If marketers solve problems by offering tangible goods and services, then by extension human
difficulties are susceptible to resolution by the introduction of innovative ideas if these can be
delivered employing the marketing approach. It is an affirmative response to the question posed by
Wiebe (1952): "Why can't you sell brotherhood and rational thinking like you sell soap?" There
does not seem to be much difference between Dewey's observation that ideas stem from problems
and marketing view that products originate out of consumers' needs and desires. Ideas are to
problems what products are to needs and desires. Each is capable of resolving or satisfying some
situation; ideas solve problems while products satisfy needs and desires.
To be sure, not all ideas will solve problems. Just as some products can be faulty and then
exacerbate rather than satisfy needs, the same may be said regarding "bad" ideas. Similarly, the
implementation of a social issue which is controversial by definition, may be pleasing to some while
creating difficulty for others (Belk 1980).
Deriving benefits from product offerings
The notion that concepts may be viewed as products in the marketing sense is also rooted in two
theories more recent than Dewey's. One is the "bundle of attributes" hypothesis of the economist
Lancaster (1966), who argued that it is not the actual products that render utility to individuals but
rather, that satisfaction is derived from attributes inherent in those products. Later, an important
paper by Haley (1968) introduced the notion that benefits perceived by consumers from the goods
they purchase could constitute important criteria for segmenting markets.
When people purchase goods and services, their acquisitions bring certain benefits or
satisfactions enjoyed through ownership of these goods or use of these services. But utility is also
obtained from the adoption of ideas and social issues. If it can be shown that products and concepts
share similar attributes, then one could surmise that the adoption of innovative ideas could, under
certain circumstances provide substitute utility, that is, could yield benefits otherwise derived from
the acquisition of goods and services. Benefits ordinarily derived from material things could be
obtained from abstract things such as ideas. To determine whether this premise makes any sense,
one could examine the characteristics ordinarily inherent in tangible products and services and
compare them with those possessed by innovations. If these two sets of characteristics can be shown
to be either similar or reasonable substitutes one for the other, then the premise is supported.
For example, one may ask "Can you compare the pleasure derived from wearing a new jacket
with the feeling of satisfaction obtained from the completion of a course in some subject at a
university? The jacket gives the wearer instant gratification but benefits derived from the course
may not come until much later -perhaps upon graduation or when the material learned in the course
proves to be useful in a job setting. Thus one sees a time factor in considering the nature of utility.
In addition to time utility, economists by similar logic, describe place utility, form utility and
possession utility. One could attempt to test the similarities and differences of benefits derived as
measured by these different kinds of economic utility. Finally, one may speak of a "quality utility."
While a single jacket might not satisfactorily substitute for a college course, a warehouse full of
jackets whose sales could render the owner financially secure might indeed be a more satisfactory
product.
As another example, does religion as a form of exchange offer satisfaction to compensate for
deprivation endured by the poor? Some form of assurance that the shaping of ones destiny is outside
of his or her control, might be considered as a substitute for material wealth. I do not have enough
food to feed my children so I take some solace in the assurance that an almighty power will look
after my family. Indeed, religious institutions increasingly are looking to marketing to stem the tide
of diminishing attendance (Austin 1980).
What, in the first place are the sources of utility? What is it that satisfies people? Is it the case
that ideas and social issues possess capabilities for imparting utility to individuals, utility that those
individuals otherwise obtain through the acquisition of tangible products and services? If so,
possibly one could replace an automobile agency with a social service agency or a real estate
broker's office with a government agency espousing physical fitness. This leads one to ponder the
question that the adoption of ideas designed to assist the individual in making better use of his or her
own resources could at least partially replace the need to amass material resources provided by
others. Are ideas substitutes for things?
These rhetorical and problematic questions must remain open. However, it seems clear that
people in postindustrial societies are confronted with an increasing volume of concepts whose
adoption or nonadoption they must decide. That reality sparked the suggestion among some
marketing scholars of the 1960's to broaden the scope of marketing to include ideational products
The "Scope Broadening" Debate
The "scope broadening" debate, over how broad the scope of marketing should be, is well
documented (Fox and Kotler 1980) and will not be elaborated upon here. One might add that
marketing is not the only discipline whose scope is broadening and whose boundaries are grey areas.
