kitchen (2004) the emergence of imc

8/11/2019 KITCHEN (2004) the Emergence of IMC

1/12

The Emergence of IMC:

A Theoretical Perspective

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 IMCin 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.

S OMETIMES , in a specific disciplinary area, it isuseful to pause and take stock of our currentlocation and the processes that have led to thislocation. Many years ago, Daniel Webster said:

. . . When the mariner has been tossed for

many days in thick weather, and on an un-known sea, he naturally avails himself of thefirst pause in the storm, the earliest glance of the sun, to take his latitude, and ascertain howfar the elements have driven him from his truecourse. Let us imitate this prudence, and, be-fore we float further on the waves of thisdebate, refer to the point from which we 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 to bundling promotional mix elements together tocreate the one-voice phenomenon, then it is notsaying much that is new, relevant, or even 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 maywell be the emergence of integrated marketing.Yet, if integrated marketing is merely based onpromotional juxtaposition, if it is just an extensionof old-style marketing dressed in new clothes,then this too will have its rhetorical day (seeKitchen, 2003), but will pass away. What IMCpromises, and what is really needed, is the emer-gence of a new dynamic paradigm that will fi-nally facilitate business movement to marketingcommunications (and the related range of activi-ties) that are clearly in customer and consumerinterests. Currently, IMC extends no more than apromise of this.

Thus, this article will explore the phenom-enon of IMC from a theoretical perspective. Wedo this by

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

impacted upon marketing communications3. providing a critical analysis of IMC4. indicating the barriers to further development

of IMC5. showing where IMC is now and providing a

rationale for its subsequent development ordemise

PHILIP J. KITCHEN

University of Hull

[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

DOI: 10.1017/S0021849904040048 March 2004 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RE

19


2/12

Undoubtedly, IMC or some variant withthe idea of integration at its core will bearound for some time. But if IMC is to beanything more than just a juxtaposition of

promotional mix elements and make areal contribution, then communication hasto move from tactical promotional com-ponent to strategic business partner. Andthat movement will depend not just onthe theoretical literature but on the natureof 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 the major communi-cations development of the last decade of the 20th century (Kitchen and Schultz,1999, 2000); this despite the fact that mostof the history of IMC approaches, theory,and contribution is very recent in nature.More organizations consider IMC to be akey competitive advantage associated with

marketing (Kitchen and Schultz, 2001; Weil- bacher, 2001).

In its practical guise, IMC attempts tocombine, integrate, and synergize ele-ments of the communications mix, as thestrengths of one are used to offset theweaknesses of others. In addition, manyorganizations have actively undertaken in-tegration of their communications disci-plines under the umbrella of one strategicmarketing communications function, spe-

cifically IMC (Hackley and Kitchen, 1998;Smith, 2002). Smith (2002) suggests, forexample, that publicity and advertisingsupport 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 trendto allocate budgets away from mass mediaadvertising due to increased media frag-

mentation and increasing segmentation of consumer tastes and preferences (Durkinand Lawlor, 2001; Eagle and Kitchen, 2000;Schwartz, 2001; Tedlow, 1990), easier ac-

cess to consumer databases and computa-tional resources (Kitchenand Schultz, 1999;McGoon, 1999; Reich, 1998), the impor-tance of reinforcing consumer loyalty viarelationship marketing (Gonring, 1994;Reich, 1998; Schultz, 2002), and the impor-tance of building and increasing a brandsimage-based equity (McLaughlin, 1997;Schultz, 1999; Wood, 1997).

Yet, just a short time agoin the early1980sthe concept of integrated market-

ing communications was an unrecog-nized paradigm, and many professionalsand academics within the field of market-ing considered each marketing communi-cations function to operate with variousdegrees of autonomy. Dyer (1982), for ex-ample, presented the basic ideas and con-cepts behind advertising, identifying thelinks between and consistency within thediversity of business communication. Thus,the theory and practice of advertising,

sales promotion, publicity, etc. were alldiscussed, but always in a separatist man-ner or as individual disciplines.

By early 1983, Coulson-Thomas (1983)described the wide spectrum of market-ing communications vehicles, presentingthe means and techniques used to com-municate messages and how these can beevaluated. While it has to be acknowl-edged that he did emphasize an elementof interdependence and interrelationship

between the different communication spe-cialties to assist in understanding theircapabilities, the idea of integration wasnot considered as a possible approach todeveloping more effective campaigns atthat time.

The literature before the Caywood,Schultz, and Wang (1991) report, whichwas among the first studies conducted onIMC and certainly the best known, re-

veals that the idea of integration was ac-tually thereunderlying the surface, butlittle 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 nosmoke without fire. He noted then thatIMC was provoking much media hypeand debate albeit at the practitioner level.

