This assignment is in two parts: part one is a compulsory question and part two contains three questions – you should choose ONLY one.
Part one: (1000 word)
Compulsory question: Review one pair of research papers about Social Marketing. Your review should elaborate on and compare the argument or findings and the methods used in the papers. In what ways do these papers make a contribution to our knowledge on
the topic they discuss?
Part two: (1000 word)
Choice of questions
Q.1. (a) Explain the meaning and purpose of the concepts of reliability, validity and
generalizability within a traditional/standard research approach. (b) Review one piece of
published research in relation to how the author has used these concepts.
OR
Q.2. (a) What is the main advantage of using Focus Group methodology as an alternative to
Group Interviews. (b) Review one published piece of Focus Group research and assess the
extent to which the author has used the method to effect.
OR
Q.3. Drawing on one piece of published survey research, assess the extent to which the
research (a) demonstrates the value of the survey method and (b) assess what further value
a qualitative element DID or COULD have added.
Note
All work must be properly referenced and paraphrased. Do not overuse quoted material.
Avoid using secondary referencing as much as possible.
Attachment
Unlocking the potential of
upstream social marketing
Ross Gordon
Centre for Health Initiatives, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia
Abstract
Purpose – Social marketing scholars have posited that influencing policy makers, regulators,
managers and educators can help address societal problems “upstream”. Applying “upstream social
marketing”, these groups can be treated as target audiences, and through use of marketing techniques,
advocacy, stakeholder engagement, and informing evidence based policy making, their behaviour can
be influenced to engender pro-social outcomes, for example through policy change. However, examples
and guidance on how upstream social marketing can be effectively employed to successfully alter the
structural environment is lacking. This article aims to unlock the potential of upstream social
marketing by examining how it can be systematically employed.
Design/methodology/approach – The article examines the development of the upstream social
marketing concept in the extant literature, and presents some guiding principles, before analysing the
case study of minimum unit pricing of alcohol in Scotland. The failure to comprehensively employ
upstream social marketing in this case is compared with the successful use of upstream social
marketing in tobacco control.
Findings – The article suggests that heretofore, upstream social marketing has not always been
systematically applied using social marketing principles. Guidance on upstream social marketing is
presented, and thoughts on the trajectory of the concept for the future are offered.
Originality/value – The paper identifies guidelines for unlocking the potential of upstream social
marketing, and suggests areas in which future research and writings are required to help develop the
concept.
Keywords Upstream social marketing, Guidelines, Theory, Concepts, Development, Alcoholic drinks,
Scotland
Paper type Conceptual paper
1. Introduction
From the time when Kotler and Zaltmam (1971) offered an initial definition of social
marketing, until the mid-1990 s much of the focus in the field was downstream[1], on
individual behaviour change. In recent years scholars have proposed a broadening of
social marketing’s horizons beyond the individual, to attempt to influence those that
help shape the determinants of human behaviour such as policy makers, regulators,
and the media (Goldberg, 1995; Andreasen, 2006). The marketing concepts and
techniques social marketers use to influence individual behaviour change may also
shape policy makers’ behaviour and bring about beneficial social outcomes. Upstream
social marketing, as this concept is termed, involves the adaptation and application of
marketing and other approaches, to change the behaviour of decision makers and
opinion formers, which alters the structural environment and has a resultant positive
influence on social issues.
The use of upstream social marketing has been influential in changing the
environment in relation to smoking (Pollay, 2004). However, there remains a lack of clear
guidance on how upstream social marketing can be employed (Noble, 2006; Hoek and
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm
Upstream social
marketing
1525
Received 29 September 2011
Revised 2 February 2012
1 April 2012
Accepted 13 July 2012
European Journal of Marketing
Vol. 47 No. 9, 2013
pp. 1525-1547
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0309-0566
DOI 10.1108/EJM-09-2011-0523Jones, 2011). Furthermore, as section 4.0 demonstrates, in relation to behavioural issues
such as harmful alcohol consumption, upstream social marketing has not been employed
systematically, or has not been very influential in the policy process. If researchers and
practitioners are to engage in upstream social marketing it would be useful for some
clarity to be offered on what it involves, and how it can be utilised effectively.
