The current teenage generation has been dubbed the “Generation Y”, and being the first generation to grow up online is one of its defining characteristics. For them the Internet is increasingly the focus of their search for information on any topic and is an integral part of their leisure time and social life. This article investigates the opportunities provided by the Internet to communicate with teenagers within social marketing campaigns with a particular emphasis on health. In-depth interviews with United Kingdom teenagers explored their experience of the Internet and their opinions on its potential as a communication medium. In addition, an audit of Bolt.com, one of the most popular teen Websites, was conducted over a 19-month period to analyze and learn from its marketing strategy. The results suggest considerable synergy between the Internet as a medium and teenagers as an audience. For social marketers to take advantage of the communications opportunities that the Internet provides, they need to be aware of some specific challenges posed by Internet-based communication and to learn from the rapid evolution of commercial e-marketing.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AckardD. M.Neumark-SztainerD.2001. Health care information sources for adolescents: Age and gender differences on use, concerns, and needs. Journal of Adolescent Health29: 170–76.
2.
AndreasenA. R.1995. Marketing social change: Changing behavior to promote health, social development and the environment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
3.
BashfordS.2004. Tap into the teen market. Revolution April: 92–4.
4.
BarrettA.2000. To reach the unreachable teen: Retailers are trying a whole-lifestyle approach to win Gen Y. Business Week (industrial/technology ed., Sept.)3699: 78–80.
5.
BorzekowskiD. L. G.RickertV. I.2001. Adolescents, the Internet, and health: Issues of access and content. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology22(1): 49–59.
6.
BradyN.2004. More evidence of marketing paradigm shift? The evolution of marketing information systems examined. The International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management4(4).
CaseyM. K.AllenM.Emmers-SommerT.SahlsteinE.DegooyerD.WintersA. M.WagnerA. E.DunT.2003. When a celebrity contracts a disease: The example of Earvin “Magic” Johnson's announcement that he was HIV positive. Health Communication8: 249–66.
9.
CorbettJ. B.MoriM.1999. Medicine, media, and celebrities: News coverage of breast cancer. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly76: 229–50.
10.
ChenQ.WellsW. D.1999. Attitude toward the site. Journal of Advertising Research39(5): 27–37.
11.
ChengK.1999. Gen Y pops and shops online. Adweek (Eastern ed.) 40(41): 68.
12.
CurranJ.1990. The new revisionism in mass communication research: A reappraisal. European Journal of Communication5(2 & 3): 135–64.
13.
DahlgrenP.1996. Media logic in cyberspace – repositioning journalism and its publics. Javnost/The Public3(3): 59–72.
14.
DanaherH.McKayG.SeeleyJ. R.2005. The information architecture of behavior change Websites. Journal of Medical Internet Research7(2): Article E12.
DeightonJ.1996. The future of interactive marketing. Harvard Business Review74(6): 151–61.
17.
DortchS.1997. There goes the sun. American Demographics19: 4–7.
18.
DubowE. F.LovkoK. R.Jr.KauschD. F.1990. Demographic differences in adolescents’ health concerns and perceptions of helping agents. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology19(1): 44–54.
19.
FawcettA. W.2000. Going for the gross-out. American Demographics22(2): 42–3.
20.
FletcherC.2000. Getting personal online. Catalog Age17(6): 53–4.
21.
FodorJ. T.1996. Advances in communication technologies: Their application and health promotion and education. International Journal of Health Promotion Education3(1): 5–9.
22.
Forrester Research.1999. The net powered generation. London: Forrester Research.
23.
Forrester Research.2000. Young consumers media mix. London: Forrester Research.
24.
GhoseS.DouW.1998. Interactive functions and their impact on the appeal of Internet presence sites. Journal of Advertising Research38(2): 29–43.
25.
HarmatzV.2004. The importance of branding in the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. Social Marketing Quarterly10(2): 59–61.
26.
HastingsG.2002. Marketing diet and exercise: Lessons from Mammon. Social Marketing Quarterly8(4): 32–9.
27.
HastingsG. B.MacfadyenL.2002. The limitations of fear messages. Tobacco Control11: 73–5.
28.
HugoJ.2000. A grading model for media appropriateness and cultural sensitivity in health education. Journal of Audiovisual Media in Medicine23(3): 103–9.
29.
Jonsson-SmaragdiU.1998. Barn och ungdomar i det nya medialandskapet. Statistik och analys, MedieNotiser2, Nordicom-Sverige. Goteborgs universitet.
KingS. A.MoreggiD.1998. Internet therapy and self-help groups – the pros and cons. In Psychology and the Internet: Intrapersonal, interpersonal and transpersonal implications, ed. GackenbachJ., 77–109. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
32.
