Search results

If business success were the elixir of life, there have been, and will always be, many who claim to have its formula. Each attempts to sell a new generation this complex, ever‐changing solution, and does so with concepts and ideas which are, perhaps, inordinately simplistic in relation to the problem, but which nevertheless can be comprehended. Considers the selling of solutions via abducted concepts and ideas as entrepreneurship. It is a skill to be valued, but it is not without its problems for the business practitioner, as its outcome in terms of downsizing is subsequently proving.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the field of social marketing. The field needs to evaluate what works, and more importantly for it to prosper and remain relevant, it must discover and incorporate concepts and techniques from other disciplines that are aligned around core ideas of people‐centered and socially oriented.

The paper reviews new insights and understandings from modern social marketing practice, social innovation, design thinking and service design, social media, transformative consumer research, marketing theory and advertising practice and develops a model for transforming social marketing thought, research and practice.

A three dimensional model is presented that includes: scope – co‐creation, conversations, communities and markets; design – honoring people, radiating value, engaging service and enhancing experiences; value space – dignity, hope, love and trust.

The presentation weaves together a set of ideas from different disciplines that together strengthen the social marketing approach and provide a broader set of outcomes and perspectives that can be incorporated into work in this field.

This paper aims to explore how and why ideas regarding “intersectional” approaches to feminism and Black activism are drawn on in marketing content related to the concept of being “woke” (invested in addressing social injustices). It considers which subject positions are represented as part of this and what they reveal about contemporary issues concerning advertising, gender, race and activism.

This study involves an interpretive and critical discursive analysis of so-called feminist advertising (“femvertising”) and marketing examples that make use of Black social justice activist ideas.

Findings illuminate how marketing simultaneously enables the visibility and erasure of “intersectional”, feminist and Black social justice activist issues, with the use of key racialised and gendered subject positions: White Saviour, Black Excellence, Strong Black Woman (and Mother) and “Woke” Change Agent.

This research signals how brands (mis)use issues concerning commercialised notions of feminism, equality and Black social justice activism as part of marketing that flattens and reframes liberationist politics while upholding the neoliberal idea that achievement and social change requires individual ambition and consumption rather than structural shifts and resistance.

This work can aid the development of advertising standards regulatory approaches which account for nuances of stereotypical representations and marketing’s connection to intersecting issues regarding racism and sexism.

This research outlines a conceptualisation of the branding of “woke” bravery, which expands our understanding of the interdependency of issues related to race, gender, feminism, activism and marketing. It highlights marketing responses to recent socio-political times, which are influenced by public discourse concerning movements, including Black Lives Matter and Me Too.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss a broader societal trend toward the full realization of human potential and the points of convergence with social marketing. The ultimate goal of social marketing is to increase social good. The paper defines social good in a new light and makes the connection to well-being clearer, proposing an agenda for social marketers and highlighting the opportunities for a better positioning of social marketing in the marketplace of ideas.

This conceptual paper presents an overview of concepts and evidence on the drivers of human well-being. It also discusses some important questions at a broader societal level, such as the role of money and income on happiness and well-being. It presents the connections between this body of knowledge and social marketing, including a literature review from both fields.

Eliminating ill-being no longer seems satisfactory from a societal point of view in the current Zeitgeist. Societies have been searching for ways to alleviate illnesses and to increase the well-being of its citizens. Social marketing, as a powerful social technology for behavior change, must be part of this broader movement, achieving a better positioning in the marketplace of ideas. The paper proposes a six-point agenda to reach these goals.

The main theoretical implication is a call for social marketers to see the ultimate goal of the discipline (social good) under a new lens. This requires an update in the conceptual frameworks that orient the discipline. Another implication is the need for better upstream conceptual models in social marketing.

The paper suggest some practical implications, such as the opportunity to expand social marketing to countries that do not use it, the use of well-being drivers as inputs, means and outcomes in social marketing programs, and the role of the discipline in both alleviating poverty and in demarketing efforts.

The paper contributes by taking an outside perspective and a transdisciplinary approach. The fulfillment of human potential demands the attention to different drivers of human behavior and the search for new social solutions. It also requires a clear understanding of the role of factors like money and social connectedness. This paper approaches these questions with answers grounded on the existing evidence while providing some points for the development of social marketing theory and practice.

This paper aims to expose the inadequacy of social marketing to tackle complex social problems, while proposing an expansion in the discipline’ conceptual repertoire. The goal is to incorporate complexity tools, in particular from the system dynamics field, and the promotion of mindware within a true transdisciplinary paradigm.

This paper uses literature review to support the proposed theoretical development. It also presents a short case study.

Most problems that plague our modern societies have a distinctive complex nature that is not amenable to traditional social marketing interventions. Social marketing has simplified the problem of bringing about societal change by thinking that upstream social actors can be influenced in the same way as downstream individuals. This paper shows that this is not the case while proposing a framework to close this gap.

The proposed framework is a theoretical one. It depends on further refinements and actual application to wicked problems.

Complex social problems – or wicked problems – remain widespread in modern societies. Moreover, they are getting worse over time. The paper presents a proposal to redefine the limits of the social marketing discipline so it can be more useful to tackle such problems. Practical approaches such as measuring the success of mindware in the marketplace of ideas are implied in the proposed framework.

