Abstract
Background
The social marketing mix is an accepted tool for effective interventions. Definition and utilisation of place, the third P from the social marketing mix, have long challenged social marketers. Multi-disciplinary and systems thinking may help to strengthen the social marketing offering.
Focus of the Article
We introduce a sociospatial, systems-oriented framework for Place in social marketing—the PNST model (Place–Network–Scale–Territory), centred on the Place of behaviour as the core analytic lens.
Importance to the Social Marketing Field
In adapting sociospatial theory for social marketing, the framework clarifies what Place is, how it operates, and how it can be intentionally designed. It advances field-level theory and strengthens formative research. The importance of different Places alongside use of policy, rules and regulations, and micro-level tactics with meso-, exo- and macro-level system determinants relevant to behaviour change are highlighted.
Methods
A narrative scoping literature review was conducted across social marketing and sociospatial scholarship. Using theory synthesis and model adaptation, the TPSN/PTSN tradition was reframed for social marketing to propose PNST. The synthesis maps implications for formative research and strategy design.
Results
PNST specifies four interrelated dimensions: Place of the focal behaviour (location, setting and meaning), Network (behaviour-relevant linkages across Places), Scale (micro–meso–exo-macro levels), and Territory (policy, rules and regulations). Centring on the Place of behaviour, PNST distinguishes Place from promotion/distribution, structures formative diagnostics, aligns strategies with system levers, and yields testable propositions—including those for digital/virtual spaces, placelessness and non-place.
Recommendations for Research or Practice
Operationalise PNST with indicators and test propositions across behaviours and contexts; use place audits, network mapping, scalograms, and territorial scans to prioritise strategies.
Introduction
The social marketing mix is borrowed from the traditional marketing mix (i.e., the 4P’s of product, price, place, and promotion) (Dietrich et al., 2022). It is an essential set of tools for planning and executing social marketing strategies (French & Gordon, 2019; International Social Marketing Association, 2017; Lee & Kotler, 2019). Place, the third P, is defined as “where and when the priority audience will perform the desired behaviour, acquire any related goods, and receive any associated services” (Lee & Kotler, 2019, p. 299). This seemingly straightforward definition is gainsaid by its history of challenging social marketers. Place was declared “the most overlooked and misunderstood P in social marketing” (Lotenberg, 2010, p. 130); possibly due to challenges and costs to modify Place in interventions. For example, Cardiff-based “The Shoreline Project” provided purposely designed accommodation for homeless street drinkers (Nguyen & Tuguinay, 2023), which required significant resources (i.e., to design, build/modify, purchase/rent). The lack of understanding of Place is demonstrated in the inconsistent practical application of Place, and frequent overlaps with promotion, the fourth P (Edgar et al., 2015). Wood (2019) flags that the complexity of behaviour change requires thinking of Place beyond merely where an intervention occurs. This echoes the metaphoric categorisation of a multi-faceted view of Place in Tapp and Spotswood (2013)’s proposed COM-SM model.
Place features across multiple disciplines, including human geography, architecture, and sociology. It is a concept that is considered integral to our everyday lives, living and human experience (Gieryn, 2000; Trigg, 2017). Place is a dynamic process (Canter, 2023; Pred, 1984), understood through its relations with other concepts (Canter, 2023; Massey, 1999). Place is used as the central unit of analysis in the Place-Territory-Scale-Network (PTSN) framework (Castilhos et al., 2017). The PTSN framework was adapted from work by sociospatial theorists, Jessop et al. (2008), for application in consumer culture theory. Drawing on the PTSN framework and integrating social marketing principles, this work proposes a conceptual framework for Place in social marketing to address the following important research question: What are the Dimensions of Place for Social Marketing?
Based on the requirements of this question, this conceptual work contributes to research in the following ways. Firstly, multi-disciplinary perspectives on Place are integrated to provide a new lens on Place for social marketing. These more expansive views of Place may bolster social marketing efforts to address complex social problems (French & Gordon, 2019; French & Russell-Bennett, 2015) and aid in the development of innovative theories that represent social marketing’s inter- and multi-disciplinary evolution (Akbar et al., 2021; Rundle-Thiele et al., 2019).