This article argues that despite extensive discourse on the topic, the full potential of
upstream social marketing has not been realised. The aim of this discussion therefore,
is to unlock the potential of upstream social marketing. To begin, the development and
nature of upstream social marketing are examined. Key principles for upstream social
marketing, informed by considering the extant social marketing literature and
illustrated in the context of tobacco control, are then discussed. A case study, utilising
document analysis and qualitative interviews, examines how upstream social
marketing was not efficaciously utilised in relation to minimum unit pricing of alcohol
in Scotland. This is compared with how the approach has been successfully used in
tobacco control. The article concludes by considering how upstream social marketing
could develop in the future.
2. The emergence of upstream social marketing
Social marketing held a strong focus on individual behaviour change interventions
during the first 20 years of the field. Several early interventions centred on the use of
mainstream marketing techniques, and the 4Ps marketing mix model to deliver social
change (MacFadyen et al. 1999). This resulted in less concentration on the broader
environment in which societal issues are framed, which drew criticism from scholars
who called for more attention on fundamental structural conditions of society upstream
(Wallack, 1990; Novelli, 1996). Shimp (1994) called for a greater concentration on
life-altering options in consumer behaviour research, and increased attention on
substantive issues such as policy change.
Subsequently, Goldberg (1995) issued a call to action arguing that social marketing
has an important role to play in addressing “the negative or constraining social
structural influences on individual behaviour, particularly those that originate as a
function of marketing activities” (Goldberg, 1995, p. 347). Later interventions,
particularly those concerning smoking cessation, began to take a population approach
focussing on the smokers’ environment rather than only on how individuals might be
encouraged to change their behaviour (Hastings, 2007). These debates represent the
overt emergence of the upstream social marketing concept. The etymology of the term
upstream social marketing draws on the metaphor of a river used in the public health
literature, and explained in the following, to describe the domain in which behaviour
change approaches operate.
The upstream-downstream metaphor. People are drowning in a river on a sunny day. Rescue
workers are pulling them out as fast as they can manage, but no matter how hard they work,
there are always more people floating along and some cannot be rescued in time. A group
decide that rather than concentrating on helping individuals who are ‘drowning’ in problems
once they have fallen in and floated downstream, they will take a walk upstream to see why
people are falling into the river in the first place. When they get a few minutes upstream they
see that there are suggestive signs encouraging people to swim in the river, and stating how
clean and refreshing the water is. Also a new diving board has been built, from which kids are
jumping from to show off.
EJM
47,9
1526The group then walk even further upstream and come across a shantytown built right on
the banks of the river, with evidence of landslides and living huts collapsing. They spot
groups of unsupervised children playing on the riverbank.
The group consider whether they need to recruit more workers to rescue the people who
have already fallen in downstream, remove the signs and diving board encouraging people to
jump in, or change socio-economic policy so incomes rise and no poor housing is built close to
the river (Source: Adapted from Wallack et al. (1993)).
The analogy shown previously demonstrates that a range of factors influence human
behaviour. The people drowning in the river could be influenced by their own desire to
cool off and have a swim, the fact that their peers may already have dived in, the
provision of a diving board and suggestive advertising, lack of parental supervision, or
economic and social conditions and policy. This is explained in Ecological Systems
Theory, which states that there are four types of nested environmental systems of
influence on human behaviour (Bronfenbrenner, 1977, 1979):
(1) Microsystem: Individual and immediate environments (personality, family,
school, peer group neighbourhood).
(2) Mesosystem: A system of connections between immediate environments (such
as a child’s home or school).
(3) Exosystem: External environmental settings which only indirectly affect
development (e.g. a parent’s workplace).
(4) Macrosystem: The wider cultural context (East vs West, national economy,
political culture, sub-culture).
