Protocols for Stakeholder Participation in Social Marketing Systems

McHugh, Patricia; Domegan, Christine; Duane, Sinead

doi:10.1177/1524500418761626

Cited by 42 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Five stakeholders were involved in the WNWN design and delivery, namely, (1) the funding partner (i.e., Redland City council), (2) shopping centre management, (3) community (i.e., local retailers), (4) food experts (i.e., local chefs), and (5) the delivery team (i.e., project staff and volunteers). The importance of multiple stakeholders in social marketing has been verified in previous studies (Buyucek et al., 2016; McHugh et al., 2018). Table 2 outlines the program according to social marketing benchmark criteria (NSMC, 2017).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 53%

Outcome Evaluation of an Empirical Study: Food Waste Social Marketing Pilot

Kim

Rundle‐Thiele

Knox

et al. 2020

Social Marketing Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Evidence indicates behavior change is more likely when more social marketing benchmark principles are applied. Yet, transparent and clear reporting of the application of benchmarks to change behavior is rare. Focus of the Article: The aims of this study were (1) to verify the efficacy of social marketing in reducing food waste and (2) to enumerate and critique the practicality of applying social marketing benchmark criteria. Research Question: To address the research aims, two research questions were proposed: (1) Can a social marketing program designed with consumers reduce household food waste behavior? and (2) How are social marketing benchmarks applied to reduce food waste? Program Design/Approach: A consumer-insight driven social marketing program Waste Not Want Not (WNWN) was designed following the social marketing process and delivered to local Redland City Council residents located within the pilot area. This article reports a process and outcome evaluation for the pilot study and a critical evaluation of benchmark criteria application. Importance to the Social Marketing Field: This article demonstrates social marketing’s efficacy to reduce food waste behavior in households, and it critically evaluates application of benchmark criteria to assist future research and practice. Methods: In total, 314 local council area residents were randomly allocated into either a program ( n = 110) or control group ( n = 204). The program group received intervention materials and invitations to attend the 2-week program activities held in a local shopping center. Control group participants received nothing. The extent of social marketing benchmark application was examined for the WNWN program. Results: Outcome evaluation indicated that the pilot study reduced self-reported household food waste and increased perceived level of self-efficacy in cooking for the program group, but not the control group. WNWN successfully applied five of the eight social marketing benchmark criteria, namely, consumer orientation, insight, competition, marketing mix, and behavior change. Recommendations for Research or Practice: Given that use of more benchmarks increases the likelihood of behavior change, future research must advocate for complete application of the eight major social marketing benchmark criteria in program design. Clear operational definitions are required to improve practice and behavioral change outcomes. Limitations: Study 1 focused on individual feedback and self-reported data minimizing the possibility of generalization. Future research could employ observational methods and involve a wider array of stakeholders to increase generalizability.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 53%

Outcome Evaluation of an Empirical Study: Food Waste Social Marketing Pilot

Kim

Rundle‐Thiele

Knox

et al. 2020

Social Marketing Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast, McHugh et al (2018, p. 165) define systems social marketing as “multiplicity of people and stakeholder groups interacting to create patterns of behaviors, choices, and values over time in a dynamic macro–micro context.” Westberg et al (2017) suggest systems social marketing as focusing on “top down, bottom up connections and relational approaches among all participants within the defined micro, meso and macro system” (Domegan et al, 2016, p. 1127). A similar perspective is taken by Domegan et al (2016, p. 1126) who suggest systems thinking social marketing culminates in the “whole-systems-in-the-room” phenomena and getting “all eyes on the problem.” They expand this and suggest it also includes shared participation, value, and exchange among an interconnected network of individuals and groups.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In systems social marketing, generic system methodologies imply the application of what Pagani and Otto (2013) define as quantitative system dynamics modeling (Sterman, 2000) and qualitative systems thinking (Senge, 1994), including participatory techniques like group model building (Bérard, 2010) and interactive management (Warfield, 2006). Likewise, the use of systems social marketing means the employment of two tenets (i) benchmark social marketing principles and (ii) very specific methodologies like protocols for stakeholder participation and societal stakeholder engagement (McHugh et al, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systems Social Marketing and Macro-Social Marketing: A Systematic Review