Secondly, we extend the current thinking of Place to introduce systems-thinking to the third P. In social marketing, systems thinking recognises that behaviour change is not singular; it is not an event or transaction confined to a single intervention at one level (Domegan, 2021; Domegan et al., 2016). It acknowledges that between different levels, with the higher levels seen as more complex relative to the lower, there is a flow of information and communication that influences behaviours, relationships and processes (Kennedy, 2017). By working across interacting levels of the system, a more favourable environment is created for behaviour change (Duffy et al., 2017; Gordon, 2012, 2013; Wood, 2016). This contribution elaborates on multi-dimensional ways, including socio-ecological thinking (Wood, 2019), for social marketers to deepen their conceptualisation of Place across the system. In doing so, it integrates previously unconnected social marketing concepts. Our proposed conceptual framework represents Place in a systems approach so that context and environment can be better explored, and the hitherto untapped potential of Place can be realised to influence and sustain behaviour change (Edgar et al., 2015; Lotenberg, 2010; Truong & Dang, 2017).
Thirdly, the conceptual framework has theoretical and managerial implications in recognition of social marketing as both a theoretical and practical field (Deshpande, 2019). Theoretically, the framework provides a pathway towards greater precision and accuracy when communicating about Place (Edgar et al., 2015). Practically, the framework can guide social marketers in formative research and the development of systems-thinking, place-based interventions. With clarity and tools on Place, the discipline can retain use of the 4P’s (Lahtinen et al., 2020), promote its attentiveness to the social issues of today (Akbar et al., 2021), and deliver social change (French, 2011).
Theoretical Background
The Social Marketing Mix’s Third P: Place
This paper focuses on ‘Place’, the third mnemonic of the famed 4P’s, that has long been seen as both confusing and underused in social marketing (Daniel et al., 2009; Edgar et al., 2015; Lotenberg, 2010); not doing justice to its potential in social marketing (Carvalho & Mazzon, 2015).
Conceptual interpretations of Place vary (Lahtinen et al., 2020). Edgar et al. (2015)’s systematic literature review on Place in social marketing found that Place and communication channels overlapped in 46% of publications. The authors questioned whether the similarity of ‘distribution channel’ and ‘communication channel’ bred conceptual confusion. This is notwithstanding the explicit emphasis from Lee and Kotler (2019) that Place and communication are distinct. Kwitonda (2020) defends a Place/promotion overlap, given messaging in the right Place prompts point-of-decision. Being at the Place where the decision is made is considered a Place strategy (Lee & Kotler, 2019). Place is commonly viewed as being where the target audience accesses information, rather than where the target audience performs the desired behaviour (Truong & Dang, 2017). This focus restricts social marketers from considering Place from an environmental and infrastructural perspective (Edgar et al., 2015). Further clouding conceptual clarity, is that determination of Place is also dependent on whether behaviour is seen as product/service (Lee & Kotler, 2019) or outcome (Lahtinen et al., 2020).
Literature Review
A scoping literature review was conducted using sourced peer-reviewed articles, case studies, encyclopaedia entries and social marketing textbooks. The review sought to evaluate progress in the definition and/or application of Place since Edgar et al. (2015)’s review.
Definition of Place in Social Marketing
Following review of Place definitions, place-defining elements were thematically clustered in relation to firstly, behaviour; secondly, products and services; thirdly, varying elements, e.g., distribution channels, information, and others. These themes were found as standalone definitions of Place and in varying combinations.
The first thematic cluster is favoured by Sârghie (2021, p. 6) who defines Place as “where the behaviour is available to the target audience”. Chukwuocha et al. (2024, p. 146) echoes this with Place as “the environment in which the customer engages in or considers the promoted action.” A derivation of this theme includes a reference to time with Schmidtke et al. (2021, p. 243)’s definition stating Place “relates to the location and time the target audiences changes their behaviour”.
The second theme, products and services, is dominant and often found alongside other themes. For example, “where and when the priority audience will perform the desired behaviour, acquire any related goods, and receive any associated services” (Chia et al., 2022, p. 56; Lee & Kotler, 2019, p. 299; Lee & Palmedo, 2022, p. 2) brings the first theme of behaviour and the second of products and services together to define Place. A further combination of the second theme alongside other elements is found in Molenaar et al. (2021, p. 12)’s definition of Place being “where individuals take up or access the product as well as how they will be reached or engaged. This definition goes beyond geographic location and logistics and includes the types of social media and traditional media mentioned by participants.” This definition introduces media channels into Place.
