New tensions and challengesin integrated communications

Lars Thøger ChristensenThe Department of Marketing and Management,

The University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

A. Fuat FıratUniversity of Texas – Pan American, Edinburg, Texas, USA, and

Joep CornelissenLeeds University Business School, Leeds, UK

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how tensions and challenges associated withthe implementation of integrated communications in practice have intensified in recent years under theimpact of two conflicting trends: new social and organizational “drivers” towards integration; and theappearance of savvy and sophisticated audiences.

Design/methodology/approach – Taking the point of departure in now classical discussions ofstructural “barriers” to integration, today more fundamental difficulties limit the implementation ofintegrated communications – difficulties rooted in epistemological issues of organization andcommunication are argued.

Findings – Integrated communications present a paradox to contemporary communicationmanagement. On the one hand, integration seems to be the most logical and sensible way ofmanaging communications in a complex world of multiple and critical audiences. On the other hand,its prescriptions are essentially at odds with what is known today about organization and humancommunication. While representing a significant communication ideal, integration in communicationsis simultaneously beyond reach – at least if the full process of communication is taken into properconsideration.

Originality/value – The paper usefully makes the claim that it needs to adapt the ideals of whatintegrated communications is to what integration can possibly do to an organization and itscommunications.

Keywords Corporate communications, Integration, Communication management

Paper type Conceptual paper

Introduction: classical tensionsAfter almost two decades of research and debate, integrated communicationscontinues to be a topic of great interest and relevance to scholars and practitioners ofmarketing, public relations, and communication. Thus, most communication managersor consultants of today would advice an organization to manage, or at least attempt tomanage, its communication in accordance with the ideal of integrated communications.Understood as “the notion and the practice of aligning symbols, messages, proceduresand behaviours in order for an organisation to communicate with clarity, consistencyand continuity within and across formal organisational boundaries” (Christensen et al.,2008, p. 424), integrated communications holds a strong appeal to contemporaryorganizations: by speaking of alignment and coherence, it appears to promise order,

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1356-3289.htm

Integratedcommunications

207

Received February 2009Accepted February 2009

Corporate Communications: AnInternational Journal

Vol. 14 No. 2, 2009pp. 207-219

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1356-3289

DOI 10.1108/13563280910953870

stability and predictability in an otherwise fragmented and confusing world(Cornelissen, 2001; Cornelissen and Lock, 2000). Simultaneously, it justifies centralizedcontrol of all communication functions in a business environment that otherwise canfor calls for participation, involvement and decentralization (Christensen et al., 2005).Among the most dramatic formulations of this promise, Aberg’s (1990) notion of “totalcommunications” sends the message that it is possible and desirable to encompass allcommunications, both externally directed communication activities and internalmessages, within one integrated whole.

Clearly, not all writings on integrated communications approach the field with suchtotalizing formulations. Taking our point of departure in now classical definitions,however, it is obvious that the field’s primary concern is wholeness and unity incommunications. The ideal of integrated communication, thus, implies urgingorganizations to manage the many sources of information about a product or service towhich a customer or prospect is exposed (Schultz et al., 1994), to work toward astrategic coordination of all corporate messages relevant for the maintenance of thebrand (Keegan et al., 1992) and to control all messages that are relevant in establishingprofitable and long-term relationships with customers and other stakeholders (Duncanand Moriarty, 1998). Integrated communications, in other words, proceeds from theimperative “Know thy organization and produce a general overview of all itscommunications!”

Such advice makes a lot of sense from a managerial perspective. As we are told,integrated communications helps organizations break through the clutter in a worldsaturated with commercial symbols and messages. Moreover, it allows them to bolstertheir branding efforts and build a reputation of distinction and trustworthiness.Simultaneously, integration makes it is easier to brief the communication agency, tomake sure that media budgets are spent more efficiently, to obtain a higher degreeof precision in campaigns, and, consequently, to assure that economic resourcesare employed optimally. Conversely, it is argued, non-integrated or disintegratedcommunications send disjointed messages that weaken impact and confuse, frustrateor irritate the organization’s audiences (Smith, 1996; Balmer, 1995; Ind, 1997; Knox andBickerton, 2003; Mitchell, 1997; Harris and Chernatony, 2001).

At the same time, the question of how integrated communications is to be realized inpractice remains one of the most salient and pressing issues of contemporarycommunication management. After almost two decades of scholarly and managerialwork, writers in the field continue to talk about the dearth of research on organizationalissues related to integration (Cornelissen et al., 2001; Cornelissen and Thorpe, 2001;Pettegrew, 2000-2001) and the absence of formal models and procedures to implementthe ideal (Schultz and Schultz, 2003; Wightman, 1999). Simultaneously, other writershave pointed out the lack of interest in the receiver side of integration (Christensen et al.,2005; Fırat and Christensen, 2005).

