Selasa, 30 Juni 2015

Can Soda Companies Engage in Social Marketing?


KELAS      : 4EA06

NPM           : 10211698


Can Soda Companies Engage in Social Marketing?

Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and the Dr Pepper Snapple Group pledged yesterday to cut beverage calories in the American diet by 20% by 2025 through promoting bottled water, low-calorie drinks and smaller portions.
From The Wall Street Journal, “Under the voluntary agreement…the companies said they would market and distribute their drinks in a way that should help steer consumers to smaller portions and zero- or low-calorie drinks. They also have committed to providing calorie counts on more than 3 million vending machines, self-serve fountain dispensers and retail coolers in stores, restaurants and other points of sale.” E.J Schultz at AdAge added: “Marketing could play a key role in the effort, with the beverage companies saying in a statement that they will 'engage in consumer education and outreach efforts to increase consumer awareness of and interest in the wide array of no- and lower-calorie beverages and smaller portion sizes available.'"

AdAge reports that the companies would also put special emphasis on communities where there is less access to lower-calorie beverages. They may, for example, feature only reduced-calorie beverages at highly trafficked store areas such as checkout displays. Communities in Los Angeles and Little Rock, Ark., are expected to be the first places where these targeted efforts will occur.

The press release from the
American Beverage Association also notes: “Each beverage company may undertake additional activities including: introducing and expanding new lower-calorie products and smaller-portion packages; product placement such as end aisle and checkout displays featuring only reduced-calorie beverages; merchandising efforts such as repositioning reduced-calorie beverages on shelves; providing coupons and other incentives promoting no/lower-calorie options; and taste tests/sampling programs in and out of store.” [Ed Note: I’ll underscore the mays’ that are embedded in many of these promises.]

This news can be either welcomed or criticized. Who better than the marketers of these products to put their energies into ‘doing the right thing’ and making a contribution to reducing the obesogenic environment in the US? For example,
in an analysis of the association of soft drink consumption, overweight, obesity and the prevalence of diabetes in 75 countries, it was found that a 1% rise in soft drink consumption was associated with an additional 4.8 overweight adults per 100, 2.3 obese adults per 100 and 0.3 adults with diabetes per 100. These findings were consistent across low- and middle-income countries as well.

Another perspective could be more cynical: are these companies trying to put a PR spin on what is already a losing cause for many of their products? Mike Esterl in the WSJ article highlights that soda's share of U.S. beverage consumption peaked at 29.6% in 1998 and stood at 23.1% last year.  "Consumption trends are moving in this direction already, so they might be promising something that will happen no matter what they do," said Kelly Brownell, dean of the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University, in

Related to this point of corporate self-interest, not social responsibility, is the question of whether focusing consumers on choosing smaller containers will actually boost their bottom-line. There is some research to suggest this could be the case. In
a behavioral simulation with undergraduate students using three different settings (fast food restaurant, movie theater and stadium), participants were offered in each simulated setting (1) 16 oz, 24 oz, or 32 oz drinks for sale, (2) 16 oz drinks, a bundle of two 12 oz drinks, or a bundle of two 16 oz drinks, and (3) only 16 oz drinks. The researchers found that participants bought significantly more ounces of soda with bundles than with varying-sized drinks. Total business revenue was also higher when bundles rather than only small-sized drinks were sold. They concluded that businesses have a strong incentive to offer bundles of soda when drink size is limited (remember those smaller portion sizes that are promised?).

The companies won't be penalized if they can't keep their promise, but the pledge's results will be tracked by an independent third party. Let's see just what outcomes this evaluation measures - and which ones are overlooked.

A couple of more points about this initiative. First, it’s better than the status quo - but by how much? I see little attention given to
demarketing sugar sweetened beverages (SSBs). Rather, the corporate strategy is repositioning the ‘competition’ (options that each company also owns), engaging in point-of-choice education (calorie labeling on vending machines) that doesn't have evidence for its impact on choices or consumption of SSBs [and is something the FDA is already proposing requirements to do anyway], and even more communication and promotion.