Following these early studies, a verita- ble wave of academic articles started toappear in the academic literature. Millerand Rose (1994) noted that there was in-creasing support for the unification of allcommunication activities under a single

concept, and the evolving paradigm of IMC was the undoubted stimuli for suchunification. A year earlier, Schultz (1993a,1993b) recognized that IMC had becomeone of the hottest topics in the wholemarketing arena (1993a, p. 6), but ques-tioned whether or not IMC was just an-other managerial fada question that has been reiterated many times since. Acheson(1993) also noted that a significant number of practitioners and academics were

exploring new methods of promotionalintegration. Integration apparently pro-vided a framework to consider the widerramifications 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 growingchorus of approving integrators, Schultz(1996) presented an IMC study conductedin 1995 among Indian advertisers, reveal-

ing that marketing managers and organi-zations around the world were becomingmore and more alike. Indian marketers,even in 1995, were apparently familiarwith the IMC concept even if they did notactively undertake implementation. Theyexpected, for example, that all marketingcommunications components needed to be coordinated more closely. However, theideal of integration at that time implied

THE EMERGENCE OF IMC

20 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH

March 2004


3/12

working with one agency and, in 1995,many marketers were very reluctant todepend on one agency to integrate theirmarketing communications programs.

Thus, successful further development of IMC above and beyond tactical juxtaposi-tion would rely heavily on marketing bud-gets, staffing, skills, and infrastructure. Itcould 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 swollento 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 beganto accelerate and with increasing world-wide interest in the emergent concept.Kitchen and Schultz (1997, 1999) under-took a series of exploratory studies toinvestigate its development in terms of its theoretical foundations initially in twoof the most advanced economies in theworld. Their first article deepened under-

standing on how the concept of IMCwas diffusing by considering how senioradvertising agency executives, within a judgment sample in the United Kingdomand United States, perceived, utilized,and developed IMC on behalf of clients, by considering the importance and valueof traditional advertising agencies in amarketplace where IMC was becomingmore important (Kitchen and Schultz,1997). Apparently, IMC increased com-

munications impact, made creative ideasmore effective, provided greater commu-nication consistency, and agency execu-tives believed integrated approaches couldand would improve client return on in-vestment. There were some misgivings,however. Agency executives did not be-lieve the application of IMC could pro-vide faster solutions or more effectivemeasurement. Thus, while agency execu-

tives recognized the potential value of IMC, its time and cost efficiencies wereviewed as uncertain (Kitchen and Schultz,1997).

Kitchen and Schultz (1999) then con-ducted a multinational cross-cultural studyin the United States, United Kingdom,New Zealand, Australia, and Indiaattempting again to consider the theoret-ical underpinnings and support for therapid growth of IMC with regard to ad-vertising agency acceptance, involve-ment, and development. This studyrevealed that the percentage of client bud-gets devoted to IMC through individual

agencies varied considerably, while thesensitivity of the data in some countriesdid not allow a comparison between small,medium, and large agencies in relationto budget. It was noted that much of the budget-side distribution in the UnitedStates and Australia was driven by smalleragencies spending more time on clientIMC programs than large or larger agen-cies, with further analysis supporting theperspective that the majority of time de-

voted to IMC activities and/or budget-ary allocation then related to agency size(Kitchen and Schultz, 1999). Australia andNew Zealand, noted as two countries thathad moved least toward IMC, displayedthe greatest percentage split in favor of above-the-line traditional advertising un-like the United Kingdom and UnitedStates that favored below-the-line com-munication, with India being somewherein the middle.

Thus, in just a short decade, the con-cept of IMC has swept around the planetand become a watch crynot only of the marketing and marketing communi-cation literatures, but also an apparentlyintegral part of the marketing and evencorporate communication strategies of many companies.

Let us now place IMC in the wider con-textof marketing and communications. For,

if such development has taken place, it isalmost certain by now to have had someimpact on the academic literature.

THE IMPACT OF IMC UPON MARKETINGCOMMUNICATIONS

Although marketing communications has been used for several years as an umbrella term to refer to the various commu-nication functions used by marketing,strategic integration of these functionalareas is what makes IMC a new approachto reaching consumers and other stake-holders (Duncan and Everett, 1993). Anearly definition of IMC adopted by the

AAA and developed by Schultz was in-evitably focusedcorrectly for its timeas

. . . a concept of marketing communi-cations planning that recognizes theadded value of a comprehensive planthat evaluates the strategic roles of avariety of communications disciplines(for example, general advertising, di-rect response, sales promotion, andpublic relations) and combines these

disciplines to provide clarity, consis-tency, and maximum communicationsimpact. (Schultz, 1993a, p. 10)

The weakness of this definition is its focuson the bundling together of promotionalmix elements so they in essence speakwith one voice. Why is this weak? Be-cause, inevitably, such an approach can be managed internally (i.e., inside-outIMC), and this despite the word strate-

gic. Adoption by the AAA and AMA inAmerica, however, not to mention its in-clusion in most American marketing texts,meant that across the Atlantic and anyother ocean or sea, IMC has found someacceptance, even in this simplified form.

