Towards a service-dominant approach to social marketing

Broadening the social marketing scope

The traditional marketing management paradigm adopted by social marketing translated into a ‘downstream’ approach (Andreasen 1995; Kotler and Lee, 2008), focused on changing the behaviour of people who are at risk through decisions at the individual level (Gordon and Gurrieri, 2014; Maio et al., 2007). It was associated with a neo-liberal approach that attributes responsibility for managing personal and social well-being to individuals (Crawshaw, 2012; Crawshaw and Newlove, 2011; Gould and Semaan, 2014; Gurrieri et al., 2013; Jones et al., 2011). However, critics from fields of application such as health (Crawshaw, 2012; Wymer, 2011) and environmental protection (Brennan and Binney, 2008; Brennan and Parker, 2014; Kilbourne et al., 1997; Peattie and Crane, 2005; Peattie and Peattie, 2009) argued that the individual focus privileges a rational decision model, neglecting questions of agency and contextual factors, which are strongly determinant of individuals’ behaviour. Critical perspectives have also been instrumental in articulating the ‘complex, conflicted and increasingly interdependent world’ (Shultz, 2007: 293), where social marketers operate. Critical social marketing scholarship highlights the need to understand the structures around individuals and the complex relationships between the individual and environment (Gordon, 2011; Gordon et al., 2011; Gordon and Gurrieri, 2014; Spotswood and Tapp, 2013).

These contributions do not claim that individual behaviour change is unnecessary, rather they emphasize that understanding of individual behaviour needs to be taken in context and that behaviour change should be part of a broader social change agenda (Brennan and Binney, 2008; Dibb, 2014; Gordon, 2013; Hastings and Saren, 2003; Stead et al., 2013). Accordingly, there has been a reorientation towards ‘upstream’ and ‘midstream’ ² social marketing that focuses on changing behavioural contexts by using combinations of structural measures, legislation, community approaches and education (Andreasen, 2012; Bryant et al., 2007, 2014; Gordon et al., 2011; Hastings, 2007; McKenzie Mohr, 2000; Rothschild, 1999; Wymer, 2011). This reorientation positions broadening the scope of social marketing as a fundamental direction for the field’s development and has provided the impetus for social marketing scholarship to draw upon a range of theoretical traditions. To address the limitations of interventions focused on self-efficacy cognitive models (Lefebvre, 2000; Luca and Suggs, 2013; Truong, 2014), recent social change programmes have incorporated behavioural economics and socio-psychological theories that acknowledge social and other ‘irrational’, non-cognitive factors that influence behaviour (Ariely, 2010; Carvalho and Mazzon, 2013; Shove, 2010). Sociological perspectives are also being applied, for instance, Cherrier and Gurrieri (2014) draw on structuration theory (Giddens, 1984) ³ to examine the roles of ‘institutions’ as part of the social system in normalizing behaviours and creating culture. Gordon and Gurrieri (2014) draw on actor–network theory ⁴ (Latour, 2005) to examine researcher, participant and other stakeholder reflexivity in the case of tobacco control. The unifying theme among these diverse developments is the growing agreement that social change programmes are complex, open systems where individual, organizational and sociocultural factors influence change outcomes (Clark, 2013; Cherrier and Gurrieri, 2014; Domegan et al., 2013). This mirrors a similar argument made in commercial marketing where both micro and macro marketing perspectives are required for constructive engagement with the society (Shultz, 2007).

Dyadic exchanges, segmentation and the marketing mix

Other key elements of the marketing management tradition found to be incongruent with social marketing are the (dyadic) exchange concept and organization-led practice of target marketing via a 4Ps marketing mix. The intangible nature of social change offerings and their public realm (Buchanan et al., 1994; Luck, 1969; Peattie and Peattie, 2003; Ryan, 2001; Walsh, 1994) mean that social marketing typically confronts contexts that involve generalized and complex exchanges (Bagozzi, 1975; Webster, 1975). It engages a variety of actors with different perspectives and preferences (Domegan et al., 2013), often encounters conflict between societal well-being and the preferences of particular parties (Brenkert, 2002) (e.g. anti-smoking campaigns and upstream initiatives to limit access to tobacco and change social norms) and deals with market failures (Glenane-Antoniadis et al., 2003). The range of actors involved connects to the earlier discussion on the need to broaden the scope of social marketing and address social change via multiple interacting systems. The intangible nature of exchange, the challenges of developing a common understanding of problems and preferred solutions and for realizing change across multiple groups highlight the importance of acknowledging the active role of different parties, with attention to both their rights and responsibilities. Indeed, social marketing literature proposes a change of focus from exchange to interaction (Peattie and Peattie, 2003) or relationships (Hastings, 2003) and incorporation of new concepts such as engagement and partnerships (French and Blair-Stevens, 2007).