Goldberg (1995) used the river metaphor to describe the concept of upstream social
marketing, which could be used to consider issues such as the effects of alcohol
advertising on teens, the relation of price and teenage demand for cigarettes, the impact
of alcohol products packaged to look like soft drinks, and the role cigarette vending
machines play in facilitating early initiation into smoking.
Andreasen (1997) accepted the potential of this concept, but argued that Goldberg
did not focus far enough upstream. He stated that marketers should study how to
influence politicians, lawmakers, educators and managers, to bring about changes in
the structural environment resulting in positive social outcomes. However, Wells
(1997) rejected this philosophy, and argued that the true purpose for consumer
researchers is to use research to provide valid conclusions and search for the truth, not
to contend for power. As such, the idea of entering the social and political arena was
anathema; instead, scholars should produce valid findings and then step back.
Furthermore, pointing out the difficulties in bringing social issues into the lab, he
disagreed that focus should shift onto upstream issues. In a rejoinder, Goldberg (1997)
warned of the dangers of living up to an ivory tower academic stereotype and
reinforced the belief that social marketing academics have a democratic and
disciplinary interest in entering the socio-political arena.
It could be argued that there is considerable debate around whether researchers can
“identify” the truth (Saren et al., 2007). Furthermore, there is often a fine, and often
undefined line between explaining research findings and advocating for policy change.
This is a challenge faced by those wishing to utilise upstream social marketing. Yet
social marketers often act as advocates both downstream and upstream, promoting
Upstream social
marketing
1527behaviour change for a social goal that they perceive to be positive. Given the health,
social, and financial costs associated with many of the behavioural challenges that
social marketing is used to tackle, it is legitimate that social marketers become activists
downstream, midstream and upstream. The amelioration of behavioural challenges,
through use of social marketing would provide benefits to society. Therefore, criticisms
of an interventionist approach (see Laczniak et al., 1979) seem misguided. Providing
upstream and indeed any social marketing is carried out fairly and ethically, the ends
justify the means.
Other scholars joined the debate by arguing that issues such as an unhealthy diet
can be a result of poverty as much as bad food choice and social marketing needs to
address these upstream influences to realise its full potential and establish intellectual
and ethical legitimacy (Hastings et al., 2000). Around the same time, social marketers
suggested a requirement to consider the environmental and social determinants of
individual behaviours when developing interventions (Donovan, 2000). In 2002,
Hastings and Donovan issued a call for “social marketing to embrace a broader
perspective that encompasses not just individual behaviour, but also the social and
physical determinants of that behaviour” (Hastings and Donovan, 2002, p. 4). This
discourse reflected what the social inequality literature had been saying for many
years, that public health problems require a deeper analysis of individuals’
environments to facilitate behaviour change (Kunst, 2007; WHO, 2010).
Later, textbooks began to cover the topic of upstream social marketing in increasing
detail (Andreasen, 2006; Hastings, 2007). The holistic approach to behaviour change
was developed further with the National Social Marketing Centre identifying
operational social marketing (to achieve individual behaviour change) and strategic
social marketing “using customer understanding and insight to inform policy and
strategy development” (NSMC, 2007, p. 18).
Selected “successful” examples of upstream social marketing, in which the
structural environment was altered, are cited within the current literature. The
Bootheel Heart Health project was aimed at adults in six south-eastern counties of
Missouri, USA with the behavioural goal of reducing risk factors for cardiovascular
disease including physical inactivity. The intervention involved lobbying of decision
makers, and led to the proposal, and subsequent construction of a network of walking
paths throughout low-income communities to facilitate physical activity (Brownson
et al., 1996). Other examples of upstream social marketing include the fluoridation of
water, the introduction of substance misuse policies in schools, and the promotion of
the use of non-custodial sentences (Hastings, 2007; Stead et al., 2007). Yet from
consideration of the existing literature on upstream social marketing, such examples
are not ubiquitous, often lack depth of discussion, or omit the presentation of key
principles and guidelines for utilising upstream social marketing. The following
section considers the location of the concept within the social marketing paradigm, and
identifies some key principles and guidelines. The article then examines how upstream
social marketing has been operationalised.
