The political role of government-sponsored social marketing campaigns.

7/30/2019 The political role of government-sponsored social marketing campaigns.

1/23

The political role ofgovernment-sponsored social

marketing campaignsEffi Raftopoulou

Keele University, Keele, UK, and

Margaret K. HoggLancaster University, Lancaster, UK

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the political functions of

government-sponsored social marketing campaigns aimed at changing citizens behaviour and toargue for the reconsideration of the boundaries between political, public sector and social marketing.

Design/methodology/approach Critical discourse analysis of print advertisements andpromotional material of a government-sponsored social marketing campaign is used.

Findings The paper identifies the discursive ways in which the campaign influences the publicsviews of social issues and actors and discusses the role of such campaigns in the redefinition of the

relationship between the citizen and the state.

Originality/value The paper contributes to critical perspectives on the wider impact of socialmarketing activities on democracy by demonstrating the political impact function and effects of

campaigns run by governments.

Keywords Advertising, Government, Sponsorship, Sales campaigns

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionIn this paper we seek first, to challenge the boundaries between social, public sector andpolitical marketing by drawing on a wide range of literature in order to open up thedebates on this topic; and second, to contribute to critical perspectives on the widerimpact of government social marketing campaigns. We do this by providing a criticallyinformed analysis of a social marketing advertising campaign (in the third part of ourpaper) which illustrates the political character of social marketing as outlined in the firstand second parts of our article. Our position in the two theoretical parts of the paperderives from earlier arguments that social marketing campaigns fall under the umbrellaof political marketing, as, essentially, they influence the relationship between the citizen

and the state (OShaughnessy, 1996). In our paper we concentrate on social marketingcampaigns run by governments (also referred to as public sector marketing campaigns)and argue that such campaigns should be considered as belonging to the field of politicalmarketing. We support our argument through a critical analysis of a social advertisingcampaign in the third, empirical part of our article.

Our paper falls into three parts. We begin first, by exploring the various definitionsof political marketing, as our aim is to locate social marketing campaigns run bygovernments in this field. We then define the focus of this study which lies at the

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm

EJM44,7/8

1206

Received May 2008Revised November 2008

January 2009Accepted January 2009

European Journal of Marketing

Vol. 44 No. 7/8, 2010

pp. 1206-1227

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0309-0566

DOI 10.1108/03090561011047599


2/23

intersection of the fields of public sector and social marketing and we explore theoverlaps and common characteristics of these two fields. Second, the paper synthesisesliterature from social and public sector marketing and identifies existing literature onthe political dimensions of the application of marketing in these fields. Therefore, this

second section examines the political facets of government-sponsored social marketingcampaigns, which are aimed at changing citizens behaviour. At this point we set outthe arguments for broadening the traditional interpretation of political marketing. Theinclusion of the governments social marketing campaigns within the field of politicalmarketing invites broader questions about their political impact, function and effects.Although such issues have been discussed to a limited extent in the literature,discussion of the political role of social marketing campaigns has been relativelyneglected (Johansen, 2005). Third and finally, we demonstrate through anempirically-based worked example the political functions of a government-sponsoredsocial marketing campaign. We briefly report a case study of a social marketingcampaign run by the Department for Work and Pensions (hereafter DWP), to illustrate

how the UK government campaign constructs the responsible citizen. We applieddiscourse analysis to the visual and textual aspects of the advertising messages used inthe campaign and identified ways in which different views of citizenship,responsibility and benefit fraud were deployed to reach and appeal to a variety ofaudiences (public, policy makers and political actors). In this way, we demonstrate firsthow social marketing can be used as a political tool to tackle a social problem in wayswhich are ideologically informed, and second, the wider implications of suchcampaigns in shaping political actors in particular ways.

Political, public sector and social marketing: boundaries and overlaps ofthe fieldsWe begin this paper by exploring existing definitions of political marketing followedby a discussion of the scope and boundaries of public sector and social marketing inrelation to political marketing. In this way, we aim to locate government-sponsoredsocial marketing campaigns in relation to these three fields.

The diversity of definitions of political marketing renders the focus and the scope ofthe field rather unclear (Henneberg, 2002; Lock and Harris, 1996; Scammell, 1995),despite some significant developments in the application of the concept. A considerablepart of the political marketing literature examines political marketing as the use ofmarketing by political parties, particularly in relation to pre-election campaigns (seealso Lock and Harris, 1996). However, other writers argue that contemporary politicalmarketing should not be perceived as a short-term tool, mainly focused on informationgathering prior to elections, but rather, as a long-term, strategic process (Smith and

Hirst, 2001). From this perspective, the primary aim of political marketing activities isseen to be to enable political parties and voters to make the most appropriate andsatisfactory decisions (OCass, 1996, p. 48). However, this perspective is also rathernarrow as it limits the use of political marketing to political parties. A much broaderview is offered by Henneberg (2004, p. 226) who suggests that political marketing isabout facilitating the societal process of political exchange. Hennebergs perspectivecan also encompass a wider number of political actors besides political parties andvoters, thus reflecting the intricate nature of the field of politics. A wider perception of

Social marketincampaign

120


3/23

political marketing would therefore broadly involve the marketing of politics(OShaughnessy, 2002, p. 1082) and would relate to various organisations andindividuals within the political sphere.

The ambiguity of the definitions for political marketing discussed above is also

mirrored in the fields of social and public sector marketing. As Webster (1975) pointsout, much of the confusion surrounding the definitions of the various marketingsub-fields can be attributed to the fact that some of these definitions are based on thetype of organisation adopting marketing (i.e. a political party or the public sectororganisation); whereas other definitions focus on product types (e.g. political ideas orpolicies) and these are not necessarily mutually exclusive. In the next subsection weexplore further the overlaps between the fields of public sector and social marketing inorder to locate the focus of the study and then we discuss their overlaps with the fieldof political marketing.

The public sector and the use of social marketing

Marketing has been increasingly used by governments and public sector organisations not only for the promotion of particular services (e.g. the provision of a free flu jab orpromotion of public transport) but also for the promotion of voluntary behaviourchange (e.g. campaigns against racism or gun crime). The use of marketing tools andtechniques by governments is seen as a natural development of the general adoption ofprivate-sector-based approaches in the organisation of public services, often referred toas new public management (Cousins, 1990; Kearsey and Varey, 1998; Laing, 2003;Pollitt, 1993; Walsh, 1991). This introduction of market rationalities and tools intopublic management issues has been defended on the basis that it improves efficiencyand focuses more on peoples needs. Although the umbrella term for this field ofmarketing application is public sector marketing, when referring to voluntarybehaviour change for the benefit of the individual or society as a whole, the term socialmarketing is seen as more appropriate (Grier and Bryant, 2005).

