Social marketing is an interesting concept, mainly because the whole point of this tactic is that you pick the product and work backwards from there, trying to get the people of a certain culture to start using that product. Social marketing though does not only deal with products; it deals with social concerns, such as hygiene. It is more difficult than marketing a product because you are marketing a way of life, essentially, which forces the people of that culture to completely change their mindset and start from scratch. It is difficult, and can be expensive. However, the outcome, if the marketing plan works, is very positive and leads to long-term successes. That is, of course, only if the people are able to get out of their everyday mindset and open up their minds to a new idea.
The case study I read was Learning What You Don't Know: Training Journalists in Armenia by Leah Kohlenberg. This case study was so interesting, and it is funny because I can completely relate to the way Armenians are portrayed: that they know everything, that someone else coming in telling them to do something, well, “what do they know?” It is very much the way that Armenians are, and I found it very funny that an outsider noticed that and identified that as a sort of barrier in her experience teaching journalists in Armenia how to improve their skills.
Throughout the case study, Kohlenberg pinpoints each problem of social marketing as a separate story. The first problem is that there is no existing attitude base; you have to instill it and create a significantly new pattern. This is true in this case study because the Armenians were so used to being told what to write by the Soviet government that now that they have more independence with their writing they do not know what to do with it. One of the people, Narine, says, “Now instead of printing the government's opinion, we can state our own opinions.” This is a concept that they have never been confronted with before. It is up to Kohlenberg, as the expert, to make them realize how journalism is different now post-Soviet Union and how exactly they should adapt their writing to that change.
The second problem is that there needs to be a buyable core product that promotes social benefit. The benefit here is not tangible. In fact, the benefit is more of an idea, that if the journalism improves, the status of the country and how it is viewed around the world will improve as well. The people in Armenia will not necessarily care about the changes in journalism; they may not even notice them because they will not be drastic. But if they do, they will feel more confident about their society as a whole and that it is full of educated people.
The third problem is that it needs to be affordable. The case study does not really mention the cost of Kohlenberg’s “tutoring,” so I am not really sure if it applies to this case study. Cost, however, would explain why there are not a plethora of these classes going on in Armenia. Cost is a big roadblock all over Armenia; if it could afford experts all over the place, journalism would not be the only field they would target. The government is corrupted, the buildings are worn down; there are so many other things that need attention as well.
In addition to the aforementioned problems, a main issue is that it is hard to change an existing thought process among the people and at the same time create long-term sustainability with that thought process. This problem magnifies a hundred times over if the people whose thought process you are trying to change are extremely stubborn, and think they know everything. There is a part in the case study where Kohlenberg quotes someone she considered an expert: a man who studied biological warfare at University of Maryland who was quoted in the New York Times. Gagik, a 55-year-old man, said that the guy knew nothing, that he did nothing except “sit on his ass.” He continued to say that he knew, but the “expert” didn’t know. This literally made me laugh out loud, because this is exactly how Armenians are. They feel as if they know everything, and that everyone else knows nothing. It is pretty much a definition to the power problems we learned about in class because this conflicts with the traditional power basis that was in the journalism field in Armenia during the Soviet Union.
The whole point of this case study is participatory communication. Kohlenberg wants the people to feel like they own the project and have a sense of local empowerment, without which the project will not stay alive. Only with local empowerment will there be sustained continuity with the project. If the people do not keep it up, there will be no one else to keep it up because the experts will not be there forever. This theme is present throughout the case study, and the reader is constantly wondering whether the people will actually own this project or not. At the end, in fact, Khoren, one of the students, realizes and points out how Armenians think they know but they don’t really know. That is when Kohlenberg, in addition to the reader, finds comfort in the fact that the Armenians do realize what it takes to be a good journalist and they are now conscious of what they need to do to stay that way. In addition, with this conscious effort, they will be able to pass the information along to other journalists, and the cycle will continue that way.
I loved this case study. I found it so interesting, and I was really able to relate to it in all aspects. In addition, there were many shorter stories that dealt with the main issue, it was not just one long drawn out article, which made it easier and more interesting to follow. I will try to find more case studies to read on my own, because I did not even realize that programs like this were going on. I am happy we had this assignment because it opened my eyes to what is going on in Armenia.
Ani Jerikian, Class of 2005, American University, LiLani01@aol.com
Prof. Zaharna, International Public Relations, School of Communication