Fill (2002, p. 15), for example, in theUnited Kingdom, reaffirmed the idea of consistent communication and strategicdevelopment when he considered that IMC


March 2004 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RE

21


4/12

was a management process that wouldreinforce brand propositions. Noticethough that by 2002, IMC was no longer just a communication process, but oneassociated with management and with brands. It does seem evident now thatIMC had to become more than an inside-

out device for bringing promotional mixelements together. But, back in 1993,Schultz (1993a) had already recognizedthe necessity for IMC to move beyondthis stage. It is worth considering the fol-lowing citation:

IMC is the process of developing andimplementing various forms of persua-sive communications programs withcustomers and prospects over time. The

goal of IMC is to influence or directlyaffect the behaviour of the selected com-munications audience. IMC considersall sources of brand or company con-tacts which a customer or prospect haswith the product or service as poten-tial delivery channels for future mes-sages. In sum, the IMC process startswith the customer or prospect and thenworks back to determine and definethe forms and methods through which

persuasive communications programsshould be developed. (Schultz, 1993a,p. 17)

In this quotation, IMC is no longer inside-out, but outside-inthat is, driven by the buyersor potential buyersof goods and ser-vices. By 2002, Duncan had developed anIMC process model shown here as Fig-ure 1. IMCis different from othercustomer-

centric processes in that its foundation iscommunication. This is regarded as the cen-ter of all relationships and is envisaged asa circular process as opposed to a linearone. The figure reveals an ongoing, circu-lar process that creates brand value in theform of sales,profits,and brand equity, and

there is no starting and stopping related toobtaining, retaining, and growing custom-

ers(Duncan,2002). Again,he offers an IMCdefinition as

. . . a process for managing the cus-

tomer relationships that drive brandvalue. More specifically, it is a cross-functional process for creating and nour-ishing profitable relationships withcustomers and other stakeholders bystrategically controlling or influencingall messages sent to these groups andencouraging 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 process means

. . . IMC is no longer inside-out, but outside-inthat is,

driven by the buyers or potential buyers of goods and

services.

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



March 2004


5/12

that all departments and outside agenciesmust work in unison in planning andmonitoring phases of brand relationships.By creating and nourishing stakeholder

relationships, new customers are attractedand then interacted with to find ways tosatisfy their needs and wants. The idea of profitable customer relationships is impor-tant because not all relationships are of equal value to the company. Strategicallycontrolling or influencing all messages re-fers to all aspects of the marketing mix.Encouraging purposeful dialogue identi-fies that customers are tired of being talkedat 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 toShimp (2000):

The primary goal of IMC is to affect be-havior throughdirectedcommunication.

The process should start with the cus-tomer or prospect and then work back-ward to the brand communicator.

IMC should use all forms of communi-cation and all sources of brand or com-pany contacts as prospective messagedelivery channels.

The need for synergy is paramount withcoordination helping to achieve a strong brand image.

IMC requires that successful marketingcommunications needs to build a rela-tionship between the brand and thecustomer.

Indicative of many other marketing activ-ities, IMC would appear to be defined bythose implementing it. Kaye (1999) arguedthat the generallyaccepted 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 of what IMC is about and what it en-tails, right through to its implementation.It is possible that perceptions of IMC aretainted by what people believe to be the

true definition. Kitchen and Schultz (1999),for example, recognized the importance of highlighting various reactions to the IMCdefinition, with an obvious need to gener-ate greater salience from a conceptual andoperationalperspective. TheSchultz (1993a)definition of IMC was supported by mostrespondents, but not tremendously, al-though all respondents agreed that com-panies should be integrated in terms of communication.

The value of formal definitions of IMChas been continually underlined by aca-demic authors (Duncan, 2002; Fill, 2002;Kitchen, 1999; Schultz, Tannenbaum, andLauterborn, 1994), but little has been doneto resolve the fact that the theoretical con-cept of IMC remains vague and uncertain(Kitchen, 1999; Kitchen and Schultz, 1997,1998, 2000). It was argued by Cornelissenand Lock (2000, p. 9), for example, that:

On the basis of the observation thatIMC as a theory is quite shallowthrough its lack of definition, formaltheory construction, and research, thehypothesis emerges that IMC is a man-agement fashion.

The idea behind the Cornelissen and Lock(2000) argument is that because there isno established academic or professionaldefinition of IMC, or recognized measure-

ment system in place to gauge the influ-ence and bearing of the various IMCconcepts, it must be a managerial fad.While Schultz and Kitchen (2000a) agreethat IMC is not yet a theory and currentlylacks a formal agreed-upon definition, thefoundations are being laid on an inter-national level.

It is argued by Percy, Rossiter, and El-liott (2001) that although some view IMC

as a valuable concept, there is a largeamount of evidence to suggest that trulyintegrated marketing communication is theexception rather than the rule. Fre-

quently, IMC is considered to be nothingmore than using several means of deliv-ering a message, although using a rangeof different marketing communicationstools does not necessarily mean an IMCprogram (Percy, Rossiter, and Elliott, 2001).The definition of IMC is thus argued byPercy, Rossiter, and Elliott (2001) as theplanning and execution of all types of marketing communication needed for a brand, service, or company to satisfy a

common set of communication objectives,or put more specifically, to support a sin-gle positioning.

