Are you being manipulated? Social marketing, social engineering and democratic government

Abstract

Purpose

To explore the distinctions between social marketing and social engineering.

Design/methodology/approach

Evaluates alternative definitions proposed in the theoretical literature. Gives examples of the use of social engineering by democratic governments, contrasting this with the use by totalitarian regimes of a process of social fabrication, social engineering and social marketing in the form of propaganda.

Findings

The consequences of some individual behaviors don’t just affect that one person. When a widespread individual behavior has a social impact then society – typically the government – has to decide if the impact is bad enough to justify doing something about it. That can mean legislation, but is also likely to use marketing methods such as publicity campaigns to influence behavior. This kind of social marketing is generally seen as a “good thing”. Strange, perhaps, when people usually describe social engineering as a “bad thing”.

Practical implications

Concludes that when the public is fully aware of the links between social marketing and social engineering, people will be better able to appreciate the extent to which their behavior is being influenced.

Social implications

Argues that marketers have an obligation to assess whether social marketing campaigns in which they participate are consistent with the norms and values of their society.

Originality/value

Describes social engineering as a normal part of the business of government – whether totalitarian or democratically elected.

Citation

(2015), "Are you being manipulated? Social marketing, social engineering and democratic government", Strategic Direction, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 14-16. https://doi.org/10.1108/SD-05-2015-0077