Talk:Social marketing

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 6 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ryankerr918.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

It's totally different, D00D
Important to not confuse commericial marketing with social marketing - the primary aim of social marketing is 'social good' - so the central ethical questions in its use focus on : a) how is the 'social good' defined . b) who is involved in the 'defining'.

How was social marketing first applied in the 1970s? --Mereda 07:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This article should contain some cross-references to marketing in general and to propaganda, with which SM is largely synonymous. Some reference to rhetoric and memetics may also be relevant. ?

Last link
Isn't the last external link (The Turning Point Social Marketing National Excellence Collaborative) pretty much an ad?

Web 2.0 Marketing
I have heard the use of Web 2.0 Applications for the purpose of marketing referred to as Social Marketing. I don't know how commonly used it is, but I think it should be mentioned in it's own section. 69.19.14.43 (talk) 02:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Similar definition
Can we improve the introductory para somewhat ? Please click here for a similar definition

Sanjiv swarup (talk) 06:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the introductory para needs work. I propose that the second para be moved up to first. Then the original para needs rewrite. It has a sentence that comprises half of the entire para, and the fog level is way too high. It takes a PhD with 5 years' experience to decipher. ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanitman (talk • contribs) 02:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I am all for making it clearer and shorter. The only thing I would say is ensure that the very first sentences starts with "Social marketing is...", or something like that. If you have important references please also add those (either by putting them in the lead or by mentioning them in the main text; some people don't put references in the lead, others do. If the lead is a summary of the article then a reference is not strictly necessary although it never hurts to add some). EMsmile (talk) 11:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Minor correction to a reference
Volume number was incorrect for the Kotler/Zaltman article; changed the volume from 36 to 35. ProfMontgomery (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Social marketing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100524003618/http://www.mdx.ac.uk/courses/postgraduate/marketing/health_soc_marketing_ma.aspx to http://www.mdx.ac.uk/courses/postgraduate/marketing/health_soc_marketing_ma.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050725075721/http://www.social-marketing.org/ to http://www.social-marketing.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me why we can't add a link to the non-profit international association that aims to bring together this field?
I tried adding a link to the International Social Marketing Association (iSMA) in the external links section. Why was it removed? It is not a commercial link. This is the main organization representing this entire field, with members all over the world (numerous regional associations fall under it). They even came up with the global consensus definition of "social marketing", which at the very least should be referenced somewhere in this article.