Further impetus for this development comes from criticisms of segmentation, targeting and the marketing mix. Segmentation is one of social marketing’s tools that is perhaps most valued by practitioners who recognize the benefits of customization to target more ‘at-risk’ groups downstream (Newton et al., 2013; Stead et al., 2007b) and stakeholder segments who may support the efforts to tackle social issues at the midstream and upstream levels (Gordon, 2013). However, its application in combination with targeting via the 4Ps of marketing management has been criticized for cultivating a mindset which overemphasizes the role of organizations in determining what is of value and transmitting it via unidirectional messages (from social marketer to audience) to particular groups. This raises ethical and practical concerns about the opportunities for stakeholder engagement and the active involvement in developing locally and personally relevant solutions (Brenkert, 2002; Crawshaw, 2012; Domegan et al., 2013; Gurrieri et al., 2013). In response, there have been calls for more contemporary approaches to segmentation, moving from demographics towards ‘psychographic segmentation strategies’ (Zainuddin, 2013; Zainuddin et al., 2011) to improve the relevance of social marketing solutions. Others propose a more radical shift away from segment-based approaches towards those that favour ‘individuated interaction’ and relationships (Karpen et al., 2012), which is increasingly viable as technological innovations facilitate ever more data capture, the formation of networks and opportunities for interactivity (Dibb, 2014; Lefebvre, 2007).

The marketing mix, developed to facilitate dyadic exchanges involving tangible products, has presented various difficulties when applied to social change contexts (Bloom and Novelli, 1981; Gordon, 2012; Tapp and Spotswood, 2013). Peattie and Peattie (2003) and Wood (2008) highlight concerns about each of the 4Ps, which are addressed in more detail in the benchmarks section of this article. The product concept has perhaps created greatest confusion, given the intangibility of social marketing offerings and practitioners generally prefer alternative strategies (Beall et al., 2012; Gordon, 2012; NSMC, 2009; Stead et al., 2007a). Indeed, a recent global online survey conducted among social marketing professionals indicates that in practice, community-based initiatives and engagement, peer groups and networks, digital influence and inter-organizational collaborations are the most successful tools in social marketing (Beall et al., 2012). Revisions to the social marketing mix have been proposed to add new concepts such as ‘circumstances’, ‘organization and competition’ and ‘process’ to support action at the downstream and upstream level. (Gordon, 2012). Tapp and Spotswood (2013) propose an alternative framework to the marketing mix that accommodates strategies such as nudges, rewards and exchanges (motivation), service and support (capability) and relationships and community (opportunity). This is a more progressive model, but its standpoint remains supplier dominant, and psychological approaches continue to be central to promoting behaviour change.

Benchmark 1: A network perspective on behaviour and structural change

The social marketing benchmarks specify the need for a clear behaviour change focus (Andreasen, 2002). As noted, the focus on individual behaviour and assumption of agency without addressing structural factors has been one of the most prominent criticisms within the literature (Wymer, 2011), and scholars advocate a service perspective to facilitate a shift to incorporate midstream and upstream action (Brennan and Binney, 2008; Dibb, 2014; Domegan et al., 2013; Russell-Bennett et al., 2013).

Ecological models of social change (McLeroy et al., 1988) distinguish the micro (individual knowledge, skills and motivation), meso (peer groups, family, community groups/organizations and service providers) and macro levels (wider community and government) at which change can be sought. Concepts of partnership and networks, which were inherent to relationship marketing, have been applied to examine the role of various actors and opportunities to develop relationships to motivate and facilitate change through collaboration (Hastings, 2003). SDL has the potential to further advance thinking about the role of various actors by its incorporation of systems thinking. Key distinctions of SDL from relationship marketing are that networks are not simply viewed as webs of multiple ties and relationships (Vargo and Lusch, 2010), rather it presents a more detailed depiction of structures by recognizing that systems incorporate networks of networks (Layton, 2011), espouses a dynamic view of systems (Spohrer et al., 2007) and acknowledges the social contextual factors – institutional logics (Giddens, 1984) – that shape norms and facilitate or constrain behaviour.

