Ethical Challenges of Social Marketing

Author(s): George G. Brenkert

Source: Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 21, No. 1, Social Marketing Initiatives
(Spring, 2002), pp. 14-25
Published by: American Marketing Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30000705 .
Accessed: 23/09/2013 23:09
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Marketing Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Public Policy &Marketing.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 216.87.96.75 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 23:09:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Ethical

Challenges

of

Social

Marketing

GeorgeG. Brenkert
Social marketingfaces distinctiveethical challenges, which are notfaced by commercial
marketing,with regard to the ends it seeks, the rationale it offersfor achieving those ends,
and the effects it may have on its targets. The more social marketingattemptsto address
these ethical challenges, the more its nature as a form of social activism becomes apparent.
Nevertheless, these are special ethical challenges social marketingneeds to confront.

Contemporary

society faces a vast numberof social

problems, which are both extremely complex and

diverse. Among such problemscommonly listed are
AIDS, overpopulation,drugabuse, mistreatmentof females,
use of tobacco products, and behavior that increases the
chances of heart disease (Andreasen 1995; Laczniak and
Murphy 1993).'
Various organizations, including governments,corporations, religious institutions,and voluntaryassociations,have
attackedthese problemsusing a varietyof methods, such as
advertising, propaganda,philanthropy,moral exhortation,
and religious injunctions, as well as legal constraints and
incentives. Sometimes these efforts have had limited success, but often they have left the problems relatively
untouched.
The persistence of these problemshas led some commentators to conclude that a different approachinvolving the
techniquesof marketingis needed. Perhapsmarketerscould
contribute something to reducing, if not resolving, social
problems.After all, marketersareengaged in analyzingconsumer wants and needs; developing productsand services to
satisfy them;and using promotions,advertising,and so forth
to bring products, services, and customers together. They
have been broadly successful in commercial settings. Perhaps they could apply their skills in these noncommercial
areas to help resolve social problems.Thus, in the name of
a broadened concept of marketing, social marketing was
born (Kotler and Levy 1969).
For three decades, now, variousefforts have been undertaken in the name of social marketingto addressthese problems (Andreasen 1995; Fox and Kotler 1980; Rothschild
1999). In the United States and other countries, various
social marketingcampaigns have been launched,for example, to make sure thatchildrenare immunized,contraceptive
socialissuescommonlynotedincludepreventing
1Other
leprosy,mainparentsto use
tainingphysicalfitness,preventingfires,andencouraging
Morecompletelists
oralrehydration
saltsfortheirchildrenwithdiarrhea.
of socialissuesaregivenby Fine(1992)andAndreasen
(1995).
is Professorof Business Ethics,McDonough
GEORGE
G. BRENKERT
School of Business, Georgetown University. He gratefully
acknowledges the insightful and helpful comments of Alan
Andreasen, Craig Smith, and Ed Soule in his preparationof this
article. In addition, he is indebtedto several anonymousreviewers
and the special editor of this issue for otherconstructivecomments
and recommendations.

14

means are used, sexual violence is decreased, and smoking

is reduced(Andreasen 1995). However, though social marketing has had many successes (Andreasen 1995), the ethical challenges social marketing faces have received relatively little attention.2This is troubling inasmuch as social
marketing,just as commercial marketing, has significant
ethical implications. And although commercial marketing
has been the subjectof numerousethical discussions, social
marketinghas not.3
Accordingly, if social problems are to be solved-and
perhaps increasingly so (Andreasen 1997; Smith 1997)throughsocial marketing,its ethical dimensions, and in particular the special ethical issues it raises, must be understood. This is especially important inasmuch as social
marketershave largely aimed, at least up to this point, at the
ethically "easy" cases. These are cases-such as reducing
heart disease or helping parents treat their children who
have diarrhea-about which there is little ethical opposition
or difficulty regardingeither the ends or the means social
marketers use. However, there is nothing that says that
social marketingis tied simply to such cases. It can be foreseen that social marketerswill take aim at much more difficult and controversial cases in the coming decades. One
such case, which Rothschild(1999) has recently mentioned,
is that of social marketers seeking to induce people to
undergo genetic testing as part of a process to reduce the
occurrence of disabilities. Unless the ethical challenges
social marketing raises have been addressed with regard
even to the least controversialcases, the moralproblemsthat
will arise with the more controversial cases may seem
bewildering.
In this article, I argue that, though both social and commercial marketersface many similar moral problems (Murphy and Bloom 1992), there are several moral problemsthat
social marketers specially face. I discuss three distinct
groups of such problems(see Table 1).
First, social marketingfaces special ethical problems that
are linked to the ultimateends it promotes.These ends can-

2Tenyearsago, Murphyand Bloom(1992, p. 69) claimedthat"little

morethancursoryattentionhasbeengivento theethicaldilemmasfaced
by social marketers."
Althoughothershave subsequentlydiscussedthe
I believethatMurphyand Bloom'sstatement
ethicsof socialmarketing,
remainstrueto thisday.
31tshouldbe noted,however,thatAlanAndreasen
(2000) hasediteda
on this topic.For a reviewof the
new book,Ethicsin SocialMarketing,
book,see the"BookReviews"sectionin thisissue.

Journal of Public Policy & Marketing

This content downloaded from 216.87.96.75 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 23:09:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Vol.21 (1)
Spring2002, 14-25

Journal of Public Policy & Marketing

Table 1.

EthicalChallengesof SocialMarketing

1. Theendsof socialmarketing
2. Analysesof
socialproblems

2A. Marketing
versusmoralrationale
2B. Individualversuswholerelation

3. Thesubjectsof
socialproblems

3A. An indirect,asymmetric
relationship
3B. Privatization

not be assumed to be justified in the same mannerin which

the ends of commercial marketingare justified. I capture
this difference by claiming that-in contrastto commercial
marketing, which is focused on market exchanges-social
marketingis focused on welfare exchanges. I discuss these
issues in the section "The Ends of Social Marketing."
Second, social marketing's analysis of social problems
gives rise to another group of ethical challenges. Through
the theories of behavior change it uses to understandmarketing exchanges, it may unwittinglysubstitutea marketing
rationale for relevant moral rationales called for by the
social problems it addresses.In short,the logic of consumer
behavior theory may replace that of moraljustification. In
addition, because of their partitionof social problems and
market segmentation, social marketersmay not be able to
focus on the backgroundand structuralfeaturesthat underlie the social problems they attack. Accordingly, although
social marketing has been offered as "a new and better"
solution to these problems, it may be able to offer only temporarysolutions that do not significantlyaffect the underlying problems.I addressthese issues in the section "Analyses
of Social Problems."
Third, social marketersseek to bring about social change
through marketing techniques, not through the usual techniques of social and political discourse, grassrootsaction,
and so forth. The people they seek to aid in the change
process are not given a voice in the sense of being accorded
various participatory rights. This raises ethical questions
about the effects of social marketingon self-determination
and democracy. I examine these issues in the section "The
Subjects of Social Problems."
In drawingattentionto these ethical issues, I do not question the integrity or goodwill of people engaged in social
marketing.However, I do wish to raise importantquestions
about the methods and assumptions of social marketing
when they are invoked to solve social problems. Furthermore, I do not offer here a set of normativeprinciples or
guidelines that social marketerscould (or should)follow. As
such, I do not offer an ethical theory of social marketing.
Rather,I seek to identify ethical issues or challenges thatare
specific to social marketing and that any social marketer
must confront.

