Social Marketing Panorama

Joy is Attending the CDC's Health Communication, Marketing and Media Conference!

Last week I attend the 5th occurrence of this conference.  It was one of the best conferences I have attended in a long time!  1,110 participants from 25 countries. Excellent content and relationship building.  To use professional jargon, I was as happy as a pig in mud!  It is difficult to identify all of the nuggets I gleaned from the conference, but here are a few.

1. J. Walker Smith of The Futures Company (formally Yankelovich) distilled 3 points from consumer research in the US:  Caution--consumers are cautious in how they approach decisions about financial markets and other matters.  This leads to Curation--people want to hear from citizens, not "authorities."  So they find networks that can collect and curate information they want.  All of this is in the service of Contentment--People want their decisions to led to actions and purchases that bring contentment.  Health communicators and marketers need to consider their work in the context of these themes.

2. Photovoice is a tool for formative research in which people take pictures of their everyday lives, review the pictures through a group methodology in which they identify themes and areas of concern, then use these findings to inform intervention strategies.

3. Tools to track social media:  Sproutsocial can track the purposefulness of engagement; Tweetercounter.com provides stats related to Tweeter posts; Topsy.com counts hashtag mentions; Klout.com--assesses your social media influence and engagement.

4. Ed Keller, of the Keller Fay Group, had these observations about social media:  a) Social media is made up of two words. 90% of the value is on the social side.  It is not technology that made us social; b) Social media is an enabler, not a driver, of stories.  What is our story?  Who can best tell it?  Then ask, what is the best channel? c) If we want to be "social," then we have to act "sociably"--listen before we speak, offer something on-topic about what people are interested in. d) The ethics of social media is about honesty, transparency, relationships.

5. To generate engagement in social media [and I think this is true for all relationships-sm1guru]:  a) give people something of interest to talk about--something that excites them [guess we have to listen and get to know them first-sm1guru]; b) give positive messages; give periodic updates on a topic; c) provide opportunities to interact and act--e.g., videos, games, questions.

6. Craig Lefebvre--long time social marketer and social change agent reminded us to listen; to get away from science and take a look at the popular culture most people experience; we need eureka moments of insight, not confirmation of our scientific thinking.

7. Many of our communication interventions has been based on the assumption that the paradigm for change is "Think, Act, Feel."  More and more research shows it is "Feel, Act, Think."  Emotion is the elephant in the behavior change room--focus there.  [This reminds me of a saying from my social work days, "Insight doesn't lead to behavior change, but behavior change might lead to insight."--sm1guru].

8. From Bev Schwartz, at Ashoka, in a panel on social entrepreneurship:  "Change makers live at the intersection of passion and drive."

9.  Big Concern--I did not attend every session that talked about social marketing, but every session I attended on it focused primarily on the Promotion P, or the speaker did not seem to understand social marketing process and the 4 Ps well.  And this from some people who should know better!  That should not being happening at this conference!

10. Big Announcement--CDC is developing a new decision support tool to help us create and analyze messages--including those for social media platforms--based on 10 evidence-based variables that are significant predictors for stated intentions and behavior.  The tool is like CDCynergy meets TurboTax.  For more information, send your contact information to:  messageworks@orau.com.

Kicking Around Social Marketing, Social Media and Communication #1

In my December 21st post, I ranted about the how people seem to assume that a communication campaign is the answer to every societal problem.  I also ranted about how people confuse social marketing, communication and social media.  I felt much better!  (Other colleagues are feeling a similar pain, and seeking relief.  For a great discussion of what is wrong with “raising awareness,” and cures for that, see Alex Kesselborn’s blog post "Questions to Prevent Awareness Fever.")  In this post I want to go beyond feeling better.  I want to look at some of the reasons why behavior change practitioners default to a communication campaign, and why communication alone may not work.  In the coming posts I will talk about conditions when is communication effective, and about some reasons for the confusion in terms.  I have posted a PowerPoint presentation on Slideshare that you may want to look at, which explores the social marketing/communication/social media ball of confusion.

 

So, Why Do People Default to Communication?