For social marketing, ‘moving upstream’ by applying SDL’s service ecosystem perspective allows exploitation of theories and frameworks that represent the structure of the complex social and economic systems relevant to social change. In addition, service systems concepts – value, co-creation, operand and operant resources, resource integration and relationships (which feature in the development of the other benchmarks) – afford an alternative lens for thinking about the nature of interactions, patterns of outcomes and evolution of (sub)systems. More specifically, an ecosystems perspective allows social marketing to map service systems and examine their nature including features such as the structures around individuals, the actors, the direct and indirect links between them (including links that create bridges to other networks) and patterns of interaction (i.e. number and frequency of contact with strong and weak ties) (Granovetter, 1973), which are crucial to understanding the relationships within networks and the capacity for and barriers to change within communities (Musso et al., 2006).

It focuses attention on how resources (both operand and operant) are distributed across systems, how different parties develop perceptions of their rights and responsibilities in relation to social change and the nature of interactions including access to resources and resource integration practices. SDL highlights the distinction between operand (typically physical – raw materials, financial or physical products) and operant resources (typically human – skills and knowledge, organizational routines, cultures, competencies and relational) and shifts attention to the latter with acknowledgement that knowledge and skills are fundamental to producing favourable experiences (Arnould et al., 2006; Baron and Harris, 2008; Vargo and Lusch, 2004). SDL views resources as embedded in contexts of larger networks (Chandler and Wieland, 2010). The resource concept and the process of resource integration can be linked with the concept of agency and capacity building (Whitelaw et al., 2010), shifting the discourse from individual choice to capability and structural barriers in social change contexts (Abel and Frohlich, 2012; Ruetten and Gelius, 2011).

On the basis of this understanding, social marketers can evaluate alternative ways to adapt the value propositions to different systems and levels within service ecosystems (e.g. individual, family, community and policymakers) and address requirements to realize value through collaboration across networks. This may, for instance, involve building cross-functional teams, developing partnership forums, providing customized support and cultivating new practices – for example, using new modes of communication, adopting alternative conversation roles and styles – to facilitate interaction or creating opportunities for knowledge sharing, learning and dialogue (Ballantyne et al., 2011). Conceptualizing value creation as a network process provides the tools to better understand processes of collaborative governance, which are often required in social change context (Domegan et al., 2013).

SDL frameworks encourage social marketing to attend to ways in which systems evolve, for example, how relationships and roles change during social change programmes (e.g. health professionals who take on a health promotion role, community members who participate in disseminating programme messages), with a view to identifying mechanisms for innovation and change that can be applied to pursue an improved pattern of outcomes. Comparison across systems, for example, different community-based initiatives to reduce carbon footprint, potentially bring to light structural factors (e.g. hierarchical vs. flat governance structures, performance incentives vs. penalties and access to information) and agentic actions (e.g. ‘institutional entrepreneurs’ who challenge current practice or perhaps less heroic, ‘under the radar’ change agents who develop everyday practices to muddle through their interactions with multiple actors and types of institutions and the anomalies they encounter), which prove to be critical in advancing or inhibiting social change.

Challenging structural factors requires a long-term approach and building capacity for supporting change over time. Awareness of the depth and duration of action will be necessary in many settings to change the mindset that social change can be achieved via short-term initiatives that are often underfunded. Changing structures might mean challenging traditions (e.g. dietary norms that pose tremendous risk to public health), racial or gender stereotypes (e.g. promoting non-discrimination) and working against governmental agenda (e.g. subsidies for cultivating Tobacco). Research will be needed to explore the dynamics of networks and structures that influence behaviour and social change. Examining local networks through critical lens would provide additional insight into the interplay between operand and operant resources in a social change context. Such research is needed to understand how resources become activated in the process of change and identify structural constraints to action. Understanding how institutional logics mediate creation of meanings and how actors make sense of, resist or contribute to these processes is also important. Further research could also engage with consumer-citizen behaviour and their contribution to social marketing processes.

