The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Social Marketing 2022
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-14449-4_134-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Social Marketing Benchmark Criteria

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In the literature, Andreasen’s (2002) criteria are commonly cited as one of the most effective in leading to successful behavioral outcomes. However, as Suggs and Speranza (2022) argued, the criteria are mainly operative in helping categorize what social marketing is and is not. As per our study, either the plethora of existing frameworks and criteria (Akbar et al , 2021c) have not influenced the practice to the desired extent, or there is an urgent need to develop studies such as ours which explore how social marketing practice is undertaken globally to understand more deeply the gap between what is theoretically argued and what is practiced in reality.…”
Section: Proposed Taxonomymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In the literature, Andreasen’s (2002) criteria are commonly cited as one of the most effective in leading to successful behavioral outcomes. However, as Suggs and Speranza (2022) argued, the criteria are mainly operative in helping categorize what social marketing is and is not. As per our study, either the plethora of existing frameworks and criteria (Akbar et al , 2021c) have not influenced the practice to the desired extent, or there is an urgent need to develop studies such as ours which explore how social marketing practice is undertaken globally to understand more deeply the gap between what is theoretically argued and what is practiced in reality.…”
Section: Proposed Taxonomymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The criteria have been mostly used as a tool to analyze whether the interventions are designed as social marketing (Cairns and Rundle-Thiele, 2014; Xia et al , 2016; Aceves-Martins et al , 2016; Kim et al , 2020; Čož and Kamin, 2020; Ryan et al , 2021). Some argued that Andreasen’s (2002) criteria do not reflect the current state of play of social marketing; hence, they should be applied with caveats (Akbar et al , 2019; Suggs and Speranza, 2022). Others offered several new success factors, including marketing selection elements, meeting the needs of beneficiaries, designing effective communication tools, developing a feedback system, focusing on cost and benefit analysis, consumer orientation, strategic planning, information resources and research (Cohen and Andrade, 2018; Dietrich, 2016; Khajeh et al , 2015; Kotler and Armstrong, 2016; Lee and Kotler, 2016; Liao, 2020a; Lin, 2014; Wood, 2016).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This follows Pawson and Tilley's (2004) approach to focus on lessons we can learn, in terms of what did or did not work, for whom, in what circumstances and how (Gregory-Smith et al, 2017). Table III contains an overview of practical recommendations and future research grouping similar aspects by CMO, many of which relate to the social marketing benchmark criteria of segmentation, audience insight, customer experience and marketing mix (Suggs and Speranza, 2020). Our findings reinforce the growing understanding that future research proposals to tackle sustainable and regenerative challenges require an interdisciplinary approach, one that encompasses perspectives such as engineering, waste management, marketing, HRM, supply chain management etc.…”
Section: Insert Here Figure 5: Context Mechanisms Outcomes (Source: A...mentioning
confidence: 99%