When is social marketing not social marketing? Gerard Hastings Institute for Social Marketing, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK and The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK, and Kathryn Angus Institute for Social Marketing, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK Abstract Purpose – The paper aims to discuss the thorny issues of industry-funded social marketing campaigns. Can the tobacco industry be trusted to educate our children about the dangers of smoking? Is a brewer the best source of health promotion? The paper argues for transparency and critical appraisal. Design/methodology/approach – The paper looks at the issues of tobacco and alcohol in more detail, emphasises the need for caution and suggests guidelines for future practice. Findings – The fiduciary duty of the corporation means that all its efforts – including any social marketing campaigns or corporate social responsibility – must be focused first and foremost on the success of the business and the enhancement of shareholder value; any wider public health benefits will inevitably be subjugated to this core purpose. And there is good evidence to show that the principal beneficiaries of apparently public-spirited campaigns run by tobacco and alcohol companies are the sponsors. In the hands of a corporation, then, social marketing will always transmute into commercial marketing. Practical implications – We should then proceed with our eyes wide open, alert to the danger of counterproductive outcomes, armed with independent evaluation and in the full knowledge that wherever industry-funded efforts to educate the public replace those run by objective third parties, harm will be done. Originality/value – The paper, concerned with industry-sponsored social marketing, broadens the discussion beyond communications. It shows that it is necessary to consider the whole marketing mix, not simply advertising, when discussing social marketing. Keywords Social marketing, Tobacco, Corporate social responsibility, Alcoholic drinks, Advertising, Public health Paper type Viewpoint Introduction Social marketing campaigns sponsored by commercial operators, sometimes referred to as “social responsibility” campaigns, seem like a self-evidently good idea. Why would we not want companies that produce hazardous – or potentially hazardous – products to get involved in telling their customers how they can reduce the risks? It adds resource to the public health effort and presents an enlightened and socially responsible business model. The reality is more contentious. A look at both tobacco and alcohol reveals why. In the case of tobacco, the principal concern is that responsibility campaigns do more to boost the standing of their commercial sponsors than they do to benefit public health. This is especially unfortunate given that tobacco is unremittingly harmful and the ultimate aim of public health is, therefore, to eliminate its use (BMA, 2008; HELP, 2008). There is good research evidence to c.

1. When is social marketing not
social marketing?
Gerard Hastings
Institute for Social Marketing, University of Stirling, Stirling,
UK and
The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK, and
Kathryn Angus
Institute for Social Marketing, University of Stirling, Stirling,
UK
Abstract
Purpose – The paper aims to discuss the thorny issues of
industry-funded social marketing
campaigns. Can the tobacco industry be trusted to educate our
children about the dangers of smoking?
Is a brewer the best source of health promotion? The paper
argues for transparency and critical appraisal.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper looks at the issues of
tobacco and alcohol in more
detail, emphasises the need for caution and suggests guidelines
for future practice.
Findings – The fiduciary duty of the corporation means that all
its efforts – including any social
marketing campaigns or corporate social responsibility – must
be focused first and foremost on the
success of the business and the enhancement of shareholder

2. value; any wider public health benefits will
inevitably be subjugated to this core purpose. And there is good
evidence to show that the principal
beneficiaries of apparently public-spirited campaigns run by
tobacco and alcohol companies are the
sponsors. In the hands of a corporation, then, social marketing
will always transmute into commercial
marketing.
Practical implications – We should then proceed with our eyes
wide open, alert to the danger of
counterproductive outcomes, armed with independent evaluation
and in the full knowledge that
wherever industry-funded efforts to educate the public replace
those run by objective third parties,
harm will be done.
Originality/value – The paper, concerned with industry-
sponsored social marketing, broadens the
discussion beyond communications. It shows that it is necessary
to consider the whole marketing mix,
not simply advertising, when discussing social marketing.
Keywords Social marketing, Tobacco, Corporate social
responsibility, Alcoholic drinks, Advertising,
Public health
Paper type Viewpoint
Introduction
Social marketing campaigns sponsored by commercial
operators, sometimes referred
to as “social responsibility” campaigns, seem like a self-
evidently good idea. Why would
we not want companies that produce hazardous – or potentially
hazardous – products