Benchmark 2: Value creation in context

The concept of exchange is core to social marketing (Kotler and Lee, 2008; Kotler and Levy, 1969), but the classical exchange view, which holds that value is embedded in the goods and subsequently transferred to customers (Echeverri and Skålén, 2011), is difficult to apply in social marketing (Andreasen, 2012). By contrast, the service perspective adopts a phenomenological view (Gummerus, 2013; Vargo and Lusch, 2010), which considers value to emanate from experiences of interactions (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004) and the pursuit of life goals and social roles (Arnould et al., 2006). As such, it is subjective (Echeverri and Skålén, 2011; Grönroos, 2012) and determined by the personal judgement of the beneficiary (Holbrook, 2006). This does not mean, however, that it assumes a purely egoistic and self-interested character. SDL asserts that value creation always involves an actor (it cannot be bestowed on her by another) (Vargo and Lusch, 2008). It draws on network theory (Archpru Akaka et al., 2012; Ballantyne et al., 2011; Frow et al., 2014; Gummesson, 2008; McColl-Kennedy et al., 2012; Vargo and Lusch, 2008) to conceptualize value creation as a dynamic process in which customers, suppliers and other stakeholders interact to share and integrate resources. This perspective moves the focus from transactions and exchange to understanding the whole process from production to consumption whilst adopting a macro view on actors and institutions forming value networks (Vargo and Lusch, 2012). This network perspective highlights that value is not created only through dyadic interactions but can unfold over time through interactions within multiple networks of resources (Chandler and Wieland, 2010).

The introduction of a service ecosystem perspective extended the scope of value co-creation, highlighting that the actions and interactions of actors influence and are influenced by the systems in which they are situated and their social environments and structures. Vargo and Lusch (2011) developed the notion of value-in-context to reflect the embeddedness of resource integration practices (Archpru Akaka and Chandler 2011; Chandler and Vargo, 2011) and structuration processes (Giddens, 1984) that shape and reproduce service interactions and systems. Understanding what motivates or inhibits people to engage with social change and social marketing offerings has previously centred upon social–psychology models such as ‘motivation–capability–opportunity’ (Michie et al., 2011; Tapp and Spotswood, 2013). In contrast, value-in-context brings attention to the combination of psychological and sociological processes at work in structuration (norms and expectations and agency), the reciprocal influence between actors’ practices and contextual constraints and the dynamic character of social structures. This theoretical perspective also facilitates a critical perspective on the role of various institutions and particular practices in normalizing behaviour and developing cultures (Cherrier and Gurrieri, 2014). It provides new frameworks for analysing how different actors and their interactions within networks contribute to social issues and, by extension, alternative toolkits for intervention.

The subjective view of value is more compatible with actors’ experiences of social change for which intangible facets are predominant. This said, it requires careful consideration to allow for issues inherent to social change, for instance, that the change process can bring both negative and positive experiences, and social marketers often needed to respond to negative elements (e.g., motivating and supporting individuals who commit to give up smoking). The network perspective on value is particularly fitting for social marketing contexts (e.g. staying smoke-free and educating children about healthy eating), in which value emanates from many different actions and interaction with a range of other actors over time (e.g. an individual might read leaflets, use a simulation on a website, talk to friends, change purchase and consumption habits). Value propositions can be initiated by any of the actors of the network (Ballantyne et al, 2011). This non-hierarchical conceptualization of interactions and relationships departs from traditional social marketing that attributes a central role to social marketers (Peattie and Peattie, 2003). The longer term view of SDL accommodates the circumstances of behaviour change, in which value deficits in the short term need to be accepted in anticipation of other value gains in the long term. Adopting a value creation perspective also allows for more actor reflexivity (Cherrier and Gurrieri, 2014; Gordon and Gurrieri, 2014) on how value is defined from different perspectives (i.e. customer, social marketer, funder, service provider staff, community and society, more broadly) and how value propositions are negotiated in a social change context.

This emphasis on subjective value raises the issue of how far one can go in following customers’ wants and desires, as often the setting of social marketing priorities requires social value judgements (Raftopoulou and Hogg, 2010). Social marketers are facing the challenge to define value from a society perspective not necessarily a customer perspective. The SD view that value is subjective and created in context has implications for construing value propositions that are not ‘provider defined’. This view on value creation reinforces the significance of collaborative approaches that facilitate real citizen participation to actively identify their problems and co-develop solutions. Frameworks that attend to a multiplicity of views are sorely needed to move away from the ‘paternalistic’ model of expert-driven programmes. Awareness of networks and systems is useful to encourage a stakeholder orientation, as social marketers seek constructive engagement with social problems and solutions through more democratized processes (Brennan and Binney, 2008; Gordon and Gurrieri, 2014; Gurrieri et al., 2013; Ind and Coates, 2013; Lefebvre, 2012; Shultz, 2007). The process of reaching a shared view of social value aspires to meet criteria of transparency, accountability, and participation (Brenkert, 2002; Clark and Weale, 2012). As Campbell and colleagues (2013) note, value-in-context also assumes a notion of ‘affective’ value – that there is a shared view of value within a certain network. However, converging upon a shared understanding of value that serves a broad social purpose will undoubtedly be difficult when parties have conflicting views (Brennan and Binney, 2008; Domegan et al., 2013) and requires commitment to skilfully moderated dialogue (Habermas, 1996). As with other principles of SDL, the concept ‘value-in-context’ needs further exploration in empirical contexts to better understand how the variety of views and value perceptions are navigated.