The third theme, use of various other elements, is exemplified by “making the exchange convenient and easy” (Wettstein & Suggs, 2016, p. 3). The inclusion of distribution channels also appears: “place utility enhancement (channels of distribution)” (Dietrich et al., 2016, p. 52). French and Gordon (2019) combine distribution channels with the first theme of behaviour and list specific Places in their definition “the distribution channels (physical, virtual, interpersonal, social, cultural) by which behaviour change is promoted and the places in which change is encouraged and supported (e.g., workplaces, schools, homes, communities, health centres)” (p. 499). Riddell et al. (2022) adopts a similar approach by combining distribution channels with behaviour but includes the acquisition of information:
“captures distribution channels where viewers acquire information related to performance of the behaviour, including networks and physical spaces” (p. 342). This approach is echoed by Krimsky et al. (2024) who define Place as “the locations where the target audience will engage in the behaviour, as well as the informational channels, service providers and messengers who will convey information and support the change” (p. 113).
A unique definition of Place as applied to the sharing economy is proffered by Singh (2022) who combines the first two themes alongside Place being a point of interaction and connection for the target audience: “Social place…provide a behavioural influencing place for the target consumer group…the online technological platform not only provides a place for the exchange of products and services, but community space too, where users can interact with one another to share their experiences…fosters(s) social bonding and trust” (p. 260).
Information and information channels, concepts traditionally considered in the domain of promotion, the fourth P, are also used to define Place (Krimsky et al., 2024; Molenaar et al., 2021; Riddell et al., 2022). Similarly, while it is unclear what are the specifics that underlie French and Gordon (2019)’s use of promotion in “the distribution channels (physical, virtual, interpersonal, social, cultural) by which behaviour change is promoted” (p. 499), the use of the word ‘promotion’ does lean towards a connection with the fourth P.
In summary, this review found inconsistent definitions of Place. The varying use of themes of Place in relation to behaviour, to products and services, and to other elements is significant enough to result in a lack of precision and clarity. The direct and nuanced use of ‘promotion’ in defining Place clouds understanding of Place and blurs boundaries between the P’s. It is perhaps of little surprise that “place often is the most difficult social marketing principles for students to grasp and to apply consistently and accurately” (Edgar et al., 2015, pp. 11–12).
This review leads to the following propositions: Proposition 1a: Place can be understood in relation to the location and time of the focal behaviour. Proposition 1b: Place can be understood in relation to factors e.g., products, services and other, that enable the desired behaviour. Proposition 1c: Place can be understood in relation to other elements from the social marketing mix.
Utilisation of Place in Social Marketing Interventions
The second focal area for the literature review was determining how Place has been conceptualised or practically applied. Relevant case studies from the Palgrave Encyclopaedia of Social Marketing were included in this review, given their recency and their use of Place in social marketing interventions. These case studies are, however, not peer reviewed.
Much of the literature aligns with Lee and Kotler (2019)’s Place strategies as demonstrated in the following discussion. The Place strategy of being present when the behavioural decision is being made is evidenced in Carrigan et al. (2024)’s intervention in Scotland which promoted reusable coffee cups. Place was where reusable coffee cups (products) were made available and used, e.g., coffee shops. Being where consumers decide on what type of milk will be consumed at home, e.g., the supermarket, was the Place strategy to promote consumption of 1% low fat milk in the United States nutrition campaign “1% Low-Fat Milk has Perks!” (John et al., 2019).
The Place strategy of being where the priority population congregates, was demonstrated in the Nepalese intervention to promote maternal and child health. Winning songs (product) were performed in different locations to maximise convenient access and participation by the target audience (Shaikh-Kamal & Akbar, 2022). Similarly, hygiene and safety were promoted through barber shops in Rwanda (Kwitonda, 2020).
Being where the priority population shops was the Place strategy to prevent and control iron deficiency in China. Fortified soya sauce (product) was made available in prominent locations in retail and community outlets to enable convenient access (Zhang, 2023). Similarly, Nguyen and Nguyen (2023) sought to prevent malaria by distributing insecticide-treated nets through various types of retail outlets, offering customers easy and widespread access.
