a emergência da cim

The Emergence of IMC:

A Theoretical Perspective

PHILIP J. KITCHEN

University of Hull

p,j,[email protected]

JOANNE BRIGNELL

Hull University Business

School

[email protected]

TAO LI


School

[email protected]

GRAHAM SPICKETT

JONES


School

g.s.spickett-jones@hull,

ac.uk

Within a short period of just over a decade, IMC has swept around the world and be-

come the accepted norm of businesses and apparently the agencies that service their

needs. Here we critically consider IMC in terms of (1) development, (2) impact on mar-

keting communications, (3) barriers to further progress, and {4} current location identifi-

cation and likely development in the future. Evidently, IMC is here to stay. But there are

problems. Not least of these is the apparent reluctance of many businesses to adopt

anything more than an inside-out approach to IMC—in other words, bundling promo-

tional mix elements together so they look and sound alike. But, IMC has to move be-

yond this stage if it is to radically change the face of communications and marketing.

SOMETIMES, in a specific disciplinary area, it is

usehil to p.iuse and take stock of our current

location iind the processes that have led to this

locntion, M.iny years ago, IXiniel Webster s iid:

" . , . When the mariner has been tossed for

many days in thick wtMther, and on an un-

known sea, he naturally avails himself ot the

first pause in the storm, the earliest glance of

the sun, to take his latitude, and ascertain how

far the eiements ha\'e dri\ en him from his true

course. Let us imitate this prudence, and, be-

fore we float further (m the waves of this

debate, refer to the ptiint from which v\'i' de-

parted, that we may at least be able to conjec-

ture where we are now. I ask for a reading of

the resolution..." (cited in Packer, 1979, p. 307)

Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC) seemsto have passed through and still is passing througha conjectural storm as to its meaning and pur-pose. Certainly, if its meaning simply amounts tobimdling promotional mix elements together tocreate the "one-voice" phenomenon, then it is notsaying much that is new, relevant, or e\ en inter-esting. Yet, this was the starting point of IMC. Ithas progressed apparently beyond this stage as

we shall see in this article. Its ending point may

well be the emergence of "integrated marketing."

Yet, it' Integrated marketing is merely based on

pnimotion.il juxtaposition, if it is just an extension

of old-style marketing dressed in new clothes,

then this too will have its rhetorical day (see

Kitchen, 2003), hut will pass aw.iy. What IMC

promises, and what is really needed, is the emer-

gence of a new dynamic paradigm that will fi-

nally facilitate business mo\ement to marketing

communications (and the related range of activi-

ties) that are dearly in customer and consumer

interests. Currently, IMC extends no more than a

promise of this.

Thus, this article will explore the phenom-

enon of IMC from a theoretical perspective. We

do this by

1. considering the IMC developmental process2. evaluating how and in what ways IMC has

impacted upon marketing communications

3. pro\ iding a critical analysis of IMC

4. indicating the barriers to further developmentof IMC

3. showing where IMC is now and providing arationale for its subsequent development ordemise

DOI: 10,1017/S0021849904040048 March 2 0 0 4 JOUBflBL OF flOUEflMG fiESEflflCH 1 9

THE EMERGENCE OF IMC

Undoubtedly, IMC or some variiint with

the idea of "integration" at ils core will be

around for some time. BLit if IMC is to be

iinything more than just a juxtdpositiion of

promotional mix elements and make a

real contribution, then communication has

to move from tactical promotional com-

ponent to strategic business partner. And

that movement will depend not just on

the theoretical literature but on the nature

of business, the development of market-

ing itself, and the required investment by

businesses and the organizations that ser-

vice their needs in becoming customer-

oriented and customer-driven.

THE IMC DEVELOPMENTAL PROCESS

Insofar as communications is concerned,

IMC is undoubtedly tlic major communi-

cations development of fhe last decade of

the 2Dth century (Kitchen and Schult/,

19^9, 200U); this despite the fact that most

of the history of IMC approaches, theory,

and contribution is very recent in nature.

More organizations consider IMC to be a

key competitive advantage associated with

marketing (Kitchen and Schulfz, 2001; Wei!-

bacher, 20U1).

In its practical guise, IMC attempts to

combine, integrate, and synergize ele-

ments of the communications mix, as the

strengths of one are used to offset the

weaknesses of others. In addition, many

organizations have actively undertaken in-

tegration of their communications disci-

plines under the umbrella of one strategic

marketing communications function, spe-

cifically IMC (Hackley and Kitchen, 1998;

Smith. 2002). Smith (2002) suggests, for

example, that publicity and advertising

support each other and create greater im-

pact in a cost-effective manner.

IMC approaches have grown in recogni-

tion and importance for effective market-

ing, particularly as there has been a trend

to allocate budgets away trom mass media

advertising due to increased media frag-

mentation and increasing segmentation of

consumer tastes and preferences [Durkin

and Lawlor, 2001; Eagle and Kitchen, 2000;

Schwartz, 2001; Tedlow, 1990), easier ac-

cess to consumer databases and computa-

tional resources (Kitchen and Schultz, 1999;

McGoon, 1999; Reich, 1998), the impor-

tance of reinforcing consumer loyalty via

relationship marketing (Gonring, 1994;

Reich, I99S; Schultz, 201)2), and the impor-

tance of building and increasing a brand's

image-based equity (McLaughlin, 1997;

Schultz, 1999; Wood, 1997).

Yet, just a short time ago—in the early

1980s—the concept of integrated market-

ing communications was an unrecog-

nized paradigm, and many professionals

and academics within the field of market-

ing considered each marketing communi-

cations function fo operate with various

degrees of autonomy. Dyer (1982), for ex-

ample, presented the basic ideas and con-

cepts behind advertising, identifying the

links hetween and consistency within the

di\ ersity of business communication. Thus,

the theory and practice of advertising,

sales promotion, publicity, etc. were all

discussed, but always in a separatist man-

ner or as individual disciplines.

By early 1983, Couison-Thomas (1983)

described the wide spectrum of market-

ing communications vehicles, presenting

the means and techniques used to com-

municate messages and how these can be

evaluated. While it has to he acknowl-

edged that he did emphasize an element

of interdependence and interrelationsliip

between the different communication spe-

cialties to assist in understanding their

capabilities, the idea of integration was

not considered as a possible approach to

developing more effective campaigns at:

that time.

The literature before the Cay wood,

Schultz, and Wang (1991) report, which

was among the first studies conducted on

IMC and certainly the best known, re-

veals that the idea of integration was ac-

tually there—imderlying the surface, but

little or no effort was channeled into de-

veloping the concept, Schultz (1991), an-

other early writer in this area, was one of

the first to recognize that there was no

smoke without fire. He noted then that

IMC was provoking much media hype

and debate albeit at the practitioner level.

