Page 264 - The Handbook of Persuasion and Social Marketing

240 The Handbook of Persuasion and Social Marketing

structural solutions (Wiener & Doescher, 1991), and the force of law
(Rothschild, 1999).
Some scholars perceive such upstream efforts to be coercive and pater-
nalistic while imposing unnecessary limitations on free markets (Hall,
2003). Other scholars view these actions as an important balancing mecha-
nism for furthering consumer well-being in a market driven largely by fi-
nancial concerns rather than social responsibility. In the public health
domain, both agencies and scholars explicitly embrace the need for such
upstream marketing remedies (Coffman, 2002; Wallack & Dorfman, 1996;
Winett & Wallack, 1996). In marketing, support for such remedies and the
use of political action to bring such remedies into being is more condi-
tional. One reason may be that historically, public health has relied upon
the use of the coercive power of government to address public health issues
(Hall, 2003; Siegel & Lotenberg, 2007), whereas economic theory, with its
emphasis on using the least restrictive remedy, is marketing’s historical ba-
sis (Mazis, Staelin, Beales, & Salop, 1981; Federal Trade Commission,
1979). Marketing, grounded in business and with close relationships with
industry, also aligns with a consumer choice rather than a paternalistic par-
adigm. Nonetheless, marketing scholars are increasingly advocating for
consideration of coercive remedies when alternative remedies fail.
The common theme of the public health arguments, and some market-
ers, is that upstream approaches are required when efforts to motivate in-
dividuals to make the “right choices” of their own volition are inadequate
(Coffman, 2002). Goldberg (1995) has long argued that the downstream
approach of social marketing, with a focus on individual, voluntary behav-
ior change, is too narrow and limiting. When conditions are such that in-
dividual change efforts are likely to fail, social marketing objectives may
need to shift toward broader targets and attempts to stimulate policy
change (Andreasen, 2006). Andreasen has argued that marketing can play
a critical role in upstream efforts to change public opinion and influence
key decision-makers:

The same basic principles that can induce a 12-year-old in Bangkok or
Leningrad to get a Big Mac and a caregiver in Indonesia to start using oral
rehydration solutions for diarrhea can also be used to influence politicians,
media figures, community activists, law officers and judges, foundation of-
ficials, and other individuals whose actions are needed to bring about wide-
spread, long-lasting, positive social change. (Andreasen, 2006, p. 11)

Despite some scholars’ arguments, the use of upstream remedies con-
tinues to stir controversy and has not been readily or widely embraced by