Benchmark 3: Facilitate participation through customer orientation and engagement

In the traditional social marketing model, customer orientation involves the use of market research to gain an understanding of the values, needs and everyday lives of target audiences to be able to design and pretest interventions (Andreasen, 1995), and indeed, this is recognized to be superior to relying only upon professionals’ views (Lefebvre and Flora, 1988). However, the managerialist tradition attributes an essentially passive role to customers and encourages social marketers to target individuals with carefully crafted messages via one-way communications (Brenkert, 2002; Gurrieri et al., 2013).

The distinction of an SD view of customer orientation stems from the value co-creation concept, which conceives all actors to be resource integrators and to have an active role in creating value (Ballantyne et al., 2011; Vargo and Lusch, 2008). Following criticism that SDL perpetuated an organization-centric view (Heinonen et al., 2010), there have been calls to privilege the customer perspective in order to understand how value emerges for consumers and consider organizations to serve facilitating roles (Payne et al., 2008; Peñaloza and Venkatesh, 2006; Vargo and Lusch, 2008). However, this reflects marketplace goals, whereas social marketing will need to draw upon scholarship on citizen engagement/participation (Cooper et al., 2006) and dialogue (Deetz and Simpson, 2004) from various disciplines to evaluate roles and relationships in different social change contexts and to develop normative approaches. Nonetheless, the principle of co-creation has deep implications for the role of customers (and other actors) in social marketing programmes, as social change contexts require active individuals who need to take action around behaviour.

The value-in-context conceptualization is centred on the duality principle of the interplay between agency and structure (Vargo and Lusch, 2012). Thus, SDL rejects determinism and points towards the ingenuity of actors engaged within their own networks. This view would provide a more balanced approach to social change processes that acknowledges the influence of structures as both constraints and enablers on human action (Vargo and Lusch, 2012). Applying this perspective to social change would mean moving from a ‘top-down’ to a ‘bottom-up’ approach and seeking to engage customers as active participants in all phases of social change from defining the problem to formulating, enabling, enacting and evaluating change strategies. Interactions between organization and customers, but also broader networks of actors, throughout the process can facilitate joint value creation (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004) and afford opportunities to learn (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2000), especially from those customers who are active, empowered and networked (Vargo and Lusch, 2008). Acknowledging the importance of interaction in the field of social change can contribute to more context sensitive programmes, creating the space for public dialogue, reflexivity and debate which is critical for social change (Buchanan et al., 1994; Domegan et al., 2013; Gordon and Gurrieri, 2014; Gurrieri et al., 2013).

Developing opportunities for interaction, across multiple channels, is a primary requirement for an SD approach to customer orientation. New communication technologies provide various options to facilitate interactions, especially for harnessing or building networks around social issues, although conventional channels remain important. Interaction also requires a change of mindset within organizations about the nature of customer relationships (Karpen et al., 2012) and new skills to deal with the emotional nature of interactions and the diversity of views that emerge and need to be managed in more dialogical communications (Ballantyne and Varey, 2006).

The active role of the citizens in co-creation and the facilitation processes in social change programmes are primary themes for future research. There is a need for research that incorporates critical (Gurrieri et al., 2013), cultural (Spotswood and Tapp, 2013) and social practice perspectives (Hargreaves, 2011). Ethnographic research can also help to observe practices and interactions within systems and, in particular, the dynamics between organizations responsible for developing programmes and network actors. Such research would provide a better understanding of the ‘lived experience’ (Gurrieri et al., 2013) of actors in social marketing programmes. The role of technologies and media to facilitate interaction among actors also demands attention, for instance, to investigate the role of technologies in engaging individuals who belong to communities of interest (Robinson and Robertson, 2010) in co-creating social marketing offerings (e.g. developing online support groups sand supporting learning).

