The Emergence of IMC:A Theoretical Perspective Within a short period of just over a decade, IMC has swept around the world and become the accepted norm of留學(xué)生dissertation網(wǎng)businesses and apparently the agencies that service their needs. Here we critically consider IMC in terms of (1) development, (2) impact on marketingcommunications, (3) barriers to further progress, and (4) current location identificationand likely development in the future. Evidently, IMC is here to stay. But there areproblems. Not least of these is the apparent reluctance of many businesses to adoptanything more than an inside-out approach to IMC—in other words, bundling promotionalmix elements together so they look and sound alike. But, IMC has to move beyondthis stage if it is to radically change the face of communications and marketing.
SOMETIMES, in a specific disciplinary area, it is
useful 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 formany days in thick weather, and on an unknownsea, he naturally avails himself of thefirst pause in the storm, the earliest glance ofthe sun, to take his latitude, and ascertain howfar the elements have driven him from his truecourse. Let us imitate this prudence, and, beforewe float further on the waves of this
debate, refer to the point from which we departed,that we may at least be able toconjecturewhere 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 through
a conjectural storm as to its meaning and purpose.Certainly, if its meaning simply amounts tobundling promotional mix elements together tocreate the “one-voice” phenomenon, then it is notsaying much that is new, relevant, or even interesting.
Yet, this was the starting point of IMC. Ithas progressed apparently beyond this stage aswe 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,
http://www.ttc-switch.com/dissertation_writing/then this too will have its rhetorical day (seeKitchen, 2003), but will pass away. What IMCpromises, and what is really needed, is the emergence
of a new dynamic paradigm that will finallyfacilitate business movement to marketing
communications (and the related range of activities)that are clearly in customer and consumerinterests. Currently, IMC extends no more than a
promise of this.Thus, this article will explore the phenomenonof IMC from a theoretical perspective. Wedo this by
1. considering the IMC developmental process
2. evaluating how and in what ways IMC has#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#
impacted upon marketing communications
3. providing a critical analysis of IMC
4. indicating the barriers to further development
of IMC
5. showing where IMC is now and providing a
rationale for its subsequent development or
demise
PHILIP J. KITCHEN
University of Hull
[email protected]
JOANNE BRIGNELL
Hull University Business
School
[email protected]
TAO LI
Hull University Business
School
[email protected]
GRAHAM SPICKETT
JONES
Hull University Business
School
g.s.spickett-jones@hull.
ac.uk
DOI: 10.1017/S0021849904040048 March 2004 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 19
Undoubtedly, IMC or some variant with
the idea of “integration” at its core will be
around for some time. But if IMC is to be
anything more than just a juxtaposition of
promotional mix elements and make a
real contribution, then communication has
to move from tactical promotional component
to strategic business partner. And
that movement will depend not just on
the theoretical literature but on the nature
of business, the development of marketing
itself, and the required investment by
businesses and the organizations that service
their needs in becoming customeroriented
and customer-driven.
THE IMC DEVELOPMENTAL PROCESS
Insofar as communications is concerned,
IMC is undoubtedly the major communications
development of the last decade of
the 20th century (Kitchen and Schultz,
1999, 2000); this despite the fact that most
of the history of IMC approaches, theory,
and contribution is very recent in nature.
More organizations consider IMC to be a
key competitive advantage associated with
marketing (Kitchen and Schultz, 2001;Weilbacher,
2001).
In its practical guise, IMC attempts to
combine, integrate, and synergize elements
of the communications mix, as the
strengths of one are used to offset the
weaknesses of others. In addition, many
organizations have actively undertaken integration
of their communications disciplines
under the umbrella of one strategic
marketing communications function, specifically
IMC (Hackley and Kitchen, 1998;
Smith, 2002). Smith (2002) suggests, for
example, that publicity and advertising
support each other and create greater impact
in a cost-effective manner.
