Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Think Before You Speak-A Social Marketing Case Study
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Think Before You Speak-A Social Marketing Case Study


Published on

Published in: Education, Spiritual, Technology

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Think B4 You Speak A Social Marketing Case Suhyun Kim, Penny Wang, Amy Hung
  • 2. “That’s so…gay”
  • 3. BackgroundThe GLSEN’s National School Climate Survey in 2007• 9 out of 10 LGBT students reported being harassed at school• 70% of LGBT students heard homophobic language: “faggot” “dyke”• 90% of LGBT students heard the word “gay” used in a negative context frequently at school.• LGBT students suffer from both emotional and academic problems: low self-esteem, loneliness, depression, poor academic achievement, and high rates of truancy.* LGBT = Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender* GLSEN = Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network
  • 4. Purpose & FocusThe leading national education organization, focused onensuring safe schools for all studentsIn 2008, GLSEN developed a social marketing plan “ThinkBefore You Speak” CampaignA Purpose to decrease the use of homophobic languagewith a focus on raising awareness about this issue andreducing the use of anti-LGBT language among teenagers.
  • 5. SWOT AnalysisStrengths• Supports by many multinational companies (AT&T, CBS Television Network, Fox TV, IBM, Sony Picture)• Multiple campaigns every year through grantsWeaknesses• The nature of the cause itself (emotional issue)• The lack of tangible products or positive reinforcement• Difficulty to measure the effectiveness of the campaign
  • 6. SWOT Analysis (cont’)Threats• The disagreement with educating people about LGBT issues from some family members, media, churches, or communities• The idea of heterosexual relationship in AmericaOpportunities• Positive attitude of government, society and many other organizations• “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy repealed by the government• Same-sex marriage ( Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Washington D,C.)
  • 7. Target Market• The primary targets The teenagers who conduct either intentional or accidental harassment (verbal or physical) to LGBT students• The secondary targets The rest of the students• The third targets The parents and educators who have the ability to influence teenagers’ behaviors.
  • 8. Marketing Objectives1. To raise awareness among straight teenagers about the seriousness of anti-LGBT language bias and behavior2. To raise the belief of “anti-LGBT language is harmful” among straight teenagers3. To reduce and prevent the use of homophobic language4. To gain supports from adults (school personnel and parents) To provide a safe environment for all members in the community regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression
  • 9. Target Market Barriers• Individual barriers • The lack of knowledge for language harassment • Low sense of responsibility for what they say • Negative social interactions tend to have more potent effects on individual’s self-esteem• Environmental & cultural barriers • School, media, parents and peers • Resistance and opposition from various parties
  • 10. Target Market Benefits• Perceived benefits • Avoid shameful feelings • Raise self-esteem on taking responsibility of what they say
  • 11. Competition• Media• Peers• Parents• Any sources that will influence teen’s language or attitude toward LGBT students
  • 12. Product• Core product – To avoid shameful feeling by not saying homophobic language – To be responsible for what they say• Actual product – To decrease the use of homophobic language at school and in public• Augmented product – Interactive official website – Educator’s guide
  • 13. Price• Monetary cost – None• Non-Monetary disincentive – To shame the target audiences into using anti- LGBT language
  • 14. Place• At school• In the public• Through Internet, such as social network sites
  • 15. Promotion• TV commercial• Print Ads• Radio• Internet – Official interactive website • Sign the pledge • Share the story &video • Send E-card – Social network sites
  • 16. Back
  • 17. Back
  • 18. Back
  • 19. Promotion (cont’d)• Internet • Official interactive website • Sign the pledge • Share the story & video • Send E-card • Social network sites • . • Real-time counting on Twitter
  • 20. PartnershipAd councilDonate media modelmedia company including MTV donate space andadvertising timeArnoldNYC ads agencyDonate ads run in the campaignGay-Straight Alliances (GSAs) and Students AgainstDestructive Decisions (SADD) Facilitate the education process
  • 21. Evaluation 90% 86.2% 84.6% 85% 80% 75% 73.6% 72.4% 70% 2007 65% 2009 LGBT students LGBT students heard reported being verbally derogatory remarks harassedory such as "faggot" or "dyke" frequently or often at school*Based on National Climate Survey conducted in middle and high school
  • 22. Evaluation 50% 44.1% 45% 40.1% 40% 35% 30% 22.1% 25% 18.8% 20% 15% 10% 5% 2007 0% 2009 LGBT students LGBT students reported being reported being physically harassed physically assaulted at school in the past year because of their sexual orientation.*Based on National Climate Survey conducted in middle and high school
  • 23. Thank you