3. to get involved in telling their customers how they can reduce
the risks? It adds resource
to the public health effort and presents an enlightened and
socially responsible business
model.
The reality is more contentious. A look at both tobacco and
alcohol reveals why.
In the case of tobacco, the principal concern is that
responsibility campaigns do more
to boost the standing of their commercial sponsors than they do
to benefit public health.
This is especially unfortunate given that tobacco is
unremittingly harmful and the
ultimate aim of public health is, therefore, to eliminate its use
(BMA, 2008; HELP, 2008).
There is good research evidence to confirm these
counterproductive outcomes
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/2042-6763.htm
Social marketing/
not social
marketing?
45
Journal of Social Marketing
Vol. 1 No. 1, 2011
pp. 45-53

4. q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2042-6763
DOI 10.1108/20426761111104428
and the public health consensus is that tobacco industry
involvement in social
marketing is undesirable (Wakefield et al., 2006b; Davis et al.,
2008).
Alcohol, however, is not tobacco, and the public health aim is
to moderate, not
eliminate, its use. Nonetheless, social responsibility campaigns
remain controversial.
There is the same concern that the principal beneficiaries are
company reputations,
not public health – particularly given the vast imbalance in
spending between
responsibility and product advertising. In addition, there are
worries that industry
responsibility campaigns are less effective than ones from other
sources, keep messages
in a commercial comfort zone (e.g. avoiding dire health
consequences) and distract
attention and energy from more effective “environmental”
efforts (American Medical
Association, 2002; Yoast and Williams, 2004).
This paper looks at these issues in more detail, emphasises the
need for caution and
suggests guidelines for future practice.
Tobacco
Several studies have compared the effectiveness of industry-

5. funded communication
campaigns with ones from conventional tobacco control sources
(Donovan et al., 2006;
Farrelly et al., 2002; Henriksen et al., 2006; Terry-McElrath et
al., 2005; Wakefield et al.,
2005, 2006a); others have looked at them in isolation, assessing
their perceived
effectiveness (Biener, 2002; DeBon and Klesges, 1996).
The results of the comparative studies are mostly negative.
Farrelly et al. (2002) found
that exposure to tobacco company Philip Morris’ youth smoking
prevention campaign
was not associated with increased anti-tobacco attitudes and
beliefs generally among
12-17-year olds and that they actually showed an increased
intention to smoke.
Wakefield et al.’s (2005) study found that industry ads were
less effective than tobacco
control ads in generating negative attitudes to smoking.
Donovan et al. (2006), however,
found a more mixed picture, with tobacco industry adverts
working better than some
tobacco control ads and worse than others, in terms of both
intentions not to smoke in the
future among non-smokers and increased thinking about quitting
among current smokers.
In their randomised control trial, on the other hand, Henriksen
et al. (2006) found that
adolescents rated the tobacco industry’s adverts less favourably
than tobacco control
adverts and adolescent intention to smoke did not differ as a
function of advert exposure.
Another recent study (Wakefield, 2006a) found little relation
between exposure

6. to tobacco industry youth prevention campaigns and youth
smoking outcomes.
In addition, increased exposure to Philip Morris’ parent-
targeted smoking prevention
was, as with Farrelly’s study, associated with stronger
intentions to smoke in the future
and lower recall of anti-tobacco advertising for all the students
studied.
Thus, most of the research comparing industry prevention
campaigns with tobacco
control campaigns suggests that they perform less well – and in
some instances that
they can be counterproductive. Studies that have looked at the
themes and styles used in
the industry campaigns help to explain these findings (Terry-
McElrath et al., 2005).
DeBon and Klesges (1996) found that industry-funded
curriculum materials focused
on illegality of the smoking – not its health consequences or
general unacceptability.
Similarly, DiFranza and McAfee (1992) noted that the purpose
of industry initiatives is
not to prevent tobacco use but to delay it until the legal age for
smoking, and that,
although the industry promulgates the idea that parental
example is a crucial influence
on children, its prevention campaigns do not advise smoking
parents to quit.
JSOCM
1,1
46