Public sector marketing thus refers to any marketing activity undertaken byorganisations in the public sector, including the provision of services and socialmarketing (Fox and Kotler, 1980). Social marketing can be considered as a type ofpublic sector marketing, when used by public organisations to promote particularsocial objectives (Buurma, 2001). Expanding on this, a more or less accepted definitionof social marketing as the adaptation of commercial marketing technologies toprograms designed to influence the voluntary behaviour of target audiences to improvetheir personal welfare and that of the society of which they are a part (Andreasen,1994, p. 110) would incorporate a number of public sector marketing efforts. The socialmarketing literature in general also includes public sector marketing campaigns as an

integral part of its literature (e.g. Andreasen, 1997; Buchanan et al., 1994; Hastings andSaren, 2003).

Political facets of public sector marketing campaignsA number of marketing campaigns run by public sector organisations or governmentsconcern highly contested political issues or policies. Some examples include a recentSpanish campaign against immigration (Elkin, 2007); a US campaign promotingAmerican values to Muslim people (Klein, 2002); or the WorkChoices campaign in

EJM44,7/8

1208


4/23

Australia run by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations thatpromoted major reforms to the workplace relations system, prior to introducinglegislation to parliament (Young, 2007). At the same time, government spending onmarketing campaigns has also been increasing in many countries. The UK

government, for example, has consistently been one of the biggest spenders onadvertising in recent years (Hastings, 2007). As a result, public sector marketingcampaigns have become political events and elements of the political sphere.

Many authors argue that public sector marketing and political marketing areclosely related, if not overlapping, fields. Ryan (2001) argues that any engagementbetween governments and citizens is essentially political, whilst Collins and Butler(2003) also point to the essential interdependency of the public sector and politicalforces and suggest that many public sector marketing efforts are intended to affect thebehaviour of citizens in relation to important activities (such as taxation and laws)which are politically defined. In addition, the definition of political marketing discussedearlier could embrace public sector marketing, given that our citizen engagement with

the public sector might be seen as political exchange.

Political facets of social marketingSocial marketing has essentially political underpinnings because its main focus isultimately social welfare (Lazer and Kelly, 1973), which is also the primary concern ofpolitics (Walsh, 1994). As Rothchild (1999) argues, social marketing is a tool for publicbehaviour management and this fundamentally involves political decisions.Nevertheless, social marketing campaigns are often seen as non-political. This ispartly because the various definitions of social marketing emphasise the lack of benefitto the organisation undertaking the campaign and also because of the implicitassumption that public servants are not political actors (Collins and Butler, 2003).Arguably though, in social marketing campaigns run by governments, theorganisations benefit through the contribution of the public towards their goals andobjectives. Therefore, marketing in this context extends far beyond services to reachcore operations of government including the very nature of government itself (Walsh,1994), for example through the promotion of particular policies or initiatives (such ascampaigns for the encouragement of voting).

In addition to this, as Lock and Harris (1996, p. 21) suggest, political marketing isabout the exchanges between political entities and their environments and amongthemselves. In social marketing campaigns run by governments or public sectororganisations (i.e. political entities), the government is no longer an impartial, externalparty within the process of exchange but instead plays the role of the initiator. Thus,governments often make use of marketing communications in championing particular

initiatives (e.g. breastfeeding) as well in promoting their effectiveness to the public(Deacon and Golding, 1991).

Such campaigns in social marketing can arguably be seen as elements of thepermanent campaign (Blumenthal, 1982; Sparrow and Turner, 2001, Palmer, 2002),i.e. the methods used to sustain the government in office combined with the effortsused either to convince the public of the deliverability of public policies (Butler andCollins, 1999) or to persuade them of how a particular policy contributes to thegovernments aims (Buurma, 2001). OShaughnessy (2001) argues that, in this way,


1209


5/23

political marketing extends far beyond the tools used to attain power; it becomesgovernment, it becomes part of a partys effort to demonstrate its ability to govern(Harrop, 1990) and sustain power (Lock and Harris, 1996).

The preceding discussion demonstrates that there are significant overlaps between

the fields of political marketing, public sector marketing and social marketing.Nevertheless, the argument here is not that the three terms could be replaced by oneall-encompassing term; instead, we argue that the distinctions between the three fieldsshould be recognised as being rather blurred, particularly in the case ofgovernment-sponsored marketing campaigns.

The political nature of social marketing campaigns run by governments raisesfurther concerns with regards to their legitimacy as well as their effects. Althoughexisting literature has examined political effects broadly in relation to public sectormarketing, only limited studies have focused specifically on social marketingcampaigns. The following section provides a brief overview of the debates to date.

Public sector and social marketing: concerns over their political role andfunctionsA number of writers have expressed concerns about the use of marketing in thesecontexts (Andreasen, 1997; Bloom and Novelli, 1981; Brenkert, 2002). Most of theseconcerns relate to practical difficulties in applications. However, a number of authorsalso examine some of the broader effects of using marketing in non-commercial sectors.We focus next on literature that specifically examines the political effects of publicsector and social marketing.

Exchange in the context of the public sphereOne of the most important issues raised when marketing is applied beyond the

commercial sphere relates to the concept of exchange. This is often perceived asproblematic, as it is seen to undermine the altruistic nature of organisations runningsuch campaigns (Hastings and Saren, 2003). As Buurma (2001) argues, in thepromotion of public policy to citizens, the latter are asked to reciprocate for publicgoods through contributing to the governments objectives, which are not alwaysaltruistic. Rather, government objectives are likely to be politically charged andideologically informed because they are defined through political processes andinteractions, as well as through the influence of a large number of parties (Palmer,2002).

In addition, using a marketing approach means that people are only invited tochange their behaviour as long as the right information is packaged in a way thatappeals to their own interests (rather than altruistic motives) (Buchanan et al., 1994). In

this way, social marketing brings market rationalities into the public sphere, andreplaces public debate. The use of marketing in this context is seen to alter therelationship between governments and citizens, redefining citizens as consumers(Collins and Butler, 2003; Ryan, 2001). Walsh (1991) further argues that the publicsector has significantly different character, conditions and tasks compared withconsumer and business markets, and that the relationship between the participants inthe consumer or business marketplace is different from that between the citizen and thepublic sphere. Thus, the relationship between state and citizen cannot be based on

EJM44,7/8

1210


6/23

property rights and exchange, as it involves social goods and unequal power relations.The governing values of the public sector are also shaped by political principles ratherthan economic ones (Graham, 1994).

Ryan (2001) further argues that the re-conceptualisation of the relationship between

the citizen and the public sector through exchange disregards the extent of politicalengagement and participation of the citizen in the public policy process; discounts thecollective responsibilities of government; assumes the presence of competition inpublic service delivery when there is none; and oversimplifies the rather complicatedrelationship between a government and its citizens. Also, the principles of efficiencyand effectiveness that regulate markets are seen as inappropriate for the public sector,which should be governed by justice and democratic control (Collins and Butler, 2003),and these need to be achieved, in turn, through essential political dialogue between thestate and the citizen (Walsh, 1994).

