I stumbled upon an interesting post today that got me thinking. The post is titled “The Difference Between Social Marketing and Social Media Marketing,” and it can be found on the blog of Mike Kujawski. It’s not a new post, but it raises one of my favorite topics: nomenclature. I found it via a tweet by the author today saying, “Wishing people would stop confusing Social Marketing with Social Media Marketing once and for all…”
Back in June, Brennan White wrote a nomenclature post about the definition of viral marketing and described our viewpoint on the meaning of “viral” in viral marketing. Brennan notes, “To me, ‘viral’ denotes the specific distribution strategy of a piece of online media.”
Kujawski addresses a similar nomenclature issue. Rather than defining “social,” however, he clarifies the differences between “social marketing” and “social media marketing.” Let’s look at his definitions.
For his definition of social marketing, Kujawski uses a quote:
Social marketing is a process that applies marketing principles and techniques to create, communicate, and deliver value in order to influence audience behaviors that benefit society (public health, safety the environment and communities) as well as the target audience.” - Philip Kotler, Nancy Lee and Michael Rothschild (2006)
The Wikipedia entry for Social Marketing confirms this view:
The primary aim of ’social marketing’ is ’social good’, while in ‘commercial marketing’ the aim is primarily ‘financial’. This does not mean that commercial marketers can not contribute to achievement of social good.“
Kujawski goes on to define social media marketing, but the definition of that term is not the issue here. My primary issue here is the changing use of the term “social marketing.” Kujawski no doubt wrote his post to clear up what he saw as a misuse of the term social marketing. But, I’m not so sure it social marketing means what it used to.
In my experience (and I would love for someone to show me a contrary example) types of marketing are named for methodology and medium, not for their goal. “Direct marketing” is marketing directly to individuals. “Email marketing” is marketing using email for distribution. “Television advertising” is advertising using television for distribution. Each of these examples shows the adjective preceding “marketing” to refer to the method or means.
This, then, leads me to wonder why the term “social marketing” was ever used to refer to marketing for the purpose of social good. It is in contrast to the overarching (though unofficial) naming conventions of marketing types. By this convention, “guerilla marketing” would be marketing to or for the benefit of small groups of combatants who like to ambush a lot.
Linguistically speaking (and I dredge up my college days here, so cut me some slack) humans like to keep to set language patterns, even if unconsciously. Just think of the linguistic convention of putting “e” in front of things. It is not an official rule, but we all know that, much like e-mail, putting “e” in front of something means it takes place on the internet. If someone told you that eMarketing was something other than online marketing, you would likely be a little confused.
It is for this reason, our collective tendency to adhere to linguistic patterns, that I think the term “social marketing” is quickly moving away from the dogmatic definition prescribed in Wikipedia. An increasing number of people are beginning to use the term to mean marketing using social methods. “Social methods” casts a wide net and could encompass everything from street teams to viral marketing…anything where interaction, conversation, and other social elements are at work. It is easy to see how this marketing ideology differs from billboards which shout messages and commercials which are 30-60 second monologues whether you want to see them or not.
Personally, I prefer using the term “social marketing” to encompass various forms of new, conversation-based marketing. It makes sense…it fits the naming pattern that I am used to. I do not deny that the term has been used differently in the past, but I think the times are ‘a changin’ and people who blindly cling to their old definitions will quickly find themselves scrambling to redefine.
Welcome to PandemicBlog. If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed so that you can stay connected. Thanks for visiting!
Related Articles
12 users responded in this post
Great social marketing article. My agency and I recently finished an online game that we are trying to get seeded but to no avail. http://www.stophatingdatinggame.com
Last year, I was one of 3 people responsible for the “We Didn’t Start The Viral” video and so I’m familiar with the process. I followed the same plan with this game almost exactly but with little or no response. I’m finding that seeding a “site” as opposed to a video is a different situation altogether.
Any articles you could point me to for more relevant information or information/advice that you would have to offer would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks for your time,
Jason Holloway
I agree with your point, that it’s not in the goal its in the use of marketing that defines it. I prefer “social marketing” - as a scope. Great post.
Another point that comes to mind is that of “brand protection”. Those who practice social marketing according to wikipedia’s definition can protest as much as they please, but others may or may not follow suit in changing the way they use the term. Kleenex can scream at the top of their lungs, still, people are going to keep referring to generic paper tissues in the same way.
It is nearly impossible to dictate the way people use language and traditional “social marketing” professionals have obviously not succeeded in creating widespread identification with their definition. If someone designed a cooking appliance and decided to name it “telephone”, those around the inventor would point out that the word “telephone” is already associated with other uses. In the same manner, when “social marketing” got “viral” in its association with “social media”, if the traditional (wikipedia) definition had been widely used and known, this discussion wouldn’t be taking place. Early adopters of the term would have immediately realized the error of their ways. I believe it’s too late now to protest.
Not that I don’t feel their pain, but once people normalize something, it’s nearly impossible to change their behavior.
Ultimately, the marketplace will decide this debate. But don’t be so quick to assume what’s new - the view that social media is a field instead of a set of tactics (the way television commercials are a tactic and advertising is the field) - is what will win. Given the movement away from “public awareness” and “health communication” work toward bottom-line behavioral results, social marketing is a growing field … in fact, one of the major industries employing social media. This from someone who helps create lots of social media tactics and works at a social marketing firm - so what would that make me?