7. Similarly, content analysis studies of tobacco companies’
internal documents
(Landman et al., 2002) and transcripts of US tobacco industry
litigation witnesses
(Wakefield et al., 2006b) demonstrate that industry programmes
portray smoking as an
adult choice but fail to discuss the health dangers. It is also
noted that, despite large
financial investment in the preventive mass media programmes,
the industry’s own
evaluations do not specify substantive public health outcomes
and are not designed to
assess effects on youth smoking behaviour.
However, perhaps the most important deficiency of industry
prevention campaigns is
that they consistently cause young people to become more
favourably inclined towards
the tobacco industry (Henriksen et al., 2006; Wakefield et al.,
2005, 2006a). This is not
surprising as it reflects the true purpose of these campaigns:
they are part of what are
increasingly elaborate corporate social responsibility (CSR)
programmes, designed to
improve the image and reputation of the company. The latest
monograph (Davis et al.,
2008) shows how tobacco companies use these activities, just as
they use advertising and
new product development, to promote tobacco (Figure 1).
Figure 1.
The role of CSR in
tobacco promotion

8. Source: Davis et al. (2008)
1. Mass media
advertising
Television
Billboards
Radio
Cinema
Press
2. Other marketing
communications
Sponsorship
Merchandising
Point of sale
Internet Product
placement
Brand
stretching
Loyalty
schemes
Free samples
Packaging

9. 3. Consumer
marketing
Product
design
Pricing
Distribution
4. Stakeholder
marketing
Youth
prevention
Health
warnings
Corporate social
responsibility
Media
training
Relationship
building
Scientific
seminars
Social marketing/
not social
marketing?

10. 47
The fact that tobacco industry CSR is succeeding with children
is damaging for two
reasons. First, it undermines the success of campaigns like
Truth (Farrelly, op. cit.)
which use anti-industry feelings to successfully deter youth
smoking. Second, it
weakens future tobacco control; these children will become the
public health community
of tomorrow and need to retain an objective and critical
perspective on tobacco control.
Alcohol
Equivalent research on alcohol is less extensive, but some
important findings are
emerging. First, it is clear that industry-funded efforts to
promote safer
drinking/discourage drink driving are greatly out-gunned by its
product advertising.
A study in the USA, for instance, shows that between 2001 and
2005, alcohol companies
spent $4.9 billon on product advertising, but only $104 million
– or 2.1 per cent – on
responsibility advertising. As a result, young people were 239
times more likely to see a
product ad than an industry-funded underage drinking ad
(CAMY, 2005).
Second, there is evidence that social responsibility messages,
whether stand-alone or
when added to product ads, benefit the reputation of the sponsor
more than public heath.

11. A study by Christie et al. (2001) which assessed the impact of
adding drink-driving
messages to bar ads showed that “inclusion of the message has
positive effects on the
perception of the advertiser in terms of concern about the safety
of bar customers, but it
does not affect the attitudes or intentions variables”. Binge
drinkers are especially
inclined to disregard the message, and across the sample, there
was evidence of
“psychological reactance” – a tendency for the responsibility
message to be rejected by a
group who do not like being told what to do. Similarly, a more
recent study found the
message in social responsibility spots to be ambiguous,
especially for 16-18-year olds
(Smith et al., 2006), but that the source of the message (i.e. the
alcohol company) was
favourably perceived. The authors conclude that their “research
demonstrates how
seemingly pro-health messages can serve to subtly advance both
industry sales and
public relations interests”.
This boost to reputation, however, does not necessarily mean
that alcohol companies
are a respected source of health information. A study by
Szykman et al. (2004) suggests
that the public is cynical about the motives of corporate
sponsors, and that
nongovernmental organizations (in this case Mothers Against
Drink Drivers) make
a more credible source. Similarly, another study (Ognianova and
Thorson, 1997, quoted
in Ringold, 2008) suggests that whilst both succeed, non-
industry ads are better at