Scholars and practitioners, thus, have not been impervious to the limitations ofintegrated communications (Miller and Rose, 1994). Most writings, however, havearticulated such limitations as “barriers” to implementation (Pettegrew, 2000-2001;Schultz and Schultz, 2003; Wightman, 1999), hereby implying that the project, and itsunderlying communication ideal, is fundamentally valid and sound – only difficult toput into practice (Christensen et al., 2008). Thus, while the literature has discussed, forexample, how turf battles, ego problems, managerial parochialism, “functional silos”

CCIJ14,2

208

and lack of horizontal communication between departments prevents the exchange ofinformation necessary to facilitate an ongoing integration of corporate messages(Gayeski and Woodward, 1996; Gronstedt, 1996; Smith, 1996), these problems areassumed to be remediable through changes in management practices, e.g. formalresponsibilities and lines of command (Schultz and Schultz, 2003). Likewise, whenscholars of integrated communications acknowledge the difficulties of managingreceiver perceptions of corporate messages, they still seem to assume that this isessentially an issue of planning and control (Schultz, 1996; Schultz et al., 1994).

In this paper, we shall extend the discussion of these two tendencies in the field: onthe one hand, the pressure to integrate all communication is more pronounced todaythan ever before, on the other hand, the fundamental difficulties of managing thispressure in practice stand out more clearly. Emphasizing this tension, we demonstratehow the paradox of managing integration has become increasingly intensified intoday’s world, thus calling for new conceptions of the field.

New drivers of integrationFrom a managerial perspective, the contemporary business landscape seems to screamfor integrative measures. In addition to the marketing-oriented drivers of integrationmentioned above, the last decade has seen a striking increase in what we might call“social drivers of integration.” In the aftermath of the corporate meltdown, andespecially under the impact of the current financial crisis, the call for corporatecredibility has become more pronounced than ever before. While legal initiatives putpressures on organizations to report all matters of financial relevance, organizationsare expected to foster accountability themselves by sharing information with theirsurroundings on non-financial issues as well. Thus, organizations are under growingpressure to publicize strategic choices, corporate plans and business practices – all inorder to cultivate accountability and trust (Power, 1997; Bovens, 1998). Moreover,through the announcement of corporate values, corporate ethics and principles ofcorporate social responsibility, organizations are expected to share the deeperdimensions of their activities with the public. Consequently, organizations feelincreasingly transparent to critical and inquisitive stakeholders (Backer, 2001;Christensen, 2002).

While such pressures are not new, their intensity and impact on contemporaryorganizations is remarkable. In particular, we note how organizations across sectorssystematically attempt to deal with the demand for information and insight throughmeasures of integration. As Christensen and Langer (2009) argue, contemporaryorganizations adapt to the growing demand for information and stakeholder insightthrough strategies of consistency, that is, by formalizing all communications andpursuing uniformity in everything they say and do. Such endeavours manifestthemselves in programmes of integrated communications and in projects of corporatebranding. Yet, the current emphasis on consistency extends far beyond the distinctcommunication parameters of the past (Christensen et al., 2008). While earlyarticulations of integrated communications were driven by an interest in aligningtangible marketing or design parameters, today the most powerful driver behindintegration seems to be a potent combination of inquisitive publics asking for insightand information, and critical media and journalists zealously looking for gaps,contradictions and ambiguities in corporate messages. Because of these pressures,

Integratedcommunications

209

organizations and institutions across sectors are compulsively focused on producingconsistent messages to both internal and external audiences. And, as we can clearly seewhen political leaders or business managers are interviewed for the media, part of thisendeavour entails avoiding or even denying communicative discrepancies of allkinds – for example, between front stage and back stage, between messages andbehaviour and between messages of the past and messages of the future. In such anenvironment, every aspect of an organization’s life has the potential to become anobject of communication.

As Gronstedt (1996, p. 39f) puts it “companies communicate with everything theydo.” While this observation has previously been used to expand the remit of the designor marketing manager (Olins, 1989; Stuart and Kerr, 1999), today it serves as areminder that organizations no longer determine the boundaries of their owncommunication. Thus, organizations not only communicate with the messages theydeliberately select for publication, but also with the performance of their products andservices, the treatment and behaviour of their staff, the way they use and dispose ofnatural resources, their choices for investments, the way they address and listen tointerest groups, and their relations with the media and representatives of the politicalsystem, etc. (Schultz and Kitchen, 2000). Organizations that manage their design ormarketing parameters in tightly controlled ways may well find that their audiences arepaying more attention to other, and less manageable, dimensions like, for example, thebehaviour of their staff or the production methods of their suppliers. Consequently,integrated communications no longer refers exclusively to the coordination ofcorporate design or the strategic alignment of marketing parameters, but involves alsothe pursuit of a coherent and shared corporate culture or shared values, the verticalintegration of business partners, customers, and non-governmental organizations andthe maintenance of positive relations with politicians, journalists, and media.