1. The Audience Lacks Knowledge & Awareness.  I think there is a long standing idea that people do not do the “right” thing (i.e., the healthy thing or the thing we want them to do) because they do not know:  know they NEED to do something; know they CAN do something; know WHAT to do; know HOW to do it.  If we just tell them enough, they will do that thing (often called the “rationale” choice).  If they do not do it after all our good education, it must be due to a fault in them (e.g., “They are not motivated.”  “They don’t seem to care.”)

2. It Worked Before!  We or another program has used communication for health behavior change and it seemed to produce results.  So, we do it again.  (Problem:  do we have the data to show it was the communication? Or to show what about the communication contributed to change?)

3. Everyone Else is Doing It!  Everyone seems to be using communication for health (and other) behavior change.  It must work.  We will use it, too.  (Problem:  the communication component is often the most visible intervention.  However, we don’t know what else was done that might have influenced behavior change.)

4. It’s How I Trained.  In a discussion on the Georgetown Social Marketing List Serve (1/27/2010), Bill Smith, from the Academy of Educational Development noted, “What happens in practice is we default to the tool we were trained in.  If we were trained in H comm we wind up with messages; if we were trained in advocacy we wind up with policy reform.”

 

Communication Alone May Not Move the Needle on Behavior Change…

In both conversations with peers and in literature, we find frustration that even after people know what they are “supposed to do,” they don’t do it.  Problems persist:  initiating cigarette smoking; obesity; lack of recycling.  Even the well-executed, commercial “Got Milk?” campaign did not result in increased sales the first time around—though it did result in increased awareness (see graph).   

 

Recently, Leslie Snyder, director of the Center for Health Communication and Marketing at the University of Connecticut, conducted a meta-analysis of health communication campaigns.  She found that the campaigns resulted in about a 5 percent change in behavior, on average, among people exposed to them.  F-I-V-E %.  Aye, yie yie!

 

…Why not?!

1. Perhaps our approach was poorly planned or executed.  We not did deliver a large enough “dose” of communication to elicit a “response.”  We couldn’t afford to reach our audiences in a time and place when they were attending.  We didn’t conduct audience research nor pretesting

2. Maibach, Abroms and Marosits (2007) remind us that, from the point of view of the Ecological Model of Health, communication may only seek to affect one “field of influence”—the individual level.  And there may be other fields of influence (e.g. interpersonal, organizational, community, public policy) that we miss, which play a role in behavior.

3. There are determinants of behavior that communication alone cannot address.  I have cited before work by a consensus panel (Fishbein, Triandis et al., 2001) of leading health behavior theorist that the National Institutes of Mental Health convened.  They agreed that there are both external and internal determinants of behavior.  Look below at these and think about which determinants communication and messaging can address.  Even after our best practice communication efforts we may not get the behavior change we are looking for, because there are other determinants at play that we have not impacted.

External

• Policies
• Access
• Skills
• Actual Consequences
• Cultural Beliefs and Values

Internal

• Knowledge and Beliefs
• Attitudes
• Perceived Risk
• Perceived Consequences
• Self Efficacy

Even after our best efforts to communicate, the audience may still experience barriers to acting on the good information and awareness we have provided.

So, where can we turn to get the most out of communication strategies?  How can we deal with other barriers to acting?...Stay tuned!

(Sources: Photo-BillRhodes; Graph: Bill Smith)

 

If Someone Mentions Messages, Communication or Social Media in the Same Breath as Social Marketing, KICK THEM IN THE SHINS!

Here I was, all ready to compose a nice post about using social marketing to address climate change, following up on the Copenhagen conference. Then several things happened to send me into a rant of desperation about the confusion between marketing and messaging!

The Irritants
1. First, I read several posts from the United Kingdom’s National Health Service Marketing blog that discussed the confusion in the UK over social media and social marketing.  Apparently the press and some members of Parliament are upset over large budgets for social media, which they are calling social marketing.  (There should be NO excuses for this confusion anywhere in the UK, given the wonderful resource of the UK’s National Social Marketing Centre!)

2. Next I read a blog post from ISIS-INC. (a non-profit dealing with sexual health) that equates social marketing with “Facebook and Twitter,” and then goes on to talk about a web-based Youth Social Marketing Toolkit (YSMT), created by the California Family Health Council Infertility Prevention Project and the California STD/HIV Prevention Training Center to help “agencies with limited financial resources...develop a social marketing [read social media] campaign.”

