Is it social marketing? The benchmarks meet the social marketing indicator

Purpose– This paper aims to describe the comparison of two tools in assessing social marketing campaigns.Design/methodology/approach– Using data collected from the campaign planners of 31 alcohol misuse prevention campaigns, two tools were compared; the Social Marketing Indicator (SMI) and Andreasen’s Benchmark Criteria.Findings– In the case of the benchmarks, 26 per cent of the campaigns fulfilled four or more criteria and no criterion was fulfilled by more than 70 per cent. The main differences between current practices and social marketing are the often-missing segmentation and an explicit exchange. The SMI found a lower degree of resemblance between current practices and social marketing. In this case, the major differences lie in the use of behavioral theory and the absence of an exchange.Research limitations/implications– The SMI allows a more precise description of an intervention. This represents an advantage, as a campaign’s resemblance to social marketing can be reported by directly pointing out the process steps that make the difference. This is important for understanding the research evidence base in social marketing.Practical implications– Although the benchmark criteria are based on a conceptual approach, the SMI is built around a core procedure. The SMI can thus help program planners from the onset of a project to make sure they do social marketing as it is defined.Originality/value– This is the first empirical test comparing a new tool against the well-established, frequently critiqued, Benchmark Criteria, in gauging “social marketing” practice in health campaigns.