The secret to social marketing is below...

“Here are seven free ways to make a difference in two minutes…”

When you read this sort of headline, or if you heard someone start their speech with it (as I did at a recent Ashoka event), aren’t you compelled to listen to what comes next?

Of course. It is irresistible.

This is the tone of a teaser that direct marketers love. Except in this case, there is a difference: this is a call to do something positive, not a call to purchase some product or open a direct mail appeal.

If we break it down, this phrase uses some key marketing concepts. “Free” is always good. Everyone has “two minutes” to spare. Cheap and easy and still make a “difference?” Why not at least listen to what is being offered, right? These sorts of concepts are the hallmark of late night telemercials and internet splash pages. Something free that makes our life easier/better and only takes a second? Sounds too good to be true.

In spite of ourselves, when we hear these sorts of promises, we can’t help but be lured into them.

For social marketing, the “hook” needs to be extra strong and indeed, the call to action absolutely needs to be simple. For products, the actual product may be sufficiently interesting to maintain a person’s attention and attract their consumer side. For a social message like this one, the seven ways absolutely have to be free and should absolutely take 2 minutes. If not, then the promise is immediately broken, and the chance of someone taking action is (next to) zero. (and the audience may well be peeved for having been lured to a lie).

When I heard this teaser, I sat rapt with attention to the next two minutes of the speech, only to be sadly disappointed that the speaker never actually shared with us the seven free ways. I heard the man across the table also say under his breath, “why doesn’t she tell us the ways?” The speech ended without the information. The promise was broken. The teaser was useless.

The Secret? People will listen to engaging language, even if the tricks are as old as marketing itself, but the marketer has to deliver credibly on the promise to actually get people to act.

Subject: Foreign Aid vs Military Spending

I just read a headline which indicated that the US has a budget of $50 Billion for overseas programs--including foreign aid--that is in danger of being reduced in a time of fiscal constraint.

$50 billion. Seems like a big number. But then I got thinking. What does the US spend on military expenditures? How does this compare? Is it still big?

Then I got the idea that it would be interesting to compare the ratio of military expenditure to ODA expenditures for several developed nations. Those of us with an interest in foreign aid always refer to the goal of developed nations to allocate 0.7% of GDP to aid programs. There are currently only four countries on the planet exceeding that goal: Sweden, Luxembourg, Norway, Denmark, and the Netherlands. Although this paltry number of generous nations is somewhat disappointing, I suspected that it is even more disappointing when we look at what governments of developed nations spend on other things.

I had never seen a detailed comparison of ODA to military expenditures, (although I do like this blog post) so I set about to make one. I will be the first to admit that I’m relying on Wikipedia and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) for data, and I’m comparing 2009 ODA figures with 2010 military expenditures and then creating a per capita ODA ratio based upon various census data from between 2008 and 2010. However, even if the data could be more dutifully double checked, the trends are pretty clear, as summarized in the following table:

The last two columns are the most interesting. Most of the donor nations spend between 4 and 5 times as much on their military as they do on their aid programs. This is not really surprising as security is a major political concern. However, the US is way out in front, with military spending more than twenty times that of aid spending. The headline I read insinuated that tough economic times might require the US to cut its aid budget. However, it is clear that that removing ALL US foreign aid from their budget (visible shiver) would be the same as reducing the military budget by a measly 4.2%.

I like the concept of foreign aid per capita. This ratio, of course, does not include any private donations to international development causes, but the ratio does offer an indicator of how governments place different emphasis on their citizen's relative ability to give internationally.

Japan’s low Official Development Assistance is (sadly) matched by low individual private giving in that country. Ironically, Norway’s remarkable government contribution per capita is also matched by low individual private giving…although Scandinavian fundraisers I know indicate that citizens in the Nordic countries KNOW that their tax revenue is already supporting development projects and that reduces their propensity to give. Canadian per capita official support is in the middle of the field, although lower than our peers France, Germany, Australia and the UK--most of whom have significantly higher ODA figures in absolute terms.

How is this information relevant on a social marketing blog? On the surface it is not…it is simply information on a subject that I find interesting. However, participation in a global world forces each of us to consider the relative importance of charity (aid), trade, travel and immigration and other financial and human transfers.

In the spirit that a healthy society relies to a degree on the wealthy to help the less fortunate, our propensity to give is an indicator of our global citizenship, just as our propensity to donate to a local charity is an indicator of our engagement in our own community.