I visited the toolkit.  It is nicely developed.  It defines social marketing correctly.  It defines the 4-Ps, and adds policy.  Then it trips up with the statement:  “Social marketing is not always a success. If the attitudes and behavior changes you are encouraging are still not perceived as beneficial, acceptable and attainable by the priority population, it may not be worthwhile to develop a social marketing campaign at this time. [“Beneficial, acceptable and attainable”—isn’t that what the 4 Ps are about?!] In this situation, it is better to introduce a behavior change recommendation by developing connections with community and agreeing on a unified goal before planning a social marketing campaign.” It trips up, and continues the long fall throughout the rest of the site by talking about how to do communication campaigns!

3. Next was a post on the web site 4Hoteliers; Hospitality, Hotels and Travel News.  It acknowledges the origins of social marketing with Kotler and Zaltman, then says of social marketing:  “It delivers a two-way communication link between the consumer/customer and the brand.  While social marketing was originally developed from the desire companies had to capitalize on commercial marketing techniques, it has evolved into a more integrative and comprehensive discipline that draws on a wide array of technology, from the traditional media to new media referred to as “’social media.’” It continues to discuss social media.

4. Finally, there was a meeting last week where a colleague of mine says at a meeting, “Social marketing is a way to make communication more effective, right?”

Cue Eduard Monck’s painting, “The Scream!”

How did those of us involved in promoting health, community well-being and positive behavior change around other issues get so enamored with communication and messaging?  Do we think just telling someone about something, or to do something leads to their doing it?  Do any of us have children?!  Are we looking at what works in behavior change efforts?  Not only did we “drink the Kool-Aid” on communication and messaging, we tied cement blocks to our feet and jumped in!

I AM NOT “DISS-ING” COMMUNICATION!  I am “diss-ing” our over-reliance on it as the panacea for all problems!  I am “diss-ing” the confusion of social media and using communication with social marketing.

This Holiday, Repeat after Me:
1.  Communication may be a necessary condition for behavior change, but it may not be a sufficient condition;

2. Social marketing is more about removing barriers to behavior, and increasing benefits and facilitators, than it is about communicating;

3. Social media is a communication tactic.  Social marketing is a strategic process for effecting social change;

4. Social marketing (and commercial marketing) utilizes a mix of Product, Price, Place and Promotion;

5. If I Hear Someone Mention Messages, Communication or Social Media in the Same Breath as Social Marketing, I WILL KICK THEM IN THE SHINS!

(To be continued…!)

Can We Please Take the Term "Campaign," and Shoot It?

Or at least retire it from our professional lexicon?

When you hear the word "campaign," what do you think of? Running for political office? Wellesley at Talavara? Raising money for a good cause? Or, be truthful now, a communications effort to effect an issue?  It seems that everywhere I work, people use the word campaign to refer to their combination of behavior change interventions, regardless of whether there is a major communication component.  The problem is--and I may be having a therapeutic rant here--when people use the word campaign, everyone within earshot starts thinking communications only.

Try this bit of audience research:  gather a group of colleagues together, and ask them what they think of when they hear the word campaign.  I find that even with people who have a solid grounding in social marketing concepts, their eyes often glaze over, they get that dreamy look, and start rhapsodizing about messaging, billboards and PSAs!  Pity the group who has just been exposed to social marketing!  Someone in the room mentions a "social marketing campaign," and suddenly everyone in the room forgets product, price and place, and begins talking about funding messages!

I have nothing against communications, let me make that clear (though some people have accused me of that!)!  It is just that we, particularly in public health, tend to rely on communication to carry all the burden for behavior change, then be disappointed when "people don't change," or perhaps blame them for "not being motivated."  And it seems that we are so conditioned, that when we hear the word "campaign," we automatically think "messages,"  and forgot all the other wonderful things that a true "4-P" marketing effort can bring (creating and delivering something of real value to our audiences, a 360 degree view of the problem and potential solutions, a logic model to tie together all of our intervention efforts, an appreciation of barriers and facilitators to behavior.) [Kudos to Craig Lefebvre for the term "4-P marketing."]

So, can we not now send the term "campaign" off to the well-deserved retirement it deserves, and think about using other terms that are less loaded, like "interventions," or "program," or...you come up with a term!