Some interventions aim to make the location more appealing. For example Mostafavi et al. (2021) aimed for a pleasant physical and social environment (Place) to encourage healthy food consumption; while purposely designed buildings sought to counter homelessness concerns (Nguyen & Tuguinay, 2023).
Interventions applied other Place strategies (Lee & Kotler, 2019) such as using Place to overcome psychological barriers associated with Place (Hurley & Xi, 2023; Lee et al., 2024; Shiri & Nguyen, 2023); working with existing distribution channels (Chen et al., 2024; Chukwuocha et al., 2024); and making access to the competition more difficult or unpleasant (Lin et al., 2020; Narangoda et al., 2023).
Further analysis identified Place to influence behaviour change through systemic influence, facilitating interactions and working with messengers and service providers. Place-based research was also mentioned (Dennings & Tabanico, 2017). Oftentimes, Place overlapped traditional/proposed P’s (e.g., partners, policies). Place seemingly acted as a ‘placeholder’ for various elements that may influence behaviour. For example, Place/promotion in “Celebrate Your Plate” is the placement and promotion of messages e.g., cash jackets, posters and tents (Hofer et al., 2021). Place/price overlapped in Chukwuocha et al. (2024)’s malaria prevention intervention with Place offering “efficient location methods which also remove obstacles and cut expenses” (p. 146). Policies being set is included in how Place in “HarassMap” is conceptualised (Shawky & Nguyen, 2022), while partners (NGOs, schools, orphanages) feature alongside distribution networks in a multi-country intervention to boost feminine hygiene solutions and education (Kaur, 2023). Such repeated conflation across mix elements demonstrates the multi-faceted way in which Place has been conceptualised and utilised, and how the ‘mix’ is understood: no element truly stands discrete and distinct. After all, it is impossible to pull out a single ingredient from a baked cake!
Different Place types were analysed to bring to life the ‘where’ of Places across different interventions, such as physical locations e.g., “schools, refugee camps, and government entities” (Chen et al., 2024, p. 5); and virtual locations e.g., an app for food waste reduction (Ho & Nguyen, 2024). Other Place types again highlight interrelationships between the different P’s, i.e., promotional items, e.g., airport signage, flash cards, disposal ‘amnesty’ bins (Sherring, 2020); partners e.g., local NGOs (Lewis et al., 2015).
Seeing Place as any number of locations suggests an intuitive understanding of a multi-place approach or an ecosystem of Places that influence behaviour.
The review of Place utilisation suggests a lack of evolution towards a common and clear understanding of Place since Edgar et al. (2015)’s review. This is concerning given the stated importance of Place, and for the field to be adept and responsive to adequately address complex and growing social issues (Dietrich et al., 2022).
Moreover, current understanding and utilisation of Place is limited, selling the potential fullness of Place short. Returning to Carrigan et al. (2024)’s intervention to promote reusable cups where Place was applied as “where products (reusable discounted for sale cups) are made available and used” (Carrigan et al., 2024, p. 25), it can be seen that the Place strategy fails to account for the nature of ‘this place’. The case study describes features of Buteville, a touristy and rural Scottish seaside town. Appreciating the nature of ‘this place’ may have led to site-specific interventions and/or other interventions, such as deposit schemes, discounts, taxes. Similarly, the richness of urban and rural communities in sub-Saharan African barber shops is hinted at in Kwitonda (2020)’s hygiene intervention but the application of Place seems dry when reduced to mere (and expected) delivery at the barber shop.
This review of the literature leads to the following research propositions: Proposition 2a: Place can be conceptualised in relation to multiple approaches and strategies to influence behaviour. Proposition 2b: Place can be conceptualised in relation to other elements from the social marketing mix. Proposition 2c: Place can be conceptualised in relation to systemic influences.
