioning Statement How do we want the target audience to see the targeted behavior and its benefits relative to alternative/preferred ones?
7.0 Marketing Mix Strategies (Using the 4Ps to Create, Communicate and Deliver Value for the Behavior.) 7.1 Product: Benefits from performing behaviors and any objects or services offered to assist adoption Core Product: Desired audience benefits promised in exchange for performing the targeted behavior Actual Product: Features of basic product (e.g., HIV/AIDS test, exercise, # daily fruits & vegetables) Augmented Product: Additional objects & services to help perform the behavior or increase appeal 7.2 Price: Costs that will be associated with adopting the behavior
Costs: money, time, physical effort, psychological
Price-Related Tactics to Reduce Costs: Monetary & Nonmonetary Incentives and Disincentives
7.3 Place: Making access convenient Creating convenient opportunities to engage in the targeted behaviors and/or access products and services 7.4 Promotion: Persuasive communications highlighting product benefits, features, fair price and ease of access
Messages
Messengers
Creative/Executional Strategy
Media Channels & Promotional Items
8.0 Plan for Monitoring & Evaluation 8.1 Purpose and audience for monitoring and evaluation 8.2 What will be measured: inputs, outputs, outcomes (from Steps 4 & 6) and impact 8.3 How and when measures will be taken
9.0 Budget 9.1 Costs for implementing marketing plan, including additional research and monitoring/evaluation plan 9.2 Any anticipated incremental revenues, cost savings or partner contributions
10.0 Plan for Implementation and Campaign Management Who will do what, when – including partners and their roles?
OF SPECIAL NOTE: (1) Alternative terms include: Target Market (the traditional term), Priority Market, Priority Audience. (2) The process is an iterative one. For example, you may need to revise objectives and goals after hearing of barriers and benefits in Step 5, or promotional ideas based on final budget realities in Step 9. (3) A separate plan will be needed for each target audience, even though part of one campaign. (4) Research will be needed to develop most steps, especially formative research for Steps 2-6 and pretesting for finalizing Step 7.
“It is
time to be brutally honest about some of the worst effects
of intoxication.”
The Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand’s [ALAC] social marketing program is covered at Scoop with a news release and background materials announcing the latest wave of advertisements depicting the harmful consequences of binge drinking. Three television commercials focus on a ‘tipping point’ when drinking becomes harmful. Danny (a team drinker), Lisa (who drinks to boost her confidence) and Uncle Mark (a 'show off') are each shown making poor choices due to the amount of alcohol consumed.
The programme is a long-term strategy with the ultimate goal of changing New Zealand’s binge drinking culture. ALAC wants to increase the number of drinkers who have thought about the harmful effects of getting drunk, who agree they are more likely to cause serious harm to themselves and others if they get drunk and who agree it is never OK to get drunk. [Note that ALAC is funded by a levy on alcohol produced and imported for sale in New Zealand.]
In the backgrounder, the campaign's components are described as including policy, education, service provision and enforcement to support the change that the marketing messages are designed to stimulate.
The Supply Control strategiesfocus on achieving enforcement of and compliance with the Sale of Liquor Act, controlled purchase operations, parents’ programmes, policy measures designed to reduce overall consumption such as using tax/price, controlling outlet density, purchase age and regulating alcohol advertising.
Problem Limitation strategies focus on the group of dependent and hazardous drinkers who need support and assistance to reduce or stop their drinking. These strategies include early intervention programmes, treatment, supporting the Alcohol Helpline and other services.
Demand Reduction strategiesfocus on achieving culture change outcomes by persuading communities and individuals to make better choices about their consumption. It is in this area that ALAC identified a gap.
Be sure to check-in at the first online conference for social marketers being sponsored by USAID: Social Marketing for Health in the Developing World: What Have We Accomplished and What Does The Future Hold?
The third day of sessions opened today with the Panel 3 presentations: What's New in Social Marketing for Health?
Rochelle Rainey, Environmental Health Technical Advisor, USAID Global Health Bureau. Water, please! Lessons Learned from Social Marketing of Point-of-Use Drinking Water Treatment Products.
Steve Honeyman, Country Representative, PSI/Nepal. One Size Doesn't Fit All: Why Different Implementation Models are Needed for Different Social Marketing Health Interventions.
Claudia Velasquez, Senior Program Officer for Research and M&E, Institute for Reproductive Health, Georgetown University. Expanding Choice and Increasing Access Through Social Marketing: Offering the Standards Days Methods in Ecuador, Benin and Democratic Republic of Congo.
Robert Porter, Senior Technical Advisor & Margot Fahnestock, Project and Research Manager, Constella Futures. Reassessing HIV Risk in Sub-Saharan Africa: Have We Been Targeting the Right Populations?
James Shelton, Science Advisor, Bureau for Global Health, United States Agency for International Development. Depo-Provera in Uniject: Perfect for Social Marketing.
You will also continue to have access to:
Panel 1: Presentations on Public Private Partnerships: What Have We Learned?
Panel 2: Where is the "B" in Behavior Change Communication?
The Expert Exchange Forum
Discussion Rooms
The Exhibit Hall
Resource Center and the polls.
Registration continues to be free.
View and listen to the presentations, contribute your ideas and look up
and engage with over 900 of your colleagues on some of the leading
issues in the field.