Benchmark 4: Competition and collaboration within value networks

Competition for social marketing programmes was initially viewed in commercial terms, reflecting the assumption of a sovereign consumer, and existing or preferred behaviours of target groups were conceived to be the ‘opponents’ of social change (Kotler and Lee, 2008). There have been various efforts to more clearly define the competition to social marketing, for instance, Andreasen (1995) categorizes competition into different types that distinguish between individuals' desires (e.g. for indulgent foods) and alternative solutions or service providers that serve similar goals of social and personal well-being (e.g. weight loss groups and gyms to increase health and fitness), which still reflects the idea of an agentic individual. Alternatively, Peattie and Peattie (2003) identified sources of conflict in social marketers’ ‘battle of ideas’. They place much greater emphasis on environmental factors pointing to commercial marketers, discouragement from an individual’s social circles, alongside apathy and physical and social barriers that inhibit change. Hastings et al. (2000) similarly cautions against an overemphasis on individuals’ behaviour when it is shaped by their contexts.

Taking the systems perspective of SDL, competition for social change is conceived in terms of actors within networks. The above discussion of service ecosystem structures (Benchmark 1) and social systems/institutional logics that facilitate and inhibit behaviour (Benchmark 2), which were applied to moving upstream and broadening the scope of social marketing to actors across different levels of the ecosystem, can be similarly applied to analyse and confront competition.

The imperatives of achieving change stress the need to challenge existing social systems and structures that support current behaviours at micro (e.g. developing an app for tracking fats and sugars in meals), meso (e.g. implementing healthy schools initiatives within communities) and macro levels (e.g. policy and legal interventions such as banning smoking in public places and limiting children exposure to advertising) as well as (re)shape networks and contexts to promote awareness and acceptance of alternative behaviours (e.g. food trial in a community café, special offers on fruit and vegetable from a local supermarket), be supportive during adoption (e.g. dietary advice and recipe sharing within communities) and provide reinforcement to sustain change.

Critical social marketing (Cherrier and Gurrieri, 2014; Gordon et al., 2011) is already applying sociological perspectives to evaluate the impact that commercial marketing has in shaping the environment to favour certain behaviours. However, a considerable programme of research will be required to evaluate network structures and dynamics that work against and in favour of social change, to analyse the ideologies and norms of various actors that shape behaviours and examine opportunities for agentic interactions that might lead to behaviours conducive to social change and collaborative action.

Whilst challenging competing forces is necessary to address internal and external barriers to change, adopting a collaborative stakeholder approach is essential for sustainable change. Relationships with network actors are fundamental to extending access to resources (e.g. other organizations), removing barriers to action (e.g. peer and family resistance) and building capacity for further support (e.g. integrated services). SDL’s emphasis on understanding all actors as resource integrators operating within dynamic value networks seems to support a participatory framework that challenges the top-down marketing management approach. The principle of reciprocal value propositions (Ballantyne et al., 2011) and multi-actor value creation assumes that social marketers should aim to initiate value proposition that resonate with stakeholders’ agendas. This orientation goes beyond a stakeholder approach considered vital to achieve sustainable change (Hastings, 2003) in emphasizing the fluidity of roles and arguing for a model of value creation in which all actors have the opportunity to create value (Ballantyne et al., 2011). This orientation is particularly useful to social change programmes, which imply dynamic and open processes and require active engagement of a plethora of actors to sustain action at different levels. Of course, this is not easy in practice, for instance, it is widely reported that collaboration with public and voluntary sector organizations is inhibited by resource constraints, conflicting priorities and various institutional factors (Barnes et al., 2007; Bovaird, 2007; Russell-Bennett et al., 2013). However, understanding the nature and structure of existing networks in communities and the priorities, resources, power imbalances and practices of different actors can help to create a viable foundation of collaboration. There is typically considerable diversity across potential collaborators, for instance, social change programmes often require collaboration with stakeholders from the commercial sector (e.g. food companies and the alcohol industry), which typically introduces conflicting views and priorities (Brennan and Binney, 2008; Dibb, 2014; Polonsky et al., 2003), but differences of opinion can similarly arise from within a community or even family. Hence, dialogue, reflexivity and a degree of flexibility on the part of all actors is needed, as they make and receive value propositions to and from others within systems, as they interact to realize value. To sustain change, communication needs to be maintained as value propositions and relationships change over time. Given the ethical and citizenship principles of social marketing, as well as legitimacy concerns, it is important to set out governance responsibilities and processes to ensure fair treatment of different stakeholders and transparency. SDL places learning and dialogue as central processes in developing knowledge, sensing and reacting to the collaborative networks (Lusch et al., 2010). Good communication is also needed to avoid the risk of value co-destruction (Echeverri and Skålén, 2011), which may arise if goals are not clearly expressed and collaborators adapt value offerings based on their own assumptions.