Given these trends, it is only logical that the field of integrated communications ismaturing and expanding from a bounded and specialized activity to anorganization-wide issue and concern – a concern that now spans functional anddisciplinary confines. Associated with the increase in potential market-relatedmessages, we find a corresponding growth in the number of relevant audiences for theorganization’s communication. Whereas market communications traditionally havebeen regarded as directed primarily to the organization’s customers, includingwholesalers and retailers, today organizations increasingly recognize that theirmessages simultaneously are relevant, and sometimes even more so, to managers,current and future employees, social authorities, investors, politicians, and criticalstakeholders (Duncan and Caywood, 1996). Consequently, it is understandable thatother disciplines like human resource management, accounting and, especially, publicrelations, are beginning to show a greater interest in integrated communications andits implications for their specific spheres of activity.

Following its expansion to still more dimensions of the organizations’ life, the fieldis experiencing a growing involvement from management. Realizing thatcommunications is no longer a bounded set of tactical activities, but an ongoingstrategic process that taps directly into issues of identity and legitimacy and,ultimately, organizational survival, organizational leaders increasingly seek to mastercommunication as a general managerial competence (Cornelissen, 2008). Thus, at thesame time that the field of integrated communications has experienced a sweeping

CCIJ14,2

210

growth in the number of messages and audiences, scholars, and practitioners haveargued for the need to converge all communication efforts around a clear and distinctset of messages and symbols and to concentrate the responsibility of this focus at thetop of the organizational pyramid (Schultz and Kitchen, 2000; Schultz, 1993).

The combination of social expectations, message expansion, blurred disciplinaryboundaries, and managerial involvement implies a growing pressure on organizationsto integrate their communications on a broader scale than was the case in the past.Taken together, these “drivers” of integration call for an increased professionalizationof information and communication management and an organization-wideengagement with formalized programmes of consistency. Through the use of suchprogrammes, organizations not only seek at once to “break through the clutter,” butalso to present themselves as coherent, reliable, and trustworthy institutions withnothing to hide. Given these social pressures on contemporary organizations –pressures that will probably not diminish in any foreseeable future – the expansion ofthe field seems both logical and inevitable.

In the process of embracing still more dimensions of an organization’s life, however,the field is simultaneously revealing some of its major weaknesses. While it isobviously a good general advice in a hostile world to aim for consistency and coherencebetween and among corporate messages as well as across different audiences anddifferent media, the difficulties of doing so become painfully obvious whenorganizations aspire to integrate everything they say or do. The inevitableexpansion of the field, thus, impels us to look beyond the structural limitationsdiscussed in the classical literature and consider more fundamental difficultiesassociated with integrated communications in practice. These difficulties tap intoepistemological issues of organization and communication rarely discussed in theintegrated communications literature.

The power of definitionsThe notion of integrated communications operates under the assumption that it ispossible to take a broad and all-inclusive view of an organization and its manydifferent messages. Put differently, integrated communications suggest,epistemologically speaking, a “privileged perspective” from where the organization(or parts thereof) can oversee its communication in its totality. In the same way asmanagement programs such as business process re-engineering, total qualitymanagement, and knowledge management, presume an ability to produce meticulousself-descriptions of the organization as well as suggesting necessary correctivemeasures, the ultimate ambition of integrated communications is to map out in detailall communicative dimensions of the organization relevant to the projection andmaintenance of a coherent and consistent corporate image.

Such ability, however, is an illusion. As philosophers and epistemologists havemade clear, there is no such thing as a privileged perspective from where the world, orany object for that matter, can be observed as a whole (Maturana and Varela, 1980;Morin, 1984, 1986; Vattimo, 1992). While the desire to produce a general overview of anobject or a situation, including an organization’s communication, is understandable,nobody ever meets an organization in full – neither its own members nor its externalstakeholders. Nobody, therefore, is able to describe the organization in its “entirety.”As Peirce (1985) noted more than a century ago, we only have access to the world

Integratedcommunications

211

through the use of signs, which never represent an object in full but always stand forsomething in some respect or capacity. Just as a map can only inform us about certaindimensions of a landscape, the sign only highlights, as Peirce explains, certain aspectsof the object. All descriptions, thus, involve choices and are as a consequencenecessarily partial, strategic and contingent in the sense that other descriptions arepossible (Andersen, 2003). This is not to discard the possibility that carefulself-examinations and self-evaluations may be valuable and generate important insightabout internal processes. Rather, it is to point out that our notions of wholeness,coherence and unity are inevitably local and partial (re)presentations of thephenomenon we call an organization (Andersen, 2003). Whatever we chose to label “theorganization” is, in other words, a definition – a point of reference in our attempt tograsp and hold on to an integrated view of reality.

