Social Marketing:A Community-Based Approach

Wesley Schultz, Ph.D.Wesley Schultz, Ph.D.California State UniversityCalifornia State University

Action Research, Inc.Action Research, Inc.January, 2011January, 2011

Workshop prepared for the California Center for Sustainable Energy. Address correspondences to: Wesley Schultz, Department of Psychology, California State University, San Marcos, CA, 92078. Wschultz@csusm.edu. (760) 750-8045.

Conservation Means Behavior

• Sealing leaks and cracks

• Insulation

• Weatherization

• Efficient Windows

Common Misperceptions

1. Social marketing is social media (Web 2.0)• Facebook, twitter, and myspace are reasonable channels of

communication for certain target audiences.

Common Misperceptions

2. Social marketing is public outreach• Outreach is a form of social marketing, but social

marketing is more• In general, education is not sufficient to motivate behavior

change

Common Misperceptions

3. Social marketing is advertising• Mass media advertisements should be the last option in a

social marketing campaign (TV, radio, billboard).

Common Misperceptions

4. Social marketing requires market segmentation• Market segmentation is useful, but it’s better to segment

on the behaviors and not demographics.

Social Marketing

Systematic application of marketing concepts and techniques to achieve specific behavioral goals relevant to a social good.

• Focus on behaviors

• “Influencing behaviors for good”

• Specific target audience

• Typically voluntary actions (conservation)

• Efficiency grounded in new products and devices

Social MarketingSOME EXAMPLES (of the many)

• Save The Crabs, Then Eat ‘Em (reduced fertilizer use)

• Pollution prevention (dog waste)

• Residential energy (install attic insulation)

• Reduce water consumption (low-flow showerhead)

• Litter prevention

Home energy retrofits

A Community-Based Approach

• Community-Based Social Marketing (CBSM)

• Grounded in behavioral science

• Focus on individual choices- Give people a “reason” for the behavior

• Emphasize personal channels of communication

• Targets specific barriers and benefits

• Data-driven

• Proven 5-step process

• www.cbsm.com

Five Steps to Behavior Change

101. Select the target behavior

2. Identify barriers and benefits to a specific behavior

3. Design program to address barriers

4. Pilot test the program elements

5. Evaluate your program

Community Based Social Marketing

1. Select the behavior

2. Identify barriers (structural or psychological) to the behavior--don’t assume that you already know!

3. Design a program to address the barriers (or a message to increase motivation)

4. Pilot test the program elements

5. Evaluate the program using a control group

1. Selecting the behavior

• What specific behavior(s) do you want to change?- Not outcome (less residential energy consumption), but

behavior (complete home energy performance package)

• What’s the current level in the target population? Is change needed (possible)?

• Link behavior with outcome (use data)

• Specificity is important- Who, when, where, for how long? What’s the potential

impact, relative to other potential behaviors?

2. Identify the Barriers

• What do we know about this behavior

• Why don’t people engage in the desired behavior?

• Internal barriers (knowledge, motivation, perceptions)

• External barriers (lack of access, difficulty)

• Existing data- Published studies

- Previous studies

- Calls or feedback from existing customers

Identify the Barriers

Q: Is new data needed?• Focus groups• Surveys

- in-person

- telephone

- mail

- Web-based

3. Developing a program

Target a specific barrier (structural or motivational)

1. Structural (program changes):- Convenience, cost, complexity

2. Motivational (messaging)- Identify target audience

- Medium for reaching the audience

- Message content

- Tools of behavior change (e.g., norms, commitment, prompts)

REACH

LOW HIGH

LOW

HIGHOne-on-One

Personal Contact

Personalized media (feedback)

Information / Awareness by mass media (TV, radio, billboard)

Impersonal direct contact (direct mail, B

ehav

ior

Cha

nge

Group Discussion

© Schultz & Tabanico (2008). Reprinted with permission

Messaging

Two Routes to Persuasion

Central Audience is engaged Elaborated message processing Persuaded by cogent arguments (agreement) Weighted costs and benefits Thoughtful (takes time to process)

Peripheral Audience is generally not engaged (don’t care, distract) Heuristic message processing Responses based on liking (emotional) Intuitive (quick responses)

Elaboration Likelihood Model. Petty & Cacioppo (2010)

4. Pilot Testing

• Obtain some preliminary data about the efficacy of the program and materials

• Small sample (get out of the office)

• Modify materials, and pilot again

• Roll out full-scale intervention

• Keep in mind the need for evaluation (integrated with the program)

5. Evaluation

• What changes were caused by the program?

