On social marketing and social change : co-creating relationships, partnerships and networks

In acknowledging the collective aspect to social change, social marketing recognises no one organisation has the capacity and resources to understand and respond to socially complex or wicked problems such as climate change and obesity (APSC, 2009; Boyle and Harris, 2009; Hornik, 2002). Multiple stakeholders at different levels have versions of the issue reflecting the interdependencies of social systems, contexts, content and actors. Social marketing is particularly good at realigning individual self-interest that is not consistent with the collective behaviour of a society (Andreasen, 2006; Maibach & Cotton, 1995; Wallack, Dorfman, Jernigan & Themba, 1993; Brenkert, 2002; Rothschild, 1999 and 2002). This demands joint actions at every level by a variety of public, private and third sector stakeholders, if a narrow, artificial, fragmented, linear and unsuccessful approach is to be avoided. Social marketing, in capturing this complexity to place public interest on a level with self interest, identifies a total market dimension to the interplay of social change in a pluralistic society. Social marketing links the individual to the collective, the consumer to the citizen and visa versa through an intense collaborative networked partnership ‘total market’ mechanism for social change that shapes and defines the quality of life (MacKay 2008; Rothschild, 1999; Niblett, 2005; Andreasen, 2006; Abela & Murphy, 2008; Lefebvre, 2009; Layton, 2007; 2009 & 2010). Social marketing networked partnerships are central to this more sophisticated and comprehensive understanding of social change at individual and societal levels. Partnerships “can add leverage, reach and heft” (Bentz et al., p.20) in tackling social issues. Partnerships bring resources and create infrastructure to advance environmental and policy change, utilising community leaders and organisations, the corporate sector, and the media as gatekeepers of public opinion (Andresean, 2002; 2006). Partnerships offer multiple levels of influence to identify and manage structural change points (Hastings, MacFadyen & Anderson, 2000; Wallack, Dorfman, Jernigan & Themba, 1993). The application of reciprocal partnership strategies at downstream, mid-stream and upstream results in a conceptual maturing towards the “market with” and “relational” approach to social progress (Hastings, 2003; Hastings & Saren, 2003; Lusch & Vargo, 2006; Wilkie & Moore, 2003). How do networked partnerships co-create behavioural and social change Social marketing locates the common denominators between the various needs and wants of the stakeholders. Interaction, communication and partnerships structures “how the wants of policymakers, consumers and marketers come into congruence to meet similar goals” (Bentz, Dorfman, Denniston, & Novelli, 2005, p. 20). As Denniston notes; Consumer: I want healthier kids: therefore I will give up short-term pleasures and conveniences and support those who champion improved public policies. Policymaker: I want to increase my public support: therefore I will fight for improved policies for nutritional and recreational choices for kids and families. Marketer: I want to reduce childhood obesity: therefore I will offer support for policy makers who champion improved nutritional and recreational choices for kids and families” (Denniston, 2005, p.20). The collective impact, social innovation and progress is achieved by rebundling resources within and across multiple levels of a system of relationships. Collaborative value networks go beyond utilitarian forms of citizen engagement, involvement and consultation to the adoption of symbiotic, equal partnerships (Boyle & Harris, 2009). Furthermore, value networks identify, empower and infuse resource integrators from up, mid and downstream levels, culminating in reciprocal partnerships. Societal change is fundamentally dependent upon networked system relationships and transformational partnerships (Crutchfield and Grant, 2008) that “integrate and transform microspecialised competences into complex value propositions with market potential” (Lusch, Vargo and Tanniru, 2010, p.21). The asset sharing, resource integration, rebundling and information liquidifacition of the collaborative network had the effect of increased network density, reconfiguring form, time, place and possession (Lagarde, Doner, Donovan, Charney & Grieser, 2005; Lusch, Vargo and Tanniru, 2010). Social marketing’s social change multimodality, from this ‘total market’ perspective with the interplay of individual/micro and community, society or macro levels, lends itself to a synergistic, rather than an additive, integration framework where the sum of the value created is greater than the sum of the networks acting independently (MacKay 2008; Prahalad & Krishnan, 2008; Crutchfield & McLeod Grant, 2008). It suggests the relationships, networks and multilevel systems nature of change co-creation and associated density of interconnections is a function of its aggregate social relationships matrix (Quelch & Jocz, 2007; Salla 2005; McKenzie-Mohr & Smith, 1999; Vargo and Lusch, 2008; Layton, 2008 & 2009). This paper explores relationship networks in social marketing as a powerful social change agent. The paper discusses the key constructs of the total market approach, co-learning, resource sharing, interaction, communication and networked relationships, most applicable to social marketing. In doing so, we will demonstrate how social marketing can extend social change to understand and manage interaction between, and interdependence of factors within and across all levels of behaviour with the physical and soci-cultural environment.