Nice use of linguistic gymnastics but the scoring has changed. Product marketing, service marketing, cause-related marketing stand in opposition to your examples. In fact, I suggest that the short-hand versions you mention were created by practitioners more to hype a new technique than to conform to any taxonomy. When one of the most respected academic marketers-Phillip Kotler-decided that we needed to think about applying marketing concepts to social problems in the early 1970s, he coined the term to describe a BIG idea. Thirty years later social marketing is being used around the world to address major health and social issues. Tactical discussions have their place, just note that the confusion comes from the snake charmers of social media. Thousands of others who practice social marketing may not be on the internet and are not part of these discussions, they are too busy getting things done. That doesn’t change the facts - I guess just your interpretation of them
I’m one of those social marketing “screamers” Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Listen social marketing is a exactly what it used to be. I’m sorry we got there 40 years before you did - actually I’m not really all that sorry - but there’s books, a peer reviewed journal, an Institue and yes a wikipedia definition. There are also thousands of caring men and women in countries all over the world who know that social marketing means using the technology of marketing to make a positive difference in the world. They are marketing condoms to prevent HIV in Africa, helping kids wash their hands to avoid diarrhea, promoting bresatfeeding, fighting against the environmental footbprint of bottled water and helping families in America deal with early on-set diabetes. They don’t deserve to be treated as though they never existed because you think social marketing “isn’t what it used to be”. And they sure don’t care about your linguistic games.
What’s wrong with “social media marketing” - why not just call it what it is. Believe me social marketing is WHAT IT USED TO BE…and better every day.
By the way….Resistence is futile! We survived fascists who hated the word “social” and liberals who hatred the word “marketing.”
So, if any of you are intersted in actually helping people in the world we’d like to ask you to join us. We’re proud of social marketing just the way it is and don’t need lessons in linguistics. Why not help us use social media - which we think is fabulous incidentally - to change the world.
I had a feeling my post would eventually spark some good discussion. Thanks for bringing this back into the limelight.
I must take sides with original Social Marketers since the field is quite established both academically and professionally.
Social Media Marketing (as a professional practice)on the other hand is still looking to define itself. This is best exemplified by the fact that social media consultants/firms use a plethora of terms to describe what they do (e.g. conversational marketing, web2.0 marketing, digital marketing, social media engagement, community marketing.
A Social Marketer on the other hand, is just that, a Social Marketer. A Social Marketing Plan follows a specific template, similar to a traditional marketing plan (Segmentation, Targeting, Positioning + 4P’s) with the addition of knowledge, belief and behaviour objectives (the latter being the most important).
All this being said, I do agree with you that Philip Kotler’s decision to call the field “Social Marketing” was not an ideal choice (many people in the public and non-profit sectors would agree with me). The word “marketing” is considered taboo in many of these organizations. This is because few people understand what marketing is (they associate it only with promotion). That’s a different topic all together though…
Summary: With enough response from the Social Marketing community I think we can successfully steer the Social Media Marketing community to always include the “media” in their definition. I myself belong to both and always remind my business contacts to differentiate between the two whenever I see misuse. I have successfully managed to get the Canadian Marketing Association to change some of its workshop names, corrected journalists in interviews, and left comments explaining the difference on some of the largest Social Media podcasts currently available.
As a dual-member, I feel that it is in the best interest of both communities to protect their turf in this case.
Social marketing really encompasses much much more than what “social media marketing” does. Social marketing is a complete process of creating and providing offerings, ideas, products and services that meet the needs of individuals and society. To do this social marketing uses commercial marketing principles such as the concepts of the 4Ps, market research, exchange, target audiences and segments. Social media marketing appears to focus on the promotion P with conversation-based tactics.
Maybe reviewing the AMA definition of marketing will add to the discussion.
“Marketing is the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large.” (Approved October 2007)
http://www.marketingpower.com/AboutAMA/Pages/DefinitionofMarketing.aspx
As someone who has helped pioneer social marketing or the past 30 years, I must say that I was quite agitated when I saw your blog. What world do you live in? Social marketing has been around since the early 70’s I have taught social marketing in the USA, Canada, Japan, Australia/New Zealand and through out Europe since the mid eighties. It is an established field of marketing study. Along comes web 2.0 and thinks it can steal the name of a legitimate field. Now that is chutzpa .. Oh yes after close to 40 years we in the field of social marketing should change our name. Fat chance that will happen.
I am a strong proponent of social media marketing, our Center runs workshops in this area across Canada and I have incorporated social media marketing in my Marketing Communications courses I teach at Carleton University.
Come join us you will really like us as we do neat stuff that really makes a difference in society and we can do it with out forcing people to spend more time glued to their computer.
Good Article It would depend business wise on your overall goal, target,and results in no specific order
Social Marketing has been operating, as commonly defined, since 1973. It now exists in at least 68 countries where many, many people understand it, so why suggest changing its definition? In other words, “When it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” or, “When it looks like its here to stay, just sit back and enjoy it.”
John Davies
Hey everyone. Thank you so much for your well-thought-out comments. I have written a follow up post to continue the discussion and clarify some things. I would still love to hear everyone’s thoughts. You can see the post here: http://pandemiclabs.com/pandemicblog/2008/08/social-marketing-and-social-media-marketing-continued/
Thanks, Matt
Leave A Reply
Please Note: Comment moderation maybe active so there is no need to resubmit your comments