3. Upstream social marketing: domain, principles and guidelines
3.1 Domain
Definitions of social marketing and the scope of its application largely focused on
individual voluntary behaviour change during its first 20 years (Dann, 2010). However,
EJM
47,9
1528since the mid 1990 s discourse on upstream social marketing has emerged around the
need to focus on structural and environmental drivers of individual behaviours and
societal problems (Goldberg, 1995; Donovan, 2000; Hastings and Donovan, 2002).
However, with some exceptions (see Hastings, 2007; Hoek and Jones, 2011), there is
little discussion in the extant literature on exactly where and when this can be applied,
and how it can be operationalized (Wymer, 2011).
A logical starting point is to suggest that it would involve the use of marketing
concepts, principles and techniques to engender change in the upstream environment.
Upstream social marketing seeks to influence the behaviours of those who shape the
structural and environmental conditions within society, including politicians, policy
makers, civil servants, decision makers, regulators, managers, educators and the
media. Crucially, this requires recognition that these groups are target audiences, with
influences, motivations, needs and wants, barriers and incentives, and specific
behavioural goals, just like downstream audiences. By using social marketing
approaches, behaviour change among power brokers can be encouraged so that social
structures and conditions can be influenced. Social marketers therefore become
activists in this arena (Wymer, 2010).
However, there has been little consideration until recent times of how upstream
social marketing relates to other aspects of the social marketing paradigm (see NSMC,
2007). Indeed, Hoek and Jones (2011) identify a philosophical divide between
downstream and upstream social marketing. The application of social marketing
principles upstream brings certain challenges, as the target audiences are different,
some of the techniques involved differ from downstream social marketing, and
researchers may be reluctant to enter the socio political arena.
Figure 1 demonstrates how upstream social marketing might fit within the social
marketing paradigm. The schema is based on the view espoused by Lazer and Kelley
(1973), and supported by other scholars (Perry, 1976; Hastings, 2007), that there are two
sides to the social marketing coin. One side is concerned with the use of marketing
principles and practices to change behaviour. Within this, there are two locations for
the application of social marketing: upstream and downstream. The other is concerned
with the critical analysis of the impact commercial marketing has on society, recently
termed as “critical social marketing”, which can be used to inform policy and
regulation (Gordon, 2011a). Importantly, the different facets of social marketing are
synergistic, and should be treated as contiguous and complementary (Hoek and Jones,
2011). Indeed, Hastings (2007) believes that social marketing is “not a matter of either
upstream or downstream, but both and everything in between” (Hastings, 2007, p. 108).
Therefore, upstream, midstream, downstream, and critical social marketing should not
be treated as mutually exclusive concepts; but as forming a strategic social marketing
approach to social change.
3.2 Principles and guidelines
Having assessed the domain of upstream social marketing, a logical subsequent
consideration would be how it can be operationalised. Efforts have been made in this
area (Hastings, 2007), but further development would be welcomed. In relation to
“downstream” social marketing interventions, the development of benchmark criteria
has offered a useful framework for understanding what social marketing should entail
(Andreasen, 2002; NSMC, 2007). Upstream social marketing is focused on behaviour
Upstream social
marketing
1529(and structural/environmental change), and involves using similar marketing
principles and techniques to change behaviour, albeit with different audiences and
in a different environment. By considering principles and issues in relation to each of
the social marketing benchmark criteria, it is possible to present some guidelines for
researchers active in this arena. These principles and guidelines are also informed by
considering the successful application of upstream social marketing in the tobacco
control field, and through qualitative interviews with policy makers (discussed further
in section four).
3.2.1 Behaviour change. Social marketing concerns changing the knowledge,
attitudes and ultimately the behaviour of individuals and groups (Andreasen, 2003).
Upstream social marketing still involves behaviour change, but among those who
make policy, legislative, regulative and management decisions that affect individuals,
groups and organisations in society (Hastings and Donovan, 2000). The types of
behaviour change we seek to influence in this area would include voting behaviours,
activity in policy debates and cabinet and committee meetings, judgements, corporate
policies, adjudications and applications of legal principles and precedents[2].
