Social negative option marketing: A partial response to one of spotswood, French, tapp and stead’s (2012) “uncomfortable questions”

C. W. Von Bergen, Morgan P. Miles

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper was to address one of Spotswood et al.’s (2012) “uncomfortable questions”. The paper applies negative option marketing, the use of defaults as a behavioral engineering tool to shape choice, to social marketing and then uses the Hunt-Vitell (1986, 1993, 2006) Theory of Marketing Ethics to evaluate it against President Kennedy’s (1962) Consumer Bill of Rights and the American Marketing Association’s (2014) statement of marketing ethics. Design/methodology/approach – A conceptual assessment of the ethics of negative option social marketing (NOSM) using the Hunt-Vitell (1986, 1993, 2006) Theory of Marketing Ethics as the evaluative framework. Findings – When assessed using the Hunt-Vitell (1986, 1993, 2006) Theory of Marketing Ethics, NOSM possesses neither ethically sound means nor socially desirable ends. Originality/value – This paper contributes to the emerging debate on the use of nudges in a social marketing context and is a partial response to Spotswood et al. (2012).

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)125-138
Number of pages14
JournalJournal of Social Marketing
Volume5
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 13 Apr 2015

Fingerprint

Marketing
Marketing ethics
Social marketing
Acoustic waves

Cite this

@article{7689bad83e194a879d72952f89b292de,
title = "Social negative option marketing: A partial response to one of spotswood, French, tapp and stead’s (2012) “uncomfortable questions”",
abstract = "Purpose – The purpose of this paper was to address one of Spotswood et al.’s (2012) “uncomfortable questions”. The paper applies negative option marketing, the use of defaults as a behavioral engineering tool to shape choice, to social marketing and then uses the Hunt-Vitell (1986, 1993, 2006) Theory of Marketing Ethics to evaluate it against President Kennedy’s (1962) Consumer Bill of Rights and the American Marketing Association’s (2014) statement of marketing ethics. Design/methodology/approach – A conceptual assessment of the ethics of negative option social marketing (NOSM) using the Hunt-Vitell (1986, 1993, 2006) Theory of Marketing Ethics as the evaluative framework. Findings – When assessed using the Hunt-Vitell (1986, 1993, 2006) Theory of Marketing Ethics, NOSM possesses neither ethically sound means nor socially desirable ends. Originality/value – This paper contributes to the emerging debate on the use of nudges in a social marketing context and is a partial response to Spotswood et al. (2012).",
keywords = "Defaults as behavioral engineering tools, Ethics of marketing, Marketing, Message framing, Negative option marketing, Use of nudges in social marketing",
author = "{Von Bergen}, {C. W.} and Miles, {Morgan P.}",
year = "2015",
month = "4",
day = "13",
doi = "10.1108/JSOCM-06-2014-0036",
language = "English",
volume = "5",
pages = "125--138",
journal = "Journal of Social Marketing",
issn = "2042-6763",
publisher = "Emerald Group Publishing Limited",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Social negative option marketing

T2 - A partial response to one of spotswood, French, tapp and stead’s (2012) “uncomfortable questions”

AU - Von Bergen, C. W.

AU - Miles, Morgan P.

PY - 2015/4/13

Y1 - 2015/4/13

N2 - Purpose – The purpose of this paper was to address one of Spotswood et al.’s (2012) “uncomfortable questions”. The paper applies negative option marketing, the use of defaults as a behavioral engineering tool to shape choice, to social marketing and then uses the Hunt-Vitell (1986, 1993, 2006) Theory of Marketing Ethics to evaluate it against President Kennedy’s (1962) Consumer Bill of Rights and the American Marketing Association’s (2014) statement of marketing ethics. Design/methodology/approach – A conceptual assessment of the ethics of negative option social marketing (NOSM) using the Hunt-Vitell (1986, 1993, 2006) Theory of Marketing Ethics as the evaluative framework. Findings – When assessed using the Hunt-Vitell (1986, 1993, 2006) Theory of Marketing Ethics, NOSM possesses neither ethically sound means nor socially desirable ends. Originality/value – This paper contributes to the emerging debate on the use of nudges in a social marketing context and is a partial response to Spotswood et al. (2012).

AB - Purpose – The purpose of this paper was to address one of Spotswood et al.’s (2012) “uncomfortable questions”. The paper applies negative option marketing, the use of defaults as a behavioral engineering tool to shape choice, to social marketing and then uses the Hunt-Vitell (1986, 1993, 2006) Theory of Marketing Ethics to evaluate it against President Kennedy’s (1962) Consumer Bill of Rights and the American Marketing Association’s (2014) statement of marketing ethics. Design/methodology/approach – A conceptual assessment of the ethics of negative option social marketing (NOSM) using the Hunt-Vitell (1986, 1993, 2006) Theory of Marketing Ethics as the evaluative framework. Findings – When assessed using the Hunt-Vitell (1986, 1993, 2006) Theory of Marketing Ethics, NOSM possesses neither ethically sound means nor socially desirable ends. Originality/value – This paper contributes to the emerging debate on the use of nudges in a social marketing context and is a partial response to Spotswood et al. (2012).

KW - Defaults as behavioral engineering tools

KW - Ethics of marketing

KW - Marketing

KW - Message framing

KW - Negative option marketing

KW - Use of nudges in social marketing

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84928532110&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84928532110&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1108/JSOCM-06-2014-0036

DO - 10.1108/JSOCM-06-2014-0036

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84928532110

VL - 5

SP - 125

EP - 138

JO - Journal of Social Marketing

JF - Journal of Social Marketing

SN - 2042-6763

IS - 2

ER -