Following these early studies, a verita-

ble wave of academic articles started to

appear in the academic literature. Miller

and Rose (1994) noted that there was in-

creasing support for the unification of all

communication activities under a single

concept, and the evolving paradigm of

IMC was the undoubted stimuli for such

unification. A year earlier, Schultz (1993a,

1993b) recognized that IMC had become

"one of the hottest topics in the whole

marketing arena" (1993a, p. 6), but ques-

tioned whether or not IMC was just an-

other managerial fad—a question that has

been reiterated many times since. Acheson

(1993) also noted that a significant num-

ber of practitioners and academics were

exploring new methods of promotional

integration. Integration apparently pro-

vided a framework to consider the wider

ramifications of marketing communica-

tions by recognizing not just the value of

each discipline, but also the value of

juxtaposition.

Just three years later, amidst a growing

chorus of approving integrators, Schultz

(1996) presented an IMC study conducted

in 1995 among Indian advertisers, reveal-

ing that marketing managers and organi-

zations aroiind the world were becomir\g

more and more alike. Indian marketers,

even in 1995, were apparently familiar

with the IMC concept even if they did not

actively undertake implementation. They

expected, for example, that all marketing

communications components needed to

be coordinated moreck>sely. However, the

ideal of integration at that time implied

2 0 JOURflflL OF flOU[RT!SlflG RESEfiRCH March 2 0 0 4


working with one agency and, in

many marketers were very reluctant to

depend on one agency to integrate their

marketing communications programs.

Tlius, successful further development of

IMC above and beyond tactical juxtaposi-

tion would rely heavily on marketing bud-

gets, staffing, skills, and infrastructure. It

could not just rely on integration of pro-

motional mix elements at the agency level.

But already, popularity for integrated ap-

proaches in the United States had swollen

to such proportions that most respon-

dents in a national survey of advertisers

believed that integration would increase

the impact of their marketing communi-

cation programs (Schultz, 1996).

The diffusion curve of IMC now began

to accelerate and with increasing world-

wide interest in the emergent concept.

Kitchen and Schultz (1997, 1999) under-

took a series of exploratory studies to

investigate its development in terms of

its theoretical foundations initially in two

of the most advanced economies in the

wtirld. Iheir first article deepened under-

standing on how the concept of IMC

was diffusing hy considering how senior

advertising agency executives, within a

judgment sample in the Uriited Kingdom

and United States, perceived, utilized,

and de\'eloped IMC on behalf of clients,

by considering the impt)rtance and value

of traditional advertising agencies in a

marketplace where IMC was becoming

more important {Kitchen and Schultz,

1997). Apparently, IMC increased com-

munications impact, made creative ideas

more effective, provided greater commu-

nication consistency, and agency execu-

ti\'L;s believed integrated approaches could

and would improve client return on in-

vestment. There were some misgivings,

however. Agency executives did not be-

lieve the application of IMC could pro-

\'ide faster solutions or more effective

measurement. Thus, while agency execu-

tives recognized the potential value of

IMC, its time and cost efficiencies were

viewed as uncertain (Kitchen and Schultz.

1997).

Kitchen and Schultz (1999) then con-

ducted a multinational cros.s-cultural study

in the United States, United Kingdom,

New Zealand, Australia, and India—

attempting again to con.sider the theoret-

ical underpinnings and support for the

rapid growth of IMC with regard to ad-

vertising agency acceptance, involve-

ment, and development. This study

revealed that the percentage of client bud-

gets devoted to IMC through individual

agencies \'aried considerably, while the

sensitivity of the data in some countries

did not allow a comparison hetween small,

medium, and large agencies in relation

to budget. It was noted that much of the

budget-side distribution in the United

States and Australia was driven by smaller

agencies spending more time on client

IMC programs than large or larger agen-

cies, with further analysis supporting the

perspecti\'e that the maji>rity of time de-

voted to IMC activities and/or budget-

ary allocation then related to agency size

(Kitchen and Schultz, 1999). Australia and

New Zealand, noted as two coLintries that

had moved least toward IMC, displayed

the greatest percentage .split in favor of

above-the-line traditional advertising un-

like the United Kingdom and United

States that favored beh>w-thc-line com-

munication, with India being somewbere

in the middle.

Thus, in just a short decade, the con-

cept of IMC has swept around the planet

and become a watch cry—not only oi

the marketing and marketing commutii-

cation literatures, but also an apparently

integral part of the marketing and even

corporate communication strategies of

many companies.

Let us now place IMC in the wider con-

text of marketing and communications. For,

if such de\'elopment has taken place, it is

almost certain by now to have had some

impact on the academic literature.

THE IMPACT OF IMC UPON MARKETING

COMMUNICATIONS

Although marketing communications has

been used for several years as an um-

brella term to refer to the various commu-

nication functions used by marketing,

strategic integration of these functional

areas is what makes IMC a new approach

to reaching consumers and other stake-

holders (Duncan and Everett, 1993). An

early definition of IMC adopted by the

AAA and developed by Scliultz was in-

evitably focused—correctly for its time—as

. . . a concept of marketing communi-

cations planning that recognizes the

added value of a comprehensive plan

that evaluates the strategic roles of a

variety of communications disciplines

(for example, general advertising, di-

rect response, sales promotion, and

pubiic relations) and combines these

disciplines to provide clarity, consis-

tency, and maximum communications

impact. (Schuitz, 1993a, p. ID)

The weakness of this definition is its focus

on the bundling together of promotional

mix elements so they in essence "speak

with one voice." Why is this weak? Be-

cause, inevitably, such an approach can

be managed internally (i.e., inside-out

IMC), and this despite the word "strate-

gic." Adoption by the AAA and AMA in

America, howe\xT, not to mention its in-

clusion in most American marketing texts,

meant that across the Atlantic and any

other ocean or sea, IMC has found some

acceptance, even in this simplified form.

Fill (2002, p. 1?), for example, in the

United Kingdom, reaffirmed the idea of

consistent communication and strategic

development when he considered that IMC

March 2 0 0 4 JDUIlflflL OF flQUEflTISIflG 21


. . . IMC is no longer inside-out, but outside-in—that is,

driven by tbe buyers or potential buyers of goods and

services.