Social Marketingand Ethical

Challenges
At the outset, the natureof social marketingdeserves brief
consideration. Following Andreasen, I understandsocial
marketingto be "the applicationof commercial marketing
technologies to the analysis, planning,execution, and eval-

15

uation of programs designed to influence the voluntary

behavior of target audiences in order to improve their personal welfare and that of their society" (Andreasen1995, p.
7). This statementcapturesa widely acceptedview of social
marketingthat has developed from its introduction.
As such, social marketing focuses on influencing people's behavior away from ways of acting or lifestyles that
are designatedas leading or contributingto a social problem
and toward other ways of acting and lifestyles that will
improvethese people's well-being (or the well-being of others). This attempt to change people's behavior may also
involve modifications in their attitudes,values, norms, and
ideas. Indeed, it may also require behavioral and value
changes in the communitiesor groups of people with whom
they live and/orassociate.
Social marketinghas clear relations to commercial marketing. Still, social marketingis distinct from commercial
marketing in that social marketing focuses on resolving
social problems, whereascommercial marketingfocuses on
producing various goods or services for a profit. The "customer" of social marketingis not expected "to pay a price
equal to the cost of providingthe service," whereasthe customer of commercial marketingis expected to do so (Webster 1975, p. 73). Furthermore,social marketingshould not
be confused with socially responsiblemarketing,something
in which all marketers should be engaged (see Fox and
Kotler 1980, p. 25; Webster 1975, p. 70). Socially responsible marketing is commercial marketing that appropriately
takes into account its social responsibilities in marketing
ordinary products and services. Finally, social marketing
should be distinguished from cause-related marketing
(Varadarajanand Menon 1988) or commercial marketing
that uses social issues to accomplish its for-profitpurposes.
The primaryaim of social marketingis not to promotesome
other commercialaim by means of advancingthe resolution
of certain social problems. Rather, it is to resolve those
social problems.
Accordingly, it might be suspected that social marketing
contains ethical problems that commercial marketingdoes
not. However, with few exceptions, previous studies of the
ethical challenges social marketingfaces have not identified
such special ethical issues (see Table 2). This does not make
the moralissues they identify less importantas moral issues,
but neither does it indicate any particularways in which
social marketingmay itself raise ethical questions. It is the
latter,I contend, that deserves special attention.
Consequently,we must look anew for those ethical challenges that pertainparticularlyor uniquelyto social marketing. In doing so, we should allow our portrayalof these special ethical issues to arise out of the natureand practice of
social marketing,ratherthan impose various standardethical issues from commercial marketingon social marketing.
This would be an importanttheoreticalstep forward,as well
as one with importantpracticalimplications.4

4Rothschild(1999) has recentlyoffereda conceptualframeworkfor

socialmarketing
thatportraysits uniquenaturein relationto commercial
marketing,education,and the law. He does not, however,particularly
attendto thespecialethicaldimensionsof socialmarketing.
I attemptto do
this.

This content downloaded from 216.87.96.75 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 23:09:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

16
Table 2.

Ethical Challenges of Social Marketing

RepresentativeDiscussionsof EthicalIssuesConfrontingSocialMarketing
EthicalIssuesCommonto Socialand
CommercialMarketing

Publication

EthicalIssuesUniqueto Social
Marketing

KotlerandZaltman(1971)

beneficialconsequences
Manipulation,

Laczniak,Lusch,andMurphy(1979)

beneficialconsequences
Manipulation,

Fox andKotler(1980)

Manipulation,
self-serving

BloomandNovelli(1981)

Offensiveadvertising

MurphyandBloom(1992)

wasteof scarce
Fairness,manipulation,
resources,playingfavorites,intrusiveness

LaczniakandMurphy(1993)

wasteof scarce
Fairness,manipulation,
resources,playingfavorites,intrusiveness

Andreasen(1995)

Fairness,honesty,trust,respect,manipulation

The Ends of Social Marketing

Social marketingis positively differentiatedfrom commercial marketingin that it seeks to solve social problemsas its
primary goal. Consequently, it makes sense to begin by
considering the social problemssocial marketingattacksas
a way to identify ethical issues that are specific to social
marketing.

The Nature of Social Problems

What is a social problem?This is rarelydiscussed by social
marketers.5There are two ways to discuss this question.
First, instances of social problemsmay be considered. Second, the generalnatureof social problemsmay be examined.
There is, apparently,no end to the list of social problems.
At the beginning of this article, I briefly listed some of the
prominent examples of social problems that social marketers have attacked.But there are many others. At the outset of the social marketingmovement, Kotler and Zaltman
(1971) included the following: increasingchurch membership; raising money for charities;attractingmore patronsto
art museums; and developing campaigns involving, for
example, Smokey the Bear, "Keep America Beautiful,"
"Buy Bonds,"and "Go to College." Kotlerand Zaltmanalso
listed pollutioncontrol, mass transit,privateeducation,drug
abuse, and public medicine. An attemptto list all instances
of social problems could take pages and still not be complete. Furthermore,such a list would answer few questions,
because theremight be importantdisputesover whetherthis

5This is surprising,inasmuchas Bagozzi (1975, p. 37, emphasis in original) has maintainedthat "the meaningof social marketing... is to be found
in the uniqueproblems that confrontthe discipline."

Treatingcertaingroupsdifferently,in
andantidisoppositionto egalitarian
criminatory
policiesof manysocial
agencies

Whatis the individualandsocialgood

(theendsof socialmarketing)?

or that is a social problem.Not everything is a social problem or the object of social marketing.If this were not the
case, social marketingwould not be a distinct field.
Accordingly, I abstract from these instances and ask
aboutthe natureof social problems.When I do so, four characteristicsemerge from the discussions of social marketers:
First, social problems involve the well-being or "the good"
of a groupof people, some institutions,or society that is (or
will be) negatively affected by the actions (or inactions) of
those people or of various other individuals or groups.
Social problems are not merely individual problems. They
arise not simply because of the lack of fulfillment of this or
that individualdesire or want but because there is (or will
be) some deficiency in the well-being (or "the good") of
groups of individuals or society. Furthermore,the wellbeing of these individuals can be improved through their
own actionor thatof others.That is, social problemsinvolve
mattersof welfare regardingwhich changes can be made.
Second, the well-being of the individualsand/orsociety is
not simply subjectively identified by the individuals
involved but is subject to determinationthroughprocesses
of social argumentationand justification. This does not
mean that everyone will agree with these processes. However, social problemsare open to questions of evidence and
argument.On the contrary,if a social problem necessarily
requiredthatthe people involved viewed themselves as having a social problem, then social problems would be
restrictedto those that people acknowledge. This is not the
case. Social marketerstargetpeople who may not believe, at
least at the outset, that they suffer from a problem or any
deficiency in their welfare. As such, social problems are
identified independentlyof what any particularperson or
people may or may not believe. It is compatible with social
marketingthat the people social marketersaddress strongly

