Looking to the Future of New Media in Health Marketing: Deriving Propositions Based on Traditional Theories

  • Published on
    07-Feb-2017

  • View
    213

  • Download
    1

Embed Size (px)

Transcript

<ul><li><p>This article was downloaded by: [University of Windsor]On: 29 September 2014, At: 08:33Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK</p><p>Health Marketing QuarterlyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/whmq20</p><p>Looking to the Future of NewMedia in Health Marketing:Deriving Propositions Based onTraditional TheoriesLindsay J. Della a , Dogan Eroglu b , Jay M.Bernhardt b , Erin Edgerton b &amp; Janice Nall ba Department of Communication , University ofLouisville , Louisville, KYb National Center for Health Marketing at theCenters for Disease Control and Prevention ,Atlanta, GAPublished online: 17 Oct 2008.</p><p>To cite this article: Lindsay J. Della , Dogan Eroglu , Jay M. Bernhardt , Erin Edgerton&amp; Janice Nall (2008) Looking to the Future of New Media in Health Marketing: DerivingPropositions Based on Traditional Theories, Health Marketing Quarterly, 25:1-2,147-174, DOI: 10.1080/07359680802126210</p><p>To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07359680802126210</p><p>PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE</p><p>Taylor &amp; Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor &amp; Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views</p><p>http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/whmq20http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/07359680802126210http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07359680802126210</p></li><li><p>expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &amp; Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.</p><p>This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms &amp; Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Uni</p><p>vers</p><p>ity o</p><p>f W</p><p>inds</p><p>or] </p><p>at 0</p><p>8:33</p><p> 29 </p><p>Sept</p><p>embe</p><p>r 20</p><p>14 </p><p>http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions</p></li><li><p>Looking to the Future of New Mediain Health Marketing: Deriving</p><p>Propositions Based onTraditional Theories</p><p>Lindsay J. DellaDogan Eroglu</p><p>Jay M. BernhardtErin EdgertonJanice Nall</p><p>ABSTRACT. Market trend data show that the media marketplacecontinues to rapidly evolve. Recent research shows that substantialportions of the U.S. media population are new media users. Today,more than ever before, media consumers are exposed to multiplemedia at the same point in time, encouraged to participate in mediacontent generation, and challenged to learn, access, and use the new</p><p>Lindsay J. Della, PhD, is affiliated with the Department of Communi-cation University of Louisville, Louisville, KY.</p><p>Dogan Eroglu, PhD, Jay Bernhardt, PhD, Erin Edgerton, and Janice Nallare affiliated with the National Center for Health Marketing at the Centersfor Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.</p><p>Address correspondence to Lindsay J. Della, Department of Communi-cation, University of Louisville, 310 Strickler Hall, Louisville, KY 40292.E-mail: LJDell01@louisville.edu</p><p>This publication was made possible through a cooperative agreementbetween the Association for Prevention Teaching and Research (APTR)and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), award numberU50/CCU300860; its contents are the responsibility of the authors and donot necessarily reflect the official views of APTR or CDC.</p><p>Health Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 25(1/2) 2008Available online at http://hmq.haworthpress.com# 2008 by The Haworth Press. All rights reserved.</p><p>doi: 10.1080/07359680802126210 147</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Uni</p><p>vers</p><p>ity o</p><p>f W</p><p>inds</p><p>or] </p><p>at 0</p><p>8:33</p><p> 29 </p><p>Sept</p><p>embe</p><p>r 20</p><p>14 </p></li><li><p>media that are continually entering the market. These media trendshave strong implications for how consumers of health informationaccess, process, and retain health-related knowledge. In this articlewe review traditional information processing models and theories ofinterpersonal and mass media access and consumption. We makeseveral theory-based propositions for how traditional informationprocessing and media consumption concepts will function as newmedia usage continues to increase. These propositions are supportedby new media usage data from the Centers for Disease Control andPreventions entry into the new media market (e.g., podcasting, virtualevents, blogging, and webinars). Based on these propositions, we con-clude by presenting both opportunities and challenges that publichealth communicators and marketers will face in the future.