Search results

This paper aims to analyze dLife, an integrated media network dedicated to empowering Americans living with diabetes. It shows how dLife's use of integrated marketing communications (IMC), particularly the public relations component, represents an emerging direction in health product and services marketing. Although some have been skeptical about IMC and specifically the public relations role within it, the paper aims to argue that public relations, through sponsorships, helps organizations interested in IMC to create new types of relationships with marketers and patients.

To demonstrate public relations' importance in IMC, dLife's relationship with the changing health marketing landscape is contextualized. Constitutive and empowerment theory is employed to frame a rhetorical analysis of dLife's efforts to target marketers and patients. The rhetorical analysis demonstrates how dLife's rhetorical choices help to shape marketer strategy, patient identity and discursive behavior.

The paper finds that dLife's use of public relations as part of its IMC approach helps to create more engaging disease education yet increases commercial content in patients' lives. It further theorizes the role of public relations within the IMC framework, an area that has been neglected in scholarship.

This is a rhetorical study that should be complemented by empirical methods in order to comprehensively explore the IMC/health information issue.

The paper demonstrates to practitioners how public relations sponsorships used in IMC build trust and boost education and awareness among target audiences. The paper also cautions that public relations practitioners' use of IMC may privilege corporate interests over patient concerns.

This is the first research study of a corporation's use of public relations sponsorships as part of an overall IMC strategy.

An ongoing public relations (PR) crisis resulted from the behavior of Mylan, a pharmaceutical company, regarding its well-known antianaphylaxis product, the EpiPen. Mylan’s mishandling of the EpiPen controversy widened its legitimacy gap among external stakeholder groups – as well as among its employees. Its actions conflicted with the values expressed by its corporate social responsibility (CSR) rhetoric and jeopardized stakeholders’ commitment, loyalty, and productivity. In this chapter, I argue that #EpiGate renders Mylan unable to activate the type of collective identity orientation needed among employees during a legitimacy controversy. Employing identification and storytelling as critical lenses, rhetorical analysis of Mylan’s CSR documents suggests how its contradictory messages compounded its legitimacy gap among employees. Mylan’s inability to address rising CSR expectations among employees involves both human resources (HR) and PR practitioners. Suggestions for how these functions should work together to better shore up expression of CSR values with employee expectations are provided.