Background: Social marketing successes are relatively well-documented, but mistakes and failures in the field are not. When mistakes and failures are reported, they are usually on an ad hoc basis, as opposed to a systematic gathering of evidence. This paper is the second half of a two-part research study that aims to understand the perceptions of social marketing professionals with regard to mistakes and failures in the field. Focus: This article is related to research and evaluation of the social marketing field. Research Question: What are the perceptions of the social marketing community regarding mistakes and failures in the field? Importance to the field: A greater understanding of mistakes and failures in the social marketing field will assist practitioners to assess their own shortcomings, address causes of mistakes and failures, and improve program outcomes. Method: This research is qualitative and exploratory, with a constructivist, grounded theory methodology. Surveys were completed by 100 social marketing community members. Survey data was analyzed and coded using SPSS software and Microsoft Excel. Results: According to the analyzed survey data, the social marketing community believes that inadequate research, poor strategy development, and mismanagement of stakeholders are the most common mistakes made by social marketers. Further, weak evaluation and monitoring is considered to be the “least well-managed” program element. Poor strategy development, external influences, and poorly designed program and behavioral objectives are considered to be the primary reasons for social marketing program failure. Recommendations for research or practice: Future research may explore the extent to which external influences lead to social marketing program success or failure, particularly in comparison to mistakes made by social marketers. Additionally, practitioners should be aware of and develop strategies to mitigate common mistakes and failures in order to improve program outcomes. Limitations: The 100 social marketing professionals who responded to the survey are not representative of the global social marketing community. Further, responses were based on self-report rather than direct observation, which may make them more susceptible to bias.

Background: The work of social marketers and the environment in which they work is complex, which inevitably results in mistakes being made and sometimes, the failure of a social marketing program. Unfortunately, social marketers do not often report their own mistakes. Even when failures or mistakes are reported, it is usually for the purpose of one study, as opposed to a wider understanding of mistakes made by social marketers in the field. This is a significant gap in the development of social marketing practice since understanding the nature of the most common mistakes made by social marketers could assist them in assessing their own shortcomings and potentially lead to more effective programs. Focus: This article is related to research and evaluation of the social marketing field. Research Question: What are the perceptions of social marketing experts regarding the most common mistakes made by social marketers? Importance to the Field: A greater understanding of the common mistakes made by social marketers will allow practitioners to assess their own shortcomings, improve program outcomes, and raise the status of the social marketing field. Methods: This research is qualitative and exploratory, with a constructivist, grounded theory methodology. In-depth interviews with 17 social marketing experts were conducted. Experts were purposefully chosen based on a set of criteria including the number of years of experience they had in the field. Results: The interviews revealed nine mistake categories: inadequate research, poor strategy development, ad hoc approaches to programs, mismanagement of stakeholders, poorly designed program objectives, weak evaluation and monitoring, poor execution of pilots, inadequate segmentation and targeting, and poor documentation. Additionally, the interviews revealed two other emergent, crosscutting themes that affect the mistakes being made: external influences that the social marketer may not have direct control over and the social marketer’s own preconceptions that they bring to the program. Recommendations for Research or Practice: Future research may explore (1) the extent to which external influences lead to social marketing program success or failure, particularly in comparison to mistakes made by social marketers and (2) perspectives from the social marketing community as to the most common mistakes made by social marketers. Social marketers may consider being more reflexive in their work, including reporting their own mistakes and failed programs, as well as challenging the biases they may bring to the work that they do. Limitations: The sample size is small and therefore not generalizable to all social marketing experts or the social marketing community. Also, there are many parts of the world in which social marketers practice, but which are not represented by the social marketing experts. Additionally, the “mistakes” listed are based on opinion as opposed to direct observation, which may make them more susceptible to bias.

Achieving equity in international research is a pressing concern. Exploitation in any scenario, whether of human research participants, institutions, local communities, animals or the environment, raises the overarching question of how to avoid such exploitation. Agreed principles can be universally applied to research in any discipline or geographical area, whatever methodologies are employed. This chapter introduces a collection of case studies, presenting a range of up-to-date examples of exploitation in North-South research collaborations, in order to raise awareness of ethics dumping.

Practice educators should consider the delivery of interactive education and training delivered to multi-disciplinary groups, and the use of protocols or guidelines, which tend to be associated with a positive impact on both patient and quality of care outcomes. Future research should incorporate a robust design.

Background: Community-based social marketing (CBSM) offers a pragmatic five-step approach to developing a program that fosters sustainable behaviour. However, how the CBSM theoretical framework has been implemented into practice remains largely under-evaluated. To help address this gap, Lynes et al. developed 21 benchmarks to assess CBSM programs. This research builds upon these benchmarks by using both the benchmarks and additional assessment criteria to assess five Canadian programs that have used CBSM principles. Focus: This paper is related to research and evaluation of community-based social marketing. Research Question: How has the CBSM theoretical framework been implemented in practice at the community level? Importance to the Social Marketing Field: By exploring how five Canadian programs have implemented CBSM, this paper enables practitioners to align their programs with CBSM principles more closely. It also contributes to the literature on CBSM effectiveness. Methods: Five qualitative case studies were assessed, each featuring a Canadian community program seeking to influence residential water efficiency behaviour. In order to systematically assess each program’s adherence to the CBSM theoretical framework, a CBSM benchmark assessment tool that proposes additional assessment criteria to Lynes et al.’s 21 benchmarks was developed. The assessment tool allowed for replicable benchmark assessments across multiple programs. Triangulation of data from both primary (survey and interview) and secondary (peer-reviewed literature, gray literature, and online reporting) data sources informed the assessment of each case study. Results: On average, over the five case studies, just over half of the 21 benchmark criteria were fully integrated into the programs, whereas just under a third were partially integrated, and approximately one fifth were not integrated at all. Recommendations for Research or Practice: While the benchmarks were fairly well integrated overall, this paper outlines several recommendations that programs may consider to improve alignment with the CBSM theoretical framework and benchmarks. Recommendations for future research to explore CBSM effectiveness are also made. Limitations: Lack of generalizability due to small sample size, unable to make assessments of programmatic success, and inherent limitations of the benchmark assessment tool.