Can these companies’ marketers actually change people’s behavior and help them make healthier choices - or will they stay in the corporate box of increasing the bottom-line? And at the end of the day, are they really accountable for anything but acknowledging that SSBs are a losing product category among more-and-more consumers?
Sumber :

Planning a Social Marketing Program


KELAS      : 4EA06

NPM           : 10211698

Planning a Social Marketing Program
Developing a marketing plan explicitly, and implicitly, captures many of the core assumptions and understandings of social marketing. In its essence, a social marketing plan is a translation document that distills...
1. Understanding of the epidemiology of the disease
2. The context in which the intervention is being planned
3. Organizational strengths and competencies
4. Partners' capabilities
5. Behavioral determinants
6. And audience insights

...into strategies and tactics that lead to positive impacts in health behaviors among priority audiences. What is included and excluded in it, how terms are defined, its implications for research and evaluation, how interventions are designed and resourced, and what it says as a statement for 'what is social marketing' are taken quite seriously, and literally, by many (and I have been in more than several impassioned debates and discussions over the years on all of the above).
Phil Kotler and Nancy Lee have taken the lead on developing a model outline of a social marketing plan that they will present at the World Social Marketing Conference later this month. The outline builds on the one presented in their book along with their principles of success for social marketing programs that I have talked about before. This latest version was reviewed, and contributions to it made, by a larger group of social marketers including Alan Andreasen, Carol Bryant, Mike Newton-Ward, Michael Rothschild, Bill Smith and myself. This, I am told by Nancy, is the final version, and with her permission I am posting it below for you to review, comment on and hopefully adopt in your practice of social marketing.

Executive Summary
Brief summary highlighting plan stakeholders, background, purpose, target audience, major marketing objectives and goals, desired positioning, marketing mix strategies (4Ps), and evaluation, budget, and implementation plans.
1.0    Background, Purpose and Focus
    Who’s the sponsor? Why are they doing this? What social issue and population will the plan focus on and why?
2.0    Situation Analysis
2.1    SWOT:  Organizational Strengths & Weaknesses and Environmental Opportunities & Threats
2.2    Literature review and environmental scan of programs focusing on similar efforts: activities & lessons learned
3.0    Target Audience Profile (See Note #1 below regarding alternative terminology.)
3.1    Demographics, geographics, relevant behaviors (including risk), psychographics, social networks, community assets and stage of change (readiness to buy)
3.2    Size of target audience
4.0    Marketing Objectives and Goals
4.1    Campaign Objectives: specifying targeted behaviors and attitudes (knowledge and beliefs)
4.2    SMART Goals: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time bound changes in behaviors and attitudes
5.0    Factors Influencing Adoption of the Behavior (See Note #2 below regarding the iterative process.)
5.1    Perceived barriers to targeted behavior
5.2    Potential benefits for targeted behavior
5.3    Competing behaviors/forces
5.4    Influence of important others
6.0    Positioning Statement
How do we want the target audience to see the targeted behavior and its benefits relative to alternative/preferred ones?
7.0    Marketing Mix Strategies (Using the 4Ps to Create, Communicate and Deliver Value for the Behavior.)
7.1    Product:  Benefits from performing behaviors and any objects or services offered to assist adoption
Core Product:  Desired audience benefits promised in exchange for performing the targeted behavior
Actual Product: Features of basic product (e.g., HIV/AIDS test, exercise, # daily fruits & vegetables) 
Augmented Product:  Additional objects & services to help perform the behavior or increase appeal
7.2    Price:
  Costs that will be associated with adopting the behavior
  • Costs:  money, time, physical effort, psychological
  • Price-Related Tactics to Reduce Costs:  Monetary & Nonmonetary Incentives and Disincentives
7.3    Place:  Making access convenient
Creating convenient opportunities to engage in the targeted behaviors and/or access products and services
7.4    Promotion:  Persuasive communications highlighting product benefits, features, fair price and ease of access
  • Messages
  • Messengers
  • Creative/Executional Strategy
  • Media Channels & Promotional Items
8.0    Plan for Monitoring & Evaluation
8.1    Purpose and audience for monitoring and evaluation
8.2    What will be measured:  inputs, outputs, outcomes (from Steps 4 & 6) and impact
8.3    How and when measures will be taken
9.0    Budget
9.1    Costs for implementing marketing plan, including additional research and monitoring/evaluation plan
9.2    Any anticipated incremental revenues, cost savings or partner contributions
10.0    Plan for Implementation and Campaign Management
Who will do what, when – including partners and their roles?
OF SPECIAL NOTE: (1) Alternative terms include: Target Market (the traditional term), Priority Market, Priority Audience. (2) The process is an iterative one. For example, you may need to revise objectives and goals after hearing of barriers and benefits in Step 5, or promotional ideas based on final budget realities in Step 9. (3) A separate plan will be needed for each target audience, even though part of one campaign. (4) Research will be needed to develop most steps, especially formative research for Steps 2-6 and pretesting for finalizing Step 7.
Sumber :