Can an Index Approach Improve Social Marketing Competitor Analysis?

Abstract

Background:

Competitive forces influence social marketing efforts. Indeed, social marketers often find themselves “shadow boxing” various forms of competition throughout their interventions. Despite the seminal role of competition as a threat to social marketing intervention efficacy, few empirical studies have undertaken competitive analysis or compared the usefulness of competitive typologies. Thus, this paper proposes an index approach to categorize competitive typologies relevant to a specific social marketing intervention in terms of their ease of use, intuitiveness and generalisability to the broader social cause domain. The proposed index approach is illustrated with empirical data, undertaking a competitive analysis of forces obstructing efforts to address educational inequality in Australia, then comparing the ease of use, intuitiveness and generalisability of 15 competitive typologies noted in the social marketing literature to produce a competitor analysis index.

Research Question:

Which competitive typologies most effectively frame forces that inhibit educational equality social marketing efforts in Australia?

Methods:

Via interviews and focus groups, qualitative data were collected from 46 students from low socioeconomic status (LSES) backgrounds at six universities and sought to understand the influence of their home residence’s geographical remoteness on their university participation. The analysis revealed eight participant-identified differential competitors experienced by students from regional, rural and remote settings (LSES-R, n = 25, 54.4%) that were not experienced by those from metropolitan areas (LSES-M, n = 21, 45.6%). Fifteen competitive typologies were identified in the social marketing literature, and their capacity to frame these eight differential forces in terms of their ease of use, intuitiveness and generalisability was critiqued.

Findings:

Unlike their metropolitan counterparts, LSES-R participants experienced situational (n = 3), dispositional (n = 3) and goal pursuit (n = 2) competitive forces. The most effective competition typologies comprised two classification options that were distinctly different and could classify both the unfriendly and friendly competition that exists in social marketing. Five competitor typologies were identified as easy to use, intuitive and generalizable to the broader educational inequality domain. Together, these five competitor typologies form a competitor analysis index for educational inequality researchers and practitioners to enhance their intervention efficacy.

Recommendations:

Despite widespread agreement as to the importance of competitor analysis in social marketing, the efficacy of various typologies has received little attention. Social marketers are encouraged to critique competitor typologies before selecting those which enable effective decision-making. Furthermore, it is recommended that social marketers use a competitor analysis index comprised of multiple typologies to better capture the nebulous nature of the many different types of competitors that exist in a specific social marketing context.

Limitations:

The educational inequalities cause and qualitative method may constrain generalisability, but they exemplify the importance of competition typology choice and model how competitor analysis indexes can be developed.