This content downloaded from 216.87.96.75 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 23:09:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Journal of Public Policy & Marketing

believe that they do not have a problem. This might be the
case of teenagers who abuse alcohol or drugs, fathers of
Muslim girls in Bangladesh who do not believe that their
daughters should receive an education, or men in parts of
Africa who wish to have theirfuturewives undergo"female
circumcision."
It follows that what are instances of social problems
require some standardof individual and/or social welfare
independentof the wants or beliefs of any particularperson
to determinewhether something is (or is not) a social problem. Accordingly, social marketersmust have an answer to
the question, What are the standardsby which social problems are identified?
Third, people who have a social problem are unable
and/orunwilling to expend the resourcesthey have in a way
that will solve the problem.Consequently,social marketing
frequently involves distributingvarious goods or services
free of charge. However, it need not. For example, because
free condoms might be viewed as inferior products,social
marketersmight sell condoms (though perhapsat reduced,
nonmarketrates) as part of a programto reduce AIDS or
unwantedpregnancies. Accordingly, social marketingmay
variously involve making resources available to people or
convincing them to use the resources they have to resolve
their problems.In any case, in the absence of this thirdcondition, social marketingwould be unnecessary,because the
people involved would be willing and able to use their various resourcesto solve problemsof theirwell-being thatthey
(and society) face. In this circumstance,to the extent that
marketingwould be required,commercialmarketingwould
suffice.
Fourth, social problems are notable for their diversity.
Some involve actions a person must take for his or her own
welfare, such as completing high school or maintaininga
reasonableweight. Others involve actions people must take
to improve the welfare of others, such as immunizingtheir
children. Some involve behaviorsthat impose costs directly
on others, whereas other behaviorsonly impose those costs
indirectly(Rothschild 1999). Finally, some social problems
involve certain behaviors in relation to things (e.g., seat
belts) that people already possess, whereas other social
problemsinvolve acquiringcertainproducts(e.g., condoms)
(Table 3).
Examples inserted in each cell of Table 3 might be differently placed depending on the individualsor groups said
to have certainsocial problems.Still, it is intuitivelyplausible that different ethical questions will arise depending on
which kinds of social problems social marketersattack.An
Table 3.

17

ethics of social marketingmust take into accountthis diversity of problemsaddressed.

Individual and Social Well-Being
The preceding four characteristics suggest a first ethical
challenge that distinguishessocial marketingfrom commercial marketing.It is an issue that is infrequentlynoted by
marketers.It involves the relation that social marketing,as
opposed to commercialmarketing,has to the well-being or
the good of the people it targets (see Andreasen1995). This
involves what I call a welfare exchange, as opposed to a
marketexchange.
To begin with, commercial marketingis bound up with
fulfilling the desires of people who have the requisitemeans
(which may include extensions of credit) to engage in an
exchange and who are willing (or can be persuaded) to
engage in such an exchange. This is based on a theory of
market exchanges in which a person who engages in an
exchange seeks to fulfill his or her own goals in a manner
that requiresmeeting the desires of others, even if this does
not improve the person's well-being. Commercialmarketing offers a rational,scientific approachto sortingout various wants or desires customershave (or may be elicouraged
to have) and providingthe productsand the methods to satisfy those wants.
Within this marketsetting,the touchstonefor commercial
marketersis whether,within theirown profitconstraintsand
after the educationand/orpersuasionof the people they target, they are able to satisfy the desires of those people.
Admittedly,commercial marketersmay mistake what people's desires are. So too, consumersmay be mistakenabout
what will satisfy theirdesires. Still, the moraljustificationof
commercialmarketers'actions is ultimatelythatpeople voluntarilychoose what they offer. It is for this reasonthatthe
unintendednegative effects of commercialmarketing(e.g.,
spillovereffects of advertising)are viewed as raisingserious
problems.People affected in these ways have not chosen to
engage in such exchanges. As such, the ethical issues commercial marketing faces are tied to a theory of market
exchange. Commercialmarketersare measuredin terms of
their responsible successes in accomplishing such
exchanges.
In contrast,social marketersseek to engage in a welfare
exchange. A welfare exchange is both an exchange and a
matterof the welfare or well-being of the people targeted.
But, as maintainedpreviously, the intended well-being of
the people targetedis not simply an individualor subjective
matter.Accordingly, Rescher (1972, p. 17) has arguedthat

Examples of the Diversity of Social Problems

An individualagent's

deficientwelfare

Otheragents'deficientwelfare

DeficientWelfareDue to

DeficientWelfareDue to

(In)Actions of Individual Agent

1. *Individualdrug abuse

Joint or Collective (In)Action

*Notcompletinghighschool
*Excessweight

3. *Notbreast-feeding

*Not immunizingchildren
*Abuseof spouse

2. *Pooreducation

*Familypatternsof abuse
eFamilyalcoholism
4. 1ll healthdueto pollution
*Deforestation
*Racism,ethnic prejudice

This content downloaded from 216.87.96.75 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 23:09:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

18

EthicalChallengesof SocialMarketing

"welfare is thus not in any immediateway a matterof psychological feelings or moods or states of mind;rather,it is a
function of the extent to which certain objective circumstances are realized, namely, those generally regarded as
representingrequisites for the achievementof happiness in
the existing life environment."As such, people who are said
to have social problems may have mistakentheir own welfare, as well as that of others.This does not mean thata pluralism of views regardingpeople's welfare or well-being
cannot be recognized. Nevertheless, no matter how such
welfare is ultimately portrayed,because a person's welfare
and that of others is not simply a matterof the person's perceptions, the exchange at stake here is significantly altered:
The welfare of the people targeted,not simply the satisfaction of theirwants, supplies(partof) the criteriafor this kind
of exchange.
This difference between marketand welfare exchanges is
manifested in various ways. To begin with, because a welfare exchange is involved, social marketersappearto know
what they want to accomplish(reducefamily size, stop drug
use, improve the educational opportunities of women)
before they address the specific individuals they target.6
Social marketersmay take theirgoal or objective from society, a theory of humannature,or the organizationsfor which
they work. Whichever is the case, social marketersturn to
the people they targetnot to identify whatends or goals they
should encourage but to find in what ways "they must
'package' the social idea [or end they propose] in a manner
which theirtargetaudiencesfind desirableand are willing to
purchase"(Kotler and Zaltman 1971, p. 7). Accordingly, in
his discussion of social marketingissues, Rothschild(1999,
p. 24) speaks about "specific targets and specific public
health or social issues for which the targetsmay or may not
have any motivation, opportunity,and/or ability to cooperate but that neverthelesshave been selected for management
(e.g., keeping preteengirls from beginningto smoke)."Such
target individuals may be "prone, resistant, or unable to
comply with the manager'sgoals."
Consequently, social marketing qua marketing needs a
theory of welfare exchange. This theory will explain what
constitutes people's welfare. It will also indicate in what
ways a person's welfare may be changed or modified. For
example, simply because something is in a person's (or
group's) best interests,it does not follow that someone else
(or the government) may impose it on them. So there are
two questions that social marketersmust address:(1) What
is the relevantwelfare? and (2) Whatmay be done by social
marketersto bring about the realizationof this welfare by
the people who have been targeted?As such, this theory of
welfare exchange explains not only what constitutes people's welfare but also how the agents of welfarechange, that
is, social marketers,may act.
Responses by Social Marketers
Few social marketers have formulated this problem, let
alone attempted to respond to these questions. Although
6Accordingly, it is misleading and mistakento suggest that social marketing accepts "the primacy of the consumer in all marketingdecisions."
Similarly, social marketingis hardly "a neutralmethodology"adapted to
social imperatives(Da Cunha 1992, p. 303).