"was Ei management process that would

reinforce brand propositions." Notice

though that by 2002, IMC was no longer

just a communication process, but one

associiited with management and with

brands. It does seem evident now that

IMC had to become more than an inside-

out device for bringing promotional mix

elements together. But, back in 1993,

Schultz (1993a) had already recognized

the necessity for IMC to move beyond

this stage. It is worth considering the fol-

lowing citation:

IMC is the process of developing and

implementing various forms of persua-

sive communications programs with

customers and prospects over time. The

goal of IMC is to influence or directly

affect the beha\'iour of the selected com-

munications audience. IMC considers

all sources of brand or company con-

tacts which a customer or prospect has

with the product or service as poten-

tial delivery channels for future mes-

sages. In sum, the IMC process starts

with the customer tir prospect and then

works back to determine and define

the forms and methods through which

persuasive communications programs

should be developed. (Schultz, 1993a,

p. 17)

In this quotation, IMC is no longer inside-

out, but outside-in—that is, driven by the

buyers or potential buyers of goods and ser-

vices. By 2002, Duncan had developed an

IMC process model shown here as Fig-

ure 1. TMC is different from other customer-

centric processes in that its foundation is

coinifuniication. This is regarded as the cen-

ter of all relationships and is envisaged as

a circular process as opposed to a linear

one. The figure reveals an ongoing, circu-

lar process that creates brand value in the

form of sales, profits, and brand equity, and

there is no starting and stopping related to

obtaining, retaining, and growing custom-

ers (Duncan, 2002). Again, he offers an IMC

definition as

. . . a process for managing the cus-

tomer relationships that drive brand

value. More specifically, it is a cross-

functional process for creating and nour-

ishing profitable relationships with

customers and other stakeholders by

strategically controlling or influencing

all messages sent to these groups and

encouraging data-driven, purposeful di-

alogue with them. (Duncan, 2002, p. 7)

He then breaks down the major elements

of his definition to help explain its mean-

ing. The cross-functional pnicess means

SWOT Analysis.Zero-Base Planning{MC Functions and

Media Neutral

Cross-FunctionalOrganization

(Monitoring andEvaluating BrandRelationships)

Databases andInformationTechnology

AdvertisingCustomer Service

Direct ResponseE-commerce EventsPackagingPersonal SellingPublic RelationsSales PromotionSponsorshipsTrade Shows

Brand Relationships(Customer Acquisition,

Retention, Growth)

Sales, Profits, andBrand Equity

r

Brand Messages(Strategic

Consistency ofBrand Positioning,Big Creative Idea)

Media-Mass, Niche,and Interactive(Intrinsic and

Created BrandContacts)

Figure 1 The IMC Process Model (Duncan, 2002). Used herewith permission of the author.

22 LDF March 2004


th.it .ill deportments and outsidi- .l

must wiirk in unison in planning and

monitoring phases of brand relationships.

By creating and nourishing stakeholder

roLitionships, new customers are attracted

and then interacted with to find ways to

satisfy their needs and wants. The idea of

profitable customer relationships is impor-

tant because not all relationships are of

equal wilui? to the company. Stralugically

controlling or influencing all messages re-

fers to ail aspects of the marketing mix.

Encouraging purposeful dialogue identi-

fies thai customers are tired of being talked

at by companies and want the opportu-

nity to interact.

Apparently, IMC can be defined in a

variety of ways, but each definition sug-

gests five significant features according to

Shimp (2000):

• The primary goal of IMC is to affect be-

havior thrtiLigh directed communication.

• The process should start with the cus-

tuiiHT or prospect and then work back-

ward to the brand communicator.

• IMC should use ail forms of communi-

cation and all sources of brand or com-

pany contacts as prospective message

delivery channels.

• The need for synergy is paramount with

ciH)rdination helping to achieve a strong

brand imago.

• IMC requires that successful marketing

communications needs to build a rela-

tionship between the brand and the

customer.

Indicative of many other marketing activ-ities, IMC would appear to be defined bythose implementing it. Kaye (1W9) arguedthat the generally accepted definition of IMCis self-limiting because its focus is on ex-ternal, nonpersonal communications: ad-vertising, publicity, database, and directmarketing and, now, interactive media.There are so many different definitions and

ideas ot what IMC is about and what it en-

tails, right through to its implementation.

It is possible that perceptions of IMC are

tainted by wbat people belie\'e to be the

true definition. Kitchen and Scbultz (]'-)99),

for example, recognized tbo importance of

highlighting various reactions to the IMC

definition, with an obvious need to gener-

ate greater salience from a conceptual and

operational perspective. The Schult/ (IWia)

definition of IMC was supported by most

respondents, but niU tremendously, al-

though all respondents agreed tbat com-

panies should be integrated in terms (if

communication.

Tbe value of formal definitions of IMC

bas been continually underlined by aca-

demic authors (Duncan, 2002; Fill, 2002;

Kitchen, lVW; Schultz, Taiinenbaum, ond

Lauterborn, 1994), but little bas been done

to resolve tbe fact that tbe theoretical con-

cept of IMC remains vague and uncertain

(Kitchen, iy99; Kitcben and Schultz, 1W7,

1998, 2000). it was argued by Cornel issen

and Lock (2000, p. 4), for example, that:

On tbe basis of tbe observation that

IMC as a theory is quite shallow

through Its lack of definition, formal

theory construction, and research, tbe

hypothesis emerges tbat IMC is a man-

agement fashion.

Tlu' idea behind tbe Comelissen and Lock

(2000) argument is tbat because there is

no established academic or professional

definition of IMC, or recognized measure-

ment system in place to gauge tbe influ-

ence and bearing of the various IMC

concepts, it must be a managerial fad.

VVbile Schult/ and Kitchen (2000a) agree

tbat IMC is not \ et a theory and currently

lacks a formal agreed-upon definition, the

foundations an- being laid on an inter-

national level.

It is argued by Percy, Rossiter, and El-

liott (2001) tbat although some view IMC

as a \aluable concept, tberc is a large

amount of evidence to suggest that "truh/

integrated marketing communication is the

exception rather than tbe rule." Fre-

quently, IMC is considered to be nothing

more tban using several means of deliv-

ering a message, altbougb using a range

of different marketing communications

tools does not necessarily mean an IMC

program (Percy, Rossiter, and Elliott, 2001).

Tbe definition of IMC is thus argued by

Percy, Rossiter, and Elliott (2001) as the

planning and execution of all types of

marketing communication needed for a

brand, service, i>r company to satisfy a

common set of communication objectives,

or put more specifically, to support a sin-

gle positioning.

In thi.s brief review of tbe IMC devel-

opment process, it is evident tbat there

are some doubts and misgivings. None-

theless, IMC bas become the dominant

mode or paradigm for explaining how

marketing communications works. Few

writers, in either article or textbook form,

could fail to mention integrated market-

ing communications. Let us now consider

how this topic bas impact upon market-

ing communications.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

By using the sextant of hindsight, tbe

ideal of using various marketing commu-

nication tools in unison has now become

an accepted concept witbin industry. And,

as IMC continues to evolve, a number of

texts ha\'e arisen discussing and arguing

the paradigm of IMC in its own right.