The practical implications of these observations are multiple. While integratedcommunications assumes that some part of the organization is able to step outside theorganization and from that position deliver a description of the whole, we know thatsuch descriptions are inevitably incomplete. Still, such partial descriptions areproduced and presented all the time in the name of wholeness, coherence andintegration. Since the privilege to produce such descriptions is usually concentrated inthe hands of top managers or consultants, we need to acknowledge that integratedcommunications is not so much a project of consistency as a project of power – thepower to define the limits of integration and by extension select the signs thatrepresent the organization and reject the ones that do not (Christensen, 2002).

Such power should be used carefully and wisely, not at least because the selectionsinvolved may alienate internal and external audiences. As we have seen above,communication is no longer a delimited space of activity confined to a distinct set ofcontrollable parameters, but a complex and expansive process involving manydifferent audiences, messages, and media. In that process neither the organization northe external world should be seen as receptive or passive participants. As Christensenet al. (2008) have argued, integration is only one among several competing agendas andconcerns in a complex system like an organization. Other legitimate agendas includethe need to be sensitive, responsive and flexible with regard to changes in the market.Importantly, these alternative agendas may not be fully compatible with the ideal ofintegrated communications. As a consequence, organizational members may notreceive and unpack official signs and symbols of integration in ways envisioned bymanagement (Christensen and Cheney, 2000). For the same reasons, the organizationmay not be able to operate in the full service of the integrated communicationsprogram. These limitations are not simply “barriers” in the conventional sense of theterm, but fundamental conditions of organizing that need to be taken into properconsideration when formulating programs of integration. While “integration” isessentially another word for organization, it should not be regarded as a fixed andpredetermined product that simply needs to be transported smoothly through theorganizational “container.” To integrate its communication, an organization needs toembrace diversity and variety and to balance the wisdom of its many voices with theeffort to secure clarity and consistency in its overall expression. In today’s complexworld, this implies understanding more fully the receiver end of the communicationprocess.

CCIJ14,2

212

The creative receiverAs some scholars of integrated communications have rightly noted, consistency is nota once-and-for-all property of a message or a set of messages, but an active evaluationor interpretation by the receiver (Schultz, 1996). Consistency or lack thereof, in otherwords, is always in the eye of the beholder. In spite of this important observation, thefield has not fully embraced the notion of active, productive and creative receivers.In their attempts to align and coordinate all corporate messages in order to appear“seamless” from the customer’s point of view (Pickton and Broderick, 2001, p. 55;van Riel, 1995, p. 16), organizations following a strategy of integration still seem toassume that messages sent equal messages received.

Yet, there is always integration going on the part of the receiver, whether themessages sent are integrated and coherent or not. As Buhl (1991) has explained so well,the reception of corporate messages is not a passive activity through which anaudience is trying to figure out what the author meant to convey. Rather, it is a processthrough which the receiver tries to make sense of a piece of communication by linkingit to a context that is familiar or meaningful. Reception, in other words, is aself-referential process of integration in the sense that receivers read meaning into themessage by importing relevant information from their own world (Eco, 1979;Iser, 1974). Reception, therefore, is always a creative process that cannot be plannedand managed by the sender.

Scholars studying the globalized marketplace have gradually become aware that,for example, consumers are more mature and savvy today and thus more difficult toreach, let alone manage, within an integrated communications approach (Brown,1993a, b; Fırat and Dholakia, 1998). With the growing influence and presence ofmarketing in all facets of their lives, from politics to daily grocery purchases,consumers have not only become more capable of “reading” marketing messages andtheir intentions, but they have also become more adept at manipulating and integratingcorporate symbols and messages into their own lives in ways that were not intendedby the senders. Contemporary consumers, thus, frequently interpret and use corporateproducts and messages differently from their original purpose, reshape, and adaptthem to personal use, and modify and sometimes pervert their meanings in ways notimagined by their creators (Cova, 1996). This we clearly see in consumer networks suchas “brand communities” (McAlexander et al., 2002; Muniz and O’Guinn, 2001). Theseconsumer collectives link through activities they share temporally or through the useof communications technologies, for example, resources on the internet such as chatrooms and blogs. In these contexts, they play with, extend, replicate, and often redefineand re-signify corporate symbols and thus take an active part in the determination ofbrand images and identities (Elliott and Wattanasuwan, 1998; Kates, 2000).Sociologists, such as Maffesoli (1996) and Giddens (1991), use the term (neo)tribes toidentify these networking consumers. Despite efforts to infiltrate them by plantingsome members, organizations are unlikely to be able to control the dynamic ofcommunications among members of such consumer collectives or brand communities.Just as we see when organizations try to form alliances with celebrities, entertainers,film producers, and other highly visible or influential cultural actors, these socialelements in contemporary society have a relative autonomy in their choices, activities,and discourses. Especially, the dynamics of their interactions with fans and otherconstituencies they affect, including their detractors and critics, are often highly