The increase in complexity of social problems has not been accompanied by an evolution in the discipline of social marketing. The lack of proper conceptual tools has prevented the discipline from contributing to tackling these problems effectively. Some interventions may actually worsen the underlying problems, as illustrated in the paper.

This paper identifies two major gaps associated with the social marketing discipline, in particular the lack of complexity and systems thinking and the forsaking of ideas (mindware) as a legitimate goal of the discipline. This realization corroborates the claim that boundaries among disciplines are often artificial, hindering the proper understanding of complex social problems. In turn, only the use of adequate conceptual lenses makes it possible to devise interventions and programs that tackle actual causes (instead of symptoms) of complex social problems.

In light of the relation between culture and markets, an analysis of cultural evolution reveals that globalization will not lead to the homogenization of world cultures.

The USA is witnessing a conflict between LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer) consumers/supporters and Christian fundamentalist service providers/opponents regarding whether service can be denied based on religious values. The purpose of this paper is to make a timely investigation into this conflict between marketplace inclusion (for LGBTQ consumers) and freedom of religion (for religious service providers).

The intersection of marketplace inclusion for LGBTQ consumers and religious freedom for service providers is examined by identifying appropriate strategies that address this conflict and reviewing how differing religious perspectives influence perceptions of LGBTQ consumer rights, all building off the social identity threat literature.

LGBTQ and religious identities often conflict to influence consumer behavior and service provider interactions. Such conflict is heightened when there is a lack of substitutes (i.e. only one service provider in an area for a specific service). Common LGBTQ consumer responses include changing service providers, providing justification for the provision of services and pursing legal recourse. Suggested strategies to address this conflict include highlighting common social identities and using two-sided messages for service providers, using in-group interventions for social groups and using government interventions for public policy.

Research has yet to examine the conflict between marketplace inclusion and religious freedom, particularly for the inclusion of LGBTQ consumers. Thus, this paper provides a novel conceptual model detailing these relationships to stimulate discussion among consumers, service providers, social groups and public policy in addition to serving as a foundation for future research.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss issues of PR theory and practice.

The paper presents seven questions that are crucial to the conversation between PR theory and practice. The questions center on these concepts, in turn: identity/image, organizational culture, modes of representation, advocacy, audiences (including “the self”), dialogue in idealism and practice, and social engagement.

The persistent, negative reputation of PR has to be of concern to theorists as well as practitioners. PR has tended to ignore, hold static, or even render invisible the internal affairs of organizations, including the values, opinions and preferences of employees. The idea of representation, with its epistemological, political, and linguistic senses, can help to inform PR theory through a full‐blown consideration of what it means to “stand for” an organization or a cause or an industry. Advocates of PR practice who essentially argue that “the wrangle of the marketplace of ideas” will yield some kind of truth, or at least a high‐quality debate, fail to acknowledge that the quantity of views expressed and the quantity of organizations engaged may no more bring us toward genuine deliberative democracy than 500 TV channels make us better informed. In PR practice, as well as in marketing and other communication functions of the organization, a great deal of the symbols organizations produce are both shaped by and tailored to self‐consumption. Rather than assuming that the procedural correctness of symmetrical communication systems is necessarily to the same as dialogue, PR scholars and practitioners need to come to terms with the more subtle forms of power at play when organizations engage in talks and negotiations with their stakeholders. The paper advocates a perspective that takes into account the full “pragmatic” possibilities of persuasive campaigns – viewed not only in isolation but also in terms of their broader and cumulative effects.

The paper adds to the debate on PR theory and practice.

Librarianship’s dominant conception of the freedom to read is governed by a liberal principle of noninterference, wherein free readers are those who face no intentional intervention in their choice of materials. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how this account fails to adequately capture systemic threats that impoverish people’s reading lives.

This conceptual paper deploys informal argumentation to expose a flaw in the dominant account of the freedom to read. The author uses a case study of comparative titles or comps, an editorial decision-making and justificatory convention that reproduces racial inequality in Anglophone trade publishing.

Comps present one example of how everyday norms and practices of literary production render people’s reading lives pervasively unfree, even absent some intent to interfere in them. The going account of the freedom to read calls, at best, for a greater diversity of book-commodities from which consumers may choose. However, the comp case suggests that this distributive remedy will be insufficient without relevant changes to the institutional arrangements that condition readers' choices in the first place.

This paper draws together insights from Library and Information Science, political philosophy and print culture studies to illuminate limitations in librarianship’s standard conception of the freedom to read. This reveals the need for an alternative, structural account of that freedom with significant implications for practice.

This paper aims to examine some of the broader social consequences of enabling digital rights management. The authors suggest that the current, mainstream orientation of digital rights management systems could have the effect of shifting certain public powers into the invisible hands of private control. Focusing on two central features of digital rights management ‐ their surveillance function and their ability to unbundle copyrights into discrete and custom‐made products ‐ the authors conclude that a promulgation of the current use of digital rights management has the potential to seriously undermine our fundamental public commitments to personal privacy and freedom of expression.