The previous theories discussed helped

define marketing communications and

IMC, clarify tbe ideas behind the con-

cept, and simultaneously show tbat many

new tbeories, practices, and principles

were beginning to emerge in the 1990s,

all of which impacted upon communica-

tions. From an environmental perspec-

tive, these included

March 2004 JOUfinflL OF ilOmiSlflG BESEflflCH 2 3


• the engine of infurniotion technology

allowing massive customer data hold-

ing and manipulation (Clow and Baack,

2002; Duncan, 2002; Maddox, 2001)

• the use of the internet as information

source, communication channel, trans-

action facilitator, and distribution tool

(Durkin .lnd Lnwior, 2001; Gronstedt,

1997; Keich, 1998)

• development in agency practices—

internationalization, globalization, cli-

ent mirroring, organizational learning

and practice driven by client need, multi-

country, multioffice >.tructures and net-

works (Clow and Baack, 2002; Gould,

Lerman, and Grein, 1999; Kitchen and

Schultz, 1999)

• the need for brands to become global,

the pressure of advertising UKali/ation

(Fill and Yeshin, 2001; Grein and Gould,

1996; Kanso and Nelson, 2002; Terpstra

and Sarathy, 2000)

• the fact that "the world has changed,

the nature and forms of communica-

tion have changed, and, therefore, the

practice of developing and managing

marketing and communication must

change as well" (Kitchen and Schult/,

2000, p. 16)

All of these changes have been used to

buttress the argument concerning the de-

\elopment of IMC. As we have seen, the

early literature indicated that IMC has

stimulated significant interest in the mar-

keting world. An early paper of Cay-

wood, Schultz, and Wang (199!) shows

that the majority of enquiries, philoso-

phies, and arguments reviewed in this

paper are around 10 years old, making

this a comparatively new, dynamic area

of research that still could be in an early

growth phase (Kitchen and Schultz, 1999).

Although there has been some skepticism

in the past surrounding the value of an

IMC campaign, " . . . there seems little

doubt that IMC is ^^n emergent concept

whose time seems to have arri\'ed"

(Kitchen, 1999, p. 211).

But has IMC really conquered the liter-

ature so easily? Has it been so readily

absorbed by clients, adverting agencies,

and public relations agencies? As we have

seen in this article, there are dissenting

voices among the crescendo of chorused

approvals. Perhaps the best way to illus-

trate the weakness of IMC is to consider

both the positive and the negative aspects.

Pros and cons about IMC

As with the debate concerning whether

e-commerce represents the "new econ-

i>my" or "huhbic economy" for every piece

of new thinking and innovative theory,

there are different views and disparate

\oices. It is the same with the "one sight,

one voice" marketing communication con-

cept in the academic field. At the very

beginning when the IMC concept was ini-

tiated, advertising educators were in fa-

vor of IMC, seeing it as the best of both

worlds. Public relations educators, on the

other hand, tended to be vehemently op-

posed (Miller and Rose, 1994). A number

of public relations thinkers and practition-

ers saw IMC as not only an encroachment

but also a form of marketing imperialism

where public relations was concerned (Do-

/ier and Lauzen, 1990) because public re-

lations was seen as a management function,

while advertising and other forms of pro-

motion are seen as part of the marketing

function. Wightman (1999) assumed that

IMC was only an excuse for advertising

agencies to engulf public relations to deal

with reductions in client budgets for mass

media communications. However, Miller

and Rose's research with advertising and

public relations practitioners shows that

public relations professionals support in-

tegrated marketing communications and

had even accepted it as a realitj' and ne-

cessity (Miller and Rose, 1994). Moriarty

(1994) argued that public relations had

much to contribute as well as benefit from

IMC thinking. Later on, some academics

questioned the newness of the IMC con-

cept. Spotts, Lambert, and Joyce (1998)

claimed that the bulk of the IMC litera-

ture is a development parallel to market-

ing Ihat misrepresents marketing and

merely R'invents and renames existing con-

cepts. Mutton (1995) even likened IMC to

new wine put into old wineskins. There

has also been the debate of whether IMC

is a "management fashion" or a "devel-

oping academic theory" (Schultz and

Kitchen, 2000a), Cornelissen and Lock

(2000, p. 9) doubted IMC's theoretical ro-

bustness as well as its actual significance

for marketing and ad\'ertising thought and

practice. They viewed IMC as "simple

rhetoric" and, from their point of view,

IMC was a management fashion, appar-

ent in its lack of definition and transient

influence. Schultz and Kitchen {2000a) re-

butted this challenge by arguing that Cor-

nelissen and Lock's citations were "selected

and incomplete" by focus and kxation

almost completely (i.e., inside the public

relations discipline), and that IMC itself

was in a preparadigm stage of de\elop-

ment and thus not bound by an accepted

definition. Their views were supported

by Gould (2000) who argued that

. . . IMC as a major strategic concept is

not much different from other market-

ing or managerial concepts, methodol-

ogies, or strategies that have arisen.

AM have an evolutionary, discursive

and behavioural history in which the

particular concept is defined and re-

defined, often many times, (p. 22)

Gould further argued

. . . that theory may take many forms and

Cornelissen and Lock are holding to one

version t>f the theory, which postulates

relationships among well-detined con-

2 4 JOUHOHL Df nDUEeTISlOG March 2004


structs and then deductively develups

hypotheses for cmpirktil testing, (p. 23)

Needless to say, Schultz nnd Kitchen's

c'lTrlier work, and indeed much oi the

work by many authtirs to date, have in-

deed focused on an inductive approach,

representative of An emergent paradigniat-

iciil devL'iopment.

Another criticism to IMC centers on the

lack of measurement to the effectiveness

oi IMC programs. While urging that more

attention shimld he paid on measuring

"outcomes" rather than "outputs" ot mar-

keting communication activities, Schultz

and Kitchen (20lK)b) raised concerns that

inaiiif iimrkcting actii'itic^ cannot he men-

si;irif, mid the vahie of communication effects

and implicit arc even more tenuous. There-

fore, measurability is not only the prob-

lem ot IMC, but the primary concern of

.ill marketing communication activities.

Schultz and Kitchen (2000b) proposed an

ICMC Communication Planning Matrix

that divided markt'ting communication

programs into two categories, one to ser\'e

[he purpose of business building and the

other to ser\'e the purpose of Imvhi biiild-

iii}i. Current inflows tri>m customers and

prospects will be measured tor the shtirt

term, which will be turned into niiirginnl

rt-turn-i and incremental reivnue; whereas

the return of investment on brand build-

ing will be measured based on the bnind

equitif among customers and prospects.

Semenik (2002) introduced yet further but

still basic approaches to measuring the ef-

fectiveness ot an overall IMC program:

.. . one approach is to merely take on

the measurement of each of the promo-

tional tools used in a campaign, an-

other approach is to use single-source

tracking measures, and the third alter-

native is to measure media exposures,

prttdiict (brand) impressions, and per-

sonal contacts, (p. 29)

However, he also acknowledged that

. . . measuring the complex interaction

of all the promotional mix elements is

\'ery, very complicated and may be

beyond the methodological tools avail-

able at this Hme. (p. 545)

Despite the fact that there are a number

of criticisms of IMC as o\er the iast U)

years that the IMC concept has been de-

bated and developed, this initiative has

been accepted by many marketing lead-

ing theorists and writers, For example,

Kotler (20l)U) in his leading marketing man-

agement text wrote two chapters with the

heading of "Managing and Co<irdinating

Integrated Marketing Communications."