Integratedcommunications

213

volatile and not conducive to strict control; there are too many relatively independentplayers at work. In contemporary society, however, these actors play a significant rolein how organizations and their offerings are perceived by the ways they use orconverse about these offerings, which are, then, interpreted and played with by theirfans and other constituencies.

Consequently, there is more “play” between marketing messages and consumers,where each construes and “re-writes” the other’s intentions and meanings (Muggleton,2000; Muniz and O’Guinn, 2001; Prahalad, 2004). This does not necessarily mean thatmarketing communications are less persuasive, just that the process of persuasiontakes place at a more sophisticated level than assumed by conventional writings onintegrated communications. The consumer will have to be provoked throughcommunications to build her/his own persuasions, rather than communicationsattempting to directly persuade the consumer (Ferguson, 1999; Sweet, 1999). Thus,integrated communications efforts toward congruity of all messages that emanate fromthe organization may create problems for the organization in a mature market. Whenits drive toward clarity of voice confronts the desire and ability of savvy consumers tocreate their own perceptions and stories (Kozinets, 2002), the organization may becomeperceived as overly one-dimensional and patronizing (Holt, 2002; Thompson, 2004).

Proponents of integrated communications weigh, as we have seen, on the side of acoherent voice, concerned that without such coherence messages from the organizationcan be misunderstood by the audience, that the audience will get conflicting orinconsistent meanings that, in the end, cause confusion, therefore, distrust in what theorganization offers. This is a valid concern, especially today where corporatemisconduct is so strongly associated with inconsistency and insincerity. Clearly,we want our messages to be understood as intended, and organizations want theiraudiences to recognize what they are offering and what these offerings can provide.When, however, the attempt to create coherence in messages outweighs the recognitionof active and creative receivers, the organization may appear too rigid. In today’smarket, consumers and other audiences have greater capability and possibility to pickand choose among available signifiers, twist and manipulate them into fittingindividual purposes, and they regard attempts to control their interpretations withsuspicion and ridicule (Fırat et al., 1995). Rather than building a unique and consistentpresence in the marketplace, the integrated communications process may, in otherwords, hurt the organization’s image.

Thus, while most prevailing theories of managerial communication today recognizethat communication is a two-way process of meaning-construction, the vision of “totalcommunication” (Aberg, 1990) inherent in current notions of integratedcommunications seems to operate fairly independently of the whole receiver side ofthe communication process. Consequently, the notion of managing interpretationsamong end-users is doomed to fail (Fırat and Christensen, 2005; Motion andLeitch, 2002). What organizations can strive for instead is that managers andemployees have consistent understandings of corporate values and the ways the valuesare expressed and otherwise manifested in organizational practice.

ConclusionIn a world where freedom and individuality are revered, approaching an organization’smany different audiences with a voice that is too controlled – where there is attempt to

CCIJ14,2

214

disallow or limit space for individual interpretation and play – is most unlikely tocreate the desired positive attitudes among sought constituencies. Mature markets,organizations and audiences, similar to mature people, seek playful engagement withequals rather than a top-down treatment from authorities (Thompson, 2004). Messagesemanating from an organization, thus, need to have some complexity allowingcomplex, non-uniform readings. A complex, mature and savvy audience willappreciate such a complex voice (Holt, 1998). This is not very different from the worldof high-culture or art. Fine art, high-quality theater, excellent symphony or opera, ingeneral, all high-culture products, share the quality that they are complex and allowcomplex readings which cause the audiences to reflect, consider various potentialmeanings, debate alternative connotations before arriving at non-simple, richinterpretations that continue to develop and intrigue the intellect over time(Bourdieu, 1984). High quality, effective communications are not different. Ratherthan determined meanings, excellent communication with mature audiences is one thatprovokes complex readings (Barthes, 1977; Gans, 1999). Traditional approaches tointegrated communications that see a necessity of high determination of meaning andcontrol of communications toward a coherent message miss the possibility of effectiveinteractions with mature markets. Therefore, as markets around the globe continue tomature, traditional approaches will hurt rather than help organizations’ capability toconnect with their markets (Christensen et al., 2005).