Webster (1975, p. 77) has noted the ethical dimension

involved in the welfaresocial marketersseek, he has offered
only a subjectivistsolution. Thus, he comments that
[I]n additionto all of the technicalproblemsinvolvedin conductingmarketresearchto this end [definingthe publicwelfare],thereis anethicaldimensioninvolved.Thisethicaldimension requiresthe marketing
decisionmarketerto havehis own
definitionof thesocialgood.Whereashe couldpreviouslyrely
to makethisjudguponconsumerchoicesin the marketplace
mentforhim,themarketer
whowishesto servethepublicwelfaremustnowbringhisown personalvaluesto bearon his professionaldecisionmaking.
Although Websteris correctthat there is an ethical problem
here that involves a view of the social good, it does not follow that such a view can be identifiedsimply throughsocial
marketerslooking within themselves to their own personal
values. Instead,an ethical solution would requiremarketers
to examine various processes and criteria that extend
beyond the values of a particularsocial marketer.
It is worthnotingthat,along these lines, Andreasen( 1995,
p. 31) has suggested that when thereare controversialapplications of social marketing,decisions to proceed "shouldbe
made by some sort of societally representativecollective.
This collective could be a legislatureor a governmentministry, or it could be a boardof directorsor an advisory board
made up of citizens of diverse backgroundsand interests."
He makes this proposalwithin his account of social marketing. However, the groundsfor this suggestion and necessary
details for its implementationare not spelled out.
Years before Andreasen's comments, Fox and Kotler
(1980, p. 30) pointed in the same direction when they commented that "most government-sponsoredsocial marketing
efforts are likely to be fairly uncontroversialwhen used to
increase the effectiveness of legislatively mandated social
programs."Althoughtheirsuggestion has some plausibility,
it is narrowerthan Andreasen'sproposal.Furthermore,it is
neither necessary nor sufficient as an answer to the present
issue. On the one hand, not all attempts to resolve social
problems need be partof legislatively mandated programs.
On the other hand,theremust be reasons to believe that legislatively mandatedprogramsare also ethically justified and
not simply imposed by a political elite througha legislature
or parliament.Only underthese conditions could this be an
ethically appealing approach to social change (Fox and
Kotler 1980, p. 27).
Although I believe that Andreasen (1995) and Fox and
Kotler (1980) are on the right trackwith regardto the justification of social marketings' attempts to resolve social
problems,social marketersneed to modify and extend these
views. Legislatures and governments may be corrupt.
Boards of directors and advisory boards may be biased or
prejudicedin particularcases. Consequently, their identification of the individualand social welfare that serves as a
standardfor social problems may be skewed. Accordingly,
social marketersmust develop the criteriaand standardsfor
individualand social welfare that such bodies should use.
From the discussions of Andreasen (1995) and Fox and
Kotler (1980), I derive the suggestion that such criteriaand
standardsshould result from inviting people to become part
of a process of change to enhance their welfare, ratherthan
treatingthem as recipientsor targetsof efforts to change their

This content downloaded from 216.87.96.75 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 23:09:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Journal of Public Policy & Marketing

behaviors. However, even such a view requires a (moral)
theorythatspeaksto the welfareproblemsof a society and its
people. The theorymust identify the conditionsunderwhich
people participate,the information they would need, the
natureof the voice or exit they should have regardingdecisions affectingtheirwelfare,and the role of scientific studies
regardinghumanwelfare. Furthermore,because social marketers are not (usually) elected by the public (though they
may work for people who are), they requiresome justification to answerthe chargethattheirsocial marketingactivities
are not simply the efforts of one group trying to impose its
ways on other people. Such a justification will inevitably
have both social and politicaldimensions.The importanceof
this point is that it undercutsan assumptionsome social marketers seem to make: that social problemscan be separated
from political problems.An ethical theoryfor social marketing must encompassboth dimensions.
Two objections may be briefly considered.First, it might
be objected that the precedingdiscussion raises an interesting theoretical point, but in general, social marketerscan
practicallygo about their tasks because the social problems
they address are morally unproblematic.This may be true
for some of the most obvious and easiest problems,but only
because most people alreadyagree on some of the underlying theoreticalissues-for example, that eliminatingavoidable diseases through sanitation or preventing physical
abuse of children enhances their welfare. Nevertheless,
many of the problemssocial marketerspresentlyattackraise
importantethical questions of a much more complex theoretical nature, such as birth control and opportunitiesfor
women in strictly conservativeMuslim countries.Withouta
moral theory that speaks to the welfare of individuals and
societies and how this welfare may be changed, social marketers simply rely on the powers they can bring to bear to
change people, as well as the authorityof those who hire
them, ratherthan meet the ethical challenge of why these
efforts and the directionsthey take arejustified.
Second, it might be objected that social marketersdo not
need a theory of welfare, because their real customers are
the people (or agencies) who hire them. Their aim is to satisfy those wants and desires, not necessarily the needs and
social problems of people in society. This would indeed
eliminate the need for social marketingto develop a theory
of welfare. However, it would do so by transformingsocial
marketinginto commercialmarketing.If social marketingis
to be distinctive, it must focus on the social problemsof the
people who have them, not the desires of those who hire
them. This distinction, and the tensions that may arise
within it, is an importantpartof the presentethical issue. If
social marketing is to address this issue ethically, it must
develop a theory of the welfare or well-being of the people
it seeks to serve.

19

Cells 2A and 2B) that are specific to this dimension of social

marketing.

MarketingVersus Moral-Rationale

Social MarketingAnalysesof Social

Problems

If marketingis best understoodas "encompassingall activities involving 'exchange' and the cause and effect phenomena associated with it" (Bagozzi 1975, p. 32), then marketing must look to various accounts of behavior change and
the forces and conditions that create or resolve the various
forms of exchange. Accordingly, both commercial and
social marketing necessarily involve various theories of
behaviorchange.
One of the importantcontributionsof social marketingto
making effective social change is to recognize openly that
people are not simply rationalbeings who alter their views
and behavior simply on the basis of valid or sound arguments that others presentto them. Instead,people are much
more complex and alter their behaviorbecause of a variety
of factors.
This approachby social marketersto the resolution of
social problems is particularlysignificant, especially when
it is contrastedwith thatof philosophicalethicists, who have
failed too often to recognize the variousfactors thatare part
of people's behavioralchange. Given their concerns about
justification, ethicists have too often forgotten, or been
indifferent, that real people do not simply respond to the
logical justificationsthey generate.Therefore,ethicists have
not addressed the motivational problem agents of social
change face in the ways that social marketershave.
Nevertheless,althoughsocial marketersaddressthe motivational problem, they run into an ethical problem because
of the various models of behavior change on which they
rely.7The ethical problem is thatby appealingto such models, they end up either appealingto only one level of moral
reasoning or changing the nature of the moral reasoning
involved in (many) social problems(see Table 3, Cells 2, 3,
and 4).
This can be illustratedby examining briefly two characteristics of such theories. These featuresof behaviorchange
theoriescontributedirectlyto the ethical problemnoted previously. First, according to some behavior theories, consumer decisions are based on "a whole range of selfcentered cost/benefit calculations" of the consequences
(Andreasen 1995, p. 151). Social marketersmust closely
consider these calculations in making their own moves.
Although it may be plausible that ordinaryconsumerdecisions are groundedin such a manner,this view does not necessarily extend to behavioraldecisions in all other areas of
life, such as those involving certain social problems (Table
3, Cells 2, 3, and 4). In these different contexts, otherregarding reasons might be relevant. Accordingly, recall
that though some social problems involve an agent's own
welfare, others involve the welfare of others, which is
affected by the agent (see Table 3). Although a theory of
behavior change may be helpful for use with Table 3, Cell

Anotherrealm of specific ethical challenges thatsocial marketing faces can be identifiedby examining not the ends of
social marketing(see Table 1, Cell 1) butthe analyses it provides of the ways by which to move people toward those
ends. I identify two specific ethical challenges (Table I,

7Consumerbehavior theories particularlyrelevant to social marketing

include the innovationadoptionprocess model (Wilkie 1990), the theory of
plannedbehavior(Azjen 1991), and the transtheoreticalmodel of behavior
change (Andreasen 1995).