In this brief review of the IMC devel-opment process, it is evident that thereare some doubts and misgivings. None-theless, IMC has become the dominantmode or paradigm for explaining howmarketing communications works. Fewwriters, in either article or textbook form,could fail to mention integrated market-

ing communications. Let us now considerhow this topic has impact upon market-ing communications.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

By using the sextant of hindsight, theideal of using various marketing commu-nication tools in unison has now becomean accepted concept within industry. And,as IMC continues to evolve, a number of texts have arisen discussing and arguing

the paradigm of IMC in its own right.The previous theories discussed helpeddefine marketing communications andIMC, clarify the ideas behind the con-cept, and simultaneously show that manynew theories, practices, and principleswere beginning to emerge in the 1990s,all of which impacted upon communica-tions. From an environmental perspec-tive, these included



23


6/12

the engine of information technologyallowing massive customer data hold-ing and manipulation (Clow and Baack,2002; Duncan, 2002; Maddox, 2001)

the use of the internet as informationsource, communication channel, trans-action facilitator, and distribution tool(Durkin and Lawlor, 2001; Gronstedt,1997; Reich, 1998)

development in agency practicesinternationalization, globalization, cli-ent mirroring, organizational learningand practice driven by client need, multi-country, multioffice structures and net-works (Clow and Baack, 2002; Gould,

Lerman, and Grein, 1999; Kitchen andSchultz, 1999)

the need for brands to become global,the pressure of advertising localization(Fill and Yeshin, 2001; Grein and Gould,1996; Kanso and Nelson, 2002; Terpstraand Sarathy, 2000)

the fact that the world has changed,the nature and forms of communica-tion have changed, and, therefore, thepractice of developing and managing

marketing and communication mustchange as well (Kitchen and Schultz,2000, p. 16)

All of these changes have been used to buttress the argument concerning the de-velopment of IMC. As we have seen, theearly literature indicated that IMC hasstimulated significant interest in the mar-keting world. An early paper of Cay-wood, Schultz, and Wang (1991) shows

that the majority of enquiries, philoso-phies, and arguments reviewed in thispaper are around 10 years old, makingthis a comparatively new, dynamic areaof research that still could be in an earlygrowth phase (Kitchen and Schultz, 1999).Although there has been some skepticismin the past surrounding the value of anIMC campaign, . . . there seems littledoubt that IMC is an emergent concept

whose time seems to have arrived(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 haveseen in this article, there are dissentingvoices among the crescendo of chorusedapprovals. 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 whethere-commerce represents the new econ-

omy or bubble economy for every pieceof new thinking and innovative theory,there are different views and disparatevoices. 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 bothworlds. Public relations educators, on theother hand, tended to be vehemently op-

posed (Miller and Rose, 1994). A numberof public relations thinkers and practition-ers saw IMC as not only an encroachment but also a form of marketing imperialismwhere public relations was concerned (Do-zier 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 marketingfunction. Wightman (1999) assumed thatIMC was only an excuse for advertising

agencies to engulf public relations to dealwith reductions in client budgets for massmedia communications. However, Millerand Roses research with advertising andpublic relations practitioners shows thatpublic relations professionals support in-tegrated marketing communications andhad even accepted it as a reality and ne-cessity (Miller and Rose, 1994). Moriarty(1994) argued that public relations had

much to contribute as well as benefit fromIMC thinking. Later on, some academicsquestioned 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 that misrepresents marketing andmerely reinvents and renames existing con-cepts. Hutton (1995) even likened IMC tonew wine put into old wineskins. Therehas also been the debate of whether IMCis a management fashion or a devel-oping academic theory (Schultz andKitchen, 2000a). Cornelissen and Lock(2000, p. 9) doubted IMCs theoretical ro-

bustness as well as its actual significancefor marketing and advertising thought andpractice. They viewed IMC as simplerhetoric and, from their point of view,IMC was a management fashion, appar-ent in its lack of definition and transientinfluence. Schultz and Kitchen (2000a) re- butted this challenge by arguing that Cor-nelissen and Locks citations were selectedand incomplete by focus and locationalmost completely (i.e., inside the public

relations discipline), and that IMC itself was in a preparadigm stage of develop-ment and thus not bound by an accepteddefinition. Their views were supported by Gould (2000) who argued that

. . . IMC as a major strategic concept isnot much different from other market-ing or managerial concepts, methodol-ogies, or strategies that have arisen.All have an evolutionary, discursive

and behavioural history in which theparticular concept is defined and re-defined, often many times. (p. 22)

Gould further argued

. . . that theorymaytakemanyformsandCornelissen andLock areholding to oneversion of the theory, which postulatesrelationships among well-defined con-



March 2004


7/12

structs and then deductively developshypotheses for empirical testing. (p. 23)

Needless to say, Schultz and Kitchens

earlier work, and indeed much of thework by many authors to date, have in-deed focused on an inductive approach,representative of an emergent paradigmat-ical development.

Another criticism to IMC centers on thelack of measurement to the effectivenessof IMC programs. While urging that moreattention should be paid on measuringoutcomes rather than outputs of mar-keting communication activities, Schultz

and Kitchen (2000b) raised concerns thatmany marketing activities cannot be mea-sured, and the value of communication effectsand impacts are even more tenuous. There-fore, measurability is not only the prob-lem of IMC, but the primary concern of all marketing communication activities.Schultz and Kitchen (2000b) proposed anIGMC Communication Planning Matrixthat divided marketing communicationprograms into two categories, one to serve

the purpose of business building and theother to serve the purpose of brand build-ing. Current inflows from customers andprospects will be measured for the shortterm, which will be turned into marginalreturns and incremental revenue; whereasthe return of investment on brand build-ing will be measured based on the brandequity among customers and prospects.

