Positioning social marketing as a planning process for health education

American Journal of Health Studies, Spring-Summer, 2003 by Brad L. Neiger, Rosemary Thackeray, Michael D. Barnes, James F. McKenzie

Similarities Between Social Marketing and Health Education Planning Approaches

Both the Generalized Model and the social marketing models begin by acknowledging the unique characteristics of the population to be served, inherent opportunities and challenges, assessment of capacity, including budgets and potential partners, and at times, identification of preliminary areas of focus. This is labeled understanding and engaging in the Generalized Model, preliminary planning in the SMART model (Neiger & Thackeray, 1998), background analysis by Andreasen (1995), research and planning by Walsh, Rudd, Moeykens & Moloney, (1993), and planning by Weinreich (1999). This initial groundwork provides contextual information and a foundation for future planning activity.

Needs (and asset) assessments are common to both approaches. For example, what is classified specifically as needs assessment in the generalized model is labeled formative research, consumer analysis, market analysis, channel analysis, and consumer orientation in the social marketing models. Both approaches generally narrow the scope of activity by focusing on a single or limited number of priorities and by delimiting the scope of activity to appropriate audience segments. At the same time, audience assets are identified.

Development of goals and objectives, a hallmark of health education planning processes, is stated explicitly in the Generalized Model, but more implicitly in the social marketing models, with the exception of Andreasen (1995). After the development of program goals and objectives, both the Generalized Model and social marketing models address the development of appropriate interventions. Whereas the Generalized Model states "develop an intervention," social marketing models use terms such as, "develop materials" (SMART Model), "strategy formation" (Bryant, 1998), "strategy design" (Walsh et al., 1993), and "message and material development" (Weinreich, 1999). Tracking and evaluation are also common characteristics of both approaches. While implicit in both the Generalized Model and social marketing models, this involves formative and summative evaluation.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SOCIAL MARKETING AND HEALTH EDUCATION PLANNING APPROACHES

The elements that typically distinguish a social marketing planning approach from health education planning approaches are the same factors that may complement health education practice. These elements include, but are not limited to: a strong consumer focus; formative research; and attention to the market mix, exchange, positioning, and pre-testing. It is not argued here that health education is devoid of these elements. Rather, it is suggested that social marketing planning efforts incorporate these elements significantly more often than traditional health education planning efforts.

The critical difference between planning approaches in social marketing and health education is a persistent focus on consumers. "Although customer-centered health education is not new, it is not always carried out by practitioners" (McDermott, 2000, p. 8). Social marketing is based on the fundamental principle that its practitioners must be aware of and responsive to the needs, preferences, and lifestyles of the consumer audience (Leveton, Mrazek, & Stoto, 1996). Too often, health educators limit their needs assessments to demographic and epidemiological data and create "top-down" (practitioner-driven) interventions in isolation, with relatively little or no in put from prospective consumers (Thackeray & Neiger, 2000). Yet, to facilitate individual or community-based change, health education alone is insufficient, and marketing concepts must be applied with a stronger consumer orientation (Novelli, 1997).