Power issues and the use of marketing in the public realm

In addition to the concerns raised about the inappropriateness of marketing due to thedifferent nature of the public sphere, authors have also criticised social and publicsector marketing for reinforcing particular power issues. First of all, social marketinghas been accused of holding the individual responsible for behaviour change, instead oflooking at institutional or societal factors that determine his or her behaviour(Brenkert, 2002; Faden, 1987; McLeroy et al., 1987). This appeal to individualbehavioural change is seen to avoid certain ethical, moral and political problems, suchas the issue of structural change (Peattie and Peattie, 2003; Salmon, 1989). Moreover,through the mediated nature of marketing, conflicts are avoided, as there is lessinvolvement, less resistance and fewer counterarguments by the public and the citizenbody (OShaughnessy, 1996).

Jones (1982) further argues that the process by which one group of people seeksto cause change in other groups of people, in directions preferred by the first group,is essentially a political activity, involving the attempt to mobilise power andinfluence particular behaviour. MacFadyen and Hastings (2000, cited in Peattie andPeattie, 2003) also question who decides what behaviours need to change; on whatbasis; what means they use to achieve change; and where is the accountability fortheir actions? Macfadyen et al. (1999) suggest that improving citizens quality of lifeis a contested cause (also Andreasen, 1997). Taking a more extreme stance,OShaughnessy (1996) argues that social marketing campaigns are often run bypowerful groups, such as the government itself, claiming to represent a unitarypublic interest.

The first two parts of this paper summarise the main areas of concern in relation to

the political effects and functions of public sector and social marketing as discussed inexisting literature. Following our earlier argument that social marketing campaignsrun by governments could be considered as falling under the umbrella of politicalmarketing, our aim is to further explore the political effects and functions of suchcampaigns. In order to achieve this, in the third part of our paper we critically analyse agovernment campaign and explore its effects in shaping views about political actorsand political issues. We begin by outlining the campaign selected for our empiricalstudy and then describe the method of analysis.


121


7/23

The campaign against fraud: overview of the materialThis study investigates a social marketing campaign aimed at combating benefitfraud, commissioned by the DWP, UK. The DWP identified the main aims of thiscampaign to be to reinforce honest behaviour, to create a climate of intolerance towards

benefit fraud and to undermine the social acceptability of benefit fraud. The campaignwas also intended to warn fraudsters that those committing benefit fraud would becaught and punished (DWP, 2005). The problem of benefit fraud is identified in thecampaign as a social problem with individual repercussions that citizens are called onto help overcome.

Our analysis concentrates on the advertising material and the web sites usedbetween 2000 and 2005. Although the marketing campaign consists of a number ofdifferent elements (e.g. the free hotline, the web site), the print advertisements comprisea very prominent and visible element. In addition, advertisements are often sites ofideological struggle (Fairclough, 1989) and thus very relevant material for the analysisof the broader effects of government campaigns. Their format (pictures combined with

text) also renders the advertisements suitable for the method of analysis selected.The print advertisements comprise the main body of material that we examined.There were approximately 44 advertisements in total (although several were repeatedin slightly different formats over the years). Two of the advertisements used in thecampaign can be seen in Figures 1 and 2.

We also analysed additional material such as the campaigns web sites, pressreleases, press cuttings and discussions in parliament (Hansard) in order to enrich ourunderstanding of the context within which the DWP campaign took place.

Method of analysisThe printed advertisements were studied as crafted texts (Stern, 1996; Stern andSchroeder, 1994) using an interpretative framework where social meanings emerge(Kress and Van Leeuwen, 1990). Although research within the interpretative traditionrecognises that a focus on the advertising text can give insights into the ideologicaleffects of advertising (Kates and Shaw-Garlock, 1999), much of the research focuses oneither consumer readings of the advertising text (Hirschman and Thompson, 1997;Ritson and Elliott, 1999; Scott, 1994) or on the producers meanings within the creativeprocess (Hackley, 2002; Soar, 2000). Although it is recognised here that anadvertisements reading is shaped but not determined, by the text itself, a number ofscholars argue for a more detailed theoretical insight into the ways in whichadvertising works to create meaning and the development of relevant analytictechniques (Scott, 1994; Stern and Holbrook, 1994; Stern and Schroeder, 1994).Informed readings of ads are seen to be particularly useful for exploratory purposes

(Brown et al., 1999) whilst rigorous textual and linguistic analysis can supplement theinterpretivist tradition through better understanding of the conventions drawn upon ininterpretation (Proctor et al., 2002).

Our method of analysis considers the various ways in which the visual picturesworked together with their respective written texts in the advertisements. Thisapproach allowed us also to examine the different ways in which a reader interactswith both the textual and pictorial elements of the adverts (Hasan, 1996; Myers, 1994;Yin Yuen, 2004, cited in Young, 2007). Our framework of analysis builds on the

EJM44,7/8

1212


8/23

principles of Critical Discourse Analysis (hereafter CDA), which is a form of discourse

analysis that focuses particularly on the relationships between discourse, power and

ideology (Fairclough, 1989; Fairclough, 1995; Wodak and Meyer, 2001). It is also a

method of analysis that invites reflection not just on the ethical, but also on the broader

political and social, functions of adverts (Pearce, 1997, 1999), and is therefore

particularly relevant for the aim of this study.

Each advert was studied along three dimensions:

(1) Detailed textual analysis, drawing from the field of linguistics, where the

primary concern is with the texturing effects of texts (Fairclough, 1992b;

Halliday and Hasan, 1990);

(2) Micro-sociological, interpretative tradition, which explores the processes that

relate to the production and consumption of the text; and

Figure


121


9/23

(3) Macro-sociological analysis of social practice, which firstly, explores the socialpractices as the context within which the interactions (between the reader and

the adverts) take place; and secondly, considers the relation of the text to theexisting social order (Fairclough, 1992a).

In brief, the framework of analysis is presented in Figure 3.In the next section, whilst drawing on elements from stages 1-2 of the analysis to

demonstrate the move from the textual to the macro-level of analysis, we focus mainlyon stages 3-6 of the analysis of the material, We begin by identifying the texturingeffects of the adverts (stage 3), i.e. the ways in which the texts work to represent socialidentities (e.g. the identity of the fraudster or that of the good citizen); social values(e.g. what makes a good citizen); social relations (e.g. the relationship between thegovernment and the fraudster); and different worldviews (e.g. particular perspectives

Figure 2.

EJM44,7/8

1214


10/23

on welfare provision). At the same time, we identify the discourses, genres and styles(stage 4)[1] that underpin this process of construction and representation within theadverts. We then move to an examination of social advertising within the broadersocial context (stage 5), focusing particularly on its ideological functions, i.e. the waysin which social advertising works to sustain and create taken-for-granted viewpoints inrelation to social issues.

