Comparative analysis between two communication approaches - CDSC and COMAR - under the bias of participation : a case study on the CEPFS ( Center for Popular Education and Social Education ) and CIES ( Education and Health Integration Center)

Different factors like strong reduction of international cooperation in the 2000’s, globalization and even competition with one another resulted into increasingly scarce resources for CSOs. Many social impact organizations,... [ view full abstract ]

Different factors like strong reduction of international cooperation in the 2000’s, globalization and even competition with one another resulted into increasingly scarce resources for CSOs.
Many social impact organizations, from the most traditional –like those from popular education movements– to the latest ones –born under the social entrepreneurship format–, started focusing on new sources of alternative funding and sophisticated their performance. CRM (cause-related marketing), social businesses, social intrapreneurship and multisectoral partnerships are themes highlighted currently in the third sector (Aoqui, Sugita and Añón 2013; Fischer and Comini 2012; Molleda, Martinez and Suarez 2009; Sustainability 2013).
At the same time, from the 1970s, in this complex sociopolitical context CSOs with different levels of social participation and communication approaches were formed.
Given this plurality, the this paper has as its main investigative question: “How the degree of openness to social participation influences CSO communication approach in view of the principles and tools of the CDSC (communication for development and social change) and COMAR (marketing communication)?”.
In a pre-bibliometric search on the titles, keywords and abstracts on main national and international journals of management and marketing (RAE, RAC, RAUSP, RAM, BAR, Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research, International Journal of Research in Marketing, International Journal of Market Research, Journal of International Marketing and Journal of Public Policy and Marketing), no recent studies on that subject were found at all. Thus, considering the importance of the subject, this study presents itself relevant, current and unprecedented.
Variables analysed were:
I) power and control, dialogue, awareness, shared knowledge, oppressed classes, empowerment, and equal human value;
II) phenomenon of interest / goal, belief, bias, context, level of analysis, role of changemaker, communication model, search type, action model, desired results;
III) proposal and focus, situation analysis, target, behavior objectives and targets, barriers , benefits and competition, positioning, marketing mix, evaluation plan, budget, implementation plan;
IV) advertising, public relations, patronage, sales promotion, direct marketing, personal selling, product placement, cooperative actions, digital marketing, events, mechandising, brochures / catalogs, relationship marketing, outdoor media, advertainment, viral marketing, buzz marketing and guerrilla marketing.
By comparison, according to the structure proposed by White (1994), it can be said that CEPFS presents a closer way to performance of "real participation", while the CIES operates closer to what the author calls "pseudoparticipation".
In terms of change communication and social development (Melkote 2005: 141), it is clear that CEPFS performance is strongly linked to the bias of communication for empowerment, while CIES aligns more with communication for modernization.
Under the bias of social marketing, having as conceptual framework the model proposed by Kotler and Lee (2011) of analyzing the social marketing planning process, and within the COMAR tools (marketing communication) proposed by Crescitelli and Shimp, it is noted the broader application of traditional tools (advertising and public relations) and complementary ones (digital marketing, events and brochures), and the non-use of innovative tools of marketing communication, currently most used by for profit large companies. By comparison, CIES has greater adhesion generally to these communication tools, although both use it in a little strategic and planned way.
Results points recognizable degree of alignment between participation and communication for empowerment on the one hand, and modernization and marketing communications, on the other. In the first case, there is a greater proximity of CEPFS in terms of CDSC approach, whereas CIES approaches COMAR and social marketing.
For CSOs, it is important to pay attention to the phenomenon of how their level of participation can affect their communication approach in order to create appropriate strategies for each case.

Keywords: communication for development and social change, marketing communication, third sector, social entrepreneurship, critical theory