Examples supporting this conclusion abound in contemporary society. Consider theexample of the entertainer Madonna. She has been highly successful, to the extent thatsome consider her to be the model for future marketing, despite, or possibly becauseof, the fact that she has constantly remade her image(s), surprising, astonishingand provoking her fans (Guilbert, 2002). Consider also the recent advent of“viral marketing” (Gladwell, 2000), where the marketer only puts out a provocationthat is then picked up by the consumers and re-distributed to spread like a virus(Holt, 2002).

Organizational success can also often be found in the redirection of image andtargets by active markets and consumer involvement. A good example is the success ofthe Tommy Hilfiger brand, originally targeted at preppies by the company, inurban-teen settings as a result of adoption by rap artists. Instead of resisting consumeradoption of meanings and insisting on a pre-planned image strategy and connectedcommunications, the company built success through adapting to demand.

Integrated communications is a notion that builds on modern marketing principlesand a modern market that could be apportioned into relatively homogeneous segments,allowing and fostering mass-production. In modern markets, the institution ofmarketing is charged with the responsibility of discovering current and future needs ofmany different audiences, often even when such audiences themselves are unable toarticulate these needs, and providing products to satisfy them; leading to modernmarketing principles. Yet today, we are increasingly seeking not providers butpartners (Fırat et al., 1995), leading to concerns such as mass-customisation (Pine,1992), rather than mass-production. In this respect, integrated communicationsis analogous to mass-production; contemporary communications need amass-customisation appeal (Peppers and Rogers, 1993). In such an environment,efforts to control and “integrate” the content and forms of communications will likelyfail and be counter-productive. Instead, communications are likely to be more

Integratedcommunications

215

successful if they seek to contribute to a culture of partnership in designing andarticulating both the needs and the images and products that (re)present them.

Thus, we have to recognize that while “integration” is a noble and still moretempting ideal of communication, it is not a process that can be planned, executed andcontrolled by the sender. Attempts to do so anyway in the complex world of today mayproduce what Leitch (1999, p. 7) calls “a resource-hungry monster” unable to adapt tonew situations. Accordingly, our models and frameworks of integratedcommunications will have to account for flexibilities required in responding to orconversing with a multiplicity of players in and outside of the imagined boundaries ofthe organization, taking into consideration their tendencies not only at the time of an(assumed) original point in the conversation, but also as the conversation progressesover time.

References

Aberg, L.E.G. (1990), “Theoretical model and praxis of total communications”, InternationalPublic Relations Review, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 13-16.

Andersen, N.A. (2003), “The undecidability of decision”, in Bakken, T. and Hernes, T. (Eds),Autopoietic Organization Theory, Abstakt, Liber, Copenhagen Business School Press, Oslo,pp. 235-58.

Backer, L. (2001), “The mediated transparent society”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 4 No. 3,pp. 235-51.

Balmer, J.M.T. (1995), “Corporate branding and connoisseurship”, Journal of GeneralManagement, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 24-46.

Barthes, R. (1977), Image, Music, Text, Hill and Wang, New York, NY (translated by S. Heath).

Bourdieu, P. (1984), Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, Harvard UniversityPress, Cambridge, MA.

Bovens, M. (1998), The Quest for Responsibility. Accountability and Citizenship in ComplexOrganizations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Brown, S. (1993a), “Postmodern marketing?”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 27, pp. 19-34.

Brown, S. (1993b), “Postmodern marketing: principles, practice and panaceas”, Irish MarketingReview, Vol. 6, pp. 91-100.

Buhl, C. (1991), “The consumer’s ad: the art of making sense of advertising”, in Larsen, H.H.,Mick, D.G. and Alsted, C. (Eds), Marketing and Semiotics. Selected Papers from theCopenhagen Symposium, Handelshøjskolens Forlag, Copenhagen, pp. 104-27.

Christensen, L.T. (2002), “Corporate communication: the challenge of transparency”, CorporateCommunication: An International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 162-8.

Christensen, L.T. and Cheney, G. (2000), “Self-absorption and self-seduction in the corporateidentity game”, in Schultz, M., Hatch, M.J. and Holten Larsen, M. (Eds), The ExpressiveOrganisation, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 246-70.

Christensen, L.T. and Langer, R. (2009), “Public relations and the strategic use of transparency:consistency, hypocrisy, and corporate change”, in Toth, E. and Heath, R.L. (Eds), Criticaland Rhetorical Approaches to Public Relations, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 129-53.