Social workers perform psychotherapy and attorneys may legally serve as real estate brokers. The
American Institute of Architects has modified its rules to permit its members not only to design, but
also to build. A spokesman from the profession commented: "The notion of the architect becoming
actively involved in construction as well as design is not new, it began with Michelangelo and
Bramante in Rome (The New York Times, 1978. p. 16).
Strangely, while academicians argue whether the dissemination of social cause is or is not
marketing, the U.S. government annually pays out over $100 million to media and to agencies to
promote such issues as energy conservation and third world nations employ Madison Avenue firms
to spread nutrition and population control information, with eminent success. Like Nero,
academicians fiddle with the "broadening" debate while the world burns with its many forms of
suffering amenable to amelioration through social promotion.
Social Marketing: Two Meanings
The term social marketing seems to have earned for itself two different definitions (Luck 1974).
Writers have applied the expression in one sense to mean the social responsibilities of marketers
primarily in response to the pressures of consumer advocacy and government regulation. Within this
meaning the emphasis is on economic benefits to business and social benefits to society that result
from the adoption of socially responsible business policies by corporate enterprise. For example, a
great number of firms have recently embarked on projects to help rebuild inner cities. Others search
for programs of societal concern to which they may give monetary and other forms of support. One
of many works emphasizing this meaning of social marketing is a book by Lazer and Kelley (1973).
Another, focusing on environmental conservation factors is that of Perry (1976). However, most
writers agree with Takas (1974) who applies the expression societal marketing to the foregoing
usage.
The second meaning ascribed to social marketing is the applicability of marketing thought to the
introduction and dissemination of ideas and issues. That connotation was propounded by Wiebe in
1952 and later given impetus by Kotler, Levy, Zaltman and others. (Fox and Kotler (1980) present a
ten-year synopsis of social marketing. The present work obviously falls within this second meaning
of social marketing for which a frequently cited definition by Kotler and Zaltman (1971) is: the
design, implementation and control of programs calculated to influence the acceptability of social
ideas and involving considerations of product planning, pricing, communication, distribution and
marketing research
difficulties are susceptible to resolution by the introduction of innovative ideas if these can be
delivered employing the marketing approach. It is an affirmative response to the question posed by
Wiebe (1952): "Why can't you sell brotherhood and rational thinking like you sell soap?" There
does not seem to be much difference between Dewey's observation that ideas stem from problems
and marketing view that products originate out of consumers' needs and desires. Ideas are to
problems what products are to needs and desires. Each is capable of resolving or satisfying some
situation; ideas solve problems while products satisfy needs and desires.
To be sure, not all ideas will solve problems. Just as some products can be faulty and then
exacerbate rather than satisfy needs, the same may be said regarding "bad" ideas. Similarly, the
implementation of a social issue which is controversial by definition, may be pleasing to some while
creating difficulty for others (Belk 1980).
Deriving benefits from product offerings
The notion that concepts may be viewed as products in the marketing sense is also rooted in two
theories more recent than Dewey's. One is the "bundle of attributes" hypothesis of the economist
Lancaster (1966), who argued that it is not the actual products that render utility to individuals but
rather, that satisfaction is derived from attributes inherent in those products. Later, an important
paper by Haley (1968) introduced the notion that benefits perceived by consumers from the goods
they purchase could constitute important criteria for segmenting markets.
When people purchase goods and services, their acquisitions bring certain benefits or
satisfactions enjoyed through ownership of these goods or use of these services. But utility is also
obtained from the adoption of ideas and social issues. If it can be shown that products and concepts
share similar attributes, then one could surmise that the adoption of innovative ideas could, under
certain circumstances provide substitute utility, that is, could yield benefits otherwise derived from
the acquisition of goods and services. Benefits ordinarily derived from material things could be
obtained from abstract things such as ideas. To determine whether this premise makes any sense,
one could examine the characteristics ordinarily inherent in tangible products and services and
compare them with those possessed by innovations. If these two sets of characteristics can be shown
to be either similar or reasonable substitutes one for the other, then the premise is supported.