Both Smith (2002) and Fill (2002) deviate

several chapters of their btxiks to discuss-

ing IMC. Pickton and Broderick's (2001)

articulate and persuasi\'e text was titled

liilegratcd Marketing Communications, and

the term "marketing communication" has

been frequently replaced by "integrated

marketing communications" as in Belch

and Belch's book (2001). In the United

States where IMC originated, "twenty years

ago 75 percent of marketing budgets went

into advertising; today, 50 percent goes

into trade promotions, 25 percent to con-

sumer promotions, and less than 25 per-

cent to advertising" (Levinson, 2001, p. 10).

IMC or derivative theory has now been

diffused and the concept has been widely

implemented by many advertising agen-

cies and firms across many countries

worldwide as well as the United States.

Rose's (1996) research about the percep-

tion of IMC amtmg 143 advertising and

public relations professionals concludes

that the majority of Latin American com-

munication practitioners belie\'ed in the

IMC ct>ncept and \'iewed their roles as

encompassing the broader areas of com-

munication. In the study undertaken by

Kitchen and Schultz (1999) among agen-

cies in the United States, United King-

dom, Australia, New Zealand, and India,

conclusions derived from their multicoun-

try comparison indicated that

. .. there is a widespread de\ elopment

of IMC approaches across the fi\'e coun-

tries concerned, but IMC was still in

the early stages of its development. To

follow the product life cycle analogy, it

would seem to vary from introduction,

in the case of Australia and India, to

growth, in the case of the United King-

dom and New Zealand, and possibly

early maturity, in the case of the United

States. (Kitchen and Schultz, 1999, p. 35)

While the concept of IMC is being diffusedto mure and more countries, the adoptersare not limited to the prtiduct and pack-aged goods industries, there are more ser-vice providers trying this new concept intlu'ir own areas. Nowak,Cameron, and De-lorme (1996) conducted research among re-tailers and service pro\ iders in selectedLatin American countries that valued theIMC concept to examine the viability of IMCconcept in retail i^nd service marketing.Their findings re\ealed that

integrated approaches have much \'alue

particularly as a means for coordinat-

ing media and message delivery ele-

ments in a fashion that provides a way

to link behavi(5ural responses to media

vehicles and advertising messages.

(Nowak, Cameron, and Delorme, 1996,

p. 185)

As major participants in planning, coor-

dinating, and implementing IMC, adver-

tising and public relations agencies play a

critical part in the whole process although

the clients are regarded as the impetus of

moving IMC forward. As Belch and Belch

(2001) nott-:

March 2 0 0 4 JOUflllflL OF eOUERTISIflG flESfflflCfl 2 5


Finacial andStrategic

Integration

Firms constantly monitor marcoms performance from an ROI perspective.Information, knowledge linked to a ongoing evaluation of each servedsegment on a global basis.

Application of InformationTechnology

Maintain accessible data sources and build to globally segmenteddatabses. Effectively incorporate data in communication pianningand implementation to turn customer data into customer knowledge.

Redefining the Scope ofMarketing Comnnunications

Organizations gather extensive information about theircustomers and apply to deploying marcoms. and evaluatingfeedback. Also need to align with external agencies.

/1stTactical Coordination of

Marketing Communications

Require high degree of interpersonal and cross-functionalcommunication within and without the business. Led by thebusiness, not external agencies.

6ase//ne

^Source; Schuttz and Kitcher), 2000b)

Figure 2 Stages in IMC Development (Source: Schultz and Kitchen, 2000b)

. . . advertisers assume niLijor respon-

sibility for developing the marketing

program and making the final deci-

sions regarding the advertising and

promotional program to be employed,

while advertising agencies are ex-

pected to assist them in developing,

preparing, and executing promotional

plans, (p. 14)

Client-based research, despite inherentmethodological difficulties, will yet repre-sent the "gold standard" of what IMC is,or what is perceiv ed to be. For, despite theft>cus on agencies servicing client needs, thisdoes not mean that IMC has passed to anylevel beyond stage 1 as shown in Figure 2.And, there are still many barriers standingin the way oi \MC dcvv\opn^cn^.

BARRIERS TO FURTHER

DEVELOPING IMC

Schultz and Kitchen {2000b) identified four

stages of IMC starting frnm tactical coor-

dination of promotional elements, redefin-

ing the scope of marketing communications,

application of information technology, to

financial and strategic integration. They ar-

gued, based on the empirical findings from

their research with advertising agencies that

develop and implement marketing com-

munication plans for their clients, that the

majority of clients an? anchored in either

stage 1 or stage 2 scenarios. Some are mov-

ing into stage 3, but very few (a handful in

today's world) have moved to stage 4 {see

Figure 2).

Major questions hero arc: What are the

primary barriers hindering the diffusion

of the concept of IMC into companies?What are the major problems preventingfurther development of IMC in practice?And what can be done to accelerate theimplementation of IMC from lower stagesto higher stages? Since IMC is to enablevarious messages from different commu-nication channels coming together tocreate a coherent corporate and brandimage, Moriarty (1994) considered thecross-disciplinary managerial skills thebiggest harrier to IMC, while Duncanand Everett {1993) reported that egosand turf battles were primary obstaclesto integration. Eagle and Kitchen (2000)identified four groups of potential bar-riers to IMC success in their study ofthe New Zealand advertising and mar-keting industry: power, coordination, and

2 6 JOURflflL DF flOUEflTfSlflG BESEflflCfl March 2 0 0 4


controJ issues; client skills, centralization/

organization, and cultural issues; agency

skllfs/talents and overall time/resources

issues; <md nexibility/niodification is-

sues, Schultz (2000) saw structure—the

way the firm is put together—as the most

challenging problem of integration. He

argued that the traditional command-and-

control structures should be replaced by

the quick-response model in new econ-

omy firms, and only when management

starts to focus on outcomes rather than

outputs do most of the integration prob-

lems go away Schultz {2001) further noted

that one of the problems with the cur-

rent approach to marketing and market-

ing communications is likely the concept

ot* a campaign, which is contrary to the

customer-focused idea and the long-term

relationship building purpose of IMC be-

cause campaigns generally are devel-

oped and executed for a limited time

period . . . to achieve some type ot' ad-

vantage during some timeframe. Al-

though there are difficulties of ensuring

tho full integration of marketing commu-

nications and there are barriers of achiev-

ing final success of IMC, these difficulties

and barriers will not be able to prevent

people from trying, as tho rewards of

synergy and coherence are significant

(Pickton and Brodorick, 2001). Smith (2002)

further illustrated the merits of imple-

menting IMC: IMC can create competi-

tive advantage and boost sales and profits,

while saving time, money, and stress. A

unifiod message has more impact than a

disjointed myriad of messages,

WHERE IMC IS NOW AND A RATIONALE

FOR ITS SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT

OR DECLINE

Taking Figure 2 as an example of where

IMC is, or could be located, i/"businesses

have stopped their IMC development at

stage 1, then this is stating no more than

Caywood, Schultz, arid Wang (1991) or

Only strategically oriented integrated brand communica-

tions can help businesses move forward in the highly

competitive world of the 21st century.