Semenik (2002) introduced yetfurther butstill basic approaches to measuring the ef-

fectiveness of an overall IMC program:

. . . one approach is to merely take onthe measurement of each of the promo-tional tools used in a campaign, an-other approach is to use single-sourcetracking measures, and the third alter-native is to measure media exposures,product (brand) impressions, and per-sonal contacts. (p. 29)

However, he also acknowledged that

. . . measuring the complex interactionof all the promotional mix elements is

very, very complicated and may be beyond the methodological tools avail-able at this time. (p. 545)

Despite the fact that there are a numberof criticisms of IMC as over the last 10years 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 (2000) in his leading marketing man-

agement text wrote two chapters with theheading of Managing and CoordinatingIntegrated Marketing Communications.Both Smith (2002) and Fill (2002) devoteseveral chapters of their books to discuss-ing IMC. Pickton and Brodericks (2001)articulate and persuasive text was titledIntegrated Marketing Communications, andthe term marketing communication has been frequently replaced by integratedmarketing communications as in Belch

and Belchs book (2001). In the UnitedStates where IMC originated, twenty yearsago 75 percent of marketing budgets wentinto advertising; today, 50 percent goesinto 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 beendiffused and the concept has been widelyimplemented by many advertising agen-cies and firms across many countries

worldwide as well as the United States.Roses (1996) research about the percep-tion of IMC among 143 advertising andpublic relations professionals concludesthat the majority of Latin American com-munication practitioners believed in theIMC concept and viewed their roles asencompassing the broader areas of com-munication. In the study undertaken byKitchen 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 developmentof IMC approaches across the five coun-tries concerned, but IMC was still inthe early stages of its development. Tofollow the product life cycle analogy, itwould seem to vary from introduction,in the case of Australia and India, togrowth, in the case of the United King-dom and New Zealand, and possiblyearly maturity, in the case of the United

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

While the concept of IMC is being diffusedto more and more countries, the adoptersare not limited to the product and pack-aged goods industries, there are more ser-vice providers trying this new concept intheirownareas. Nowak,Cameron,and De-lorme(1996) conducted research amongre-tailers and service providers in selectedLatin American countries that valued theIMCconcept to examine theviabilityof IMCconcept in retail and service marketing.Their findings revealed that

integrated approaches have much valueparticularly as a means for coordinat-ing media and message delivery ele-ments in a fashion that provides a wayto link behavioural responses to mediavehicles 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 acritical part in the whole process althoughthe clients are regarded as the impetus of moving IMC forward. As Belch and Belch(2001) note:



25


8/12

. . . advertisers assume major respon-sibility for developing the marketingprogram and making the final deci-sions regarding the advertising andpromotional program to be employed,while advertising agencies are ex-pected to assist them in developing,preparing, and executing promotionalplans. (p. 14)

Client-based research, despite inherentmethodological difficulties, will yet repre-sent the gold standard of what IMC is,or what is perceived to be. For, despite thefocus 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 of IMC development.

BARRIERS TO FURTHER

DEVELOPING IMC

Schultz and Kitchen (2000b) identified fourstages of IMC starting from tactical coor-dination of promotional elements, redefin-ingthe scope of marketingcommunications,application of information technology, tofinancial and strategic integration. Theyar-gued, based on the empirical findings from

their research with advertising agencies thatdevelop and implement marketing com-munication plans for their clients, that themajority of clients are anchored in eitherstage 1 or stage 2 scenarios. Some are mov-ing into stage 3, but very few (a handful intodays world) have moved to stage 4 (seeFigure 2).

Major questions here are: What are theprimary 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 brand

image, Moriarty (1994) considered thecross-disciplinary managerial skills the biggest barrier 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 of the New Zealand advertising and mar-keting industry: power, coordination, and

(Source: Schultz and Kitchen, 2000b)

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



March 2004


9/12

control issues; client skills, centralization/organization, and cultural issues; agencyskills/talents and overall time/resourcesissues; and flexibility/modification is-

sues. Schultz (2000) saw structuretheway the firm is put togetheras the mostchallenging problem of integration. Heargued that the traditional command-and-control structures should be replaced bythe quick-response model in new econ-omy firms, and only when managementstarts to focus on outcomes rather thanoutputs do most of the integration prob-lems go away. Schultz (2001) further notedthat one of the problems with the cur-

rent approach to marketing and market-ing communications is likely the conceptof a campaign, which is contrary to thecustomer-focused idea and the long-termrelationship building purpose of IMC be-cause campaigns generally are devel-oped and executed for a limited timeperiod . . . to achieve some type of ad-vantage during some timeframe. Al-though there are difficulties of ensuringthe full integration of marketing commu-

nications and there are barriers of achiev-ing final success of IMC, these difficultiesand barriers will not be able to preventpeople from trying, as the rewards of synergy and coherence are significant(Pickton and Broderick, 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. Aunified 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 whereIMC is, or could be located, if businesseshave stopped their IMC development atstage 1, then this is stating no more thanCaywood, Schultz, and Wang (1991) or