Value networks and stakeholder participation indicate a rich area for further research in social marketing. An underpinning theory of SDL, actor–network theory (Latour, 2005) can provide useful insight for identifying value network actors and their interests in order to create offerings that match their agenda and support collaborative practices. As suggested elsewhere (Sweeney, 2007), a service view on value creation requires a reconfiguration of roles and relationships among network actors to create value. A key area for investigation should engage with role allocation in a social marketing network and the type of practices that facilitate actor engagement in social change programmes. Collaborative governance can be challenged by changes to the policy and actor priorities which can impact value networks. A fruitful area for research is examining the mechanisms needed to manage the changes to value networks.

Benchmark 5: Segmentation is driven by a relational customized approach

Segmentation and targeting practices in social marketing are challenged by the need to address the increasing inequalities and involve citizens in the process of change. The SDL literature posits that segmentation and targeting are concepts grounded in a traditional view of mass marketing (Ballantyne and Varey, 2006; Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004), where consumers are seen as recipients of value delivered by the firm (Vargo and Lusch, 2004). The SDL view – that consumers are active agents and not simply ‘targets’ (Ballantyne and Varey, 2006; Karpen et al., 2012) – underpins the shift towards one-to-one approaches and customized experiences informed by the type of value sought by actors (Zainuddin et al., 2011), their resource integration processes, their contexts (Karpen et al., 2012) and their engagement levels with the offering. This view resonates well with social change contexts that require citizen active engagement with the social marketing offering. To develop these individualized insights, interaction and learning from dialogue become important processes, whilst service design and new technologies are particularly important areas to explore in order to implement customization and one-to-one approaches (Bolton and Saxena-Iyer, 2009; Lefebvre, 2012). In the context of social change, it is important to recognize that whilst there is good potential to reach educated and young populations through new media and information technologies (Lefebvre, 2007; Robinson and Robertson, 2010), more vulnerable individuals may not have the necessary access to, ability or inclination to use these technologies and prefer instead more traditional or alternative channels for interaction.

The SDL systems view acknowledges that value creation is embedded in networks of relationships, including the network of the customer (Vargo, 2009). Social networks (family and friends) are an important resource in the process of value creation (Arnould et al., 2006; Vargo and Lusch, 2011). Having one actor within the network being a champion at promoting the programme may contribute to the spread of the message and the ‘normalizing of the behaviour’ (Scott, 2000) in dyadic (e.g. family) or larger networks. Yet skills development and capacity building is required to enable individuals to be effective in the role of educating and persuading others.

Within SDL, customers are considered to be networked, empowered and willing to participate (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004). In a social change context, integrating resources to co-create may pose difficulties due to the diversity of population and the social, political, cultural and economic contexts of the actors (Bovaird, 2007). One of the key issues in social marketing programmes is developing capacity for change, particularly of vulnerable and hard to reach populations. Often, social change programmes deal with consumers who face a severe lack of resources (financial, skills, knowledge and motivation) (Crawshaw, 2012; Scammon et al., 2011; Stead et al., 2007b). In deprived communities, it may be that individuals are isolated, lacking family support or that their existing network acts as a counterweight to the desired change (Vassilev et al., 2011). To respond to inequalities, there is a particular need to facilitate co-creation of customized offerings for disadvantaged communities (Stead et al., 2007b). Collaborating with community-based services becomes essential to facilitate individuated approaches to reach people. Examining the strength of ties between various actors in a community is important to understand the existing networks and their influence on behaviour. A network perspective (Granovetter, 1983; Scott, 2000) could provide the concept and methodology for deeper analysis of such factors. Future research is needed to better understand which strategies facilitate customer engagement in social marketing and how co-creation activities can be tailored to engage individuals at different levels of readiness for change. More research is also required to explore what social marketers can do to co-learn with other network actors and integrate that knowledge to co-develop customized solutions. Other research directions include exploring value-based segmentation strategies (Zainuddin, 2013), which draw on a phenomenological perspective to provide critical insight into motivational factors and facilitate customized plans for action.