• “The process of collecting, analyzing, and interpreting information about an intervention aimed at achieving a stated goal.”- Need, implementation, effectiveness,

efficiency

• Use a control group!

Resources

Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2007). Social marketing: Influencing behaviors for good. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McKenzie-Mohr, D., & Smith, W. (1999). Fostering sustainable behavior. Canada: New Society Publishers.

Fostering Sustainable Behavior website: www.cbsm.com

McKenzie-Mohr, D., Lee, N., Schultz, P. W., & Kotler, P. (2011, anticipated). Social marketing to protect the environment: What works. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Schultz, P. W., & Tabanico, J. (2008). Community-based social marketing and behavior change. In A. Cabaniss (Ed.), Handbook on household hazardous waste (pp. 133-157). Lanham, MD: Government Institutes Press.

Schultz, P. W. (2010). Making energy conservation the norm. In K. Ehrhardt-Martinez (Ed.), Behavior, energy, and climate change. Washington, DC: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). Available online.

21

Upcoming Workshop

Community-Based Social Marketing. 2-day workshop.

Wesley Schultz and Doug McKenzie-Mohr

March 21-22, California Center for Sustainable Energy

March 24-25, Los Angeles

22

Reasons for conservationReasons for conservation

Egoistic: Self-oriented motivationEgoistic: Self-oriented motivation- Largely extrinsic- Largely extrinsic- Focus on cost-benefit analysis- Focus on cost-benefit analysis- Money, social approval, self-reliance- Money, social approval, self-reliance

Altruistic: Social benefitsAltruistic: Social benefits- Focus on social responsibility- Focus on social responsibility- Doing my part, future generations- Doing my part, future generations

BiosphericBiospheric- Largely intrinsic- Largely intrinsic- Focus on environment, protection, carbon footprint- Focus on environment, protection, carbon footprint

Appealing to the egoistAppealing to the egoist

• We are all egoistic (most fundamental motive)

• Increase rewards, decrease costs

• Economics approach

• Rebates

• Cost-savings

• Return on investment

Incentives Incentives (financial or (financial or otherwise)otherwise)

• Egoistic framing induces egoistic processing

• Rebates• Effective, largely because reduces existing cost

(i.e., the person is going to buy something anyway)- Appliances, automobiles

• Can get more product for less• Not effective if it means buying

something unexpected (e.g., rebate ona product person doesn’t want)

Incentives Incentives (financial or (financial or otherwise)otherwise)

Cost savings (e.g., solar panels)

How much savings for how much cost?

Minimax process- Minimize cost, maximize reward

Only successful if it generates a savings (break-even is not saving)

Uncertainty is a cost

Incentives Incentives (the dark side)(the dark side)

Specific to location

Motivation only lasts while incentive in place (fence example)

No “spillover” (specific to behavior)

Some examples of negative spillover- “For instance when we replace a 75W incandescent bulb with an

18W compact fluorescent bulb… we would expect over time a 75% energy saving. However, this seldom happens. Many consumers, realising that the light now costs less to run, are less concerned about switching it off, indeed they may leave it on all night, for example for increased safety or security.” Heering & Roy, 2007

Overjustification EffectOverjustification Effect

Rewarding people for doing something they already enjoy (Lepper et al., 1975)

Children who liked who draw

“good player awards with big gold stars.”

No reward, expected reward, surprise award.

What did children do in their free time?

Incentives (conclusions)Incentives (conclusions)

Can strongly influence behavior

But once engaged, becomes the basis for discussion (use with caution)

Limitations- Specificity- Longevity (only while it lasts)- Little positive spillover (some negative)- Overjustification effect

Awareness (with a twist)Awareness (with a twist)

Note: These findings are based on a thesis by Jessica Nolan, with assistance from a team of CSUSM students, including: Matt Dorlaque, Dulce Contreras, Veronica Bresiño, Monica Tinajera, Nigel Hartfield, Leezel Nazareno, Ron Tilos and Christina Wade.

Awareness (with a twist)Awareness (with a twist)

Note: These findings are based on a thesis by Jessica Nolan, with assistance from a team of CSUSM students, including: Matt Dorlaque, Dulce Contreras, Veronica Bresiño, Monica Tinajera, Nigel Hartfield, Leezel Nazareno, Ron Tilos and Christina Wade.