Constructing social identities, relations, social values and worldviewsThe different adverts and promotional web sites from the DWP campaign all depict thesocial actors identities (i.e. fraudsters, citizens, the DWP) in similar and consistentways. On the one hand, fraudsters are generally associated with negative social valuesthrough the use of expressive vocabulary (e.g. cheats, fraudulently, dishonestly,guilty) and through reference to illegitimate behaviour (e.g. stealing the taxpayersmoney). Through the last phrase in particular, the text presupposes that thefraudsters harm the individual taxpayer, i.e. the law-abiding citizen, through theiractions.

Furthermore, the identity of the fraudsters is created in opposition to that of citizensin a number of ways. For example, you is usually used to refer generally to fraudsterswhilst the citizens are referred to usually as they or people. In addition, visualelements like the use of indirect angles, long shots and lack of visual contact create asense of distance between the viewer (citizen) and the fraudster. The fraudsters are also

set apart from the rest of the public through the use of a white spotlight that encirclesthem in the pictures. This spotlight, which resembles a target, works to single out thefraudster from the rest of the participants, as well as to represent them as the target ofthe campaign.

In addition to this, the adverts create a sense of unity between the government andthe viewer. This is achieved through the angle of the photograph, i.e. the viewer alwayslooks at the scene-taking place from the same perspective as the producer of thephotograph. In addition, the web site texts use we to refer to the government and the

Figure Framework for analysis

print advertisemen


121


11/23

viewer with statements like together we can beat, cost us more than 2 billion instolen benefits and money that could be much better spent on our schools thusreferring to common goals and values. Through this presupposition of common valuesand goals the normative recommendations of the campaign i.e. that the act of reporting

a fraudster assists in the enhancement of common welfare (for example, throughallocating the money to more worthwhile causes) is supported. Thus, the discourse ofcitizenship is drawn upon to unite the government with the public through a commonperspective, as well as through common aims and values.

The campaigns web sites contain even more detailed classification of the variousparties. For example, in the 2000 and 2003 promotional web sites there is reference tothose who are entitled to it (welfare benefit), those who need it most and the rightpeople to refer to valid benefit claimants as opposed to benefit fraudsters who arereferred to as the wrong people. Furthermore, there is reference to taxpayersmoney, your money, public money, right money, wrong money, money frompeople who need it most and stolen benefits. Thus, money is used as a

differentiating principle between different social actors. In addition, these phrasesclassify various social actors (fraudsters, citizens, valid claimants) in terms ofentitlement and need. Thus, the text draws on the prevailing discourse of welfare todifferentiate between different social actors.

At the same time, the DWPs social identity was portrayed as effective, dynamicand associated with formal authority. Through the use of multiple synonyms (e.g.surveillance, watch, follow up, more investigative powers, we can talk toemployers, check out the information you give us) the advertising text putsemphasis on the DWPs authority to check information and pursue fraudsters.Therefore, the social relations between social groups (i.e. the fraudsters and thegovernment) are determined through the discourse of authority.

Similarly, the use of synonyms like were on to you, we know, find out and

spotted points to the knowledge relationship of the DWP, and presumes theireffectiveness in the pursuit of fraudsters. A sense of inescapability is also reinforcedthrough the use of phrases such as just a phone call away or whichever way youturn were on to you which presuppose that it is only a matter of time beforefraudsters are caught. Therefore, the relation between the government and fraudstersis also characterised through constant surveillance and pursuit.

Finally, the text works in a number of ways to presuppose a particular reality inrelation to the social issue of benefit fraud. The use of a slice of life photograph, thediversity of colours, as well as the detailed context, all point to a strong claim to realityon behalf of the producer of the advert. This is also achieved through grammaticalchoices, such as the extensive use of declarative sentences, which also points to claims

to truth on the part of the speaker.

DiscussionThe infiltration of commercial practicesThe text draws on a combination of economic discourses (i.e. effectiveness) andpolitical discourses (i.e. welfare, citizenship), which is a prominent and characteristicfeature of neo-liberalism (Fairclough, 2002). Similarly, the style used in the adverts todepict the governmental organisation indicates a move away from the rigid, formal

EJM44,7/8

1216


12/23

portrayal of organisations as distant bodies and indicates a more modern and lessformal organisation in direct touch with the public (e.g. through the use of informallanguage), which is also a feature of neo-liberalism.

This particular combination of discourses and styles is associated with the new

relationship between government and management that is denoted by the rise of newpublic management, and marked by a shift from policy and administration tomanagement (Considine, 2001; Fairclough, 2002). In addition, this combination ofdiscourses and styles is an indication of the marketisation of democracy, i.e. theinfiltration of commercial practices into the realm of the political (Peters, 2001). Forexample, the promotional material of the campaign makes reference to public money,customers and targets, along with the increased emphasis on effectiveness inrelation to the representation of the identity of the government and the DWP, whichcan all be seen as manifestations of the influence of the new public management inlanguage. In particular the discourse of effectiveness can also be associated with aneffort to convince the public of the deliverability of particular policies (see also Butler

and Collins, 1999).Similarly, the reference to money as a means of differentiating amongst the

various participants discussed above, is also an indication of the predominance of thelogic of the economy in the political discourse (Fairclough, 2002). Consequently, theadvertisements, as well as the promotional web sites of the campaign, work toreproduce and sustain the existing predominant political ideology, through theadoption and transfer of the language and logic of the realm of commerce into therealm of the political.

Furthermore, as the analysis of the Benefit Fraud campaign shows, benefitfraudsters are represented in a particular way, through their association with anoffence. The campaign depicts, for example, some of them taking up seasonal oroccasional employment; others as receiving cash-in-hand; and others failing to declarethe true number of people living at an address. The campaign thus defines their actionsas criminal actions that harm the public. In addition to this, the identity of fraudsters isconstructed in opposition to citizens and to honest benefit claimants who are really inneed, through a variety of semiotic elements.

These representations are based on, and help reproduce, the particular view ofwelfare and thus sustain particular ideologies (i.e. neo-liberalism) and power relationsbetween welfare subjects and the state. To be more precise, the existing perspective ofwelfare is based on a focus on welfare to work, where an individual has to satisfy arange of criteria in order to receive benefits, including for example attending jobinterviews and, on some occasions, accepting positions of employment. Different typesof employment, such as voluntary employment or housework, do not always result in

income (although they contribute to social welfare) and are, therefore, not encouraged(Carmel and Papadopoulos, 2003). In addition, alternative viewpoints in relation toemployment (such as the belief in the right not to work) are marginalised and excludedfrom welfare provision.

