The Wall Street Journal today ran an article titled “U.K. Spends Millions Nagging Its Citizens” (unfortunately accessible to WSJ online subscribers only). The article discusses the dozens of social marketing campaigns that the U.K. government has running right now — including pornography on the internet, drunken driving, chewing gum litter, and improper tax-benefit claims by married couples.
The government’s advertising authority is the third-largest advertiser in the country, behind Procter & Gamble and Unilever. The U.S. government, in contrast, ranks 25th among U.S. advertisers. Public interest advertising here in the U.S. is much more decentralized and fragmented.
I was concerned about the implications in the article that these types of campaigns are the equivalent of “nagging.” For example:
The British government spots strike some observers in the U.K. as excessively nannyish. Some question why the government is spending so much money to steer behavior on so many issues.
It sounds like perhaps they need to “market” social marketing, though the article’s author does not say exactly who is reacting this way. Perhaps this initiative by the U.K. Department of Health and National Consumer Council to create a national social marketing strategy will help with addressing those issues. When done right, social marketing should never be perceived as nagging.
Nedra helps nonprofits and public agencies create positive change on health and social issues through social marketing and transmedia storytelling strategies at Weinreich Communications since founding the company in 1995. She helps organizations make a difference for the populations they serve by strategically designing programs that draw on state-of-the-art behavior change techniques, digital media approaches and the power of stories. 
I hadn’t seen the WSJ piece. Interesting that they should pick up on this. I’d love to know who was quoted in the article because it reads like they’ve used the angle currently being run as the latest political campaing by the Conservative Party.
Stuart,
I went back and looked at the article, and, interestingly, the writer did not actually include any quotes that support the thesis that people are unhappy about the government’s campaigns. The closest it comes is in saying, “The British government spots strike some observers in the UK as excessively nannyish. Some question why the government is spending so much money to steer behavior on so many issues.” Never says who exactly has said this nor talks to anyone who feels this way — not very good journalism.