Awareness (with a twist)Awareness (with a twist)

How to promote conservation? Money? Education? Self sacrifice How to promote conservation? Money? Education? Self sacrifice (environment)?(environment)? Needed alternativeNeeded alternative Survey of Californians showed self-interest, environmental, social Survey of Californians showed self-interest, environmental, social

responsibility main reasons identified for conservationresponsibility main reasons identified for conservation

Sample: 1207 households in San MarcosSample: 1207 households in San Marcos

Experimental conditions: descriptive norms, information, Experimental conditions: descriptive norms, information, environmental, financial, social responsibilityenvironmental, financial, social responsibility

Delivered on doorhangers to households for 4 consecutive weeks.Delivered on doorhangers to households for 4 consecutive weeks.

Door-to-door interviews with household residents, meter readings Door-to-door interviews with household residents, meter readings of electricity consumptionof electricity consumption

Results based on an ANCOVA using baseline consumption as a covariate.Pairwise comparisons show descriptive norms to be significantly lower than all other conditions.

Nolan, J., Schultz, P. W., Cialdini, R. B., Griskevicius, V., & Goldstein, N. (2008). Normative social influence is underdetected. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

Results:Results:

Average daily household energy consumption during the interventionAverage daily household energy consumption during the intervention

Results based on oneway ANOVA. Pairwise comparisons show descriptive norms to be significantly lower than environmental and social responsibility.

Nolan, J., Schultz, P. W., Cialdini, R. B., Griskevicius, V., & Goldstein, N. (2008). Normative social influence is underdetected. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

Results:Results:

Q: “How much did the information on these doorhangers motivate Q: “How much did the information on these doorhangers motivate

you to conserve energy?”you to conserve energy?” 1 (not at all) to 4 (extremely)1 (not at all) to 4 (extremely)

Field Implementation at a Field Implementation at a local Beach Resortlocal Beach Resort

Note: My appreciation to the team of CSUSM students who worked on this experiment: Azar Khazian, Michelle Hynan, Joy Francisco, Christine Jarvis, and Jenny Tabanico.

Old Message:

Hotel Study -- New Message

Social Norm MessagesSocial Norm Messages

Intervention Implementation

• Study focused on 132 condo units (separate studies of hotel)

• Randomly assigned rooms to experimental (N=102) or control (N=30)

• Total of 794 guest “stays” were analyzed (each stay = 1 week)

• Number of towels taken from the room (continuous up to 4)

ResultsNumber of towels taken out of the room on the first towel replacement day.

F(1,792)=13.40; p<.001). A 25% reduction in the number of towels used!

Note: Data also tested in HLM with participant “nested” within room. ICC=.07; At level 2, treatment effect ( γ01=-.57, t(142.14)=-3.25, p<.001)

Schultz, P. W., Khazian, A., & Zaleski, A. (2008). Using normative social influence to promote conservation among hotel guests. Social Influence, 3, 4-23.

Normative Social InfluenceNormative Social Influence

Our Results:Our Results: Can cause behaviorCan cause behavior Not perceived as motivationalNot perceived as motivational Apply to both private and public behaviorApply to both private and public behavior

Problems in ApplicationProblems in Application Can serve as an anchor for folks already doing Can serve as an anchor for folks already doing

the behaviorthe behavior Implemented incorrectly (awareness campaigns)Implemented incorrectly (awareness campaigns)

More Normative Social InfluenceMore Normative Social Influence -- Household energy conservation-- Household energy conservation

Note: These findings are based on a thesis by Jessica Nolan, with assistance from a team of CSUSM students, including: Matt Dorlaque, Dulce Contreras, Veronica Bresiño, Monica Tinajera, Nigel Hartfield, Leezel Nazareno, Ron Tilos and Christina Wade.

Normative Social InfluenceNormative Social Influence -Buoys and Anchors -Buoys and Anchors

Participants: 290 households with visible Participants: 290 households with visible utility metersutility meters

Distributed individual feedback and Distributed individual feedback and normative feedback to households for two normative feedback to households for two consecutive weeksconsecutive weeks

Conditions:Conditions: Usage level (above or belowUsage level (above or below

neighborhood average)neighborhood average) Emoticon Emoticon

(positive or negative (positive or negative ))

Normative Social InfluenceNormative Social Influence - Results - Results

High Consumers

Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J., Cialdini, R., Goldstein, N., & Griskevicius, V. (2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18, 429-434.

Normative Social InfluenceNormative Social Influence - Results - Results

Low Consumers

Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J., Cialdini, R., Goldstein, N., & Griskevicius, V. (2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18, 429-434.