12. getting across a drink-driving message. On the other hand, as
Ringold (2008) points out,
this last study showed greater recall of moderation messages
from alcohol companies,
compared with those from other sources, among heavy drinkers.
However, this could be
explained by access – drinkers are, for instance, more likely to
encounter such messages
when they distributed through alcohol outlets.
There is also evidence, as with tobacco, that alcohol companies
are more circumspect
about their messaging than a public health source might be.
Thus, they tend to avoid the
harsher consequences of irresponsible drinking (Lavack, 1999)
and set their messages
within a “drinking as normal” context (DeJong et al., 1992),
overlooking the possibility
that not drinking might be the best option for some people all
the time and for all people
some of the time. There is also a temptation to co-opt social
responsibility messaging
to serve product marketing objectives, conflating the two
agendas. Vladivar Vodka
launched its new-look design with a £1 million advertising
campaign created
JSOCM
1,1
48
by The Bridge agency using the strapline “Drink Quality, Not
Quantity”

13. (www.Vladivar.com). The first advert, in a planned series,
showed the “striking
image of a man and gorilla snuggled intimately together in a
zoo cage the morning
after the night before”; a spoof warning of what could happen if
someone drinks too
much (Harpers Wine & Spirit Trades Review, 2008). The
advertising campaign was run
on billboards, the press, online and at point of sale. The
responsible drinking theme
was placed at the centre of the campaign, the company says, in
response to consumer
research and to support the government’s message to drink
responsibly. Nonetheless,
the principle aim was to promote the brand not public health –
and the compatibility of
this with the government’s responsibility push is clearly
questionable.
This raises a fundamental issue in the link between public
health and the alcohol
industry: how society’s relationship with alcohol is conceived.
Industry sees alcohol as a
normal part of everyday life which only raises health and social
concerns when a
minority misuse it. The solution, therefore, is to target, educate
and adjust the behaviour
of these subgroups. Public health adopts what the American
Medical Association (2002)
terms an “environmental perspective”, seeing the problem as
residing in the product
rather than the person and arguing that it is society as a whole’s
relationship with
alcohol that matters, not just that of aberrant individuals. By
this analysis, the health
and social problems of drinking are best resolved by making the

14. environment less
pro-alcohol and reducing per capita consumption.
These alternate perspectives come to a head with product
marketing. Public health
sees restrictions on alcohol marketing as one way of improving
the environment: rather
than adding responsibility messages of dubious value to bar ads,
as in the Christie study,
for example, better to dispense with the ads in the first place.
Industry, however, sees this
as an unwarranted interference in commercial freedom and the
rights of the majority of
sensible drinkers to benefit from their marketing efforts.
Arguably, however, the two positions present a false dichotomy.
In reality, both are
right: tackling the unquestioned public and safety problems
associated with alcohol will
require a combination of individual education and
environmental adjustment. Reverting
to tobacco for moment, the great lesson from smokefree public
places is that effective
policy needs strong public support. The question then becomes:
how can we combine
individual and environmental activity in a way that is mutually
reinforcing – and does
industry-funded social marketing help or hinder this process?
Beyond communication
It perhaps helps to broaden the discussion beyond
communications. This paper is,
after all, concerned with industry-sponsored social marketing,
and this brings in much
more than advertising. Kotler and Zaltman (1971, p. 5), who
first coined the phrase,

15. defined it as:
[. . .] the design, implementation, and control of program
calculated to influence the
acceptability of social ideas and involving considerations of
product planning, pricing,
communication, distribution, and marketing research. Thus,
social marketing includes the
whole marketing mix.
Furthermore, the results of social responsibility become more
tangible when clear
behavioural outcomes are delineated. Actions do speak louder
than words. For example,
in the UK, collaboration with industry has acknowledged this
broader context,
Social marketing/
not social
marketing?
49
and voluntary social responsibility standards for the production
and sale of alcoholic
drinks have been developed to try and make marketing as a
whole healthier and safer.
These standards include codes of conduct for servers and
outlets, such as age checks and
health and safety practices, adherence to which can be easily
measured.
However, these good intentions have not born fruit. A recent