Please explain. Mikekujawski 16:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia isn't a link directory, commercial or non-profit is immaterial to our external linking guidelines. Also, please see WP:COI and do not add links to organizations you are affiliated with in the future, thank you. MrOllie (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, @MrOllie. I am not currently affiliated with iSMA in an official capacity. I sit on the board of SMANA, which is a regional association representing social marketing in North America. I'm assuming you deleted that particular link since I happen to sit on the board (fair enough). I only included it to hopefully entice someone to add the remaining regional associations. Most of the academics and practitioners referenced in this Wikipedia Article are members of either iSMA or one of its regional associations. How would you recommend that we go about at least adding the international association that links us all together (i.e. iSMA)? Do you not agree that it would be relevant to this article? Especially given that a rather random link from the "2005 symposium by the Advertising Educational Foundation" made it in somehow? Please clarify. Your help is much appreciated. Thanks! Mikekujawski (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is a commercial link. So-called "professional" organizations of this sort are trade associations, dedicated to making their trade more profitable, whether by lobbying or making it look more respectable or whatever else pays off. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  02:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, how about linking to the global consensus definition of social marketing? Would you not agree that is relevant? Also the follow-up paper to that, Global Consensus On Social Marketing Principles, Concepts And Techniques Perhaps under "further reading"? Some of the authors are already referenced there. Mikekujawski (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia isn't a link directory, and it is not a place for you to promote an organization. Local plumbers are 'relevant' to the article on plumbing, but we don't link them either. MrOllie (talk) 03:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I hear you on the point of simply linking to an organization. How about editing the actual article in that case and including the consensus definition in there somewhere? I would think the link would give it credibility (at least under the "further reading" section) but if that's not permitted you could simply state all the authors. Thoughts? Mikekujawski (talk) 03:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * This isn't about finding some loophole to get a link or a mention by any means necessary. MrOllie (talk) 03:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not sure you're following me. Forget mentioning anyone or any organization. I'd like to edit the definition of social marketing in this Wikipedia article so that it includes more accurate content based on these papers. I can just go in and change it of course, but it would likely be removed without proper references. I thought it would be better to reference the change suggestions. Does that make sense? Mikekujawski (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * We don't use industry associations as sources, they're not considered to be reliable. - MrOllie (talk) 03:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, now we are going in circles. So instead of the organization, list individuals. This is what this Wikipedia article already does with nearly every footnote. In fact, it points to many of the same people/authors/academics that wrote the papers I'm referring to. I'm not sure how else to explain this to you. You seem to be implying that because you think an industry association is not a reliable source then its members aren't either? If that's the case, you'd have to delete the majority of this Wikipedia article. Can someone else please feed in? Perhaps actual authors of the current article? Mikekujawski (talk) 04:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Take a look at this line from the reliable sources guidelines that you referred to: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". Now have a look at the authors of the "Global Consensus Definition of Social Marketing" and "Global Consensus On Social Marketing Principles, Concepts And Technique" papers I'm referring to and you'll see many of them are published academics that are already referenced in this Wikipedia article. This makes them "reliable" sources. If you agree, let me know how best to proceed. Can I make the edit directly? If you still disagree, please clearly explain your reasoning so that others can see it (for the record). Mikekujawski (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I continue to disagree, industry associations are not reliable sources. Even if we took them as self published (they clearly are not), they would still be poor sources and not worth including, especially since this is an area where higher quality sourcing is available. If you are here to build an encyclopedia and not to manufacture reasons to reference this industry association, I suggest you use papers from peer-reviewed publications. There's no shortage of such papers. - MrOllie (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I have used your suggestion and found the following peer-reviewed journal article from Social Marketing Quarterly: "Social Marketing Comes of Age: A Brief History of the Community of Practice, Profession, and Related Associations, With Recommendations for Future Growth" Here is the abstract: "The emergence of the International Social Marketing Association (iSMA) and its affiliated regional associations is a key indicator that social marketing is maturing, both as a community of practice and as a profession. Through these associations, the international social marketing community has developed a consensus definition of the discipline and a consensus list of basic competencies for social marketing certificate programs. The associations are currently working on certification programs and a code of ethics. Continued movement toward professionalization can help social marketers be recognized and valued more highly for their relevant skills, knowledge, expertise, trustworthiness and altruism. At the same time, the discipline must address a number of key challenges and opportunities, to stay relevant and thrive". I suggest adding the abstract to the Wikipedia article or at least referencing it. Surely that now meets your requirements and adheres to Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines and posting rules? Please confirm.  Mikekujawski (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * No, we are not going to promote this organization. Also, 'Article commentaries' such as that one are not peer reviewed. - MrOllie (talk) MrOllie (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct on that front, the article in question is a commentary. I missed that. However, please take a look at the footnotes to the 3rd and 4th sentences in the Social Marketing Wikipedia Article that we are discussing. Can you please explain how references to "Eweek.com" and then to a broken link from "BusinessDictionary.com" are acceptable and a reference to an academic journal article that is dedicated to this topic is not? It seems like we got ourselves a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard#:~:text=A%20double%20standard%20is%20the,%2C%20in%20principle%2C%20the%20same.&text=A%20double%20standard%20arises%20when,be%20treated%20the%20same%20way. double standard] being applied here, would you not agree to that at least? Hopefully, others will eventually see this exchange and chime in with their thoughts. I'm simply trying to improve this article, which has broken links, various commercial pages as sources, and outdated content. Mikekujawski (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * No need for someone else to chime in here. MrOllie is a well respected and trusted contributor. Your definition of improving this article has so far expressed itself in attempting to promote your own organization. Very unlikely that you will find anyone agreeing with you on that approach. About the other two links you mentioned: not double standard, but just a volunteer project where not all edits can or will be scrutinized the same way. As already mentioned you didn't provide a relevant academic journal article – didn't you notice it's (co-) written by members of your organization (Lefebvre, Morgan)? That's as if we quote your website which somewhere boasts about their incredibleness as well for sure.
 * If you really are here to improve this article, then you should immediately stop your attempts at promoting your own organization. – NJD-DE (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am a PhD student at a university and my dissertation is throught the social marketing framework. Having read at least 100 articles on social marketing in the past 4 months, I see this page  needs updating. A good start would be the universally agreed upon definition of social marketing. I have at least three peer reviewed artilces that can do that. I am also very confused about Mr Ollie. Indeed this person may be a trusted contributor to wikipedia,yet the power he yields on this page is quite scary. Is this person a social marketer? Has this person published in a peer reviewed journal, or even worse, is this person pushing an agenda? Why does this person feel they are the gatekeeper to a discipline? The fact that the definition of social marketing, agreed upon globally, is somethng consciously excluded from this page as are many other elements of the social marketing framework concerns me greatly. Peer reviewed articles have already been vetted, we don't need another vetting process that stops the conscious effort to keep this page relevant. Amakris (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Removing spam links once in a while hardly makes me 'the gatekeeper to a discipline', but I would accept the position if it is being offered. MrOllie (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this disconnect is coming from but you keep repeating a falsehood in that I am trying to promote a specific organization. I'm not. I just thought ISMA (and later SMQ) would be relevant and reputable sources to cite in an effort to improve some of the content/wording surrounding the definition of social marketing on this Wikipedia page. I would still be content if you at least added in the content without listing a source, although that goes against publishing guidelines does it not? ISMA's members happen to include many of the top academics in the field of social marketing, which is why many of them are already well cited on this Wikipedia page and why they happen to be referenced in the Social Marketing Quarterly (SMQ) Journal article I referred to above. Not because I am trying to promote anyone. I am of the opinion that including a reference would strengthen the integrity of the Wikipedia page rather than instill doubt as to the reliability of the source. I am sorry to hear that you seem to disagree but am glad that our discussion is on the record at least. I'm sure you deal with quite a bit of folks that are making edits with self serving intentions but I assure you that is not the case here. I wish I could somehow prove that to you so that we can find a way to constructively work together to make this page better and at least fix the content that cites broken and or outdated commercial links. Can we start there? Mikekujawski (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: COML 509: Social Media Engagement and Analysis
— Assignment last updated by Annie.shepherd (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)