Up, up and away: social marketing breaks free

Abstract

For guidance on citations see FAQs.

Midstream value creation in social marketing

“…While some programmes cast a wide net to form a coalition of diverse individuals and organisations that are community stakeholders, others target a subset of midstream actors such as family and peer groups (Carins and Rundle-Thiele, 2014). There is also variety in roles played by different actors (Dibb, 2014;Whitelaw et al, 2010), for instance community members may be involved in problem diagnosis and intervention design and public service professionals or trained researchers take responsibility for evaluation. Evidence suggests that 8 active engagement of community actors may help to develop interventions that respond to real needs, are culturally appropriate and generate a sense of ownership and capabilities that have an impact on implementation (Attree, 2004;Johnstone and Campbell-Jones, 2003;Matthews, 2001;Middlestadt et al, 1997;Owens et al, 2011;Waller et al, 2006;Winters and Patel, 2003).…”

“…Social marketing scholars widely advocate a move away from traditional downstream and micro-marketing approaches towards ecological perspectives which account for change at the micro, meso and macro level (Brennan and Binney, 2008;Dibb, 2014;Domegan et al, 2013).…”

“…The term 'midstream' social marketing was coined to distinguish interventions focused at the community (meso) level, involving collaborations with public services and other community actors (Russell-Bennett, Wood and Previte, 2013) and personal networks such as family and 7 friends as means to facilitate change (Gordon, 2013;Dibb, 2014;Russell-Bennett, Wood and Previte, 2013). The types of problems around which these interventions are developed (e.g., environmental sustainability, healthy eating, adolescent drug and alcohol abuse etc.)…”

“…Such ecological approaches (Gregson et al, 2001;McLeroy et al, 1988) acknowledge that fostering change within social change open systems requires a system view to understand and tackle the factors that might constrain behaviour at the interpersonal, community, organisational, and societal levels (Brennan and Binney, 2008;Dibb, 2014;Domegan et al, 2013;French, 2011;Gordon, 2013;Hastings, 2003;Luca, Hibbert and McDonald, 2015;Russell-Bennett, Wood and Previte, 2013). Despite this shift in thinking, research that examines how social marketing is applied in practice to address behavioural contexts is still limited (Gordon, 2013;Whitelaw et al, 2010) and scholars continue to call for a broader understanding of processes that strengthen social change programmes (French and BlairStevens, 2010;French, 2011;Gordon, 2013).…”

“…Yet research into change at the higher levels (meso and macro) of the system, to create social contexts that support behaviour change at the micro level, is scarce. In this paper we focus upon 'midstream social marketing' (Andreasen, 2006), which is concerned with the immediate social environment of target populations, such as community, local institutions (e.g., sports clubs), public services (e.g., education, health services) and personal networks such as family and friends as means to facilitate change (Gordon, 2013;Dibb, 2014;RussellBennett, Wood and Previte, 2013). Community-based models (McKenzie Mohr, 2000) dominate the midstream social marketing literature.…”