16. evaluation by KPMG
concluded that “Our observation studies in eight locations have
revealed many
irresponsible and harmful practices. Moreover, these poor
practices are more prevalent
in venues frequented by people apparently under the age of 18”.
The sorts of practices
they observed are listed as follows.
Practices observed during KPMG’s review of the social
responsibility standard for
the production and sale of alcoholic drinks for the UK
Government’s Department of
Health:
. People who appear to be under 18 frequently being admitted to
age restricted
venues.
. The promotion of alcohol through low-price offers,
inducements by DJs to
consume greater quantities and glamorisation through links with
sexual imagery.
. Encouragement to drink more and faster through shots and
shooters being
“downed in one”.
. Sales to blatantly intoxicated people.
. Several health and safety issues inside bars and clubs, e.g.
overcrowding, broken
glass and spilled alcohol.
. Several instances of anti-social behaviour and low-level crime
(fights and assaults,

17. urinating and vomiting in public places, criminal damage)
(KPMG, 2008).
KPMG go on to conclude that their “preferred option is a model
based on a local
government led approach, but working to national standards and
conditions laid down
by central Government”. In short, mandatory measures are
required. Arguably, in this
instance at least, industry-sponsored social responsibility has
simply delayed more
effective statutory action.
As with tobacco, then, alcohol industry-sponsored social
marketing is something of a
mixed blessing for public health. It does add to the volume of
moderation communications
and incentivise good behaviour, but this comes at the cost of
confusion of purpose, milder
content and public cynicism (which is perhaps exacerbated by
the continued presence of
far more pro-alcohol messaging emanating from the same
source). Voluntary social
responsibility efforts also focus attention on individual rather
than environmental
solutions, and, as in the UK, can delay more effective statutory
measures.
Eyes wide open
And so once again it becomes clear that there is no such thing
as a free lunch.
Industry-funded social marketing campaigns actually come with
a large price tag. This
is no real surprise; such efforts will always be subservient to
the overriding need to
benefit the core business and build profitability: shareholder

18. value trumps wider social
welfare every time. In this way, as the National Cancer Institute
(Figure 1) makes clear,
social marketing inevitably mutates into commercial market.
So what is the solution? To prohibit all industry-funded social
marketing; all attempts
by companies to warn of the risks of consuming their products.
With the possible
JSOCM
1,1
50
exception of tobacco, this would clearly be unworkable and, if
only on legal grounds,
completely untenable. However, there is clearly a need to
proceed with great caution, and
we would suggest three guiding principles.
First, we have to remember that such efforts are ultimately not
striving to improve
public health and well-being but, as the fiduciary imperative
demands, benefit the
sponsoring company.
Second, we should also remember Hippocrates: first do no
harm. Industry social
marketing has to be independently evaluated to guard against
negative consequences
such as the teen smoking prevention campaign that actually
encouraged smoking. Such
research should also take a broader perspective and investigate

19. the stakeholder
marketing impacts. What influence, for instance, might these
campaigns be having on
government policy and the balance between statutory and
voluntary action.
Finally, the public need and deserve reliable and independent
advice about their
health and well-being. Industry cannot provide this, and the
public know it. It, therefore,
follows that, if industry-sponsored social marketing replaces or
reduces that coming
from government and third sector sources, harm will be done.
References
American Medical Association (2002), Partner or Foe? The
Alcohol Industry, Youth Alcohol
Problems, and Alcohol Policy Strategies, Policy Briefing Paper,
American Medical
Association Office of Alcohol & Other Drug Abuse, Chicago,
IL.
Biener, L. (2002), “Anti-tobacco advertisements by
Massachusetts and Philip Morris: what
teenagers think”, Tobacco Control, Vol. 11, Suppl 2, pp. ii43-
ii46.
BMA (2008), Forever Cool: The Influence of Smoking Imagery
on Young People, British Medical
Association Board of Science, London.
CAMY (2005), Exposure of Hispanic Youth to Alcohol
Advertising, 2003 2004, Center on Alcohol
Marketing and Youth, Washington, DC.