The PTSN Model: A Sociospatial Framework for Use in Consumer Culture Theory
The discussion above outlines how Place has been inconsistently defined and conceptualised for social marketing interventions. Place in the social marketing mix has been tactically conceptualised and operationalised, such as to increase accessibility and/or convenience (Lee & Kotler, 2019). Place frequently overlaps with promotion. For example, in Krimsky et al. (2024)’s septic to sever conversion intervention, the Place strategy to “carefully integrate appropriate informational channels” (Krimsky et al., 2024, p. 123) was applied at several intervention points. It is clear there is an ongoing lack of understanding of Place in social marketing (Lahtinen et al., 2020). In an attempt to address these matters, this paper draws on the Place, Territory, Scale, Network (PTSN) model (Castilhos et al., 2017), to frame the exploration and use of Place in social marketing.
In the PTSN model, Castilhos et al. (2017) extend and adapt Jessop et al. (2008)’s Territory, Place, Scale, Network (TPSN) model for use in consumer culture. The TPSN model explores four fundamental, interrelated and interdependent sociospatial dimensions, namely Territory, Place, Scale, and Network (Jessop et al., 2008). Its contribution lies in investigating the social world from a combination of at least two or more of these different, yet related spatial entry points i.e., Territory, Place, Scale, and Network (Jessop et al., 2008).
From this seminal TPSN model (Casey, 2008; Knoblauch & Löw, 2020; Malpas, 2012; Paasi, 2008), Castilhos et al. (2017) reorder the four sociospatial dimensions into Place, Territory, Scale and Network (PTSN), and critically, use Place as the central unit of analysis (see Figure 1). In this arrangement, the spatial dimensions are investigated relative to Place to study phenomena within market systems (Castilhos et al., 2017). The place-territory-scale-network (PTSN) model
The discussion below introduces the sociospatial dimensions and commences with a brief overview of space. Space is not explicitly noted in the TPSN framework (nor the PTSN) however, its originary nature means its profundity must be acknowledged prior to discussing other sociospatial dimensions.
Space and Spatial Concepts from the PTSN
Space
Space is a basic part of life that is simply ‘there’ with a ‘taken for granted existence’ (Tuan, 1979). It carries a quiet complexity (Agnew, 2011) given “space is the medium in which the transformation of any society or social change takes place” (Löw & Knoblauch, 2020, p. 17). The researchers then make the corollary argument that social changes are also spatial changes.
In 1687, Newton set out definitions of time, space, place and motion in what has become known as Newton’s Principia. Newton saw absolute space as a container (Knoblauch & Löw, 2017), and asserted that time and space were not tangible yet existed by virtue of God’s existence (Rynasiewicz, 2018). Briefly, Newton stated that absolute, true and mathematical space exists without anything external. It simply is. It remains always the same, related to nothing and is immovable. Absolute time is similar, with its own nature and passing without reference to anything else. It is through relative space and time that we measure space and time, in relation to other. This means that absolute space is geometrically indexed and has a fixed location whereas relative space is determined in relation to an object (Massey, 1999). These theories have been contested and refined over the centuries by other great thinkers such as Leibniz, Descartes and Kant.
Place
Place emerges through human experience from the scientific notion of space (Cresswell, 2009). In other words, “space is transformed into place as it acquires definition and meaning” (Tuan, 1979, p. 136), although space doesn’t specifically mark any particular place (Tuan, 1979). The close relationship between space and place has complicated understanding the distinction between the concepts (Malpas, 2017). Place is generally seen to have three necessary and interdependent features, namely: geographic location, material form or locale, including infrastructure, and invested with meaning, value - or a sense of Place (Agnew, 2011; Cresswell, 2009; Gieryn, 2000).
At its simplest, Place is firstly a location and secondly, about what happens at that location (Agnew, 2011). It is through making Place in a specific location that meaning takes shape, just as meaning may be the catalyst for things to happen (Cresswell, 2009). Consider for example, how from taking a child daily to preschool, this physical spot becomes layered with meaning and memory, where ‘the child learned to read and write’ and where the identity of the child is partially forged. It is action over time that made ‘the place’ (Tuan, 1979). Or similarly, a parent may say ‘because it is important to offer my child the best start in life, I take my child daily to a location of learning and growth’, and so, this action site becomes known as the preschool.
Recognising that Place is part of a rich and evolving human experience (Trigg, 2017) moves Place beyond mere utility or context for human behaviour (Gieryn, 2000). Place is an expression of our existential understanding as human beings (Malpas, 2017) and is used to explore “the ways in which our ways of being in the world are related to our place(s) in the world” (Janz, 2017, p. 2).
