Synthesis Panel Presentation on “Stretching the Limits of Partnerships, Upstream and Downstream”

Social marketing partnerships: Evolution, scope and substance

“…The most commonly used social marketing partnership terms are collaboration (Allman, 1998; Andreasen, 1995; Bye, 2000; Donovan, 2005, 2011; Legarde et al, 1999; Middlestadt et al, 1997; Ojeda et al, 2009; Singer and Kayson, 2004; Temple et al, 2008) and alliances (Andreasen, 1996; Earle, 2005; Lee et al, 2005; Singer and Kayson, 2004; Temple et al, 2008; Weinreich, 1999; Williams, 2005); however, their specific meaning within social marketing texts remains ambiguous, despite their contribution being acknowledged. This semantic uncertainty is further compounded as terms such as alliances can also be coupled with other phrases such as strategic alliances (Andreasen, 1995; Lagarde et al, 2005; Sowers et al, 2005), social alliances (Donovan and Henley, 2010; Lagarde et al, 1999, 2005), marketing alliances (Andreasen, 1996) and cross-sectoral alliances (Bhattacharya and Bell, 1999), with little explanation in what the difference is between parties in these types of relationships. For example, an article on ‘corporate alliances as social marketing tools’ uses the terms ‘cross-sectoral alliance’ and a ‘multi-stakeholder partnership’ and ‘partnership’ and ‘alliances’ interchangeably with little explanation of the characteristics that differentiate these concepts (Bhattacharya and Bell, 1999).…”

“…As a result, there is little evidence of a consensus definition of social marketing partnerships. It is difficult to define the boundaries of partnership activities and the resultant lack of definitional clarity has contributed to the term partnerships being loosely used to ‘cover a range of relationships between two entities’ in the discipline (Sowers et al, 2005: 62). However, by reflecting on what has been recorded in historical literature, that is, scholarly writing from the conception of social marketing until the present time, it is possible to identify more nuanced views and dominant characteristics of social marketing partnerships and account for the variety of relationships to define partnership boundaries.…”

“…The reference to ‘corporation’ and particularly ‘other investor’ implies that the sponsor engages in a type of resource exchange to assert a connection with the audience. If this investment was interpreted as a funding exercise to benefit their organization as opposed to sharing of resources to facilitate social change, interpreting this activity as a social marketing partnership is questionable (Sowers et al, 2005). O’Reilly and Madill’s definition of sponsorship is a reminder of the one-way type of interaction where relationships were developed to maintain funding as donors (Lagarde et al, 2005) rather than a ‘strategic ally’(Sowers et al, 2005: 62).…”