Social Marketing Strategies for Stigmatized Target Populations: A Case Example for Problem Gamblers and Family Members of Problem Gamblers

Abstract

Advertising theory and accompanying research literature are in their infancy when it comes to advertising services to stigmatized populations. We know very little about what messages will impact potential clients of services and what messages could even be harmful to potential clients and to society’s shaping of social issues. The purpose of this qualitative study was to examine the views of problem gamblers and family members of problem gamblers in developing 10 foot by 20 foot billboards to promote a local problem gambling service. Participants identified issues such as photographs of money being a trigger to gamble, guilt and shame being emotions that would turn them off of the advertisement, and a fear of the advertisement leading to a scam or hoax. More research and theory development on stigmatized populations is necessary to better promote services to stigmatized populations and to avoid contributing negatively to social issues.

Mixed emotions and credence service use: insights from at-risk gamblers

“…Following Dietrich et al (2017), we incorporated a six-step co-design process (resourcing, planning, recruiting, sensitizing, facilitation and evaluation of outcomes). Following Calderwood and Wellington (2013), we incorporated the KJ-Method of consensus - building that allows groups to quickly reach a consensus on priorities of subjective, qualitative data. The transcribed qualitative data were analysed by the researchers themselves using a theme-based approach (Messerlian and Derevensky, 2007).…”

“…Consumer vulnerability is defined as “a state of powerlessness that arises from an imbalance in marketplace interactions or from the consumption of marketing messages and products” (Baker et al , 2005, p. 134) and compounded by the lack of “control within service context” (Anderson et al , 2013, p. 1204). One important example of a vulnerable consumer is the at-risk gambler (Calderwood and Wellington, 2013), often stigmatised (Hing et al , 2016) and either unaware of specific credence services or reluctant to use these services (Gainsbury et al , 2014). Ultimately, the ideal scenario is that at-risk gamblers can access the range of formal treatments that work best for them (i.e.…”

“…Fourthly, by using service co-design principles (Dietrich et al , 2017), we captured the unique voice and input of individual agencies (at-risk gamblers) to inform the design of advertising material (imagery, copy, etc.). To ensure high ecological validity, this research used participatory research in the development phase (Hurley et al , 2018), to minimise the chances of perpetuating oppression and further perpetuating the stigma among vulnerable consumers such as at-risk gamblers (Calderwood and Wellington, 2013). The overarching question of this research is: What are the role and the impact of fear mixed with challenge appeals in enhancing intentions of credence service use in at-risk gamblers?…”

Applying the codependency concept to concerned significant others of problem gamblers: Words of caution

“…Although we do not know the percentage of CSOs that seek treatment, we do know that in general, only 1% to 2% of problem gamblers seek treatment in any given year (Rush, Shaw Moxam, & Urbanoski, 2002), and only 7% to 12% of people with a lifetime history of problem gambling have ever sought treatment or attended a self-help group for their gambling (Slutske, 2006). There are also some indications that admission rates for gambling issues are declining in treatment programs (Abbott, 2007;Calderwood & Wellington, 2014) and in GamAnon (Ferentzy, Skinner, & Antze, 2010). This may be because more spouses are separating from the gambler as Ferentzy, Skinner, and Antze (2010) suggest, or it may be for other reasons such as our ineffective treatment strategies and failure to appropriately engage clients.…”

“…The impact of problem gambling on CSOs has only begun to receive attention in the literature (e.g., Calderwood & Wellington, 2014;Copello, Templeton, & Powell, 2010;Darbyshire, Oster, & Carrig, 2001;Grant Kalischuk, Nowatzki, Cardwell, Klein, & Solowoniuk, 2006;Mathews & Volberg, 2013;Tepperman & Korn, 2003). Only a few researchers have studied CSO's coping strategies and interventions for addressing their coping in the context of problem gambling (Krishnan & Orford, 2002;Makarchuk, Hodgins, & Peden, 2002;Rychtarik & McGillicuddy, 2006).…”