This content downloaded from 216.87.96.75 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 23:09:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

20

EthicalChallengesof SocialMarketing

1, because other considerationsmay (and should) enter into

the resolutionof social problemsin Table 3, Cells 2, 3, and
4, it is less obvious thata theoryof behaviorchange limited
to the previous considerations is useful or appropriate(at
least in the same way). In short,a theoryof consumerbehavior, which is correctly characterizedin the preceding manner, may not be fully appropriatewhen it encountersa full
range of social problems.
Second, to the extent that value or moral considerations
enter into such accountsof consumerbehavior,they enteras
causal factors in people's behavior.That is, any inclusion of
values or moral norms appears only with regard to their
effectiveness or ineffectiveness in altering people's behavior. However, to treat various moral and value considerations simply in terms of their (causal) effectiveness is to
alter significantly any reasoned, and potentially rational,
approach that engages people in conversation, discussion,
and decision making. In short, there are two different ways
in which social marketersmight invoke moral values and
norms when trying to resolve social problems. On the one
hand, they could engage in moraldiscussion with the people
they seek to influence. As such, theirdiscussion is within, or
internalto, the moral realm, and the applicablecriteriastem
from the logic of moraljustification.On the otherhand,they
may use moral language and appeals to values not as an
attemptto participatein a moraldiscussion but ratherexternally as anothermechanismto persuadepeople to change. In
short, they appeal to these values insofaras such appealsare
effective. Effectiveness is their sole criterion.If social marketers do the former,they have stepped outside the account
of consumer behavioral change. If they do the latter, they
remain within it but then simply use the moral language
externally, as it were, without adoptingit.
Accordingly, when social marketersadopt a theory of
behavior change having these characteristics,they assume
(explicitly or implicitly) that the behavioral changes
involved in solving social problemsare similar in natureto
those consumers go throughin commercialcontexts. In the
precedingdiscussion, I arguethatthis is not the case. Social
marketing focuses on social problems with moral dimensions that must also be addressed. Theories of behavioral
change that permit considerationof only self-centered calculations or weigh only the causal effectiveness of moral
values and norms are, I have argued, inadequateto address
the various forms of ethical reasoningthat are (also) appropriate and requiredfor such changes. As such, social marketers face an ethical challenge that commercial marketers
do not face.

Individual Versus Whole Relation

A differentset of special ethical challenges social marketing
faces regardingits analysis of social problemsarises out of
the relation of individuals to the groups or social settings
within which they experience these problems. One of the
prominent characteristicsof commercial marketing is the
use of segmentationto targetparticularpartsof the market.
This enables marketersto develop specially designed products that members of that segment will seek out, to create
clear messages regarding those products, and to focus
resources on persuadingthe particularsegment to seek out
the product. Social marketershave, by and large, adopted

these techniques. However, different ethical issues arise

when social marketersdo this than when commercial marketersdo.
To begin with, the problemssocial marketingattacks are
not simply those relatedto the desires or wants of individuals that may have arisen for various personal or idiosyncratic reasons. Rather,these problems involve deficiencies
that people sustain in their welfare. Resolution of these
problems is most commonly linked to more general social
conditions and structures,which may need to be altered to
bring about and sustain changes in individual behavior, as
well as to avoid other problemsarising because of changed
individualbehavior.
For example, the diarrheachildren (and others) experience in developing countries is related to the unsanitary
natureof the water supplies and the reasons for this situation. Problemsinvolving leprosy arise not simply because of
different forms of transmission but also because of the
stigma of leprosy. Smoking, as well as drug and alcohol
abuse, may be linked not only to various individualdesires
but also to social contexts involving advertising,social pressures, tax incentives for tobacco and alcohol producers,and
so forth. Similarly, other problems social marketersattack
occur within varioussocial contexts that may encourageand
sustain people who have the problems.
The ethical challenge social marketingfaces here is that
to be effective, not simply in some temporarymannerbut in
the long run, social marketersmust consider the social context of the problem they seek to resolve. They must determine how and whetherthey can help the people who have a
particularsocial problemand how or whetherthey must also
seek to change the backgroundsocial conditions that give
rise to and sustain the particularsocial problem.This is not
to say that they must themselves change backgroundconditions or structures,but they must (at least) ascertainwhether
the actions they propose are undercutby those conditions
and structures, as well as whether they must undertake
actions to make appropriatebackgroundchanges.
Accordingly, the social marketersin Sri Lankawho have
effectively eliminatedleprosy did so, with the government's
cooperation, by attackingnot only its physical dimensions
but also its social, psychological, and moral dimensions
(Williams 1999). Social marketersplaced the problemin its
broadercontext and sought to make inroadson this network
of social stigma, religion, superstition,and so forth in order
to reduce leprosy. In doing this, they faced ethical challenges that commercialmarketersnormallydo not face.
In this situation,social marketersmust consider whether
to solve social problems by treating people's problems
within current social structures rather than empowering
those people to solve backgroundor institutionalproblems
that are associated with the social problems they face (see
Wallack 1990). For example, social marketersmay seek to
prevent dehydrationin children with diarrhearather than
providea clean watersupply. Should the resourcesto which
they have access be used for the formeror the latter?Do the
effects of their actions resolve the social problem for those
targetedor simply and temporarilyrelieve symptoms of the
problem?Do social marketers,as a consequence, protectthe
interestsof forces that have createdor sustain the problem?
There is no problem with segmentation (by itself). It may

This content downloaded from 216.87.96.75 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 23:09:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Journalof PublicPolicy& Marketing

encourage the effective use of resources. However, it may
also encourage social marketersto focus on narrowaspects
of larger problems while protecting the larger problems
from attack. Consequently, a danger that social marketers
must face is that they may be used by an unjust system to
protect itself from challenge. Conversely, the more social
marketersundertaketo change these social structuresand
conditions, the more they begin to take on the guise of a
political movement and the less they can claim simply to be
"technicians," or marketers helping solve problems that
society has identified.
Anotherdimension of this individualversus whole ethical
challenge involves the way scarce resourcesshould be allocated to solve social problemswithin the contexts in which
they exist. Social marketersdraw on the funds that certain
private or public agencies make available to them. Several
problems of justice arise here in ways they do not for commercial marketers.For example, the decisions of the social
marketerregardinghow the people targeted are to be segmented may exclude certain groups that need help but do
not ask for it or need help but are not selected to be partof
the group to be addressedbecause their situationis too desperateand difficult to resolve (Laczniakand Murphy1993).
Furthermore,it frequently occurs that those whom social
marketerstargetare those who are least predisposedto their
offerings, such as drivers who refuse to use seat belts,
teenagers who do not use condoms, sheet metal contractors
that deny women access to their field, heavy smokers, and
so forth-a situationquite differentfrom that faced by most
commercial marketers(see Bloom and Novelli 1981).
It will be objected that social marketersare simply trying
to do whatthey can do. No one can solve all problems.They
pick this particularproblembecause they are knowledgeable
about it and can have an effect on it. This is, in part,a good
answer. Indeed, those who raise this point might refer to
"the Kew Gardensprinciple"(Simon, Powers, and Gunneman 1972), which claims that a person's responsibility to
addressa problemincreasesas his or her capacity to address
it, knowledge of it, and proximity to it also increase.
Although social marketersmay be employed by governments, they are not themselves governmentsand do not have
the consequent broad responsibilities. They do not have
responsibilitiesfor the entire populationof a nation.Therefore, they must rely, to a certainextent, on the capable functioning of the government.They may not have full knowledge. Their capabilities of changing certain resource
allocations are limited. They must work with the resources
they have.
Although there is merit to this objection, it may not
always be a good answer, as some of the preceding examples suggest. Social marketersface these questionsof justice
regardingwhich problemsthey choose to solve and whether
they agree to be involved in (partially)solving the problems
they attack.Even though they may not be fully responsible
for the solution of any particularsocial problem, they can
and do make choices about the occasion and distributionof
their resourcesto solve the problemsthat raise the previous
justice questions.
Finally, it might also be objected that the ethical challenges linked with the individual versus whole issue are
someone else's problems, namely, the people who hire the