</p><p>KEYWORDS. Information processing, interpersonal, mass media,public health, new media, Web 2.0</p><p>INTRODUCTION</p><p>In the 1980s the proliferation of personal computer use reinventedthe processes by which information is created, shared, and communi-cated, spawning the Information Age. The moniker itself suggestedthat information was a scarce resource and that its creation and dis-semination were valued products and services. The accelerated paceof change in information technology occurring today indicates thatthe computer world is poised for another revolution. Whether itis termed new media, participatory media, or Web 2.0, the way inwhich information is created, shared, and disseminated is changingdramatically. Wikipedia (2007) defines new media as:</p><p>. . .new forms of human and media communication that havebeen transformed by the creative use of technology to fulfillthe same basic social need to interact and transact. . . [It is] alsoclosely associated with the term Web 2.0 which refers to aproposed second generation of Internet-based services suchas social networking sites and wikis that emphasize online col-laboration and sharing among users. (New Media webpagewithin Wikipedia)</p><p>148 HEALTH MARKETING QUARTERLY</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Uni</p><p>vers</p><p>ity o</p><p>f W</p><p>inds</p><p>or] </p><p>at 0</p><p>8:33</p><p> 29 </p><p>Sept</p><p>embe</p><p>r 20</p><p>14 </p></li><li><p>Whereas this information exchange used to be the privilege of thefew, it is now available and accessible to the masses in the form ofblogging, podcasts, social networks, wikis, really simple syndication(RSS) feeds, multi-player online games, and more. In this paper, weexplore how traditional information processing models and theoriesof media access and consumption can be applied to new media,and we discuss the implications that these theories and models holdfor communicating and persuading Americans to enact preventivehealth behavior.</p><p>Proliferation of Internet Use and New Media</p><p>New media usage is increasing exponentially, and more technologyusers are relentlessly connected (Castells, 2007). According to thePew Internet &amp; American Life Project, nearly three-quarters (70%)of American adults are online (Pew Internet &amp; American Life Study,2006) and even more are cell phone users (73%) (Horrigan, 2007a). Intotal, the Pew group estimated that nearly 85% of American adultsare using digital technology in the form of the Internet or cell phones(Horrigan, 2007a). Another survey conducted by the Pew researchgroup shows that the tendency to use wireless connectivity to accessthe Internet is quickly becoming routine for many. In its survey, arandom-digit dial of 2,373 adults ages 18 and older, the Pew Internet&amp; American Life Project indicated that a third (34%) of its surveyrespondents reported having logged on to the Internet using a wire-less connection (either at home, at work, or at some other location)(Horrigan, 2007b).</p><p>Still, not everyone is online; demographic differences persist. Accord-ing to data from the Pew Internet &amp; American Life Project (2006), 83%and 82% of individuals between the ages of 1829 and 3049, respec-tively, are on the Internet. Adults over age 50, however, use the Internetmuch less frequently. The Pew group also reported that Caucasiansoutnumber their ethnic counterparts on the web: 72% of Caucasianrespondents report having used the Internet while only 58% of non-Hispanic Black Americans and 69% of English-speaking Hispanicsreport having used the Internet in 2006. Adults with at least somecollege education access the Internet more than those without a collegeeducation (84%91%, some college or college versus 36%59%, less than high school or high school). Statistical variationsalso reflect economic realities. Adults with higher incomes use the</p><p>Della et al. 149</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Uni</p><p>vers</p><p>ity o</p><p>f W</p><p>inds</p><p>or] </p><p>at 0</p><p>8:33</p><p> 29 </p><p>Sept</p><p>embe</p><p>r 20</p><p>14 </p></li><li><p>Internet significantly more than those earning incomes below $30,000annually (Pew Internet &amp; American Life Study, 2006).</p><p>Not surprisingly, adolescents are even more receptive to techno-logical change in their lives; they consistently post higher wiredstatistics than do adults ages 18 years and older. In 2006, nearly93% of tweens and teens (ages 1217) report being online, up from73% in 2000 (Lenhart and Madden, 2007). Similarly, the portionof adolescents accessing the Internet daily has increased from 42%to 61% within the same time frame. Moreover, of the 61% of teen-agers accessing the Internet on a daily basis in 2006, one third(34%) report using the Internet multiple times in one day (Lenhartand Madden, 2007).