20. Christie, J., Fisher, D., Kozup, J.C., Smith, S., Burton, S. and
Creyer, E.H. (2001), “The effects of
bar-sponsored alcohol beverage promotions across binge and
nonbinge drinkers”, Journal
of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 240-53.
Davis, R.M., Gilpin, E.A., Loken, B., Viswanath, K. and
Wakefield, M.A. (Eds) (2008), The Role of
the Media in Promoting and Reducing Tobacco Use, NCI
Tobacco Control Monograph
Series No. 19, US Department of Health and Human Services,
National Institutes of Health,
National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, Pub. No. 07-6242,
June.
DeBon, M. and Klesges, R.C. (1996), “Adolescents’ perceptions
about smoking prevention
strategies: a comparison of the programmes of the American
Lung Association and the
Tobacco Institute”, Tobacco Control, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 19-25.
DeJong, W., Atkin, C.K. and Wallack, L. (1992), “A critical
analysis of ‘moderation’ advertising
sponsored by the beer industry: are ‘responsible drinking’
commercials done
responsibly?”, The Milbank Quarterly, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 661-
78.
DiFranza, J.R. and McAfee, T. (1992), “The tobacco institute:
helping youth say ‘yes’ to tobacco”,
Journal of Family Practice, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 694-6.
Donovan, R.J., Jalleh, G. and Carter, O.B.J. (2006), “Tobacco
industry smoking prevention
advertisements’ impact on youth motivation for smoking in the
future”, Social Marketing

21. Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 3-13.
Social marketing/
not social
marketing?
51
Farrelly, M.C., Healton, C.G., Davis, K.C., Messeri, P., Hersey,
J.C. and Haviland, M.L. (2002),
“Getting to the truth: evaluating national tobacco
countermarketing campaigns”,
American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 92 No. 6, pp. 901-7.
Harpers Wine & Spirit Trades Review (2008), “Vladivar
launches £1 million ad campaign to
promote new look”, available at:
www.harpers.co.uk/news/news-headlines/7267-vladivar-
launches-p1-million-ad-campaign-to-promote-new-look.html
(accessed 2 November 2010).
HELP (2008), Communicating Health: The Tobacco Example
Conference. Conference
Recommendations, 9-11 October, Brussels, available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_
determinants/life_style/Tobacco/help/docs/ev_20081009_rec_en
.pdf (accessed 5 November
2008).
Henriksen, L., Dauphinee, A.L., Wang, Y. and Fortmann, S.P.
(2006), “Industry sponsored
anti-smoking ads and adolescent reactance: test of a boomerang
effect”, Tobacco Control,

22. Vol. 15, pp. 13-18.
Kotler, P. and Zaltman, G. (1971), “Social marketing: an
approach to planned social change”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 3-12.
KPMG (2008), Review of the Social Responsibility Standards
for the Production and Sale of
Alcoholic Drinks, Vol. 1, Produced for the Home Office, KPMG
LLP, London.
Landman, A., Ling, P.M. and Glantz, S.A. (2002), “Tobacco
industry youth smoking prevention
programs: protecting the industry and hurting tobacco control”,
American Journal of
Public Health, Vol. 92 No. 6, pp. 917-30.
Lavack, A.M. (1999), “Message content of alcohol moderation
TV commercials: impact of corporate
versus nonprofit sponsorship”, Health Marketing Quarterly,
Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 15-31.
Ringold, D.J. (2008), “Responsibility and brand advertising in
the alcohol beverage market: the
modeling of normative drinking behavior”, Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 127-41.
Smith, S.W., Atkin, C.K. and Roznowski, J. (2006), “Are ‘drink
responsibly’ alcohol campaigns
strategically ambiguous?”, Health Communication, Vol. 20 No.
1, pp. 1-11.
Szykman, L.R., Bloom, P.N. and Blazing, J. (2004), “Does
corporate sponsorship of a
socially-oriented message make a difference? An investigation
of the effects of