Place is also notoriously relational (Massey, 1999), such as through changeable limits (Malpas, 2017), varying Scales (Cresswell, 2009) and interconnection with other Places (Malpas, 2012).
Territory
Territory is associated with power and boundaries, whereby a space is enclosed or demarcated (Jessop et al., 2008), and categorised (Elden, 2010). Despite it being seen as a relatively new concept linked to law, politics, economics, and history (Elden, 2020), as well as colonialism (Halvorsen, 2019); Territory is considered one of the four distinct and key spatial concepts or dimensions (Jessop et al., 2008). Assumed to be self-evident in meaning, the concept of Territory has been under-examined (Elden, 2010) despite its everyday relevance (Painter, 2010).
Consider how Territory was applied during the COVID-19 pandemic. Overnight, populations were locked down within borders of varying Scale (Paasi, 2022) and jurisdiction (Espejo, 2020): the state governed all aspects of life and movement, enforcing Territory internationally through to in-house (Iveson & Sisson, 2023). Such everyday use of Territory demonstrates power over space through man-made barriers that serve (or indeed, dis-serve) “to organise, govern, regulate and plan social spaces and social life, and to manage welfare, identities, and meanings at and across various Scales” (Paasi, 2022, p. 10). Typically, Territory is conceived through an institutional lens, however, individuals can also determine and enforce boundaries and borders. Consider, for example, the moody teenager enforcing their bedroom Territory, or a neighbour checking the movement of fellow citizens during the pandemic lockdown. Territory and the associated borders are a product of our own making (Paasi et al., 2022) and power over space is enacted “in multiple ways, at multiple Scales and for various purposes” (Iveson & Sisson, 2023, p. 3).
Scale
Scale is a foundational geographic concept (Howitt, 2005) that is socially constructed (Blakey, 2020; Marston, 2000; Moore, 2008; Sheppard, 2002). It is typically an abstracted theorisation around vertical or horizontal differentiation (Castilhos et al., 2017; Jessop et al., 2008). For example certain activities are related with different Scales e.g., family care, sectoral service delivery, global trade and politics (Sheppard, 2002). Scale is discussed as size, level and relation (Howitt, 2005) and aids understanding of deeply interrelated foundational concepts (Howitt, 2005). As proved by movement restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic, Scale can be individually conceived and altered such as when almost overnight ‘the world’ become ‘our home’ (Linder, 2021).
Network
A network joins nodes or points in geographic space (Gastner & Newman, 2006) and can organise complex systems (Expert et al., 2011). Different kinds of networks exist, based on the area of interest. Common associations include transport systems, technology, business and social systems. The sociospatial principles underpinning this concept include interconnectivity, interdependence, transversal or ‘rhizomatic’ differentiation (Jessop et al., 2008). This means different Places can be organised for meaning and with meaning.
The above introduction suggests that adopting a relational lens on Place, using sociospatial dimensions can broaden and deepen Place in social marketing in four novel ways. Firstly, Place has the potential to function in both formative research and tactical application. Secondly, Place can offer greater insights during research and open entry points for tactical application. Thirdly, systems thinking is embedded into Place. Using a relational lens, Place routinely, and concurrently, considers the macro (sociocultural, economic), meso (organisational/community), exo (indirect influences, including technology) and micro levels (immediate setting). 1 Fourthly, there is recognition that the focal behaviour often occurs in different Places (even by the same target audience). Social marketing should strengthen its efforts by investigating, and applying tactics, to influence behaviour at different, relevant Places (i.e., across the behavioural Network).
This perspective proposes the following research propositions: Proposition 3a: Formative research for a social marketing intervention can be guided by Place, viewed in relation to sociospatial dimensions. Proposition 3b: The effectiveness of social marketing interventions increases when Place strategies integrate sociospatial dimensions. Proposition 3c: The Scale and Territory of Place, viewed in relation to sociospatial dimensions, reflects systems thinking for social marketing. Proposition 3d: The focal behaviour should be addressed through an ecosystem or Network approach to Place, viewed in relation to sociospatial dimensions.
The proposed spatial framework for Place in social marketing is presented next.