</p><p>Todays Americans are not only using the Internet more, they alsosimultaneously access multiple media, such as television, cell phones,mp3 players, and personal digital assistants. Papper et al. (2004)observed media usage habits among adults and reported that nearlyone quarter (24%) were using at least two media at the same timeduring the day. Statistics on teens multitasking behavior are evenmore dramatic. In a recent study conducted by the Henry J. KaiserFamily Foundation, over three-quarters (81%) of teens report thatthey use multiple types of media simultaneously at least 25% of thetime (Foehr, 2006). Given that the Kaiser Family Foundation alsoreported that American adolescents age 1518 spend an average of6.5 hours using media, the statistic on multitasking represents animportant trend among users (Rideout et al., 2005). There can beno mistake: multitasking means that Americans are accessing moremedia in less time (i.e., media exposure far exceeds media usage).For instance, Papper and associates found that adults report spend-ing an average of 11.7 hours per day accessing media. However, whenmedia multitasking time was taken into account, the total jumped to15.4 hours per day. Likewise, in the Kaiser study, researchers esti-mated that teens were actually squeezing in 8.5 hours of mediaexposure during their 6.5 hours of media usage time. Indeed, thesedata may well indicate that multitasking has become the norm amongmany adolescents.</p><p>Health Information in the Age of New Media</p><p>As Internet access and connectivity increases, Americans also areturning to Internet sources more frequently for health information.</p><p>150 HEALTH MARKETING QUARTERLY</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Uni</p><p>vers</p><p>ity o</p><p>f W</p><p>inds</p><p>or] </p><p>at 0</p><p>8:33</p><p> 29 </p><p>Sept</p><p>embe</p><p>r 20</p><p>14 </p></li><li><p>An estimated 68% of Americans report reading the health section ofa newspaper or magazine in the last year; 72% report watching ahealth report on television, barely outpacing the 65.4% who indicatethat they access health information on the Internet (Department ofHealth and Human Services, 2005).</p><p>Other data also attest to the Internets growing popularity as aconduit for health information. The surge in online health infor-mation queries and usage is matched by the growth of options amongonline information sources. According to comScore Media Metrix, adigital market research company, the first quarter of 2007 witnessedan overall 12% growth in the online health information category ascompared with first quarter 2006 (Lipsman, 2007). The comScorestudy of consumer online health information usage showed that thehealth information category had reached an average of 55.3 millionvisitors per month in the first quarter of 2007, a number accountingfor approximately one third of all U.S. Internet users. Among theleading online sources of health information, WebMD Health wasmost frequently visited with an average of 17.1 million unique visitorsduring each month of the first quarter of 2007. This average was anincrease of 25% over the same time period in 2006. The official web-site of the National Institutes of Health, NIH.gov, followed WebMDand averaged 9.8 million unique visitors per month for the first quar-ter of 2007, an 8% increase over its numbers for first quarter 2006.</p><p>The surge in online health information queries and usage ismatched by the growth of options among online information sources.For example, MedicineNet.com, exemplifying this trend, now offers36 general health and medical RSS feed channels and over 1,000 spe-cialty health and medical feed channels (Retrieved from Medicine-Net.com June 5). Personal health experiences recorded on blogs, orWeb logs, are also popular despite the fact that their authors maylack credible medical authority. In December 2006, Fox Newsreleased its a top ten list of Best blogs: Health Web sites worth aclick, and the list ranged from the highly personalized The AmazingAdventures of Diet Girl and Diabetes Mine to scientific topics likeGenetics and Health (Alvarez, 2006).</p><p>Not only is the variety of health information expanding on theInternet, but this digital health information is becoming increasinglymobile. For example, Apple.coms iTunes, an online media store,provides free podcast sessions from numerous health informationsources, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,</p><p>Della et al. 151</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Uni</p><p>vers</p><p>ity o</p><p>f W</p><p>inds</p><p>or] </p><p>at 0</p><p>8:33</p><p> 29 </p><p>Sept</p><p>embe</p><p>r 20</p><p>14 </p></li><li><p>the Mayo Clinic, Harvards School of Medicine, the World HealthOrganization, the Public Broadcasting Service and HealthBeat, andThe Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Medicine (http//www.apple.com/itunes/). Many of these large health institutions are alsooffering podcasts and RSS feeds directly to their users from theirrespective websites.</p><p>New Media at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention</p><p>The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in fulfil-ling its mission to protect and promote the health of all Americans,recognizes the importance of using new and emerging communicationchannels to reach the public. Under the leadership of the NationalCenter for Health Marketing, CDC is responsible for researching avariety of media that can be used to communicate health infor-mation, encourage healthy behavior, address long-term public healt...</p></li></ul>

Recommended

View more >