21

social marketer.Again, there is some practicaljustification

for this. However, it is not a complete defense. If those who
do the hiring have not adequatelyansweredthese questions,
the social marketerremains responsible. Social marketers
cannot simply appeal to the agent/principalrelationshipto
excuse them wholly from the implicationsof what they are
doing. They must also ascertainthat both the ends they seek
and the means they propose to achieve those ends are
morallyjustified.
The implication of the precedingdiscussion is that when
social marketers decide whether they should tackle a
(social) problem,they must take into accountthe end or goal
that is sought, its social context, and the means they must
use to resolve it in ways that are quite unlike those of commercialmarketers.These considerationsdo not simply refer
to "externalities"but are internalto solving social problems.

Social Marketingand the Subjectsof

Social Problems
Social marketing promotes a particular set of relations
between social marketersand the people targetedby social
marketers.These relationsraise a thirdgroupof ethical challenges social marketersmust face (Table 1, Cell 3).

An Indirect, Asymmetrical Relationship

Social marketingattemptsto induce people to change their
behaviors as part of a welfare exchange to solve a social
problem.However, the changed behavioris not necessarily
bought throughsome expenditureof money or barteringof
goods. Even if an expenditureof money is involved, it is,
given the natureof social marketing,not the same as would
be expended in a commercialmarketingexchange. In short,
welfare exchanges are not designed, as are market
exchanges (at least in principle),to cover the full cost of the
productor service, plus an adequatelevel of profit for the
marketer(Webster 1975).
Needless to say, the people who are objects of a social
marketing project must give up something to make the
change in behavior. But what they must give up is not necessarily something that has commercial value. It need only
have personal value. A parent must take time away from
other (work or nonwork) activities to provide his or her
child with special medication. A man must exchange,
throughthe use of a condom, a certain heightenedsense of
sexual pleasurein unprotectedsex for his own safety as well
as that of his partner.Inasmuchas commercially valuable
goods are not exchanged, there can be no question of the
exchange between target and social marketergenerating a
profit.Accordingly,social marketingis not concernedabout
the profitabilityof its activities in the same way commercial
marketingactivities must be concerned(see Webster 1975).
The monetarycompensationsocial marketersreceive comes
from funding agencies or organizationsthat are satisfied by
the efforts social marketershave made to solve the social
problemthey have attacked.It does not come (at least primarily) from the exchanges in which social marketers
engage with the people they target. As such, the financial
survival of commercial marketersis theoreticallyand practically linked to the people they target in a direct manner.
The latter pay for the former's activities. In social market-

This content downloaded from 216.87.96.75 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 23:09:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

22

EthicalChallengesof SocialMarketing

ing, this is not the case. The social marketer'srelationto the

people targetedis mediatedand paid for by a thirdgroupor
organization.All this is well known.
However, what is rarely noted is that this implies that
social marketershave a differentmoral relationwith the targets of their activities than do commercial marketers.Two
aspects of this different moral relationshipare noteworthy.
First, it means that the social marketermust be solicitous of
these nontargeted groups or organizations in a way that
commercial marketersneed not be, at least in accord with
the marketing concept. Indeed, if the marketing concept
applies at all, it applies to these mediating, or third-party,
groupsratherthanthose targetedby the social marketer.It is
these mediating groups that directly and indirectly determine what social marketersdo. These third-partygroups
(rather than the targeted groups) maintain the principal
authorityand determinationin the actions of the social marketer. This creates a different ethical situation for social
marketing.
Conversely, because the people targeted by social marketers do not engage in a marketexchange with them, they
do not hold (at least theoreticallyas a group) an equilibrating power in relation to the social marketer,as do commercial customers with regard to the commercial marketer.
Accordingly, the targets are dependent on the goodwill of
the social marketerand the organizationsthat providefunding for the social marketer'sactivities in ways thatordinary
customersare not dependenton commercialmarketers.As a
consequence, although both social and commercial marketers should avoid paternalismand authoritarianism,social
marketersface a special ethical challenge because of the different situationof their targets.
Second, the ethical issue of a just price also differs for
social marketers.In social marketingexchanges, the pricing
of the goods or services is not based on considerationsof
justice within a system of competitionand profitmaximization but ratheron its effects on those targetedas well as (perhaps) on the organizationssponsoring the social marketing
activity. The relevantcharacteristicof the people targetedby
social marketersis not their ability (and willingness) to pay
a price that accords with a profit-maximizingstrategicplan
of the marketerbut their ability (and willingness) to pay a
price that will solve (or reduce) the social problem.Therefore, questions of a just price are quite differentlyoriented
in such a situation.Because social marketersare focused on
a welfare exchange ratherthan a marketexchange, the pricing problems they face are focused on what price, if any,
will contributeto diminishingor resolving that social problem. This may involve questions of what financialcontribution those targetedmight make. But these are as often questions of motivation as they are questions of what the targets
can be fairly asked to contribute.In either case, these questions are differentfrom those of a just price thatcommercial
marketersface.
Accordingly, social marketersface the people they target
in an indirect, asymmetric moral relationship that differs
from thegrelationshipcommercialmarketershave with their
customers. This is generally the case with regard to the
authorityor the self-determinationtheirtargetsmay exercise
with regardto them, as well as with regardto questions of
the just price their targetsmust pay. And, in some cases, the

targets of social marketersare particularlydependent (collectively) on the marketer'sgoodwill in ways they are not
with commercial marketers.