Schultz, Tannenbaum, and Lauterborn(1994) were saying at that point in time.Moreover, a stage 1 focus is what can betermed inside-out marketing. It re-quires little or no focus on customers,consumers, or their needs and is a rela-tively simple matter of bundling promo-

tional mix elements together so theyspeak with one voice. Moreover, if thisindeed what companies are doing, it is aserious blow against the development of marketing in the 20th century for stage 1implies product, production, or salesorientationorientations long thought to be receding into the sedimentary socialand economic strata of the past. Yet, pa-per after paper has revealed that the majority of client organizations and the

agencies who service their needs are lo-cated at this level. What does this meanfrom a communication perspective? Sim-ply that all communications, not matterhow neatly synergized, are driven by cli-ent edict and control. Put another way,they may not focus on customer and theirneeds and may in fact be detrimental toorganizational development and growth.Reiteration of messages that plainly con-tradict business reality damage business

credibility in the long term. A recent U.K.example developed by chocolate giantCadbury promises consumers free sport-ing goods if they will save and submitspecial wrappers from Cadbury prod-ucts. On the one hand, the campaign isintegrated in terms of advertising, spon-sorship, sales promotion, package de-sign, and marketing public relations. Onthe 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 entire campaign, while ostensibly of-fering a consumer benefit, is inside-outin its approach.

Stage 2 of Figure 2 is at least an attempt by businesses to actively consider whatcustomers and consumers want to hear orsee, when, where, and through which me-dia. It represents outside-in marketing.It is a major step in the direction towardIMC being driven by customers and theirneeds. Certainly few businesses or theiragencies would decry the need for marketresearch 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 thedynamics of their served segment. Yet,stage 2 of IMC is an improvement. Itpotentially avoids many of the mistakes,pitfalls, and arrogance of marketers lo-cated in stage 1.

Yet, it is only in stages 3 and 4 thatintegration 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 databasesand organizational restructuring to be-come customer-focused and customer-driven. Only if communication resourcesare invested and measured against actualcustomer behavior can financial returns be compiled. Thus stages 3 and 4 are a

Only strategically oriented integrated brand communica-

tions can help businesses move forward in the highly

competitive world of the 21st century.



27


10/12

movement from attitudinal measurementto behavioral measurement. And onlywhen we move into stage 4, do we arriveat a position that resembles integrated mar-

keting. The problem is that integrated mar-keting may be based on stage 1 (not stage4) foundations.

The real weakness of IMC is the veryweakness of firms to invest resources inthe marketing and communication pro-cess. If that investment is not made, then businesses will find themselves anchoredat the dock of stage 1 or stage 2. Indeed,IMC will have made a contribution, but itis not one of a strategic nature. It is instead

tactical. And, yet, communication has tomove from tactical partner to strategicintegrator. Only strategically oriented in-tegrated brand communications can help businesses move forward in the highlycompetitive world of the 21st century.

The current location of IMC in a globalsense is at stage 1 or stage 2 of the IMCprocess. Yet stage 1 is a body blow to trueintegration and indeed to the discipline of marketing itself. Such a location cannot

represent any more than a form of mar-keting communication myopia. Stage 2 isan improvement. Stages 3 and 4 representorganizational investment and real orga-nizational change. But, if a business de-cides to jump from stage 1 to integratedmarketing (the new buzz word on themarketing block), then integrated market-ing is integrated from an organizational but not from a customer or consumerperspective. The early promise of IMC

will have faded into yet another form of rhetoric (see Kitchen, 2003). Only if busi-nesses follow through with sustained in-vestment will IMC continue upward interms of growth.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

This article has considered and critiquedthe IMC developmental process, its im-pact on marketing communications, indi-

cated barriers to its further development,and located IMC in terms of where it isnow, and where it likely to go in the

future. Undoubtedly, a broad awarenessof the IMC concept has been created andits diffusion worldwide is evident. Suchdevelopment and diffusion is dependentupon underlying environmental factorsthat show evidence of increased acceler-ation in the 21st century, which augerswell for the future development of IMCand its related constructintegratedmarketing.

And, yet, at the same time, IMC has

provoked intense, diverse discussion andcriticism. While we cannot return to thecrucible of forces from which IMC emergedin the late 1980s, plainly these forces areno longer applicable today (in 2003). Yet,the early literature, albeit conceptualizedand crystallized in modular stage form,continues to be illustrative of businessreality.

IMC is becoming more widely acceptedand recognized, but there are still many

conceptual issues that need further explo-ration and analysis. If further research isundertaken, it needs to be preeminentlywith client organizations. Further criticaldiscussion is also needed from a concep-tual perspective.

This detailed critical review of selectedliterature has provided an interesting con-sideration of how the IMC concept hasevolved, where it came from, and how it

is perceived in modern society. It will beinteresting to see what happens over thenext decade.

.............................................................................................P HILIP 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 marketingresearchers. A graduate of the CNAA (BA[Hons]) ini-

tially, he received Masters degrees in Marketing from

UMIST (M.Sc.) and Manchester Business School

(M.B.Sc.), respectively, and his Ph.D. from Keele 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 Communications (Routledge Journals,

1995). He has authored/edited seven books and

published over 90 academic papers in journals

around the world.