Proposed Spatial Framework Centred on Place of Behaviour: The PNST Model
Drawing on the PTSN model with Place as the central unit of analysis, a sociospatial model of Place, Network, Scale, Territory is proposed to better understand and apply Place in social marketing. In the PNST model, the primacy of Place in spatiality is recognised (Castilhos et al., 2017), which is compatible with the current position of Place in the social marketing mix. Place of (focal) behaviour is the relational lens through which all other spatial dimensions of behaviour are investigated. It is this interdependency that is at the core of understanding the Place of behaviour.
At each of these Places, the other dimensions would apply i.e., Scale and Territory. To foreground the role of Network in social marketing, the authors propose the network dimension should immediately follow Place in the model (i.e., PNST). Such primacy within the model also further embeds system thinking within the model.
The perspective of each sociospatial dimension for the proposed PNST model is presented below (Figure 2): • Place is location, locale and the meaning of where (Agnew, 2011; Cresswell, 2009; Gieryn, 2000) the focal behaviour is demonstrated e.g., does the target audience recycle at school, at home, in a public setting. Place is relational (Malpas, 2012, 2017; Massey, 1999) or determined in relation to the social marketing issue e.g., behaviour in one Place versus another Place; where ‘is’ this Place; why a Place has meaning for an individual’s behaviour, amongst other. Places are because of the existence of people and, people exist in relation to the space and Places that surround them (Malpas, 2017) so social marketers can reflect on how this construction influences behaviour in Place. • Network represents an organisation of Places where the focal behaviour occurs to offer meaning and understanding (Expert et al., 2011; Gastner & Newman, 2006). Understanding where behaviour is consistent or differs can provide insights and lead to further investigation. For example, mapping the different Places where individuals recycle or not, can guide the development of appropriate and relevant interventions. • Scale investigates the Place of behaviour from a multi-level or social-ecological perspective, foregrounding how micro, meso, exo and macro forces can have an influence on the individual’s behaviour (Wood, 2019); and may change in different Places. Staying with the example of recycling, one can see how a family may choose to recycle at home (micro), whereas friends may discourage recycling at school (meso), and social norms may result in irregular recycling at a park (macro). • Territory encompasses man-made boundaries demonstrating power and control (Elden, 2013). Social marketers can explore the influence of Territory, such as policies, rules and regulations, on a Place of behaviour. For instance, recycling may be enforced in residential areas whereby national policy demands that municipal services regulate the collection of waste and recycling materials. Proposed sociospatial framework for place of behaviour in social marketing
Theoretical and Practical Implications
This section provides theoretical and practical insights on the use of the framework for social marketing.
Theoretical Implications
The articulation of Place through these dimensions is a notable advancement in understanding Place for social marketing and to help overcome conceptual confusion. The proposed PTSN model provides a theoretically driven framework for understanding Place, serving to spark discussion and debate on the topic. The proposed framework opens up Place beyond mere tactical considerations to deepen understanding of how the target audience experiences the Place where the focal behaviour occurs. This novel understanding of Place renders the current definition of Place in the social marketing mix insufficient. The perspective of Place must broaden to encompass the fullness of its offering in relation to behaviour. It resonates with the ongoing call for learnings from other disciplines to be integrated into social marketing (Deshpande, 2019; Tapp & Rundle-Thiele, 2016), for social marketing to step beyond utilising only commercial marketing (Dietrich et al., 2022), and for social marketing to develop unique theories (Rundle-Thiele et al., 2019).
Explicit use of the PNST framework can sharpen the focus and reporting on research and interventions relating to Place. Over time, and across studies, this can contribute to meta-analyses which can, in turn, strengthen the framework and use of Place in social marketing. Other dimensions may also be identified as (more) relevant to influencing behaviour change, further advancing theoretical application.
Importantly, our study argues that Place can no longer be confined to being a mere tactic of the mix. Place now steps into an incisive role that both sharpens and intensifies understanding and application of several core social marketing concepts e.g. citizen orientation and focus, value proposition delivery, evidence-informed audience segmentation (International Social Marketing Association, 2017). Using the Place framework places the focal person firmly at the centre while adopting a systems approach (Kennedy, 2016). Further, Place is recognised as being an ecosystem or network of different Places, each worthy of investigation for interventions. Territory in the framework encapsulates policy, rules and regulations. Such notions have long been discussed being added as a fifth P under ‘policy’ in the social marketing mix (Andreasen, 2002; Stead et al., 2007). The proposed framework implicitly recognises and integrates such considerations in relation to influencing behaviour change.