Schultz, Tannenbaum, and Lauterborn

(1994) were saying at that point in time.

Moreover, a stage 1 focus is what can be

termed "inside-out marketing." It ro-

cjuircs little or no focus on customers,

consumers, or their needs and is a rela-

tively simple matter of bundling promo

tional mix oicmcnts together so "they

speak with one voice." Moreover, if this

indeed what companies arc doiit^, it is a

serious blow against the development of

marketing in the 20th century for stage 1

implies product, production, or sales

orientation—orientations long thought to

be receding into the sedimentary social

and economic strata of the past. Yet, pa-

per after paper has revealed that the ma-

jority of client organizations and the

agencies who service their needs are lo-

cated at this level. What does this mean

trom a communication perspective? Sim-

ply that all communications, not matter

how neatly synergizt-d, are driven by cli-

ent edict and control. Put another way,

they may not focus on customer and their

needs and may in fact be detrimental to

organizational doveU>pment and growth.

Reiteration of messages that plainly con-

tradict business reality damage business

credibility in the long term. A rocont U.K.

example developed by chocolate giant

Cadbury prt»misos consumers froo sport-

ing goods if they will save and submit

special wrappers from Cadbury prod-

ucts. On the one hand, the campaign is

integrated in terms (if advertising, spon-

sorship, sales promotion, package de-

sign, and marketing public relations. On

the other hand, there is a distinct unease

in the minds of customers, consumers,

and industry experts on the links be-

tween chocolate and obesity, and be-

tween chocolate and sporting prowess.

The ontire campaign, while ostensibly of-

fering a consumer benefit, is inside-out

in its approach.

Stage 2 of Figure 2 is at least an attempt

by businesses to actively consider what

customers and consumers want to hear or

see, when, where, and through which me-

dia. It represents "outsidt'-in marketing."

It is a major step in tho direction toward

IMC being driven by customers and their

needs. Certainly few businesses or their

agencies would decry the need for market

research to underpin marketing and mar-

keting communication activities. Yet, it has

been estimated by Kitchen and Schultz

(1999) that only 25 percent of businesses

base their marketing communication ac-

tivities on a sound understanding of the

dynamics of their served segment. Yet,

stage 2 of IMC is an improvement. It

potentially avoids many of the mistakes,

pitfalls, and arrogance of marketers lo-

cated in stage 1,

Yet, it is only in stago.s 3 and 4 that

integration moves beyond juxtaposition

of promotional mix elements, or use of

market research, for in these latter stages

businesses have to invest significant re-

source in building segmented databases

and organizational restructuring to be-

come customer-focused and customer-

driven. Only if communication resources

are invested and measured against actual

customer behavior can financial returns

be compiled. Thus stages .1 and 4 are a

March 2 0 0 4 JQUflllHL DF HDyEHTISKlG RHEflflCH 2 7


mo\oment from iittitudinai measurement

to behavioral measurement. And only

when we move into stage 4, do we arrive

at a position that resembles integrated mar-

kefiu^. The problem is that integrated mar-

keting may be based on stage 1 (not stage

4) foundations.

Tlie real weakness of TMC Is tho vory

weakness of firms to invest resources in

the marketing and communication pro-

cess. If that investment is not made, then

businesses will find themselves anchored

at the dock of stage 1 or stage 2. Indeed,

IMC will have made a contribution, but it

is not one of a strategic nature. It is instead

tacfical. And, yet, communication has to

move from tactical partner to strategic

intogrator. Only strategically oriented in-

tegrated brand communications can help

businesses move forward in the highly

competitive world of the 21st century.

The current location of IMC in a global

sense is at stage 1 or stage 2 of the TMC

process. Yot stage 1 is a body blow to true

integration and indeed to tho discipline of

marketing itself. Such a location cannot

represent any more than a form of mar-

keting commmiication myopia. Stage 2 is

an improvement. Stages 3 and 4 represent

organizational investment and real orga-

nizational change. But, if a business de-

cides to jump from stage 1 to integrated

marketing (the new buzz word on the

marketing block), then integrated market-

ing is integrated from an organizational

but not from <3 customer or consumer

perspective, Tho early promise of IMC

will havo faded into yet another form of

rhetoric (see Kitchen, 2003), Only if busi-

nesses follow through with sustained in-

vestment will IMC continue upward in

terms of growth.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

This article has considered and critiijuod

the IMC de\'clopmenta! process, its im-

pact on Enarketing ct)mmunications, indi-

Undoubtediy, a broad awareness of the IMC concept has

been created and its diffusion woridwide is evident. Such

deveiopment and diffusion is dependent upon underiying

factors that show evidence of increased acceleration in

the 21st century . . .

cated barriers to its further de\'elopmont,

and located IMC in terms of where it is

now, and where it likely to go in the

fuhire. Undoubtedly, a broad awareness

of the IMC concept has been created and

its diffusion worldwide is evident. Such

development and diffusion is dependent

upon underlying environmental factors

that show evidence of increased acceler-

ation in the 21st century, which augers

well for the future development of IMC

and its related construct—integrated

marketing.

And, yet, at the same time, IMC has

provoked intense, diverse discussion and

criticism. While we cannot return to the

crucible of forces from which IMC emerged

in the late 1980s, plainly these forces are

no longer applicable today (in 2003). Yet,

the early literature, albeit conceptualized

and crystallized in modular stage form,

continues to be illustrative of business

reality

IMC is becoming more widely accepted

and recognized, but there are still many

conceptual issues that need further explo-

ration and analysis. If further research is

undertaken, it needs to be preeminently

with client organizations. Further critical

discussion is also needed from a concep-

tual perspective.

This detailed critical review of selected

literature has provided an interesting con-

sideration of how the IMC concept has

evolved, where it came from, and how it

is percei\'cd in modern society. It will be

interesting to see what happens o\er the

next decade,

PHILIP J, KITCHEN holds the Chair in Strategic Market-

ing at Hull University Business School, Hull University.