.............................................................................................

JOANNE B RIGNELL 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

CEOs in U.K. advertising and public relations

agencies.

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

factors that show evidence of increased acceleration in

the 21st century . . .



March 2004


11/12

................................................................................................

TAO LI is a graduate of the Foreign Affairs College in

Beijing, 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

ChinaU.S. joint venture consultation company in

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 in the process of

completing a study of IMC in China with a specific

focus on Beijing.

................................................................................................

GRAHAM S PICKETT -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 of Market Research and the Jour-

nal of Promotion Management . His research interests

lie in the domain of brand marketing communications

with specific focus on cognitive information process-

ing and psycholinguistics.

REFERENCES

Acheson, K.L. Integrated Marketing MustBring Two Perspectives Together. Marketing

News 27, 17 (1993): 4.

Belch, G.E. , and M. A. Belch. Advertising and

Promotion: An Integrated Marketing Communica-

tions Perspective, 5th ed. New York: McGraw-

Hill/Irwin, 2001.

Caywood, C., D. E. Schultz , and P. Wang.

Integrated Marketing Communications: A Sur-

vey of National Goods Advertisers, unpub-

lished report. Bloomington, IN: Medill School

of Journalism, Northwestern University, June

1991.

Clow, K. E. , and D. Baack. Integrated Advertis-

ing, Promotion and Marketing Communications.

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

Cornelissen, J. P. , andA. R. Lock. Theoretical

Concept or ManagementFashion? Examining the

Significance of IMC. Journal of Advertising Re-

search 40, 5 (2000): 715.

Coulson-Thomas, C. J. Marketing Communica-

tions. Oxford, U.K.: Butterworth-Heinemann

Ltd., 1983.

Dozier, D. , and M. Lauzen. Antecedents and

Consequences of Marketing Imperialism on the

Public Relations Function. Paper presented to

the Annual Convention of the Association for Ed-

ucation in Journalism, Minneapolis, MN, 1990.

Duncan, T. IMC: Using Advertising and Promo-

tion to Build Brands (International Edition). New

York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2002.

Duncan, T. R. , and S. E. Everett . Client Per-

ceptions of Integrated Communications. Jour-

nal of Advertising Research 32, 3 (1993): 3039.

Durkin, M. , and M. A. Lawlor . The Impli-

cations of the Internet on the Advertising

Agency-Client Relationship. The Service Indus-

tries Journal (London) 21, 2 (2001): 17590.

Dyer, G. Advertising as Communication. Lon-

don: Routledge, 1982.

Eagle, L. C. , and P. J. Kitchen . IMC, Brand

Communications, and Corporate Cultures:

Client/Advertising Agency Co-ordination and

Cohesion. European Journal of Marketing 34,

5/6 (2000): 667686.

Fill, C. Marketing Communications: Contexts,

Strategies and Applications, 3rd ed. London, Eu-

rope: Prentice Hall Limited, 2002.

, and T. Yeshin . Integrated Marketing

Communications. Oxford, U.K.: Butterworth-

Heinemann, 2001.

Gonring, M. P . Putting Integrated Marketing

Communications to Work Today. Public Rela-

tions Quarterly (Rhinebeck) 39, 3 (1994): 45.

Gould, S. J. The State of IMC Research and

Applications. Journal of Advertising Research

40, 5 (2000): 2223.

, B. Lerman , and A. F. Grein . Agency

Perceptions and Practices on Global IMC. Jour-


Grein, A. F. , and S. J. Gould . Globally Inte-

grated Marketing Communications. Journal o

Marketing Communications 2, 3 (1996): 14158.

Gronstedt, A. Internet: IMC on Steroids.

Marketing News 31, 11 (1997): 16.

Hackley, C. , and P. J. Kitchen . IMC: A Con-

sumer Psychological Perspective. Marketing In-

telligence & Planning 16, 3 (1998): 22935.

Hutton, J. Integrated Marketing Communi-

cations and the Evolution of Marketing

Thought. Presented to the American Academyof Advertising Annual Conference, New York, 1995.

Kanso, A. , and R. Nelson. Advertising Lo-

calisation Overshadows Standardisation. Jour-


Kaye, R. L. Companies Need to Realize Inter-

nal Marketings Potential. Advertising Ages Busi-

ness Marketing, 1999.

Kitchen, P. J. Marketing Communications: Prin-

ciples and Practice. London: International Thom-son Business Press, 1999.

. The Rhetoric and Reality of Marketing: A

International Managerial Approach. Hampshire,

U.K.: Palgrave Publishers Ltd., 2003.

, and D. E. Schultz . Integrated Market-

ing Communications in US Advertising Agen-

cies: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Advertising

Research 37, 5 (1997): 718.

, and . IMCA UK Ads AgencyPerspective. Journal of Marketing Managemen

14, 2 (1998): 46585.

, and . A Multi-Country Compari-

son of the Drive for IMC. Journal of Advertis

ing Research 39, 1 (1999): 2138.