23. sponsorship identity on responses to an anti-drinking and
driving message”, Journal of
Consumer Psychology, Vol. 14 Nos 1/2, pp. 13-20.
Terry-McElrath, Y., Wakefield, M., Ruel, E., Balch, G.I.,
Emery, S., Szczypka, G., Clegg-Smith, K.
and Flay, B. (2005), “The effect of antismoking advertisement
executional characteristics
on youth comprehension, appraisal, recall, and engagement”,
Journal of Health
Communication, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 127-43.
Wakefield, M., McLeod, K. and Perry, C.L. (2006a), “Stay away
from them until you’re old enough
to make a decision: tobacco company testimony about youth
smoking initiation”, Tobacco
Control, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. iv44-iv53 (supplement).
Wakefield, M., Balch, G.I., Ruel, E., Terry-McElrath, Y.,
Szczypka, G., Flay, B., Emery, S. and
Clegg-Smith, K. (2005), “Youth responses to anti-smoking
advertisements from
tobacco-control agencies, tobacco companies, and
pharmaceutical companies”, Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 35 No. 9, pp. 1894-911.
Wakefield, M., Terry-McElrath, Y., Emery, S., Saffer, H.,
Chaloupka, F.J., Szczypka, G., Flay, B.,
O’Malley, P.M. and Johnston, L.D. (2006b), “Effect of
televised, tobacco company-funded
smoking prevention advertising on youth smoking-related
beliefs, intentions, and
behavior”, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 96 No. 12,
pp. 2154-60.
Yoast, R.A. and Williams, J. (2004), Alcohol Industry 101: Its

24. Structure and Organization,
American Medical Association, Chicago, IL.
JSOCM
1,1
52
Further reading
Hastings, G., Freeman, J., Spackova, R. and Siquier, P. (2008),
“HELP: a European public health
brand in the making”, in Evans, D. and Hastings, G. (Eds),
Public Health Branding:
Applying Marketing for Social Change, Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
About the authors
Gerard Hastings holds a PhD in Social Marketing from the
University of Strathclyde. He has been
appointed as a Professor of Social Marketing at Stirling and is a
Director of the Institute for Social
Marketing and the Cancer Research UK Centre for Tobacco
Control Research. Gerard Hastings’
academic career began in 1980 at the University of Strathclyde
where he was appointed the first
UK Professor of Social Marketing and where he founded and
directed the Centre for Social
Marketing. In recent years, he has acted as a Temporary Advisor
to the World Health Organization
on tobacco and alcohol marketing as well as blinding trachoma
and a Special Advisor to the House
of Commons Health Select Committee during their enquiries
into the tobacco and food industries.

25. He provides regular guidance on social and critical marketing to
the Scottish, UK and European
Parliaments. He has also acted as an expert witness in litigation
against the tobacco industry.
Gerard Hastings is interested in critical and social marketing
research. The work in the former is
currently focused on the marketing techniques of the tobacco,
alcohol and food industries, but he
would also like to do more on pharmaceutical marketing and the
commercialisation/sexualisation
of children by marketers. On a social marketing front, he is very
interested in real world and
multifaceted interventions that attempt to build brands and
relationships with stakeholders and
the public at large. Change4Life is a good example and he hopes
to get more involved in this in the
near future. He also has a growing interest in fair trade and
international development and thinks
marketing ideas – whether social or commercial – have a great
deal to offer here. He was awarded
an OBE in the Queen’s Birthday Honours List 2009 for his
services to healthcare. Gerard Hastings
is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
[email protected]
Kathryn Angus is the Editorial and Fieldwork Assistant at the
Institute for Social Marketing
(formerly the Centre for Social Marketing at the University of
Strathclyde) which she joined in
2001. Recently, she has worked on designing literature search
strategies for a number of ISM
reviews. She has contributed to volumes for the European
Commission, the National Cancer
Institute, NICE and the Food Standards Agency and has also co-
ordinated the peer-review
process for a special issue of Marketing Theory. She supports
both the qualitative and the

26. quantitative fieldwork run by ISM.
Social marketing/
not social
marketing?
53
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:
[email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details:
www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.