COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: IS SOCIAL MARKETING EFFECTIVE?

Transcription

1 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: IS SOCIAL MARKETING EFFECTIVE? Or is it Feel Good? STAR Conference, Arlington, TX October 2014 Lisa A. Skumatz, Ph.D., Skumatz Economic Research Associates Inc 303/ All rights reserved

2 OVERVIEW OF PRESENTATION o Traditional outreach Enhanced approaches (self efficacy, indirect effects) o Social marketing o Impacts, retention, and C/E?

3 BACKGROUND TRADITIONAL TO ENHANCED METHODS Unaware è aware è consider è intent è purchase/modify behavior * Awareness, products, behavior * Assumption last step

4 OUTREACH / EDUCATION o Guiding decision-making Stakeholders Part of budget, but how much? (believers) o Human side AND measurement side Measureable effect? Cost-effective? Does it last? è before we can consider it a serious part of the portfolio

5 STUDY MEASURING TRADITIONAL OUTREACH o 120+ campaigns nationwide o è +1-3 percentage points per extra $1/ hh/yr spent Trad l Educ? ç Cost ç Impact

6 EDUCATION / OUTREACH

7 MAKING EDUCATION & OUTREACH MORE EFFECTIVE o o o Crowded marketplace fractions of a second Implications for message,$ Perceptions

8 MAKING EDUCATION & OUTREACH MORE EFFECTIVE o Don t focus on traditional outreach (awareness focus). 1. Self-efficacy 2. Market what motivates 3. Social marketing ROI (CBSM)

9 HOW TO MAKE OUTREACH MORE EFFECTIVE?

10 SELF-EFFICACY o Empowerment- individual actions make a difference è participation, recycling, actions impacts

11 HIGHER SELF-EFFICACY THEY DO MORE o è Participate more 90% of early Renewables sign-ups (TVA) o è Conserve energy Renewables & ESTAR (Northeast/) o è Recycle more 11% more (Utah/) o Cool the Earth, Green Campuses, other Self Efficacy / Cool the Earth # Green Actions Pre # Green Actions During High scores (25% increase) Low scores (12% increase

12 INDIRECT EFFECTS BUNDLES - VALUES o People buy a bundle of valued features o Information is NOT motivational o 10:1 B/C for one study o Sell on what the people care about, not YOUR goals

13 HOW TIDE DOESN T SELL

14 USE MARKET RESEARCH TO SELL WHAT PEOPLE WANT TO BUY Honey, I really want to recycle Jeff Gordon says it is a good idea & the Can has a Nascar logo! o Focus Group o Market Research Positives (appealing) Negatives (barriers)

15 SOCIAL MARKETING (NOT Social Media!) o Really, it is simple market research! o Focus on barriers, motivations, networks, touches o Lacks cost-effectiveness and retention data impacts; $/ton Source:

16 COMMUNITY BASED SOCIAL MARKETING (CBSM) o Recommends 5 elements: Commitments to behavioral change (pledges/ commit) Prompts Norms Incentives Communication o Argues greater Participation and behavior change Retention o Examples Paint pledges Personal (grocery tags) Tailored outreach Many fields (health, energy, etc.)

17 LITERATURE REVIEW AND DESIGN OF PROJECTS o 20+ years, many studies; few with $ and impacts Much on posters / messaging No retention or cost-effectiveness data small samples o Multiple social marketing projects in NE, W, NY, mountain states (HH, military, students): Principles: N, control & treatment groups, measurement Tons, participation, surveys, sorts multiple rounds Commitments, visits, phone, flyers, web, contests, norms, feedback plus 17

18 SOCIAL MARKETING PROJECTS Targeted recycling & energy behaviors Baseline research, measurement, goals 18

19 RESULTS: COMMITMENTS BY TYPE 500 commitments 2%, 40%, 60+% for neighborhoods Source: Skumatz Economic Research Associates, () 19

20 IMPACTS AND MEASUREMENT o Committed Actions 500+ people committed to 2,400 actions (4%, 40%, 60+%); ½ MTCE for recycling, energy 20

21 ENERGY BEHAVIORS Especially strong Phone Challenge for Weatherize Weekend / reminder calls Source: Skumatz Economic Research Associates, () 21

22 RECYCLING AND RETENTION RETENTION IS CRITICAL % Incr in Recy Lbs/cap Normalized End of Outreach 9 months later Represents 33% reten+on a.er 9 months Represents 78% reten+on a.er 9 months Route 1 (Control) Route 2 (Partial Treatment) Route 3 (Full Treatment with Door- to- Door) Continuing to Measure Source: Skumatz Economic Research Associates, () 22

23 RESULTS: COST PER IMPACT LOWER FOR DOOR-TO-DOOR HHs o Cost per HH o Cost & incremental cost per action o Costs by type of outreach / intervention o Cost effectiveness $ Cost Blue: Route 3 (full treatment) cheaper per impact Purple: Route 2 (no site visits) Cost Source: Skumatz Economic Research $- Associates, () House Committed HH Action Ton GHG Avoided Ton of Recycling 23

24 COST-EFFECTIVENESS ($/MTCE) IN CONTEXT Note: Conservative value for CBSM Need to Track: Retention & C/E To be taken seriously The potential is THERE! Source: Skumatz Economic Research Associates, ()

25 TAKEAWAYS o Information is not motivating Must also appeal Use self-efficacy, auxiliary effects / VALUE o Social marketing Cute posters not enough Measure to prove and refine o Whichever for wise spending Demonstrate prove it cost effective? Retained? Forget those converted, forget those never to be converted o Guiding decisions, spending

26 THANK YOU!! Questions? Lisa Skumatz, Ph.D. Skumatz Economic Research Associates (), Phone: 303/

27 CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS o Self-efficacy è o NEBs è message to clarify individual power, linkage to behavior - ready to hear & adopt What bundle to sell / what they value / want to buy, NOT what you want to SELL Those interested in efficiency already sold o Social Marketing è Personal link increases impacts and possibly retention add to toolkit o Theory / results indicate influences beyond demographics & traditional factors Beyond INFO è integrate elements for improved, more effective outreach for long-term behavior change, not the choir