KleinA.2004. Social support quality in Internet based information and communication: From “digital divide” to “voice divide.”Social Work & Society2(1): 71–82.
33.
KotlerP.ArmstrongG.SaundersJ.WongV.2002. Principles of marketing. 3rd European ed.London: Prentice Hall.
34.
KraussM.2001. Tech, teens challenge marketers in new ways. Marketing News April 35(9): 10.
35.
LenhartA.RainieL.LewisO.FoxS.HorriganJ.SpoonerT.CarterC.2001. Teenage life online. The rise of the instant-message generation and the Internet's impact on friendships and family relationships. Pew internet and American life project. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
36.
LenhartA.2005. Protecting Teens Online. Pew internet and American life project. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
37.
LippeD.2001. It's all in creative delivery. Advertising Age72(26): S8–9.
38.
LiuH.MaesP.2005. InterestMap: Harvesting Social Network Profiles for Recommendations, Proceedings of IUI Beyond Personalization 2005: A Workshop on the Next Stage of Recommender Systems Research, Jan. 9, 2005, San Diego, CA, 54–9.
39.
MaheuM.2001. Exposing the risk, yet moving forward: A behavioral E-health model. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication6(4).
40.
McWilliamsG.DeightonJ.2000. Case study: Alloy.com. Journal of Interactive Marketing14(2): 74–84.
MorganR. M.HuntS. D.1994. The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing58: 20–38.
43.
MoskowitzH.IttyB.EwaldJ.2003. Teens on the Internet – Commercial application of deconstructive analysis of “teen-zine” features. Journal of Consumer Behaviour2(3): 296–310.
44.
Nielson/Netratings.2000. International Internet usage – press release (online). http://www.nielsen-netratings.com (accessed January 20, 2006).
45.
Nielson/Netratings.2003. 13 million kids using the Internet across Europe – press release (online) 30 September. http://www.nielsen-netratings.com (accessed January 20, 2006).
46.
NovakT. P.HoffmanD. L.1997. New metrics for new media: Toward the development of web measurement standards. World Wide Web Journal2(1): 213–46.
47.
OrmeJ.StarkeyF.1999, July. Young peoples views on drug education in school: Implications for health promotion and health education. Health Education4: 142–52.
48.
PechmannC.2001. Changing adolescent smoking prevalence: Impact of advertising interventions. The National Cancer Insitute, Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 14 (online). http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs (accessed January 20, 2006).
49.
ProchaskaJ. O.DiClementeC. C.1983. Stages and processes of self-change in smoking: Toward an integrative model of change. Journal of Clinical and Consulting Psychology51: 390–95.
50.
RichardsonC. R.ResnickP. J.HansenD. L.DerryH. A.RiseoutV.2005. Does pornography-blocking software block access to health information on the Internet?Journal of the American Medical Association288(22): 2887–94.
51.
RideoutV.2002. Generation RX.com. How young people use the Internet for health information. Marketing Health Services22(1): 26–30.
52.
RideoutV.RobertsD. F.FoehrU. G.2005. Generation M: Media in the lives of 8–18 year-olds. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation Study.
53.
RimalR. N.FloraJ. A.1997. Health promotion and interactive technology: A conceptual foundation. In Health promotion and interactive technology – a conceptual foundation, eds. StreetR. L.GoldW. R.ManningT., 19–38. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
54.
SmithD. C.2000. The inside story on Generation Y. Ward's Auto World36(2):80.
55.
SomersC. L.PaulsonS. E.2000. Students’ perceptions of parent-adolescent closeness and communication about sexuality: Relations with sexual knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. Journal of Adolescence23: 629–44.
56.
StahlS.2003. Need an answer? Ask a teenager. Information Week959: 8.
57.
StreetR. L.RimalR. N.1997. Health promotion and interactive technology: A conceptual foundation. In Health promotion and interactive technology – a conceptual foundation, eds. StreetR. L.GoldW. R.ManningT., 1–18. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
58.
SussmanS.LichtmanK.RittA.PallonenU.1999. Effects of thirty-four adolescent tobacco use and prevention trials on regular users of tobacco products. Substance Use and Misuse34: 1469–503.
59.
SuzukiL. K.CalzoJ. P.2004. The search for peer advice in cyberspace: An examination of online teen bulletin boards about health and sexuality. Applied Developmental Psychology25: 685–98.
60.
WantlandD.J.PortilloC. J.HolzemerW. L.SlaughterR.McGheeE. M.2004. The effectiveness of Web-based vs. non-Web-based interventions: A meta-analysis of behavioral change outcomes. Journal of Medical Internet Research Nov. 10, 6(4): E40.
61.
WattsJ.2002. Tokyo: Public health experts concerned about “hikikomori.”Lancet359(9312): 1131.