Privatization
At the outset of its development, social marketing was the
province of private groups (see Laczniak and Murphy
1993). More recently, little or no distinction is made as to
whethersocial marketingis undertakenby privateor public
(governmental) organizations (see Andreasen 1995).
Indeed, the crucial point has come to be what social marketersdo and how they do it, ratherthanthe organizationfor
which they do it. Nevertheless, social marketing faces yet
anotherethical challenge that commercial marketersdo not
face, namely, the possibility of "privatizing"certain realms
it targets.
Ethical issues of privatizationregardingsocial problems
arise when social marketersact on behalf of governmental
agencies or organizations.They also appearwhen the people targetedare particularlyvulnerable,the issue is of considerable importance to them, the power differential
between them and the social marketeris great, and the likelihood of their being affected by the social marketer'spractices is substantial.In these cases, althoughsocial marketers
will invoke various marketingmethods to determine what
the people targeted want or are willing to accept, this
process does not necessarily accord its targets various
importantrights as subjects,let alone ensuretheir principled
self-determination. Accordingly, the techniques of social
marketingmay supplantor simply not include various rights
of participationand voice, whereby social problems might
be democraticallyresolved. It is this thatconstitutes a privatization of the solution of social problems.
In such cases, although both private and public groups
may treat the people they target with compassion and concern for theirwelfare,they treata process thatotherwisemay
requiresuch rights as simply a private undertakingof their
own. Accordingly, although social marketers intend to
empower those they targetthroughimprovingtheir welfare,
they may disempower these people in anothercrucial realm
of human life by privatizing the processes through which
theirwelfare is improved(see Gray-Felderand Deane 1999).
When done in this manner, social marketingruns afoul of
ethical issues that are importantto democraticsocieties.
Contrariwise, when social marketing is used to supplement or modify (social and political) proceduresthat respect
individual rights and self-determination, it may well
improve democraticsocieties. As such, it is the application
of integratedand rationaltechniques to ongoing problems.
In this sense, it may serve better to resolve them. Consequently, social marketersmust be keenly awareof these two
different implicationsof their efforts.
But how plausible, since social marketing is said to be
customer centered, are such concerns regarding privatization? Social marketersspeak of the importanceof focusing
on the customer.This might be takento suggest thatthe people social marketerstargetare the center of all such efforts
to help them and to fulfill their needs. Although this may
seem inherentlyto carrya democraticbias, there is a difference between attemptingto satisfy people's wants and giving people a voice in a process whereby their wants are sat-

This content downloaded from 216.87.96.75 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 23:09:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Journal of Public Policy & Marketing

isfied. The latter,ratherthan the former,is essential to their
self-determinationand a democratic society. The former
may involve elements of paternalism about which social
marketersshould be ethically aware. This is particularlythe
case if the means used by social marketersto change behaviors are not open and apparentto those targetedand if those
targeted have little, if any, rights-based input into these
changes. As I argued previously, those targeted are not
asked aboutthe ends; rather,they are asked aboutthe means
that would lead them to adopt those ends. In such circumstances, the self-determinationof the people addressedby
social marketersis undermined.Consequently,it is misleading to suggest that social marketingis simply anothervoice
in a public forum. There is a potential tension between the
listening that social marketersdo with regardto those they
target and the prior determinationof the ends social marketers seek to promote.
It might be objected that the people social marketerstarget are given rights by marketing.For example, the code of
ethics of marketing researchers extends various rights to
their subjects. But the rights that subjects are typically
granted by marketing research codes are those of privacy
and anonymityand of not being deceived by researchmethods or results. Subjects are not grantedany rights of participation,rights to know who are the sponsorsof the research,
or rights to alter the results or what the ultimateends of the
researchmay be.
Others might object that social marketerstry to involve
the people they seek to change in the projects they undertake. For example, social marketers who attempt to alter
teen violence or reduce teen smoking may try to involve
teens in these projects. They may even try to include teens
in resolving the issue and planningthe campaign.The question, however, is how the marketers get the teenagers
involved and what is the relation of the teens to the social
marketer.In such cases, the social marketeris the project
director.He or she makes final decisions but is not a representative of the teens. The marketercould reject any of the
teens' ideas without explanation. Furthermore,the teens
have no rights that derive from social marketingand can
make no demands of the social marketerto which the latter
is obligated to respond. There are no measures of due
process thatderive from social marketingthatthose who are
targetedmay raise. They can complain about mistreatment
if the social marketertakes advantageof them. But this complaint is little different than the complaint that any person
might raise against anotherpersonor organizationthattakes
advantage of them. Such complaints may have little legal
standing.Surely this set of relations is differentfrom that to
which (democratic)politicians are held-even if they do not
always fulfill them. It is not a set of relations that could be
called democratic. Rather,it is administrative,technical, or
bureaucraticin nature.
The upshot is that the processes through which people
with social problems are targetedis managed by outsiders.
These outsiders(social marketers)seek to find out what certain people want or need but do not (necessarily) engage
those people in a process in which they have, by right, a
voice. In short,these people are regardedas being in need of
persuasion, rather than as being engaged in a process,
bounded by rights, within which they come to understand

23

that change is needed. This simply reaffirmsthat this is not

an educational,social, or political process but a marketing
process. However, because social marketersare trying to
solve social problemsand not simply problemsof individual
want, they face (at least in some cases) the ethical issue of
whether to treat problems that may require democratic
processes in ways similar to the resolution of consumer
demands linked with ordinary marketing (which do not
requiresuch democraticprocesses).
In these cases, if social marketingremainstrue to its marketing heritage, its approach to social problems has the
effect of privatizing the resolution of such problems. The
difference between a marketingand a democratic(political)
approachto solving social problemsis, in part,capturedby
the difference between the local mall and the town square.
Goods are sold and needs are met in both. But the formeris
private; the latter is public. The former involves private
propertyand exclusion of various political rights, whereas
the latter involves various political rights. The former may
survey people to learnwhat they wantor would put up with;
the latter asks people to vote in a determinationof what
should be undertaken.It should be admittedthat the political process has been greatly altered by the effects of marketing. Indeed, perhaps,the real story (though it is a different story) may be how far political processes have moved
towardmarketingratherthan how far marketinghas moved
towardpolitical processes. In eithercase, however, thereare
legitimate concerns about this merging of values, assumptions, and approaches of commercial marketing with the
solution to social (and political) problems.

Implicationsand Conclusions
The preceding argumentsdo not imply that social marketing is ethically undesirableor impossible. Nor do they
impugn the motives of people who are engaged in social
marketing.Most of those who engage in social marketing
are seriously concerned about social problems and deeply
wish to improve the welfare of the people they work with
and the society in which they operate.
Rather,the precedingcontentionsseek to identify the special ethical challenges social marketingfaces, which have
hithertobeen only briefly mentionedor not identified at all.
In particular,for social marketingto be ethically responsible, it must respond to the five general ethical issues discussed in the precedingpages and summarizedin Table 4.
Social marketersare engaged in activities whereby they
(and those who fund them) seek to change society. Assuming that respect for individualsis a fundamentalvalue and
that marketersdemonstratedisrespectfor people when they
try to change them without telling them the ends or the
means they are using to do so, it is justified to demand that
social marketers should not seek to achieve their aims
through the misrepresentationof those ends or means.
Stated positively, transparencyshould be a prime directive
for social marketers.It is clear thatsometimes this will mean
that achievementof these ends will be more difficult. However, if marketingefforts are not transparent,social marketers lay themselves open to charges of manipulationand
disrespect, even though the ultimateends they seek may be
ones of which society approves.

This content downloaded from 216.87.96.75 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 23:09:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

24

Ethical Challenges of Social Marketing

Table 4.

Summary of Special Ethical Challenges Social Marketing Faces

Table 1 Heading

GeneralChallenge

Subissues

1. Theendsof social
marketing

Thedetermination
of individualandsocial
welfareendsthroughdevelopment
of a theoryof
welfareexchange

Whomakesthedetermination
of theseends?