Within the current perspective on welfare, the rules of entitlement are assumed to beuniversally accepted and this results in particular constitutions of welfare subjects,which often allow limited space for alternative discourses (Penna and O Brien, 1996).This is achieved in the adverts through a number of elements discussed above (e.g. use


121


13/23

of declarative sentences, subordinate clauses, slice-of-life photographs). It is arguedhere therefore, that the campaign plays a political role, as it both supports and

reproduces dominant political ideologies (i.e. neo-liberalism), and works to discursivelyregulate welfare subjects (Taylor, 1998). Therefore, this social marketing campaign can

no longer be perceived as a politically neutral act.

Shaping citizens participationThe Benefit Fraud campaign appeals to the public to report fraudsters, on the basis

of fraudsters non-conformity with the rules of welfare provision. The campaign callson citizenship because it appeals to citizens participation in the solution of the social

problem, through the act of reporting benefit fraud. This appeal to citizenship is moreexplicit where there is reference to the common good (e.g. through the phrase moneythat could be much better spent on our schools and hospitals) and to other values

associated with citizenship, such as fairness and social acceptance. Through the

construction of common values, citizenship, in turn, constructs and supports valuesand norms about what is right or wrong, fair or unfair, socially acceptable or not.

These common values are taken for granted in social marketing campaigns (forexample through presuppositions or the use of declarations as mentioned above) as

they form the basis on which the appeal is made.The discourse of citizenship can be seen as an ideological discourse that establishes

the distinction between citizens and non-citizens, or between those citizens who do or

those who do not fulfil their obligations to society, as in this case of benefit fraud (VanDijk, 1995). Citizenship can be seen as a practice of inclusion and exclusion of politicalagents from a political community (Walker, 2002).

The appeal made to citizens to contribute to the solution of a social issue can also berelated to a shift towards a neo-liberal logic and mode of governing, which implies an

increased sense of individual responsibility. Thus, as Rose (1996) suggests, citizens areencouraged to self-regulate their behaviour and to become self-sufficient. The idea ofcitizenship is central both to self-regulation and to the regulation of others, as itbecomes a means to empower and also to normalise the subject through the

containment of political practices (Cruickshank, 1999; Nyers, 2004). As discussedearlier, citizenship entails a set of shared values and norms that regulate the behaviourof individuals (for example public participation and care for the common good). Social

marketing campaigns, through an appeal to these taken-for-granted values, can beconsidered to frame the behaviour of citizens. The Benefit Fraud campaign, forexample, through the construction of benefit fraud as an offence that affects all of us

(web site June 2003) calls for citizen participation through reporting a fraudster. In this

way, the campaign backgrounds all other solutions to the problem of fraud (forexample the avoidance of error in the calculation of benefits).

In addition, the advertisements create a sense of inescapability and surveillance, e.g.the pictures usually convey the sense that someone is watching the scene without

being watched, whilst the text also refers to surveillance and the investigation of theactions of fraudsters. This brings about an effect of permanent and consciousvisibility (Foucault, 1977, p. 201) causing the individual to govern his/ her own

behaviour. Thus, the adverts, through creating and reproducing the values and norms

EJM44,7/8

1218


14/23

of engagement with the welfare system, work to regulate the behaviour of welfaresubjects.

Consequently, the campaigns political functions discussed here are twofold: first,the campaign constitutes one of the tools that governments employ to persuade citizens

to contribute to their aims and, second, it works to promote the governments actionsby back-grounding all other solutions to the particular social issue and by presenting

the government as effective and dynamic.

Marginalising different perspectivesAnother element that points to the infiltration of managerial practices into

government is the combination of genres. To be more precise, the advertisementscombine the advertising genre with the public service announcement genre, whilst

the web sites combine the promotional web site genre with the party political genreand the public policy genre. In this way, political genres are interwoven with

commercial ones. As Fairclough (2000) notes, the shift from the political to thecommercial is an indication of a change in the genre of government and is seen to

have an effect on the nature of public participation through avoiding or excludingpolitical dialogue. Thus, social marketing is one of the new communication media

that is replacing other forms of communications and political debates (Fairclough,2002). In the specific case of the Benefit Fraud campaign, the advertisementsconstruct a specific type of participation in the public sphere, i.e. reporting a

fraudster, excluding all other possibilities for alternative perspectives or forms ofparticipation in the social issue promoted. If the public sphere is understood as all

the spaces and forms of dialogue where people engage as citizens with the issues,social marketing campaigns can be seen to confine and repress the public sphere

through restricting dialogue on social issues to the realm of advertising

communications. In this campaign, the only means indicated for the public torespond to the campaign is through reporting a fraudster (or through providingfeedback on the campaign itself). This provides the public and the fraudsters with

limited ability to express their views and engage in political debate. In addition, theproducers of the advert define the content and the basis of communication. The lackof other voices is further accentuated through the large number of categorical

assertions and the presuppositions identified in the advertisements.As a consequence, social marketing can work to marginalise particular viewpoints

and sustain and reproduce existing power relations (see also Jones, 1982; Wallack et al.,1993). As shown in the previous paragraph, the benefit fraud campaign takes for

granted the existing welfare system and excludes other voices that could challenge this

perception. Relevant arguments that debate the decline of citizenship participationhave been discussed in the field of political marketing but have not yet been raised inthe field of social marketing. For example, political marketing has been accused ofbeing responsible for the declining participation in politics and for encouraging a

self-centred approach to politics (Dermondy and Scullion, 2001, Scammell, 1995). It isshown through the analysis of this campaign how social marketing campaigns work to

restrict political participation as well as to limit the opportunities for alternativeperspectives to emerge.


1219


15/23

ConclusionOur study has examined the ways in which the benefit fraud advertisements constructand represent social identities, relations, values and worldviews. Using aninterpretative framework which drew on CDA, we analysed the ways in which

benefit fraudsters, the general public, the DWP and the viewer are embodied in theadvertisements, as well as how the relations amongst the different groups are depicted.The aim of this analysis was to identify the political functions of this social marketingcampaign

We have demonstrated that the neo-liberal social order underpins the discursiveconstruction of the issue of benefit fraud through the advertisements examined; and wehave shown the ways in which language, as well as pictures, construct and support aparticular perspective of the issue of welfare benefit fraud though presupposingparticular perceptions firstly of welfare, and secondly of the role of the welfare state(e.g. welfare-to-work). This process conceals the socially constructed nature of welfareprovision and stabilises the meaning of welfare, thus excluding all other views and

voices. Therefore, our first argument is that social marketing campaigns haveimportant political functions because they do not only raise issues through promotingpolitically defined activities to citizens, but they also work to produce and sustain aparticular political ideology through the exclusion of dialogue.