For example, one may ask "Can you compare the pleasure derived from wearing a new jacket
with the feeling of satisfaction obtained from the completion of a course in some subject at a
university? The jacket gives the wearer instant gratification but benefits derived from the course
may not come until much later -perhaps upon graduation or when the material learned in the course
proves to be useful in a job setting. Thus one sees a time factor in considering the nature of utility.
In addition to time utility, economists by similar logic, describe place utility, form utility and
possession utility. One could attempt to test the similarities and differences of benefits derived as
measured by these different kinds of economic utility. Finally, one may speak of a "quality utility."
While a single jacket might not satisfactorily substitute for a college course, a warehouse full of
jackets whose sales could render the owner financially secure might indeed be a more satisfactory
product.
As another example, does religion as a form of exchange offer satisfaction to compensate for
deprivation endured by the poor? Some form of assurance that the shaping of ones destiny is outside
of his or her control, might be considered as a substitute for material wealth. I do not have enough
food to feed my children so I take some solace in the assurance that an almighty power will look
after my family. Indeed, religious institutions increasingly are looking to marketing to stem the tide
of diminishing attendance (Austin 1980).
What, in the first place are the sources of utility? What is it that satisfies people? Is it the case
that ideas and social issues possess capabilities for imparting utility to individuals, utility that those
individuals otherwise obtain through the acquisition of tangible products and services? If so,
possibly one could replace an automobile agency with a social service agency or a real estate
broker's office with a government agency espousing physical fitness. This leads one to ponder the
question that the adoption of ideas designed to assist the individual in making better use of his or her
own resources could at least partially replace the need to amass material resources provided by
others. Are ideas substitutes for things?
These rhetorical and problematic questions must remain open. However, it seems clear that
people in postindustrial societies are confronted with an increasing volume of concepts whose
adoption or nonadoption they must decide. That reality sparked the suggestion among some
marketing scholars of the 1960's to broaden the scope of marketing to include ideational products
The "Scope Broadening" Debate
The "scope broadening" debate, over how broad the scope of marketing should be, is well
documented (Fox and Kotler 1980) and will not be elaborated upon here. One might add that
marketing is not the only discipline whose scope is broadening and whose boundaries are grey areas.
Social workers perform psychotherapy and attorneys may legally serve as real estate brokers. The
American Institute of Architects has modified its rules to permit its members not only to design, but
also to build. A spokesman from the profession commented: "The notion of the architect becoming
actively involved in construction as well as design is not new, it began with Michelangelo and
Bramante in Rome (The New York Times, 1978. p. 16).
Strangely, while academicians argue whether the dissemination of social cause is or is not
marketing, the U.S. government annually pays out over $100 million to media and to agencies to
promote such issues as energy conservation and third world nations employ Madison Avenue firms
to spread nutrition and population control information, with eminent success. Like Nero,
academicians fiddle with the "broadening" debate while the world burns with its many forms of
suffering amenable to amelioration through social promotion.
Social Marketing: Two Meanings
The term social marketing seems to have earned for itself two different definitions (Luck 1974).
Writers have applied the expression in one sense to mean the social responsibilities of marketers
primarily in response to the pressures of consumer advocacy and government regulation. Within this
meaning the emphasis is on economic benefits to business and social benefits to society that result
from the adoption of socially responsible business policies by corporate enterprise. For example, a
great number of firms have recently embarked on projects to help rebuild inner cities. Others search
for programs of societal concern to which they may give monetary and other forms of support. One
of many works emphasizing this meaning of social marketing is a book by Lazer and Kelley (1973).
Another, focusing on environmental conservation factors is that of Perry (1976). However, most
writers agree with Takas (1974) who applies the expression societal marketing to the foregoing
usage.
The second meaning ascribed to social marketing is the applicability of marketing thought to the
introduction and dissemination of ideas and issues. That connotation was propounded by Wiebe in
1952 and later given impetus by Kotler, Levy, Zaltman and others. (Fox and Kotler (1980) present a
ten-year synopsis of social marketing. The present work obviously falls within this second meaning
of social marketing for which a frequently cited definition by Kotler and Zaltman (1971) is: the
design, implementation and control of programs calculated to influence the acceptability of social
ideas and involving considerations of product planning, pricing, communication, distribution and
marketing research
No comments:
Post a Comment