2A. Marketing
versusmoral
rationale

Thesubstitution
of marketing
rationalesforthe
ethicalrationalesintrinsicto theproblemssocial
marketers
address

Self-centered
cost-benefitanalysesversusother
reasons,
regarding
appealsto effectiveness
versusmoraljustification

2B. Individualversuswhole
relation

Theethicalimplications
of segmentingsolutions
to socialproblems

of statusquothatoccasionsthe
Continuation
socialproblem,neglectof thosewhoare
in need
particularly

3A. An indirect,asymmetric
relationship

Theindirect,asymmetric
of social
relationship
marketers
withthosetheytarget

Nonmarket
powerovertargets,nonmarket
of just price
determination

Theeffectsof socialmarketing
on selfof individualsanddemocracy
determination
withina society

Individualrightsof voice andparticipation

not
recognized

3B. Privatization

Accordingly, because social marketersseek to address

social problems that may be of considerablesignificance, it
is also rightful that they should clearly identify who is
engaged in these efforts and who financially supportsthem.
In the absence of such information,those targeted (as well
as others in society) will be unawareof what special interests and forces are seeking to modify their thinking and
behavior.
I have also arguedthatwhen one personor group seeks to
alter the behavior, values, and/or beliefs of others, respect
for the targets requires that they have some say in this
process. This may range from simply refusing to participate
to having a substantive,rights-basedsay in the direction in
which they are to move. Da Cunha's (1992) campaign to
increase the breast-feedingof infants in Brazil is an example of an effort to change the behaviorof some Brazilians.
Given the nature of the problems it attacks, however, this
should not be simply a one-sidedaffair(even if this involves
studying the desires, beliefs, and values of those to be targeted). The target individuals and groups need to be
engaged not simply as the objects (or targets) of marketing
efforts but as participantsin a process whereby their social
and individual welfare problems are addressed.As participants, they requirevarious rights that recognize their legitimate participation.Indeed, the more importantand extensive the social welfare problem, the greater is the
importanceof such rights of recognitionand participation.
I have contendedthatsocial marketingembodies a recognition thatpeople do not change behaviorwilly nilly or simply (for the most part)because of rationalargumentsor the
receipt of informationthey lacked. They must be motivated
to change their views and behavior.But for this to be ethically grounded, social marketers must seek not simply
incentives for those they target but justifications set within
the larger contexts they inhabit. Consequently, theories of
individualand social change thattake a broader,more inclusive perspective, such as variousenvironmentaland normative theories of behaviorchange, may be more relevant for

social marketingthan narrowertheories of individual consumer choice.

Accordingly, it is valid to ask what evidence social marketers have that the ends they seek to achieve are indeed
ends that are (or should be) partof the social well-being of
the people they target.If such social well-being or welfare is
not simply a subjective state but involves variousobjective
considerations,capabilities, basic needs, and so forth, the
targetsof the marketingefforts (as well as others in society)
may legitimately request that the social marketersprovide
such evidence together with its compatibility(or incompatibility) with existing laws and regulations.This must be reconciled with the various communities that do not, at least
initially, subscribe to the underlyingmoral views and ends
this approachsupports.
To the extent that social marketingfocuses on considerations that are effective rather than justified or rationally
defensible, it undercuts public discourse, transforming it
into an arena of manipulation rather than conversation,
debate,and dialogue. It extends the logic of persuasionwith
regard to commercial products to the adoption of social
goals and means. Although this may be a matterof minor
concern when people purchase various gizmos for image
(and other) reasons, when they adopt solutions to the social
problemsthat afflict them and society in this manner,this is
(or should be) a matter of heightened concern. If nothing
else, this approachfosters an atmosphereof subjectivism,
indifferenceto logic, and a failure to recognize the distinctive forms of discourse and argumentthat are pertinentto
different realms of human life (see Walzer 1983). As such,
social marketingmay be (though it need not be) destructive
of the social and political realm and the discourse through
which its problems are resolved. The American Marketing
Association, the news media, and other professionalassociations should hold social marketingefforts to higher standards of discourse than those associated with the (commercial) market. When it comes to the solution of social
problems by social marketing,"marketingas usual" should
not be good enough.

This content downloaded from 216.87.96.75 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 23:09:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Journal of Public Policy & Marketing

In addition, society must weigh the efforts and extent of
privateundertakingsto solve social problemsagainstpublic
undertakingsin these areas. When people owe their wellbeing to private agencies ratherthan public agencies, their
loyalties, commitments,and gratitudewill be to such private
agencies. The public and common groundof the community
itself may be weakened.In contrast,a wholly unifiedsystem
that cares for the public welfare may be authoritarianin its
results. A pluralistic society in which people from various
segments are actively involved in solving its problems is
highly desirable. The question becomes who is engaged in
such social efforts, on behalf of whom, and in what ways.
Because social marketingcan be used by governmentand
nongovernmentgroups, the issue is which one is to do it.
And this issue will rely (at least in part)on what view is held
of people's welfare and its relationto questions of the state.
Finally, a large partof my argumenthas been that social
marketersdo not operatein the ordinarycommercialmarket,
even though they may be in competition with other social
marketers. Therefore, the restraintsof the market are not
similarly operative.The implicationsof this argumentpoint
to the discontinuities (as well as the continuities) between
social marketing and its parent, commercial marketing.
Although marketing has, for some, a neutral,nonpolitical,
quasi-scientific ring (Da Cunha 1992, p. 303), this hides
much of what social marketingdoes. Properlyviewed, the
actions of social marketersare best viewed as actions, which
require (ethical) justification, on the behalf of various private and public associations. To this extent, social marketing is the handmaiden of various social and political
processes and movements. As such, social marketing is
social activism, with a scientific mask. Explicit recognition
of the special ethical challenges it faces should be, I have
argued, partof the furtherdevelopmentof social marketing.

25

to SocialMarketing,"
Fine,SeymourH.,ed. (1992),"Introduction
in Marketingthe Public Sector. New Brunswick, NJ: Transac-

tionPublishers,1-11.
Fox, KarenF.A. and PhillipKotler(1980), "TheMarketingof
Social Causes:The First 10 Years,"Journalof Marketing,44
(Fall),24-33.
Denise and JamesDeane(1999), "Communication
Gray-Felder,
for SocialChange:A PositionPaperandConferenceReport,"
(postedOctober12), (accessedMarch18, 2002), [availableat
http://www.rockfound.org/display.asp?context=1&collection=3
&DoclD=221&Preview=0&ARCurrent=1].]></wd></ln><ln lx="26

References
Andreasen, Alan R. (1995), MarketingSocial Change. San Fran-

cisco:Jossey-Bass.
--fortheScienceandPracticeof Social
(1997),"Challenges
Marketing," in Social Marketing: Theoretical and Practical

Perspectives,MartinE. Goldberg,MartinFishbein,and Susan

E. Middlestadt,
eds. Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates,3-19.
--(2000), Ethics in Social Marketing. Washington, DC:
GeorgetownUniversityPress.
Ajzen, I. (1991), "TheTheoryof PlannedBehavior,"Organizational Behaviourand HumanDecision Processes, 50, 179-21 1.

as Exchange,"
Journalof
Bagozzi,RichardP. (1975),"Marketing
Marketing,39 (October),32-39.
Bloom,Paul N. and WilliamD. Novelli (1981), "Problemsand
Challenges in Social Marketing,"Journal of Marketing, 45

(Spring),79-88.
Da Cunha, Gerson (1992), "MarketingThird World Social
Change," in Marketingthe Public Sector, Seymour H. Fine, ed.

Sons.
Williams,PennyGrewal(1999),"SocialMarketingto Eliminate
LeprosyfromSri Lanka,"(postedJanuary1), (accessedMarch
18, 2002), [available at http//:www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hppb/
marketingsocial/resources/smq-abstracts/abstract7.htm].

New Brunswick,NJ:Transaction
301-22.
Publishers,

This content downloaded from 216.87.96.75 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 23:09:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions