Background:

Competitive forces influence social marketing efforts. Indeed, social marketers often find themselves “shadow boxing” various forms of competition throughout their interventions. Despite the seminal role of competition as a threat to social marketing intervention efficacy, few empirical studies have undertaken competitive analysis or compared the usefulness of competitive typologies. Thus, this paper proposes an index approach to categorize competitive typologies relevant to a specific social marketing intervention in terms of their ease of use, intuitiveness and generalisability to the broader social cause domain. The proposed index approach is illustrated with empirical data, undertaking a competitive analysis of forces obstructing efforts to address educational inequality in Australia, then comparing the ease of use, intuitiveness and generalisability of 15 competitive typologies noted in the social marketing literature to produce a competitor analysis index.

Research Question:

Which competitive typologies most effectively frame forces that inhibit educational equality social marketing efforts in Australia?

Methods:

Via interviews and focus groups, qualitative data were collected from 46 students from low socioeconomic status (LSES) backgrounds at six universities and sought to understand the influence of their home residence’s geographical remoteness on their university participation. The analysis revealed eight participant-identified differential competitors experienced by students from regional, rural and remote settings (LSES-R, n = 25, 54.4%) that were not experienced by those from metropolitan areas (LSES-M, n = 21, 45.6%). Fifteen competitive typologies were identified in the social marketing literature, and their capacity to frame these eight differential forces in terms of their ease of use, intuitiveness and generalisability was critiqued.

Findings:

Unlike their metropolitan counterparts, LSES-R participants experienced situational (n = 3), dispositional (n = 3) and goal pursuit (n = 2) competitive forces. The most effective competition typologies comprised two classification options that were distinctly different and could classify both the unfriendly and friendly competition that exists in social marketing. Five competitor typologies were identified as easy to use, intuitive and generalizable to the broader educational inequality domain. Together, these five competitor typologies form a competitor analysis index for educational inequality researchers and practitioners to enhance their intervention efficacy.

Recommendations:

Despite widespread agreement as to the importance of competitor analysis in social marketing, the efficacy of various typologies has received little attention. Social marketers are encouraged to critique competitor typologies before selecting those which enable effective decision-making. Furthermore, it is recommended that social marketers use a competitor analysis index comprised of multiple typologies to better capture the nebulous nature of the many different types of competitors that exist in a specific social marketing context.

Limitations:

The educational inequalities cause and qualitative method may constrain generalisability, but they exemplify the importance of competition typology choice and model how competitor analysis indexes can be developed.

中文翻译：

---

指数方法能否改进社交营销竞争对手分析？

背景：

竞争力量影响社会营销工作。事实上，社会营销人员在整个干预过程中经常发现自己在“打太极拳”各种形式的竞争。尽管竞争作为对社会营销干预效力的威胁具有开创性作用，但很少有实证研究进行了竞争分析或比较了竞争类型学的有用性。因此，本文提出了一种索引方法，根据其易用性、直观性和对更广泛的社会事业领域的普遍性，对与特定社会营销干预相关的竞争类型进行分类。建议的指数方法用实证数据进行说明，对阻碍解决澳大利亚教育不平等问题的力量进行竞争分析，然后比较易用性，

研究问题：

哪种竞争类型最有效地构成了阻碍澳大利亚教育平等社会营销努力的力量？

方法：

通过访谈和焦点小组，从 6 所​​大学的 46 名来自低社会经济地位 (LSES) 背景的学生那里收集了定性数据，并试图了解他们居住地的地理偏远对其大学参与的影响。分析显示，来自区域、农村和偏远地区的学生 (LSES-R, n = 25, 54.4%) 经历了八个参与者识别的差异竞争者，而大都市地区的学生则没有经历过 (LSES-M, n = 21, 45.6 %）。在社会营销文献中确定了 15 种竞争类型，并批评了它们在易用性、直观性和普遍性方面构建这 8 种不同力量的能力。

发现：

与他们的大都市同行不同，LSES-R 参与者经历了情境 (n = 3)、性格 (n = 3) 和目标追求 (n = 2) 竞争力。最有效的竞争类型包括两种截然不同的分类选项，可以对社会营销中存在的不友好和友好竞争进行分类。五种竞争者类型被确定为易于使用、直观且可推广到更广泛的教育不平等领域。这五种竞争者类型共同构成了教育不平等研究人员和从业者的竞争者分析指数，以提高他们的干预效果。

建议：

尽管对竞争者分析在社会营销中的重要性达成了广泛共识，但各种类型的有效性却很少受到关注。鼓励社会营销人员在选择能够有效决策的类型之前先批判竞争对手的类型。此外，建议社交营销人员使用由多种类型组成的竞争对手分析指数，以更好地捕捉特定社交营销环境中存在的许多不同类型竞争对手的模糊性质。

限制：

教育不平等的原因和定性方法可能会限制普遍性，但它们体现了竞争类型选择的重要性，并为如何开发竞争对手分析指标建模。