Benchmark 6: A service-driven framework

The marketing mix is a core tenet of traditional social marketing, drawn from the classic goods-dominant marketing framework (Kotler and Lee, 2008). Its linear process and ‘firm focus’ were challenged by the complex dynamics and the multitude of actors in social change programmes (Peattie and Peattie, 2003; Gordon, 2012; Tapp and Spotswood, 2013). Acknowledging the ways in which social marketing differs from commercial applications, scholars have suggested that a new vocabulary is needed in place of the traditional 4Ps. Peattie and Peattie (2003) propose that social propositions and the cost of involvement should replace product and price, accessibility is more relevant than distribution and social communication more appropriate than promotion. This terminology reflects the intangibility of social change and recognizes that interactive processes enable value to be realized.

On these points, it is resonant with principles of SDL, in which value propositions (that evolve through interactive communications and reflect resources that each party is willing and able to deploy) create the motivation for exchange and co-creation involves interactions (the opportunities for which must be accessible) and experiences from which they derive value (Vargo and Lusch, 2006). In addition, the service ecosystems perspective brings to the fore the scope for these interactions to take place across networks.

As noted earlier, social marketers have already developed a range of new tools to engage micro-, meso- and macro level actors in social propositions (Beall et al., 2012). The virtue of applying SDL is that it consolidates a set of processes that are consistent with its core principles as a framework to guide strategy development. Change management programmes that adopt an SDL perspective will espouse collaborative approaches to value creation, especially if they are to accommodate action at downstream, midstream and upstream levels (Gordon, 2012; Peattie and Peattie, 2003). A service-oriented framework for social change is citizen centred seeking to integrate different types of value, operating in a collaborative and dialogical mode, creating opportunities for actor encounters throughout the social change process and facilitating resource integration and the creation of value. Social marketing realities are complex, and every social change programme requires a specific mix of strategies. We propose a few principles grounded in SDL for guiding such strategies. It is beyond the scope of this article to describe such strategies in detail.

Core elements of SDL theory that are central to interaction relate to resource integration and facilitation. SDL considers customers, firms and other network actors to be integrators of their operant (skills, knowledge, competences, values and ideologies) and operand resources for value creation (Baron and Harris, 2008). Resources are assessed depending on the social context where they operate.

In commercial settings, a key role for suppliers is to provide customers with the necessary resources to facilitate their value creation processes (Grönroos, 2008). Value propositions for social change, advanced to and from actors across networks, need to take into account the resources of various parties. Whilst social marketers are not central to all interactions, they do need to consider the facilitation of access to and integration of relevant resources and how that can be achieved through their own effort and their collaborators. In a social change context, collaboration is vitally important to support actors in gaining the knowledge, skills and motivation required to be able to take action for change. A facilitator role requires learning capabilities to adapt to the changing value networks. It also involves a resource integrator role as a facilitator collates resources from the network to reshape the offering. For example, integrating knowledge and experience from consumers and other collaborators may result in new offerings (e.g. a service initially designed for stopping smoking could be transformed in a holistic well-being service). The role of the organization in creating the context for co-creation in social marketing and the resources to support knowledge, skills and motivation building (Grönroos, 2012) require further attention. The role of social marketing organizations in supporting learning processes of their customers and collaborators and facilitating access to available resources needs to be investigated in different empirical contexts.

Recent critiques of SDL (Brown, 2007; Campbell et al., 2013; Wright and Russell, 2012) challenge the hierarchal relationship between resource types and call for recognizing the role of operand resources in the marketplace. Indeed, social change contexts in which individuals’ action is inhibited by lack of operand resources (e.g. finance and adequate housing) illustrate that it is the interplay between operant and operand resources rather than the superiority of one resource to another that needs to be better understood (Piacentini et al., 2014). A research priority is to understand the process of resource integration and the type of resources required in creating value in a social marketing context.

The discussion of the SD benchmarks highlights the core role of interaction in supporting a service orientation. Maintaining interaction with the customers and collaborators throughout the development and implementation of social change programmes is required in order to create offerings that respond to real needs. However, as was found with traditional social marketing (Grier and Bryant, 2005; Bloom and Novelli, 1981), organizational issues often stand in the way of applying new management processes. An interactional capability requires capacity and skills across various touch points with the organization, integration of the offering within existing services to maintain support and built-in feedback mechanisms. These resources are often in short supply in non-profit organizations. Further, continuous interaction can be problematic in social change contexts due to limited access to individuals and the short lifespan of social/behaviour change programmes.