In relation to this last point, we have also shown the ways in which the campaignworks to discursively frame citizens participation in the solution of the social issue.The appeal to citizenship is rather characteristic of social marketing efforts,particularly in cases where there is no clear or significant benefit from the behaviourchange suggested (e.g. in recycling campaigns). We argue that the discourse ofcitizenship works in a normalising, homogenising and marginalising manner tosupport the regulation of welfare subjects. It is suggested here that citizenship iscentral to a neo-liberal mode of governing, based on self-regulation and the regulationof others, Thus, the second important political function of social marketing campaignsrun by governments is that they constitute part of the tools of governance. Suchcampaigns not only aim to convince citizens of the deliverability of particular policiesbut also work to create social norms through endorsing particular social behaviourswhilst condemning others. Further to this, we have shown how the advertising genrerestricts political dialogue, as it is, primarily a one-way form of communication. In this

way, the government becomes the sole arbiter of specific social norms and values and,notably, this is done through a medium that deters dialogue. This raises significantissues, as alternative perspectives on political issues are excluded. We also question theappropriateness of marketing tools for the promotion of social issues (see alsoOShaughnessy, 2001). In this way, we revisit debates surrounding the appropriateness

of marketing tools for the promotion of social issues and types of behaviour(Andreasen, 1997; Hastings, 2003; Jones, 1982; Walsh, 1991) and we broaden theconcerns regarding the implications and effects of the use of these marketingcommunication tools.

It is shown, through the example of the benefit fraud advertising campaign,that social marketing by governments construct and reflect social issues inparticular ways, which are politically informed and predisposed. We have alsoargued that such campaigns work as tools of governance to reproduce dominant

EJM44,7/8

1220


16/23

political perspectives. Despite the issues raised in this paper, the significantcontribution of social marketing campaigns in the solution of social problems and inthe improvement of wellbeing (e.g. Ansolabhere and Iyengar, 1995, Hastings andSaren, 2003, Hastings and Haywood, 1994) should not be discounted. Following

Fairclough (1993, p. 142), who argues that a critical awareness of language anddiscursive practices is a prerequisite for democratic citizenship, we also argue for abetter awareness of the political dimensions of social marketing campaigns run bygovernments as they play a significant role in our engagement with the publicsphere as citizens.

Limitations and further researchAnalysis in the present paper is based on an in-depth reading of only one advertisingcampaign. Although the analysis of textual (in its broad sense) material alone isuncommon in marketing research, this type of analysis is rather typical insocio-linguistic research and in particular CDA. Further to this, we focus on one

advertising campaign, rather than the full range of marketing activities of theorganisation. As discussed earlier, advertisements are significant sites for ideologicalstruggle, which was the particular focus of the present paper, and they often constitutea significant and rather visible element of marketing campaigns. Their format was alsoconducive to the type of analysis selected (i.e. CDA). Also, as Jaworski and Coupland(1999) note, in-depth, single case analyses are entirely appropriate in discourse analyticresearch.

The aim of the paper is neither to provide an objective, impartial reading nor to offera generalisable analysis. Rather, in line with most discourse analytic studies, the aim isto explain first, how certain meanings become more possible than others; and second,what can be said or written in a particular context (Cheek, 2004). We acknowledge thatthe analysis is highly dependent on the researchers outlook on the specific phenomena,and therefore issues of selectivity, partiality and prejudice in the readings of texts areunavoidable (Taylor, 2001). Further to this, the delineation of the relevant context forthe interaction was also a loosely defined task, dependent on the researcherstheoretical choice of the domain under study (Phillips and Jrgensen, 2002). Differentreadings of these advertisements (perhaps by the intended audiences) would enrich thestudy by providing additional valuable insights into the wider discourses that relate tothis discursive event.

The main aim of the study was, however to examine the political effects of suchcampaigns, through destabilising particular conventions and taken-for-grantedassumptions that support such campaigns as altruistic, neutral and free of politicalbias. In this way, the study advocates reconfiguration of the field of political marketing

first, to allow for reconsideration and reassessment of such campaigns within the fieldof political marketing; and second, to allow for more extensive and in depthconsideration of the political role of social marketing campaigns. This, in turn, invitesthe examination of a number of specific issues, e.g. the construction of the identity ofthe citizen through social marketing campaigns; the representation of various socialgroups through such campaigns; the nature of the relationship between citizens andthe state and how this is shaped; and the implications for citizens participation andengagement with social issues.


122


17/23

Note

1. Genres refer to particular ways of using language with a particular social practice, diverseways of acting, of producing social life, in a semiotic mode (Chiapello and Fairclough, 2002,p. 193). Discourses are practices that signify a domain of knowledge or experience from a

particular perspective (Fairclough, 1992a, p. 215) and styles refer to the constitution ofidentities through discourse and can be defined as the discoursal aspect of ways of being(Fairclough, 2003, p. 159), i.e. the sort of identity projected in the text by the author.

References

Andreasen, A.R. (1994), Social marketing: its definition and domain, Journal of Public Policyand Marketing, Vol. 13, i.1, pp. 108-14.

Andreasen, A.R. (1997), Challenges for the science and practice of social marketing,

in Goldberg, M.E., Fishbein, M. and Middlestadt, S.E. (Eds), Social Marketing: Theoreticaland Practical Perspectives, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 3-19.

Ansolabhere, S. and Iyengar, S. (1995), Going Negative, The Free Press, New York, NY.Bloom, P. and Novelli, W.D. (1981), Problems and challenges in social marketing, Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 45, pp. 79-88.

Blumenthal, S. (1982), The Permanent Campaign, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.

Brenkert, G.G. (2002), Ethical challenges of social marketing, Journal of Public Policy andMarketing, Vol. 21, pp. 14-25.

Brown, S., Stevens, L. and Maclaran, P. (1999), I cant believe its not bakhtin!: Literary theory,post-modern advertising and the gender agenda, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 28, pp. 11-24.

Buchanan, D.R., Reddy, S. and Hossain, Z. (1994), Social marketing: a critical appraisal, HealthPromotion International, Vol. 9, pp. 49-57.

Butler, P. and Collins, A. (1999), A conceptual framework for political marketing, in Newman,

B. (Ed.), Handbook of Political Marketing, Sage, London, pp. 55-72.Buurma, H. (2001), Public policy marketing: marketing exchange in the public sector, European

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 11/12, pp. 1287-302.

Carmel, E. and Papadopoulos, T. (2003), The new governance of social security in Britain,

in Millar, J. (Ed.), Understanding Social Security: Issues for Social Policy and Practice, PolityPress, Bristol, pp. 32-53.

Cheek, J. (2004), At the margins? Discourse analysis and qualitative research, QualitativeHealth Research, Vol. 14 No. 8, pp. 1140-50.

Chiapello, E. and Fairclough, N. (2002), Understanding the new management ideology:

a transdisciplinary contribution from critical discourse analysis and new sociology of

capitalism, Discourse and Society, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 185-208.

Collins, N. and Butler, P. (2003), When marketing models clash with democracy, Journal ofPublic Affairs, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 52-62.

Considine, M. (2001), Enterprising States: The Public Management of Welfare-to-Work,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Cousins, L. (1990), Marketing planning in the public and non-profit sectors, European Journalof Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 15-30.