, and . A Response to Theoretical

Concept or Management Fashion? Journal o

Advertising Research 40, 5 (2000): 1721.



29


12/12

, and . Raising the Corporate Um-

brella: Corporate Communications in the 21st Cen-

tury . Hampshire, U.K.: Palgrave Publishers Ltd.,

2001.

Kotler, P. Marketing Management, 10th ed. Lon-

don: Prentice Hall International (UK) Limited,

2000.

Levinson, J. C. Integrated Marketing. Execu-

tive Excellence 18, 11 (2001): 910.

Maddox, K. Shop Turns to Collaboration Tool.

B to B 86, 13 (2001): 10.

McGoon, C. Cutting-Edge Companies Use

Integrated Marketing Communication. Com-munication World 16, 1 (1999): 1519.

McLaughlin, J. P. Why Is IMC Taking So

Long? Blame It on the Clients. Marketing News

31, 19 (1997): 2730.

Miller, D. A. , and P. B. Rose . Integrated

Communications: A Look at Reality. Public

Relations Quarterly 39, 1 (1994): 13.

Moriarty, S. E. PR and IMC: The Benefits of Integration. Public Relations Quarterly 39, 3

(1994): 38.

Nowak, G. J., G. T. Cameron , and D. De-

lorme. Beyond the World of Packaged Goods:

Assessing the Relevance of Integrated Market-

ing Communications for Retail and Consumer

Service Marketing. Journal of Marketing Com-

munications 2, 1 (1996): 17390.

Packer, B. K. Teach Ye Diligently. Salt Lake City,UT: Deseret Books, 1979.

Percy, L., J. R. Rossiter , and R. Elliott . Stra-

tegic Advertising Management. New York: Ox-

ford University Press Inc., 2001.

Pickton, D. , and A. Broderick . Integrated Mar-

keting Communications. Essex, U.K.: Pearson Ed-

ucation Limited, 2001.

Reich, K. IMC: Through the Looking Glass of

the New Millennium. Communication World

15, 9 (1998): 2628.

Rose, P. B. Practitioner Opinions and Interests

Regarding Integrated Marketing Communica-

tions in Selected Latin American Countries.

Journal of Marketing Communications (1996):

125139.

Schultz, D. E. Integrated Marketing Commu-

nications: The Status of Integrated Marketing

Communications Programs in the US Today.

Journal of Promotion Management 1, 1, (1991):

99104.

. Integrated Marketing Communica-

tions: Maybe Definition Is in the Point of View.

Marketing News, January 18, 1993a.

. We Simply Cant Afford to Go Back

to Mass Marketing. Marketing News 27, 4

(1993b): 20.

. IMC Has Become a Global Concept.

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

. Manage Customers, Not Loyalty Pro-grams. Marketing News 33, 1, (1999): 3536.

. Structural Flaws Dash Marcom Plans.

Marketing News 34, 3 (2000): 14.

. Campaign Approach Shouldnt Exist in

IMC. Marketing News 35, 5 (2001): 1113.

. Summit Explores Where IMC, CRM

Meet. Marketing News 36, 5 (2002): 1112.

, and P. J. Kitchen. A Response to Theo-

retical Concept or Management Fashion? Jour-

nal of Advertising Research 40, 5 (2000a): 1721.

, and . Communicating Globally: An

Integrated Marketing Approach. London: Mac-

millan Press Ltd., 2000b.

, and . Communicating Globally: An

Integrated Marketing Approach. Chicago, IL: NTC

Business Books, NTC/Contemporary Publish-

ing Group, 2000c.

, S. I. Tannenbaum , and R. F. Lauter-

born. The New Marketing Paradigm: Integrated

Marketing Communications. Chicago, IL: NTC

Business Books, NTC/Contemporary Publish-

ing Group, 1994.

Schwartz, M. IBM Adopts New Agency

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

Semenik, R. J. Promotion and Integrated Market-

ing Communications, South-Western. Cincinnati,

OH: South-Western, Thomson Learning, 2002.

Shimp, T. A. Advertising Promotion: Supplemen-tal Aspects of Integrated Marketing Communica

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

Harcourt College Publishers, 2000.

Smith, P. R. Marketing Communications: An In-

tegrated Approach, 3rd ed. London: Kogan Page

Limited, 2002.

Spotts, H. E., D. R. Lambert , and M. L. Joyce.

Marketing Dj Vu: The Discovery of Inte-

grated Marketing Communications. Journal o

Marketing Education 20, 3 (1998): 21018.

Tedlow, R. S. New and Improved: The Story o

Mass Marketing in America. New York: Basic

Books, 1990.

Terpstra, V. , and R. Sarathy . International Mar-

keting, 8th ed. New York: The Dryden Press,

Hartcourt College Publishers, 2000.

Weilbacher, W. M. Point of View: Does Ad-

vertising Cause a Hierarchy of Effects? Jour-


Wightman, B. Integrated Communications:

Organisation and Education. Public Relations

Quarterly 44, 2 (1999): 1822.

Wood, M. B. Clear IMC Goals Build Strong

Relationships. Marketing News 31, 13 (1997)

1115.


JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCHh

kitchen (2004) the emergence of imc

Documents