Part 2 Social topic: smoking Q1. Describe and critically analyse ONE real social marketing campaign. Make sure to evaluate: · The purpose and focus of the campaign · Knowledge, belief and behaviour objectives · The target market · The marketing mix strategies (4 Ps) · Ethical concerns The social issue I am focusing on is smoking, and the campaign to support it is a very successful advertisement from Canada called the ‘social farter’. The purpose of the campaign was to inform the public that social smoking is as ridiculous as social farting and referred to the use of ‘farting’ as an off-putting social action, just like smoking. Moreover, it demonstrates that even though you may say that socially smoking only occurs in social instances, it does not mean that you are still not a smoker. The campaign’s focus is to change society’s perception of smoking and inform the target audience that it is never too late to call the quit line and change your denial to the reality that it is, (Mark atMOH 2013).). The knowledge objectives behind this campaign is to inform the target audience that smoking, whether it be social or not is still smoking and there are various short and long term effects that can be detrimental to one’s health overtime if smoking still occurs, (Rothschild 1999). Moreover, the campaign’s belief objective is to influence the target audience that smoking is actually harmful and can have impeding effects in the long term, especially if it begins at an early age. In addition, the target audience needs to also believe that smoking is not only damaging to themselves but to also to others around them, which means that the more one socially smokes, the more damage is caused to not only you but to others too, (Mark atMOH 2013).). The behavioural objectives of the campaign ‘social farter’, is to aim at changing society’s perception of smoking and assist in reducing its prevalence through informative and strategic advising towards young adults, (Rothschild 1999). Moreover, by making smoking not be perceived at part of the social norm, will further influence the audience to use another alternative to associate their enjoyment with, such as integrating with others who do not smoke at a party. The target market for this campaign is 14-20 year olds in Canada. This campaign is aimed at targeting adolescents who have already begun smoking and often smoke socially as a means of demonstrating a sense of being ‘cool’, (Grunberg et al., 1989). In enabling constant educational knowledge regarding the effects of smoking and depicting the damage it can have on the wellbeing of adolescents, as well as promoting the concept of denial by demonstrating that the perception of social smoking is not considered smoking, the advertisement succeeds in reaching its target audience and assisting them to call the quit line, (Lewinski 2011). The products for the campaign ‘social farting’, portrays the message that smoking is still smoking in a social setting, and the ad refers to a party scene that associates smoking with doing activities like dancing, talking, sitting and drinking which does not actually need to be the case as these activities can occur without the use of an unhealthy activity such as smoking to have fun, (Lewinski 2011). This ties into place, due to smoking occurring at parties or get togethers, and to reduce the likelihood of this behaviour occurring, the campaign off-sets the notion of smoking with a social setting by influencing the perception of denial and to calling quit line, rather than continuing to believe that you are not a smoker even if you only smoke socially, (Mark atMOH 2013). The promotion of the advertisement is used on social mediums such as You Tube or even Facebook through sharing of the video, moreover, it is used as a TV advertisement as well as on the popular radio channels in Canada to get its message more thoroughly across to the target audience whilst the ad pops up during the break whilst they watch their favourite TV show or listen to their favourite radio station, (Grunberd, et.al 1989). The price for the campaign is free in enabling viewers to watch or listen to it on the radio or TV. Moreover, the monetary costs of smoking also becomes free if the campaign remains successful, as this will inturn influence fewer consumers to buy cigarettes, thus resulting in more adolescents saving their money and reducing monetary costs by not spending on unnecessary products such as cigarettes. Ethical considerations that the campaign should also take into account include the enablement of ‘farting’ noises in the campaign, which can be perceived with disgust, and can in certain instances be associated with a negative effect for some as a result of the campaign being so extreme and off-putting, (Mark atMOH 2013).). Moreover, the campaign should also be accountable for the actual reasons as to why these adolescents are smoking to begin with, rather than socially enjoying themselves without the need for a cigarette, and consider why smoking might be connected to the notion of being ‘cool’, when it is in itself an activity that is only detrimental to ones health, (Mark atMOH 2013). Q2. Apply information from the unit to improve or suggest the next stage in the campaign to further assist consumers in making the right decisions for positive behaviour change. Try to incorporate materials from the required journal article readings. For example: · commitment, principle of consistency, social signaling · emotional appeals, message framing, goal pursuit, attribution theory · self-efficacy, perceived risks (e.g., social, health, financial), vulnerability . The ‘social farter’ campaign has been successful through the use of humour appeal by using fart noises to make people laugh whilst they watch the ad till the end until they realise the ad is actually an anti-smoking campaign, (Mark atMOH 2013). Moreover, the ad is different from other smoking ads that usually refer to shock appeals to target the audiences’ attention. However to continue being successful in the future, the campaign can further improve by also referring to other appeals such as fear appeal so as to also promote the notion of distress and apprehension to deter adolescents from being engaged with the activity of smoking cigarettes, (Webster 2014). According to Duhachek et.al (2012), message framing indicates the way in which a message is framed will affect the amount of persuasion it elicits to its target audience. The campaign ‘social farter’ exhibits persuasion to promote positive behaviour change through the use of humour to convince the target audience that smoking in social settings, is still considered being a smoker, (Mark atMOH 2013). However, it might be more effective enhance the campaign’s message by also integrating the health and social risks associated with smoking because in doing so, the ad can provide valid reasons that encourage adolescents to prevent smoking, as opposed to merely focusing on humour to signal this message, (Duhachek et.al 2012). Reference list Armitage, C and Conner M 2001, ‘Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A meta-analytic review’, The British Psychological Society,40, pp. 471–499. Duhachek, A., Agrawal, N. and Han, D 2012, ‘Guilt versus Shame: Coping, Fluency, and Framing in the Effectiveness of Responsible Drinking Messages’’, Journal of Marketing Research,49 (), pp. 928-941. Earth Hour 2014, Earth Hour,Available at: http://www.earthhour.org/Australia (Accessed: 12 June 2014). Environmental Energy Technologies Division 2014, What’s energy efficiency ,Available at: http://eetd.lbl.gov/ee/ee-1.html (Accessed: 12 June 2014 ). Gray D and Bean B 2014, ‘Can Social Marketing Segmentation Initiatives Be Used to Increase Household Electricity Conservation?’, Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing,23(3), pp. 269-305 [Online]. Available at: (Accessed: June 12 2014). Grunberg N, Evans R, Curry S and DiClemente C 1989, ‘Smoking’, Health Psychology,8(6), pp. 767-771. Lewinski, G 2011, ‘Harmful Effects of Second-Hand Smoking’’, Leadership Excellence,28(2), pp. 17-18. Mark atMOH 2013, Social Farter,[Online]. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fb5q2eie4ko&feature=player_embedded (Accessed: June 12 2014). Pickard, W 2012, ‘Where renewable electricity is concerned, how costly is “too costly”?’, Energy Policy ,49, pp. 346-354. Rothschilds, M 1999, ‘Carrots, Sticks, and Promises: A Conceptual Framework for the Management of Public Health and Social Issue Behaviours’, Journal of Marketing, vol. 63, pp. 24-37. Webb T, Sniehotta F and Michie S 2010, ‘Using theories of behaviour change to inform interventions for addictive behavioursadd_3028 1879..18’, Addiction ,105, pp. 1879–1892. Webster C, Carter L, D’Alessandro S and Gray D 2014, Social Marketing, 1st edn., Victoria, Australia: Tilde University Press. Wilson, B, Trieu L and Bowen B 1994, Energy efficiency trends in Australia,’Energy Policy,vol,22, no. 4, pp. 287-295.