United Kingdom. Prior to this he held the Martin

Naughton Chair in Business Strategy, specializing in

marketing, at Queens University, Belfast, where he

founded and directed the executive MBA program. At

Hull, he teaches and carries out research in market-

ing management, marketing communications, corpo-

rate communications, promotion management, and

international communications management and has a

specific aim to build an active team of marketing

researchers. A graduate of the CNAA (BA[Hons|) ini-

tially, he received Masters degrees in Marketing Irom

UMIST (M.Sc-l and Manchester Business School

(M.B.Sc), respectively, and his Pti.D. from Keeie Uni-

versity. Since 1984 he has been active in teaching

and research in the communications domain. He is

founding editor and now editor-in-chief of the Journal

of Marketing CoinmunicaHana (Routledge Journals,

1995). He has authored/edited seven books and

published over 90 academic papers in journals

around the world,

JOANNE BRIONELL IS a brand manager for a leading

U.K. FMCG company. A graduate of the University of

Hull Business School, she has interests in marketing

and communications. Her current research is in inte-

grated marketing communications, and she has re-

cently completed an interview-based study of IMC with

CEO's in U.K. advertising and public relations

agencies.

28 or BoyERTieifiG RESEBHCH March 2 0 0 4


TAO U IS a graduate of the Foreign Affairs College in

Beging. China and the University of Hull Business

School. She has worked at the Singapore Embassy

and the British Council Offices in China. From 1996

she has worked in general management, first with a

China-U.S. joint venture consultation company m

shopping center development in China and then at

Beijing COFCO Development Company with responsi-

bility for marketing and public relations. At the time of

coauthoring this article, she was m the process of

completing a study of IMC in China with a specific

on Beijing.

GRAHAM SIMCKETT-JONES is a lecturer in marketing at

Hull University Business School, where is also post-

graduate pathway coordinator in the marketing disci-

pline, Graham has published papers previously in the

International Journal ot Market Research and the Jour

nal of Promotion Management. His research interests

he in the domain ot brand marketing communications

with specific focus on cognitive information process-

ing and psycholinguistics.

REFERENCES

ACHESON, K.L, "Integrated Marketing Must

Bring Two Perspectives Together" Mrtrfa'/iiiy

News 27, 17 (199.1): 4.

RKLCH, C.E., Olid M. A. BLLCII. Adm'rtising and

Promotion: An htlCj^rtiti'ii Mnrkcthi}; Comiimnka-

lioits Perspi'dnv. 5th ed. New York; McGraw-

Hill/lrwin, 2(X)1,

CAYWOOD, C , D, E, Sciwu/., and P, WANG.

"Integrated Marketing Comniiinicitions: A Sur-

vey of N.ition<il CKHIJS Advertisi-rs." iinpLib-

lished rfpoit. Hloninitiglon, IN: Mt'dill School

of [ourn.ilisni. NiirlhvM'sti'rn Uni\'frsity, JUIIL'

1991.

CLOW, K. E., and D, BAACK. htcfiratett AtUvrlh-

iii^. Proniolioit aud Markcliu^^ Comiiitiniculiivts.

Cranbury, NJ: Pearstm Education, Inc., 2002.

Significance of IMC." lotintal of Adivrtishig Re-

search 40, 5 (2000): 7-15.

COULSON-TMOMAS, C, ), Miirkctiii_^

tion:>. Oxford, U.K.: Butterworth-Heinemann

Ltd., 1983.

DOZIER, D., and M. LAUZtiN. "Antecedents and

Consequences of Marketing Itnpcrialism on tht'

Public Rt'l.itions Tunction," I'aper presented to

the Atiintn! Convfittiim of llie Associatkm for Ed-

uaitioii ill loiiriiiilisni. Minni?.ip<>iis, MN, 1990.

DUNCAN, T. !MC: ihin^ Advertisiit}; ami Promo-

lion to BiiiU Braiuh (International Edition). New

York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 21X)2.

DUNCAN, T. R., and S. E. EVCHETT. "Client Per-

ceptions of Integrated Communications." joiir-

ital of Advert hiiis Rivcarch 32, 3 (1993): 30-39.

iN, M,. .ind M. A, LAWLOR. "The Impli-

cations of the Internet on the Advertising

Agency-Client Relationship." The Service

fnVs loimuil (London) 21. 2 (21)01); 173-90,

DYIR, G . AiUvrtifiit^; as Commuiiicatioii. Lon-

don: Routledge, 1982.

EAGLE, L. C , and P. J. KITCHFN. "IMC, Brand

Communications, and Corporate Cultures:

Client/Advertising Agency Co-ordination and

Cohesion." Ltiropcaii joiirnal of Marketiit;^ 34,

5/b (2000): 667-686.

FILL, C . MarkcUn^ Cioiiitiimicatiou^: Contexts,

Strategies and App!(cations, 3rd ed. London, Eu-

rope: Prentice Hall Limited, 2llt>2,

, and T. Yi'.siiiN. hit,\^riilai

tioii^. Oxford, U.K.; Huitorwiirth-

. 2lHt1.

, | . P., and A. R. LOCK. "Thetiretica!

Concept or Management Fashion? Examining the

G, M. P. "t'Litlinj; Integrated Marketing

Communications to Work Today." PtibUc Rcln-

tiom Qiuirtcrli, (Rhinebock) 39, 3 (19^)4); 45.

GOULD, S. J. "The State of IMC Research and

Applications," }oiirmJ of Adivrtiaiit^i Research

40, 5 (2000): 22-23.

, B. LERMAN, and A. K GREIN. "Agency

Perceptions and Practices on Global IMC." four-

mil of Adverlisiitx Research 39, 1 (1999): 7-20.

GREIN, A. E, and S. J. GOULD. "Globally Inte-

grated Marketing Communications," lounml of

Miirkftin;i Coiniimiiicnltons 2, 3 (UW6); 141-58,

, A. "Internet; IMC on Steroids,"

i;^ News 31, II (1947); 16.

HACKLEY, C and P. | . KITCHEN, "IMC: A Con-

sumer Psychological Perspective," Marketing In-

16, 3 (1998); 229-35.

H u n o \ , I. "Integrated Marketing Communi-

cations and the Evolution of Marketing

Thought." Presented to tlie American Acadt'tiiy

of AdvertisitJii Aumial Conference, New York, 1995.

KANSO, A., and R. NELSON. "Advertising Lo-

calisation Overshadows Standardisation." joiir-

iml of Advertising Rcsmvli 42, I (2002): 79-89.

KAYE. R. L. "CtinipiiniL's Need to Reali/t- Inter-

nal Marketing's Potential." Adveriising A^e's Busi-

ness Marketing. 1999.

KITCHEN, P. J. Marketing; CommiinicoHoiif: Prin-

ciples ivid Practice. Londi>n: Intcrnalion.il Thom-

son Business Press, 1999.

The Rhetoric and Reality of Marketing: An

hitermtioml Managerial Approach. Hampshire,

U.K.: Palgrave Publishers Ltd., 2(X)3.

