Page 308 - The Handbook of Persuasion and Social Marketing

284 The Handbook of Persuasion and Social Marketing

law can create incentives or mandates for behavioral change. The second
way law is related to social marketing is as a complement. The law’s ability
to encourage behavioral change through tax incentives and behavioral rules
can reinforce the recommendations of a social marketing campaign. The
third connection between law and social marketing is through regulation, in
the same way that laws regulate the practice of commercial marketing.
First Amendment law plays a large role in determining what regulation
might be appropriate for social marketing. First Amendment court deci-
sions indicate both how to distinguish commercial speech from fully pro-
tected speech and what sorts of regulations could be appropriate for each
type of speech. Social marketing campaigns can fall into either category. If
a campaign is deemed to be commercial speech, it is subject to the same
regulations as other forms of commercial marketing. If a social marketing
campaign is deemed to be fully protected speech discussing an important
public issue, then it is subject to significantly less regulation with respect
to both truthfulness and methods of solicitation. For these reasons, social
marketers need to carefully consider legal issues when structuring their
campaigns and should plan for legal support to handle potential legal and
regulatory issues.

References

Andreasen, A. R. (1994). Social marketing: Definition and domain. Journal of
Public Policy & Marketing, 13(1), 108–114.
Andreasen, A. R. (2006). Social marketing in the 21st century. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Bigelow v. Virginia (1975). 421 U.S. 809.
Board of Trustees of State University of New York v. Fox (1989). 492 U.S. 469.
Bolger v. Youngs Drug Product Corp. (1983). 463 U.S. 60.
Cain, R. M. (2012). Food, inglorious food: Food safety, food libel and free speech.
American Business Law Review, 49(2), 273–324.
Calvert, C., Allen-Brunner, W., & Locke, C. M. (2010). Playing politics or protecting
children? Congressional action and a first amendment analysis of the family
smoking prevention and tobacco control act. Journal of Legislation, 36, 201–248.
Central Hudson Gas & Electric v. Public Service Commission of New York (1980). 447
U.S. 557.
DeHoyos et al. v. Allstate Corp. (2007). 240 F.R.D. 269 (W.D. Texas).
Discount Tobacco City v. United States (2012). 674 F.3d 509 (6th Cir.), rehearing
denied, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 11820, cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 1996 (2013).
Dorfman, L., Cheyne, A., Friedman, L. C., Wadud, A., & Gottlieb, M. (2012).
Soda and tobacco industry corporate social responsibility campaigns: How do
they compare? PLoS Med, 9(6): e1001241. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001241.