An important distinction between upstream and downstream social marketing, is
that changing the structural environment can be regarded as removing “voluntary”
elements of behaviour change downstream, for example smoking bans in public places
have no optional buy in clause for individuals. However, as Hoek and Jones (2011)
Figure 1.
Schema of social
marketing
EJM
47,9
1530argue, shaping the upstream environment can act as a pre-requisite for enabling full
and free choices, rather than diminishing voluntary behaviour – for children brought
up in a smoke free environment and protected from an addictive behaviour, would
arguably enjoy and receive in exchange a greater freedom of lifestyle, economic and
health behaviour choices.
3.2.2 Consumer research. Consumer research is a vital tool in any form of social
marketing. Hastings (2007) attaches importance to basing upstream intervention on
consumer research to identify and understand relevant stakeholders, identify key
market segments and their needs, create motivational exchanges, and then implement
and evaluate. Tobacco control offers a prime example of how this may be achieved.
Studies on potential tobacco control measures for the future have featured a process of
research and engagement with decision makers and commentators to explore policy
options such as the use of price mechanisms, or gradually reducing the commercial
supply of tobacco (Gilmore et al., 2010; Malone, 2010; Thomson et al., 2010). Conducting
formative research with educators and managers might be relatively straightforward
but doing so with politicians or legislators presents more challenges. Time pressures,
antipathy, prudence and mistrust are issues that might make it difficult to research our
target audience.
Suggestions such as asking them to complete surveys or interviews in exchange for
a donation to a charity of their choice, or speaking to them over a meal in Parliament
offer strategies (Interview, Opposition MSP 4). Other techniques such as analysing
voting records; checking Parliamentary questions; previous policy statements and
speeches; identifying membership of Parliamentary committees or cross party groups;
checking their biographies for other special interests; or informal Q&A sessions, might
offer some possibilities. Application of research techniques such as surveying, group
discussion, stakeholder analysis, case studies, applied behavioural analysis, group
decision making and firm or organisational behaviour studies, could also help
upstream social marketing (Hutt and Speh, 2009; Buchanan and Huczynski, 2010).
The case of tobacco control in which upstream social marketing was used to assess
the impact of, and advocate and assess various policy responses to tobacco advertising
provides a useful framework for how consumer research can test policy options and
inform evidence based policy change (Borland, 2003; Pollay, 2004; Harris et al., 2006).
Importantly, upstream activities and the process of engaging with decision makers in
tobacco control were developed and refined over a number of years, with mistakes
being made and lessons learned accordingly.
3.2.3 Insight. Insight in social marketing downstream requires gaining a deeper
understanding of what moves and motivates the target group, and identifying key
factors and issues relevant to influencing their behaviour that allows actionable
insights to be developed. In the upstream domain, motivations for the behaviour of
decision makers can include electoral considerations, official party policies, ideological
perspectives, institutional structures and demands, past experiences, media issues and
a range of other factors. Indeed, politicisation, public opinion, the function of special
interest groups, and the vagaries of the electoral cycle are all huge influences on
decision makers. This fits well with the persuasive expertise of social marketers.
Gaining insight into what drives the behaviour of decision makers is important if we
are to influence them.
Upstream social
marketing
1531Furthermore, consumer research may identify that there is a desire by the target
audience to be presented with more than one option to change the structural
environment (e.g. new policy, improved implementation of existent policy, regulation,
legislation). Policy makers might prefer to consider a range of options (Interview,
Opposition MSP 3). Extensive stakeholder engagement in the tobacco control field was
able to generate insight on the objectives of the various actors and helped identify
achievable policy options (Anderson et al., 2010). However, it should be acknowledged
that this took time and considerable effort. While social marketers are seemingly well
placed to operate in this domain, there are few current writings in this area.