Flaherty

Domegan

Duane

et al. 2020

Social Marketing Quarterly

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The adoption of systems thinking within social marketing is illustrated by the emerging literature relating to systems social marketing and macro-social marketing. Systems social marketing and macro-social marketing signal a shift from singular level behavior change toward a more holistic, multilevel change mode of operandi for complex and wicked problems. In recognition of this broadening perspective, Truong et al. took the first steps to describe the relationship between systems thinking and social marketing through a critical appraisal. However, their analysis stopped short of defining systems social marketing and macro-social marketing, examining how the concepts have been applied, and the impact this has on our change methodologies. Focus: This article is related to research and evaluation of the social marketing field. Research Question: This study aims to (a) examine the causality looseness surrounding the descriptions of systems social marketing and macro-social marketing, (b) conceptualize systems social marketing and macro-social marketing, and (c) develop a taxonomy for classifying and interpreting the systems-based social marketing–related literature. Methods: Following best practice protocols, a systematic review was conducted to identify systems social marketing and macro-social marketing literature and interventions published prior to March 2020. Five databases were searched using a combination of relevant search terms. Results: Sixteen thousand and forty-seven title and abstracts were screened, resulting in 45 articles being reviewed, 8 of which were interventions. Analysis of the findings indicated both systems social marketing and macro-social marketing use nonlinear causality and seeks to understand the structural and behavioral dynamics in a system to leverage change. Moreover, the findings suggest that systems social marketing focuses on evolutionary dynamics and a “whole system in the room” approach, pursuing top-down, bottom-up iterative processes with macro-social marketing pursuing institutional dynamics and “inside the system” top-down processes. Importance to Social Marketing Field: This article is one of the first efforts to examine the inner anatomy of systems social marketing and macro-social marketing for causality and definitional clarity. In drawing a distinction between the two orientations, social marketers can begin to understand in what contexts and settings these perspectives are most applicable. Recommendations: The taxonomy and search strategy can be adopted in other reviews as they offer a rich and diverse basis for further conceptual analysis of systems-based social marketing–related literature. Limitation: Community-based prevention marketing, community-based social marketing, and community-led assets-based social marketing articles were excluded from this review. Hence, further research could include these approaches and uncover their features, analogies, and differences versus systems social marketing and macro-social marketing.

show abstract

“…The dominant psychosocial theoretical focus restricts understanding, and therefore monitoring and measurement practices, to individuals whose behavior needs to change, and in so doing, ignores the fact that farming practice change occurs in partnerships among stakeholders. Systems standpoints that consider practice change within a constellation of actors, actions and interactions, or within a complex stakeholder system where mutual value is realized between partners, can extend understanding of how farming practice change can be facilitated and enabled (see McHugh, Domegan, & Duane, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Changing Fertilizer Management Practices in Sugarcane Production: Cane Grower Survey Insights

Hasan¹,

Smart²,

Hay³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research focused on understanding wider systemic factors driving behavioral change is limited with a dominant focus on the role of individual farmer and psychosocial factors for farming practice change, including reducing fertilizer application in agriculture. Adopting a wider systems perspective, the current study examines change and the role that supporting services have on fertilizer application rate change. A total of 238 sugarcane growers completed surveys reporting on changes in fertilizer application along with factors that may explain behavior change. Logistic regressions and negative binomial count-data regressions were used to examine whether farmers had changed fertilizer application rates and if they had, how long ago they made the change, and to explore the impact of individual and system factors in influencing change. Approximately one in three sugarcane growers surveyed (37%) had changed the method they used to calculate fertilizer application rates for the cane land they owned/managed at some point. Logistic regression results indicated growers were less likely to change the basis for their fertilizer calculation if they regarded maintaining good relationships with other local growers as being extremely important, they had another source of off-farm income, and if they had not attended a government-funded fertilizer management workshop in the five years preceding the survey. Similar drivers promoted early adoption of fertilizer practice change; namely, regarding family traditions and heritage as being unimportant, having sole decision-making authority on farming activities and having attended up to 5 workshops in the five years prior to completing the survey. Results demonstrated the influence of government-funded services to support practice change.

show abstract

Protocols for Stakeholder Participation in Social Marketing Systems

Cited by 42 publications

References 55 publications

Outcome Evaluation of an Empirical Study: Food Waste Social Marketing Pilot

Outcome Evaluation of an Empirical Study: Food Waste Social Marketing Pilot

Systems Social Marketing and Macro-Social Marketing: A Systematic Review

Changing Fertilizer Management Practices in Sugarcane Production: Cane Grower Survey Insights

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About