Finally, as the potential for Place is realised, the door is opened for the remaining P’s to similarly be re-looked.
Practical Implications
Social marketers can apply the proposed framework to methodically inform utilisation of Place to support behaviour change. During formative research, social marketers can be systematically guided to use systems thinking to explore different dimensions in relation to the Place of the focal behaviour. Social marketers are prompted to utilise one or various entry points to leverage Place(s) for interventions.
Possible usage of each sociospatial dimension in formative research and for strategy development alongside suggested data sources is presented here.
PNST Operational Guide
Source: Authors’ own work
Directions for Future Studies
We translate core spatial ideas into testable PNST propositions, indicators, and methods. Use of the model should explore the validity and relevance of the proposed dimensions of Place, namely Network, Scale and Territory, in social marketing and consider the use (or exchange) of other dimensions.
Further, a deeper inquiry into two sociospatial concepts for social marketing is suggested. Placelessness refers to spaces that erode experience and identity (Relph, 1973), while nonplace denotes standardised, affect-neutral environments (e.g., airports, supermarkets); often products of supermodernity (Auge, 1996). Their proliferation, driven by globalisation, technology, and ease of mobility (Graus, 2017), creates settings in which behavioural cues are weak, meanings are thin, and social norms are diffuse. PNST clarifies how these conditions operate: Place foregrounds diminished meaning and limited affordances; Network captures behavioural insights across different Places; Scale links multi-level influences and interactions with and between each Place; Territory highlights control, rules, and regulations. Future studies should test whether Place-making interventions (local symbols, language, comfort/safety cues, community presence) improve behaviour adoption and maintenance in nonplaces, using validated sense-of-place indices and behavioural conversion metrics.
A second priority is digital space, encompassing artificial intelligence, social media, the digital economy, platforms, apps, and datafied interaction layers. Our way of being in the world, including our expectations, behaviours, decision-making processes and use of time, have shifted as digital increasingly merges with physical places (Chaudhary, 2020; Malecki, 2017). PNST treats these as behaviourally relevant places (Network) with distinct architectures and rules (Territory), whose congruence with physical settings (Place) and alignment across levels (Scale) may influence behaviour (e.g., the ease of e-booking at any place, such as home, work or the mall may facilitate attending a session at the clinic). Research should operationalise digital–physical congruence, algorithmic visibility, consent flows, and data rights; examine effects on uptake, fidelity, and equity; and quantify unintended harms (surveillance, exclusion). Mixed-methods designs combining platform logs, GIS/footfall, and in-situ audits can build a cumulative evidence base that specifies when and how sociospatial design enhances behaviour change.
Limitations
This conceptual paper carries limitations. The literature review was independently conducted and lacked the rigour of a systematic review. Some literature was not peer-reviewed, however, for relevance and currency, they were considered for the review. Further, some interventions may make use of Place however, this is not reported. Such omissions may, however, point to an underlying perception of Place in social marketing.
Further the paper acknowledges the rich and deep body of extant sociospatial knowledge. Other researchers may have selected other spatial dimensions for a Place framework and/or may have alternative interpretations of sociospatiality based on philosophy of enquiry.
Conclusion
This paper responds to the call for unique and unifying theories for social marketing (Akbar et al., 2021) and applies a multidisciplinary investigation to the third P of Place. The resultant conceptual framework opens up Place beyond the confines of the traditional social marketing mix to serve three key roles. Firstly, it keeps the individual’s reality at the centre of investigation while simultaneously integrating systems thinking and context. Secondly, this integration provides social marketers with both a broad and deep understanding of the target audiences, while revealing possible strategies, priorities and tactics to effect behaviour change. Thirdly, the proposed framework reflects a contemporisation of social marketing. It is not about tossing out the old and starting anew (Lahtinen et al., 2020), but rather envisioning the old to bring about new solutions to respond to today’s wicked problems. In summary, this paper suggests that it is time to discover more space within existing social marketing concepts.
Footnotes
Ethical Considerations
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal participants.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The author is a volunteer on the editorial board of the journal.
Data Availability Statement
Data is available on request.