3.2.4 Theory. Many of the behavioural theories used in social marketing
downstream do recognise that human behaviour is subject to environmental
influences. Social cognitive theory proposes that beyond personal characteristics,
health behaviours are also governed by the immediate environment (peers, community,
significant others) and the wider social context (norms, cultural symbolism, structural
issues). Other theories such as social learning theory (Bandura, 1977), the
community-organisation model and the social-ecological approach (Glanz et al. 2008),
similarly address the broader environment (Hastings, 2007).
Doing upstream social marketing offers a way for developing better understanding
of environmental influences on behaviour. This information can then be supplemented
from learning at the individual behaviour change level and offer a more complete
picture of the theories used. Furthermore, using behavioural theory can help
understand, predict and alter the behaviour of target audiences in the upstream
environment. Indeed, there may be alternative theories in other fields such as political
science, for example incrementalism (see
Lindblom, 1979), that help understand and predict decision making, that could be
utilised in upstream social marketing. Behavioural theories such as Ecological Systems
Theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) have been used to inform multi-faceted tobacco control
interventions (O’Connor et al. 2001). However, examination of the social marketing
literature shows that consideration of theory in upstream social marketing could be
developed further.
3.2.5 Segmentation and targeting. Consumer research can help identify audience
segments and develop targeting strategies to encourage behaviour change downstream
(for example adolescents, ethnic minorities, socially disadvantaged, early adopters of
technology and ideas), and this also applies upstream. As well as some of the more
obvious ways of segmenting by age, gender, ethnicity or geographic location there are
other segmentation approaches upstream. There are a range of segments wielding power
and influence in societies including stakeholder organisations and individuals such as
politicians, educators, regulators, lawmakers, managers and the media. Within each of
these groups further segmentation can be conducted. The tobacco control lobby has been
successful at identifying and engaging with various stakeholder groups through policy
forums, advocacy work and lobbying (Chapman, 2007). Importantly, different
approaches have been used according to the organisational structure and objectives of
various actors, therefore demonstrating use of segmentation and targeting principles.
Examination of political manifestos, policies, speeches and press releases can help
us categorise politicians. For example within political systems there may be various
groups: social-conservatives, free-market liberals, mavericks, flip-floppers (those who
do not maintain consistent positions on policy), technocrats, social democrats and
EJM
47,9
1532socialists, and influencing these segments would require different targeted strategies,
for instance mavericks tend to respond well to media attention (Judge, 2005). When
operating upstream, timing and opportunity are critical factors. When attempting to
influence individual behaviour change downstream, if we are unsuccessful we can try
again or hope the next person does engage, as long as the intervention shows some
overall success. In this environment, if we do not succeed it can often be years until the
agenda permits another attempt at changing the structural environment. Further,
failure to engage the relevant stakeholders upstream when the opportunities arise may
cause them to form different opinions to the ones encouraged. Therefore, detailed case
study examples of how segmentation and targeting can be employed in upstream
social marketing would be beneficial.
3.2.6 Marketing mix. The interpretation of the marketing toolkit applicable to
upstream social marketing differs somewhat from the version of the four Ps model that
is traditionally used in the downstream environment (see Stead et al., 2007).
Considering the marketing mix in upstream social marketing requires consideration of
the use of strategies to ensure a valued offering is presented to the target group
(i.e. power brokers). In some cases, the traditional product, price, place and promotion
constructs hold true for upstream social marketing. In other domains, alternative
marketing tools such as advocacy, relationship building, and stakeholder engagement
are required suggestion that alternative social marketing mix models warrant
consideration (Gordon, 2012).
Products can be used in upstream applications, for example adding folic acid to
foodstuffs to encourage healthy pregnancies. Other tangible offerings include research
reports used to try to influence decision makers to introduce a new policy. However, the
“real” product is often intangible, and refers to the outcomes as a result of behaviour
change, i.e. improved health and wellbeing. Price can relate to issues such as the cost of
changing legislation and subsequent enforcement (for instance banning smoking in
public places has a monetary cost to put into
Jermaine Byrant
Nicole Johnson
OVER
RATING
YEARS