Christensen, L.T., Fırat, A.F. and Torp, S. (2008), “The organization of integratedcommunications: toward flexible integration”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42Nos 3/4, pp. 423-52.

CCIJ14,2

216

Christensen, L.T., Morsing, M. and Cheney, G. (2008), Corporate Communications: Convention,Complexity, and Critique, Sage, London.

Christensen, L.T., Torp, S. and Fırat, A.F. (2005), “Integrated marketing communication andpostmodernity: an odd couple?”, Corporate Communication: An International Journal,Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 156-67.

Cornelissen, J.P. (2001), “Integrated marketing communications and the language of marketingdevelopment”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 483-98.

Cornelissen, J.P. (2008), Corporate Communications. A Guide to Theory and Practice, 2nd ed.,Sage, London.

Cornelissen, J.P. and Lock, A.R. (2000), “Theoretical concept or management fashion: examiningthe significance of integrated marketing communications”, Journal of AdvertisingResearch, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 7-15.

Cornelissen, J.P. and Thorpe, R. (2001), “The organization of external communication disciplinesin UK companies: a conceptual and empirical analysis of dimensions and determinants”,Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 413-38.

Cornelissen, J.P., Lock, A.R. and Gardner, H. (2001), “The organization of external communicationdisciplines: an integrative framework of dimensions and determinants”, InternationalJournal of Advertising, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 67-88.

Cova, B. (1996), “The postmodern explained to managers: implications for marketing”, BusinessHorizons, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 15-23.

Duncan, T. and Caywood, C. (1996), “The concept, process, and evolution of integrated marketingcommunication”, in Thorson, E. and Moore, J. (Eds), Integrated Communication: Synergyof Persuasive Voices, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 13-34.

Duncan, T. and Moriarty, S.E. (1998), “A communication-based marketing model for managingrelationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62, pp. 1-13.

Eco, U. (1979), The Role of the Reader: Explorations in The Semiotics of Texts, Indiana UniversityPress, Bloomington, IN.

Elliott, R. and Wattanasuwan, K. (1998), “Brands as symbolic resources for the construction ofidentity”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 131-44.

Ferguson, T. (1999), “eBay’s credo: trust thy customer”, The Ferguson Report, No. 3, available at:www.fergusonreport.com/articles/fr059902.htm

Fırat, A.F. and Christensen, L.T. (2005), “Marketing communications in a postmodern world”,in Kimmel, A.J. (Ed.), Marketing Communication: New Approaches, Technologies andStyles, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 215-35.

Fırat, A.F. and Dholakia, N. (1998), Consuming People: From Political Economy to Theatres ofConsumption, Routledge, London.

Fırat, A.F., Dholakia, N. and Venkatesh, A. (1995), “Marketing in a postmodern world”, EuropeanJournal of Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 40-56.

Gans, H.J. (1999), Popular Culture and High Culture: An Analysis and Evaluation of Taste,Basic Books, New York, NY.

Gayeski, D.M. and Woodward, B.E. (1996), “Integrated communication: from theory toperformance”, available at: www.omnicomassociates.com/omninteg.html

Giddens, A. (1991), Modernity and Self-identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age, StanfordUniversity Press, Stanford, CA.

Gladwell, M. (2000), The Tipping Point, Little Brown, London.

Integratedcommunications

217

Gronstedt, A. (1996), “Integrated communications in America’s leading total qualitymanagement corporations”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 25-42.

Guilbert, G.-C. (2002), Madonna as Postmodern Myth: How One Star’s Self-construction RewritesSex, Gender, Hollywood and the American Dream, McFarland, Jefferson, NC.

Harris, F. and de Chernatony, L (2001), “Corporate branding and corporate brand performance”,European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4, pp. 441-56.

Holt, D.B. (1998), “Does cultural capital structure American consumption?”, Journal of ConsumerResearch, Vol. 25, pp. 1-25.

Holt, D.B. (2002), “Why do brands cause trouble? A dialectical theory of consumer culture andbranding”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 2, pp. 70-90.

Ind, N. (1997), The Corporate Brand, Macmillan Press, London.

Iser, W. (1974), The Implied Reader, John Hopkins, Baltimore, MD.

Kates, S.M. (2000), “Out of the closet and out on the street! Gay men and their brandrelationships”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 493-513.

Keegan, W., Moriarty, S. and Duncan, T. (1992), Marketing, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Knox, S. and Bickerton, D. (2003), “The six conventions of corporate branding”, EuropeanJournal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 7/8, pp. 998-1016.