Cruickshank, B. (1999), The Will to Empower: Democratic Citizens and Other Subjects, CornellUniversity Press, Ithaka, NY.

EJM44,7/8

1222


18/23

Deacon, D. and Golding, P. (1991), When ideology fails; the flagship of Thatcherism and the

British local and national media, Journal of Communication, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 12-23.

Department for Work and Pensions (2005), Reducing Fraud in the Benefit System: Achievementsand Ambitions, Fraud and Error Strategy Division, London, October.

Dermondy, J. and Scullion, R. (2001), Delusions of grandeur? Marketings contribution tomeaningful Western political consumption, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos9/10, pp. 1085-98.

Elkin, M. (2007), Spanish TV ads seek to deter boat people, The Guardian, September 20.

Faden, R. (1987), Ethical issues in government sponsored public health campaigns, HealthEducation Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 27-37.

Fairclough, N. (1989), Language and Power, Longman, London.

Fairclough, N. (1992a), Discourse and Social Change, Polity, Cambridge.

Fairclough, N. (1992b), Discourse and text: linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourseanalysis, Discourse and Society, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 193-217.

Fairclough, N. (1993), Critical discourse analysis and the marketisation of public discourse: theuniversities, Discourse and Society, Vol. 4, pp. 133-68.

Fairclough, N. (1995), Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language, PearsonEducation, Harlow.

Fairclough, N. (2000), Discourse, social theory, and social research: the discourse of welfarereform, Journal of Sociolinguistics, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 163-95.

Fairclough, N. (2002), Language in new capitalism,Discourse and Society, Vol.3 No. 2,pp. 163-6.

Fairclough, N. (2003), Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research, Routledge,London.

Foucault, M. (1977), Discipline and Punish, Lane, London.

Fox, K.F. and Kotler, P. (1980), The marketing of social causes: the first 10 years, Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 24-33.Graham, P. (1994), Marketing in the public sector: inappropriate or merely difficult?, Journal of

Marketing Management, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 361-75.

Grier, S. and Bryant, C.A. (2005), Social marketing in public health, Annual Review of PublicHealth, Vol. 26, pp. 319-39.

Hackley, C. (2002), The panoptic role of advertising agencies in the production of consumerculture, Consumption, Markets and Culture, Vol. 5, I.3, pp. 211-29.

Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, R. (1990), Cohesion in English, Longman, London.

Harrop, M. (1990), Political Marketing, Parliamentary Affairs, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Hasan, R. (1996), Whats going on: a dynamic view of context in language, in Cloran, C., Butt, D.and Williams, G. (Eds), Ways of Seeing: Ways of Meaning, Cassell, London, pp. 37-50.

Hastings, G. (2003), Social marketers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but yourshame, Social Marketing Quarterly, Vol. IX No. 1, pp. 14-21.

Hastings, G. (2007), The diaspora has already begun, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 25No. 2, pp. 117-22.

Hastings, G. and Haywood, A. (1994), Social marketing: a critical response, Health PromotionInternational, Vol. 9, pp. 59-63.

Hastings, G. and Saren, M. (2003), The critical contribution of social marketing: theory andapplication, Marketing Theory, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 305-22.


122


19/23

Henneberg, S. (2002), Understanding Political Marketing, Haeger, Westport, CT.

Henneberg, S. (2004), The views of an Advocatus Dei: political marketing and its critics,

Journal of Public Affairs, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 225-43.

Hirschman, E.C. and Thompson, C.J. (1997), Why media matter: toward a richer understanding

of consumers relationships with advertising and mass media, Journal of Advertising,

Vol. 26, pp. 43-60.

Jaworski, A. and Coupland, N. (2002), The Discourse Reader, Routledge, Oxon, NY.

Johansen, H.P.M. (2005), Political marketing: more than persuasive techniques, an organizational

perspective, Journal of Political Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 85-105.

Jones, S. (1982), Social marketing: dimensions of power and politics, European Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 46-54.

Kates, S.M. and Shaw-Garlock, G. (1999), The ever entangling web: a study of ideologies and

discourses in advertising to women, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 28, pp. 33-49.

Kearsey, A. and Varey, R.J. (1998), Managerialist thinking on marketing for public services,

Public Money and Management, January-March, pp. 51-60.Klein, N. (2002), Brand USA: Americas attempt to market itself abroad using advertising

principles is destined to fail, Los Angeles Times, March 10.

Kress, G. and Van Leeuwen, T. (1990), Reading Images, Deakin University Press, Greelong, VC.

Laing, A. (2003), Marketing in the public sector: towards a typology of public services,

Marketing Theory, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 427-45.

Lazer, W. and Kelly, E.J. (Eds.) (1973), Social Marketing: Perspectives and Viewpoints, Irwin,

Homewood, IL.

Lock, A. and Harris, P. (1996), Political marketing vive la difference, European Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 30 Nos 10/11, pp. 14-24.

Macfadyen, L., Stead, M. and Hastings, G. (1999), A Synopsis of Social Marketing, Institute for

Social Marketing, Stirling.

McLeroy, K.R., Gottlieb, H. and Burdine, J. (1987), The business of health promotion: ethical

issues and professional responsibilities, Health Education Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 1,

pp. 91-109.

Myers, G. (1994), Words in Ads, Edward Arnold, London.

Nyers, P. (2004), Whats left of citizenship?, Citizenship Studies, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 203-15.

OCass, A. (1996), Political marketing and the marketing concept, European Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 30 Nos 10-11, pp. 45-61.

OShaughnessy, N. (1996), Social propaganda and social marketing: a critical difference?,

European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 30 Nos 10/11, pp. 62-72.

OShaughnessy, N. (2001), The marketing of political marketing, European Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 35 Nos 9/10, pp. 1047-67.

OShaughnessy, N. (2002), Toward an ethical framework for political marketing, Psychology

and Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 12, pp. 1079-94.

Palmer, J. (2002), Smoke and mirrors: is that the way it is? Themes in political marketing,

Media, Culture and Society, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 345-63.

Pearce, R. (1997), Discourse, ethics and advertising, in Moore, G. (Ed.), Business Ethics:

Principles and Practice, Business Education Publishers, Sunderland.

EJM44,7/8

1224


20/23

Pearce, R. (1999), Advertising: a critical analysis of images, in Parker, I. (Ed.), CriticalTextwork: An Introduction to Varieties of Discourse and Analysis , Open University Press,

Buckingham, pp. 78-91.

Peattie, S. and Peattie, K. (2003), Ready to fly solo? Reducing social marketings dependence on

commercial marketing theory, Marketing Theory, Vol. 3, I.3, pp. 365-85.

Penna, S. and O Brien, M. (1996), Postmodernism and social policy, Journal of Social Policy,Vol. 25, i.1, pp. 39-61.

Peters, M. (2001), Environmental education, neo-liberalism and globalisation: the New Zealand

experiment, Educational Philosophy and Theory, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 203-16.