, and D. E, SCHULTZ. "Integrated Market-

ing Communications in US Advertising Agen-

cies; An Exploratory Study." Journal ofAdivrlising

Research 37, 5 (1997): 7-18.

. and -. "IMC—A UK Ad's Agency

Perspective." loiirihi! a! Miirkrtiu^ Mniio^ciiintl

14, 2 (1998): 465-85.

, and . "A Multi-Country Compari-

son of the Drive for IMC." Journal of Adz>ertis-

hfi Ri-icarch 39, 1 (19*>9); 21-38,

, and . "A Response to 'Theoretical

Concept or Management Fashion?'" Jotinml of

Advertising Rr^nnrh 411. i (201)0); 17-21.

March 2 0 0 4 JOURnRL OF HDyERIISlOG 29


-. diid Raising the Corporate Um- KEICII, K, "IMC: Through the Looking Glass of

brcihr. Corpornte Communications in the 21st Ceil- the New Millennium." Comiininication World

turi/. Hampshii^\ U.K.: Palgrave Publishers Ltd., 1.5, 9 (1998): 26-28.

2001.

Rtiht, P. B. "Practitioner Opinions and Interests

KoTL^Ki^. Marketing Management. intht'd,Lon- Regarding Integrated Marketing Communica-

tions in Selected Latin American Countries."

journal of Marketing Conimunieation:i (1996):

don: Prentice Hall International (UK) Limited,

2000.

125-139.

LEVINSON, J. C. "Integrated Marketing." E.xecu-

tiiv Excftlcncc 18, 11 (2001): 9-10. SCHULTZ, D. E. "integrated Marketing Commu-

nications: The Status of Integrated MarketingMADDUX, K. "Shop lums to Collaboration Tool." r- • .- •> • .L i TC- -r i

r' Communications Programs m the US Today.B to B 86. 13 (2001): 10.

McGooN, C. "Cutting-Ed^e Companies Use

Integrated Marketing Communication." Com-

munication World 16, 1 (1999): 15-19.

McLAlIGHLI^J, ]. P. "Why h IMC Taking So

Long? Blame It on the Clients." Marketing News

31, 19 (1997); 27-30.

MILLER, D. A., and P. B. ROSE. "Integrated

Communications: A Look at Reality," I'libtic

Relations Quarterly?,^. 1 (1994): 13.

lournnl of Promotion Mana}(ani'nt 1, 1,

99-104.

. "Integralted Marketing Communica-

tions: Maybe Definition Is in the Point ot View."

Markelitig Navs, January 18, 1993a.

, "We Simply Can't Afford to Go Back

to Mass Marketing." Murkftiiia Niiv» 27, 4

(1993b): 20.

. "IMC Has Become .l Cilohal Concept."

Marketing Neziv 30, 5, (1996): 6.

MORIARTY, S. E. "PR and IMC: The Benefits of •. "Manage Customers, Not Loyalty Pro-

Integration," Public Reliilion^ Quurterhf 39, 3 firc\ms." Marketing Nezos 3X 1, (1999): 35-36.

(1994): 38.

. "Structural Flaws Dash Marcom Plans."

C;, J., G. T, CAMERON, .iiid D. Dt-

LORME. "Beyond the World of Packaged Goods:

Assessing the Relevance of Integrated Market-

ing CommuniciiHonh tor Ket.iil iind Consumer

Service Marketing." journal of Marketing Com-

imitiications 2, 1 (1996): 173-90.

Markcling Ncw^ 34, 3 (2l)(K)): 14.

, "Campaign Approach Shouldn't Exist in

IMC." Marketing Nms 35, 5 (2001): 11-13,

. "Summit Explores Where IMC, CRM

Meet." Marketing Ncu^s 36, 5 (2002): 11-12.

u, li. K. Tench Ye Diti'^ently. S.ilt Lake City,

UT: Descret Books, 1979.

PERCY, I, , J. R. KOSSITER, and R. Fi i m n . Stra-

tegic Adi'crti<:in<i Muiuiiirimml. New York: Ox-

tord University Press bic, 2l)01,

, and P. ], KITCHEN. "A Response to 'Theo-

retical Concept or Management Fashion?'" Jour-

nal of Adverti^nig Research 40, 5 (2000a): 17-21.

, and . Coniiniinicatin^^ Clobalhf: An

tute^ratcii Markiiin^^ Appri^Kli. London: Mac-

millan Press Ltd., 2000b.

, D., <ind A- BROIJUKICK. Inle-iriileii Mur-

kctinii Ctmiiuiinioitions. Essex, U,K.: IVarson Ed-

ucation Limited, 21X)1.

, and , Comnninicating Clot}allif: An

Integrated Marketing Apprmch. Chicago, IL: NTC

3 0 JOUeOflL Of (lOUEflTISlOG RESEBIICH March 2 0 0 4

Business Btroks, NTC/Contemporary Publish-

ing Group, 200UC.

, S. 1. TANNENBAUM, and R. F. LAUTER-

N. Till- Neil' Marketing Paradigm: Integrated

Marketing Comiiiuiiications. Chicago, IL: HTC

Business Books, NTC/Contemporary Publish-

ing Group, 1994.

/., M. "IDM Adopts New Agency

Model," B to B 86, 16 (2001): 21.

SEMLNIK, R. J. Promotion imd Integrated Market-

ing Communications. Soutii-Western. Cincinnati,

OH: South-Western, Thomstw learning, 2002.

SniMi', r A. Advertising Promotion: Supplemen-

tal Aspects of Integrated Marketing Communica-

fiiHis, 5th ed. Fort Worth, TX: The Dryden Press,

Harcourt College Publishers, 2000,

SMITH, P. R. Marketing Comniunicatioin^: An in-

tegrated Approach, 3rd ed. London: Kogan Page

Limited, 2002,

Sporrs, H. E., D, R, LAMBERT, and M. L. JOYCE.

"Marketing Deja V'u: The Discovery of Inte-

grated Marketing Communications." journal of

Marketing Education 20, 3 (1998): 210-18.

. R, S. iVcii' and tinproxt-d: The Ston/ of

Mass Marketing in America. New York: Basic

Books, 1990,

TERPSTRA, V., and R. SARATHY. Internationa! Mar-

keting, 8th ed. New York: The Dryden Pre.ss,

Hartcourt College Publishers, 2000,

Wi:ii BAc HtR, W. M, "Point of View: Does Ad-

vertising Cause a 'Hierarchy of Effects'?" jour-

nal of Advertising Research 41, 6 (2001): 19-26.

VVu.iiiMA\, B. "Integrated Conimunications:

Organisation and Education." l'}il>!ii Reliitioni<

Quarterti/ 44, 2 (19991: 18-22.

Wo()i>, M, B, "Clear IMC Goals Build Strong

Relationships." Markt'tiiig Ncics 31, 13 (1997):

n-i5.