Government demarketing: different approaches and mixed messages

Abstract

PurposeTo compare three demarketing campaigns.Design/methodology/approachThis is a commentary piece which compares three campaigns those aiming to reduce smoking, excessive drinking and the use of the motorcars – undertaken by the United Kingdom government and considers the different approaches being used.FindingsThe article highlights areas where there appears to be a conflict between the particular demarketing campaign and other initiatives.Originality/valueOutlines some of the different approaches that can be employed by government when trying to demarket the use of products or commodities.

Demarketing tobacco through governmental policies – The 4Ps revisited

“…In the past, governments tended to use similar demarketing actions in isolation. Recently, governments employ more comprehensive demarketing activities to dissuade people from consuming tobacco and develop a demarketing mix to combat smoking and smoking-related behavior more effectively (see Hoek, 2004;Wall, 2005). Indeed, Wakefield and Chaloupka (2000) report that comprehensive tobacco control programs involving a range of coordinated and coexisting tobacco control strategies can work in a synergistic fashion to reduce smoking rates.…”

“…Governments use various demarketing strategies and instruments to curb smoking, including tobacco advertising bans (Saffer and Chaloupka, 2000), price increases (Andrews and Franke, 1991), and smoking bans (Wall, 2005). Whilst research exists in a demarketing context on individual elements of the marketing mix and their effect on smoking cessation, relatively little is known about how the 4Ps work in conjunction toward the goal of governmental demarketing, including tobacco.…”

Debate: ‘Want doesn't get’? Public management responses to the recession

“…Indeed, the approach has been ignored almost totally in the mainstream public management literature, though some areas of discrete application can be identified. These are in social marketing campaigns, such as to reduce smoking or binge drinking (Moore, 2005;Wall, 2005), and in three public service industries-tourism (Clements, 1989;Batra, 1998), recreation and environmental services (Groff, 1998;Beeton and Benfield, 2002), and health care (Reddy, 1989;Kindra and Taylor, 1995;Mark and Elliot, 1997)-and only the latter of these industries is usually considered core to the field of public management.…”

Still Waters Run Deep: Comparing Assertive and Suggestive Language in Water Conservation Campaigns

“…The vast majority of studies have used surveys or laboratory experiments to tap into consumers' intentions of responding to demarketing campaigns, although, recently, there are growing efforts to collect and analyze data on actual behavior and response, including in various environmental contexts. The relatively limited studies of objective consequences following demarketing poses a limitation on our understanding of such practices because of the subjective nature of self-reports and the often weak correlation between consumers' reported attitudes or intentions and their actual behavior [26]. Further, some of the studies that did collect objective, "hard" data on actual consumer behavior through natural experiments (e.g., [24,27]) cannot firmly conclude that the demarketing effect they find is fully attributed to the campaign studied, as they could not control for various intervening factors that could play a significant role in influencing consumer behavior, such as simultaneously launched campaigns, various policy interventions, or other exogenous changes during the period studied.…”

“…Furthermore, demarketing tools can be implemented quickly when needed. For these reasons, they may face less resistance both by consumers and policy-makers (e.g., [23][24][25][26]). …”