Assessing the effectiveness of the marketing mix in social marketing

Abstract

This research investigates whether a program utilising a full commercial marketing mix (4P) is more effective than a program using a promotion-only approach in increasing fruit and vegetable (FV) intake of children. Additionally, this research examines the effectiveness of the parental component of the same program examining the attitudes, subjective norms, behavioural control and intentions of parents for serving more fruit and vegetables to their children. Finally, the last study investigates the benefits and barriers of parents for serving fruit and vegetables, as separate groups of food, to their children as a first step to enhance the effectiveness of the parent component of the program. This research program responds to previous criticisms in social marketing about the relevance of the marketing mix. While social marketers such as Gordon (2012), Peattie & Peattie (2003), Wood (2008) and Tapp & Spotswood (2013) have criticised the marketing mix their criticisms are not founded on empirical data examining the effectiveness of the 4Ps. Further, systematic social marketing literature reviews show that most social marketing programs do not use the full marketing mix (4P) and most programs rely on promotion strategies (Carins & Rundle-Thiele, 2014b; Kubacki, Ronto, Lahtinen, Pang, & Rundle-Thiele, 2017; Kubacki, Rundle-Thiele, Lahtinen, & Parkinson, 2015; Kubacki, Rundle-Thiele, Pang, & Buyucek, 2015). Therefore before one can criticise the marketing mix or develop new models (see Tapp & Spotswood, 2013) and move beyond the 4Ps altogether, fundamental field experimental research is required to test whether a 4P approach is superior to a 1P approach. As a result, the first research question in Study 1 is: RQ1: Is an intervention using 4Ps more effective than an intervention using only 1P in increasing FV intake for Finnish children? The study demonstrated that the program using a full commercial marketing mix (4Ps) was more effective than the program using a promotion-only approach in creating behaviour change. The children participating in the 4P program showed a significant increase in FV intake at breakfast and breakfast and dinner combined. The children in the 1P program and control group showed no significant differences. Future research could benefit from empirically testing alternative marketing mix models. The second study aims to expand views beyond the downstream audience (children) and focus on an important midstream audience, the parents, who have a significant impact on their children’s FV intake. The social marketing discipline has been known for focusing on downstream audiences, while the importance of midstream and upstream audiences has been recently acknowledged (Gordon, 2013; Hoek & Jones, 2011; Russell-Bennett, Wood, & Previte, 2013). To contribute to the midstream literature in social marketing, the second research question asks: RQ2: Can a social marketing FV campaign increase the attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control, and intentions for parents to serve more FVs to their children? The results of the study showed some promising effects for the parent component, as there was a significant increase in subjective norms and behavioural control towards parents serving more FV to their children. The control settings showed significant decreases in attitudes and subjective norms of parents when considering to serve FVs to the children. While the results showed some promise, future research is needed to build a more effective parent program component. Finally, Study 3 investigates the barriers and benefits for parents for serving fruits and vegetables for their children. While the previous literature has examined the barriers and benefits of fruits and vegetables as one single group; this study aimed to understand if the barriers and benefits were different for fruits and vegetables. This led to the last two research questions: RQ3a: What are the perceived benefits and barriers for Finnish parents when serving fruit for their children? RQ3b: What are the perceived benefits and barriers for Finnish parents when serving vegetables for their children? The results showed that the benefits and barriers are very different for fruits than they are for vegetables. Additionally, most of the benefits and barriers were fruit or vegetables specific, and cannot be generalised to a whole fruit or vegetable category. Limitations of the research and future research directions are outlined.