Phillips, L. and Jrgensen, M.W. (2002), Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method, Sage, London.

Pollitt, C. (1993), Managerialism and the Public Services, Blackwell, Oxford.

Proctor, S., Proctor, T. and Papasolomou-Doukakis, I. (2002), A post-modern perspective on

advertisements and their analysis, Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 8,pp. 31-44.

Ritson, M. and Elliott, R. (1999), The social uses of advertising: an ethnographic study of

adolescent advertising audiences, The Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 26, pp. 260-77.

Rose, N. (1996), The death of the social? Refiguring the territory of government, Economy and

Society, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 327-56.

Rothchild, M.L. (1999), Carrots, sticks and promises, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 4,

pp. 24-7.

Ryan, N. (2001), Reconstructing citizens as consumers: implications for new modes of

governance, Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 60, i.3, pp. 104-9.

Salmon, C.T. (1989), Campaigns for Social Improvement: An Overview of Values, Rationales and

Impacts, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

Scammell, M. (1995), Designer Politics: How Elections Are Won, St Martins Press, New York, NY.

Scott, L.M. (1994), The bridge from text to mind: adapting reader-response theory to consumerresearch, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21, pp. 461-80.

Smith, G. and Hirst, A. (2001), Strategic political segmentation: a new approach for a new era of

political marketing, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 9-10, pp. 1058-73.

Soar, M. (2000), Encoding advertisements: ideology and meaning in advertising production,

Mass Communication and Society, Vol. 3, i.4, pp. 415-37.

Sparrow, N. and Turner, J. (2001), The permanent campaign: the integration of market research

techniques in developing strategies in a more uncertain political climate, European

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 9, pp. 984-1002.

Stern, B.B. (1996), Textual analysis in advertising research: construction and deconstruction of

meanings, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 25, i.3, pp. 12-36.

Stern, B.B. and Holbrook, M.B. (1994), Gender and genre in the interpretation of advertisingtext, in Costa, J.A. (Ed.), Gender Issues and Consumer Behavior, Sage, Thousand Oaks,CA.

Stern, B.B. and Schroeder, J.E. (1994), Interpretative methodology from art and literary criticism:

a humanistic approach to advertising imagery, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 28Nos 8/9, pp. 114-32.

Taylor, D. (1998), Social identity and social policy: engagements with postmodern theory,

Journal of Social Policy, Vol. 27, i.3, pp. 329-50.


122


21/23

Taylor, S. (2001), Locating and conducting discourse analytic research, in Wetherell, M.,

Taylor, S. and Yates, S.J. (Eds), Discourse as Data: A Guide for Analysis, Sage, London,pp. 5-48.

Van Dijk, T.A. (1995), Discourse semantics and ideology, Discourse and Society, Vol. 6, i.2,

pp. 243-89.

Walker, R.B.J. (2002), After the future: enclosures, connections, politics, in Falk, R., Ruiz, L.E.J.

and Walker, R.B.J. (Eds), Reframing the International: Law, Culture, Politics, Routledge,New York, NY, pp. 218-48.

Wallack, L., Dorfman, L., Jernigan, D. and Themba, M. (1993), Media Advocacy and Public Health,Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

Walsh, K. (1991), Citizens and consumers: marketing and public sector management, PublicMoney and Management, June-August, pp. 9-16.

Walsh, K. (1994), Marketing and public sector management, European Journal of Marketing,Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 63-71.

Webster, F.E. (1975), Social marketing: what makes it different?, Management Decision, Vol. 13

No. 1, pp. 70-7.Wodak, R. and Meyer, M. (Eds.) (2001), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, Sage, London.

Young, S. (2007), The regulation of government advertising in Australia: the politicisation of a

public policy issue, Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 66, i.4, pp. 438-52.

Further reading

Andreasen, A.R. (1993), A social marketing research agenda for consumer behavior

researchers, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 20, Association for ConsumerResearch, Provo, UT, pp. 1-5.

Burchell, G. (1996), Liberal Government and the techniques of the self, in Osbourne, B. and

Rose, N. (Eds), Foucault and Political Reason: Liberalism, Neoliberalism and Rationalities ofGovernment, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 19-35.

Butler, P. and Collins, N. (1995), Marketing public sector services: concepts and characteristics,

Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 11, pp. 83-96.

Du Gay, P. and Salaman, G. (1992), The cult(ure) of the consumer, Journal of ManagementStudies, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 615-33.

Grover, C. and Stewart, J. (1999), Market workfare: social security, social regulation and

competitiveness in the 1990s, Journal of Social Policy, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 73-96.

Jessop, B. (1999), Narrating the future of the national economy and the national state? Remarks

on re-mapping regulation and re-inventing governance, in Steinmetz, G. (Ed.),

State/Culture: State Formation after the Cultural Turn, Cornell University Press, Ithaka,

NY, pp. 378-405.Larner, W. (2000), Neo-liberalism: policy, ideology, governmentality, Studies in Political

Economy, Vol. 63, pp. 5-25.

May, J., Cloke, P. and Johnsen, S. (2005), Re-phasing neoliberalism: New Labour and Britains

crisis of street homelessness, Antipode, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 703-28.

OHalloran, K.L. (ed.) (2004), Multimodal Discourse Analysis, Continuum, London, pp. 163-95.

Walker, R. and Wiseman, M. (2003), Making welfare work: UK activation policies under New

Labour, International Social Security Review, Vol. 56, i.1, pp. 3-29.

EJM44,7/8

1226


22/23

About the authorsEffi Raftopoulou is currently a lecturer in Marketing at Keele University. Her research interestsrelate to two principal subject areas, the field of marketing communications (in particularadvertising) and the field of discourse analysis. In particular she is concerned with the broader

functions and role of marketing communications from an ideological perspective. In addition tothis, she is interested in multi-semiotic analysis within discourse analysis and its potentialcontribution to the study of adverts. One of the areas that she has looked at relates tosocial/government advertising. Effi Raftopoulou is the corresponding author and can becontacted at: [email protected]

Margaret K. Hogg holds the Chair of Consumer Behaviour and Marketing in the Departmentof Marketing at Lancaster University Management School. Before joining LUMS in May 2004,she was Reader in Consumer Behaviour at Manchester School of Management, UMIST. Her mainresearch interests include identity, self and consumption, particularly distastes, negativesymbolic consumption and the undesired self; and evolving notions of the self among women asmothers (e.g. new mothers; empty nesters). Her work has appeared in refereed journals includingConsumption, Markets and Culture, Journal of Marketing Management; European Journal of

Marketing and International Journal of Advertising.


122

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints


23/23

Reproducedwithpermissionof thecopyrightowner. Further reproductionprohibitedwithoutpermission.

The political role of government-sponsored social marketing campaigns.

Documents

Transcript of The political role of government-sponsored social marketing campaigns.