Kozinets, R.V. (2002), “Can consumers escape the market? Emancipatory illuminations fromburning man”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29, pp. 20-38.

Leitch, S. (1999), “From logo-centrism to corporate branding? The (r)evolution in organisationalidentity”, Australian Journal of Communication, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 1-8.

McAlexander, J.H., Schouten, J. and Koenig, H.F. (2002), “Building brand community”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 66, pp. 38-54.

Maffesoli, M. (1996), Time of the Tribes: The Decline of Individualism in Mass Society, Sage,London.

Maturana, H.R. and Varela, F.J. (1980), Autopoiesis and Cognition. The Realization of the Living,D. Reidel, Dordrecht.

Miller, D.A. and Rose, P.B. (1994), “Integrated communications: a look at reality instead oftheory”, Public Relations Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 13-16.

Mitchell, A. (1997), Brand Strategies in the Information Age, Financial Times Report, London.

Morin, E. (1984), “The fourth vision: on the place of the observer”, in Livingston, P. (Ed.),Proceedings of the Stanford International Symposium, September 14-16, 1981, StanfordUniversity Press, Stanford, CA, pp. 98-108.

Morin, E. (1986), La Methode 3. La Connaissance de la Connaissance, Livre Premier: Antropologiede la Connaisance, Paris.

Motion, J. and Leitch, S. (2002), “The technologies of corporate identity”, International Studies ofManagement and Organisation, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 45-64.

Muggleton, D. (2000), Inside Subculture: The Postmodern Meaning of Style, Berg, Oxford.

Muniz, A.M. and O’Guinn, T.C. (2001), “Brand community”, Journal of Consumer Research,Vol. 27, pp. 412-32.

Olins, W. (1989), Corporate Identity – Making Business Strategy Visible Through Design, HarvardBusiness School Press, Boston, MA.

Peirce, C.S. (1985), “Logic as semiotic: the theory of signs”, in Innis, R.E. (Ed.), Semiotics.An Introductory Anthology, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN, pp. 4-23.

CCIJ14,2

218

Peppers, D. and Rogers, M. (1993), The One-to-one Future. Building Business RelationshipsOne Customer at a Time, Piatkus, London.

Pettegrew, L.S. (2000-2001), “If IMC is so good, why isn’t it being implemented? Barriers to IMCadoption in corporate America”, Journal of Integrated Communication, available at: www.medill.northwestern.edu/imc/studentwork/pubs/jic/journal/2000/pettegrew.htm

Pickton, D. and Broderick, A. (2001), Integrated Marketing Communications, Prentice-Hall,Essex.

Pine, B.J. (1992), Mass Customization: The New Frontier in Business Competition, HarvardBusiness School Press, Cambridge, MA.

Power, M.K. (1997), The Audit Soceity: Rituals of Verification, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Prahalad, C.K. (2004), “Invited commentaries on ‘evolving to a new dominant logic formarketing’: the co-creation of value”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68, pp. 23-4.

Schultz, D.E. (1993), “Four basic rules lay groundwork for integration”, Marketing News, Vol. 16,p. 5.

Schultz, D.E. (1996), “The inevitability of integrated communications”, Journal of BusinessResearch, Vol. 37, pp. 139-46.

Schultz, D.E. and Kitchen, P.J. (2000), Communicating Globally. An Integrated MarketingApproach, Macmillan, London.

Schultz, D.E. and Schultz, H. (2003), IMC. The Next Generation. Five Steps for Delivering Valueand Measuring Returns Using Marketing Communication, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Schultz, D.E., Tannenbaum, S. and Lauterborn, R.F. (1994), New Marketing Paradigm. IntegratedMarketing Communications, NTC Business Books, Chicago, IL.

Smith, P. (1996), “Benefits and barriers to integrated communications”, Admap, February,pp. 19-22.

Stuart, H. and Kerr, G. (1999), “Marketing communication and corporate identity: are theyintegrated?”, Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 169-79.

Sweet, L. (1999), “The quest for community”, available at: www.thewychefamily.com/beliefs/quest.html

Thompson, C.J. (2004), “Marketplace mythology and discourses of power”, Journal of ConsumerResearch, Vol. 31, pp. 162-80.

van Riel, C.B.M. (1995), Principles of Corporate Communication, Prentice-Hall, London.

Vattimo, G. (1992), Transparent Society, Polity Press, Cambridge.

Wightman, B. (1999), “Integrated communications: organisation and education”, Public RelationsQuarterly, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 18-22.

Further reading

Duncan, T. (2005), Principles of Advertising and IMC, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.

Corresponding authorLars Thøger Christensen can be contacted at: ltc@sam.sdu.dk

Integratedcommunications

219

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.