IMC approaches have grown in recognition
and importance for effective marketing,
particularly as there has been a trend
to allocate budgets away from mass media
advertising due to increased media fragmentation
and increasing segmentation of
consumer tastes and preferences (Durkin
and Lawlor, 2001; Eagle and Kitchen, 2000;
Schwartz, 2001; Tedlow, 1990), easier access#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#
to consumer databases and computational
resources (Kitchen and Schultz, 1999;
McGoon, 1999; Reich, 1998), the importance
of reinforcing consumer loyalty via
relationship marketing (Gonring, 1994;
Reich, 1998; Schultz, 2002), and the importance
of building and increasing a brand’s
image-based equity (McLaughlin, 1997;
Schultz, 1999; Wood, 1997).
Yet, just a short time ago—in the early
1980s—the concept of integrated marketing
communications was an unrecognized
paradigm, and many professionals
and academics within the field of marketing
considered each marketing communications
function to operate with various
degrees of autonomy. Dyer (1982), for example,
presented the basic ideas and concepts
behind advertising, identifying the
links between and consistency within the
diversity of business communication. Thus,
the theory and practice of advertising,
sales promotion, publicity, etc. were all
discussed, but always in a separatist manner
or as individual disciplines.
By early 1983, Coulson-Thomas (1983)
described the wide spectrum of marketing
communications vehicles, presenting
the means and techniques used to communicate
messages and how these can be
evaluated. While it has to be acknowledged
that he did emphasize an element
of interdependence and interrelationship
between the different communication specialties
to assist in understanding their
capabilities, the idea of integration was
not considered as a possible approach to
developing more effective campaigns at
that time.
The literature before the Caywood,
Schultz, and Wang (1991) report, which
was among the first studies conducted on
IMC and certainly the best known, reveals
that the idea of integration was actually
there—underlying the surface, but
little or no effort was channeled into developing
the concept. Schultz (1991), another
early writer in this area, was one of
the first to recognize that there was no
smoke without fire. He noted then that
IMC was provoking much media hype
and debate albeit at the practitioner level.
Following these early studies, a veritable
wave of academic articles started to
appear in the academic literature. Miller
and Rose (1994) noted that there was increasing
support for the unification of all
communication activities under a single
concept, and the evolving paradigm of
IMC was the undoubted stimuli for such
unification. A year earlier, Schultz (1993a,
1993b) recognized that IMC had become
“one of the hottest topics in the whole
marketing arena” (1993a, p. 6), but questioned
whether or not IMC was just another
managerial fad—a question that has#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#
been reiterated many times since. Acheson
(1993) also noted that a significant number
of practitioners and academics were
exploring new methods of promotional
integration. Integration apparently provided
a framework to consider the wider
ramifications of marketing communications
by recognizing not just the value of
each discipline, but also the value of
juxtaposition.
Just three years later, amidst a growing
chorus of approving integrators, Schultz
(1996) presented an IMC study conducted
in 1995 among Indian advertisers, revealing
that marketing managers and organizations
around the world were becoming
more and more alike. Indian marketers,
even in 1995, were apparently familiar
with the IMC concept even if they did not
actively undertake implementation. They
expected, for example, that all marketing
communications components needed to
be coordinated more closely. However, the
ideal of integration at that time implied
THE EMERGENCE OF IMC
20 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH March 2004
working with one agency and, in 1995,
many marketers were very reluctant to
depend on one agency to integrate their
marketing communications programs.
Thus, successful further development of
IMC above and beyond tactical juxtaposition
would rely heavily on marketing budgets,
staffing, skills, and infrastructure. It
could not just rely on integration of promotional
mix elements at the agency level.
But already, popularity for integrated approaches
in the United States had swollen
to such proportions that most respondents
in a national survey of advertisers
believed that integration would increase
the impact of their marketing communication
programs (Schultz, 1996).
The diffusion curve of IMC now began
to accelerate and with increasing worldwide
interest in the emergent concept.
Kitchen and Schultz (1997, 1999) undertook
a series of exploratory studies to
investigate its development in terms of
its theoretical foundations initially in two
of the most advanced economies in the
world. Their first article deepened understanding
on how the concept of IMC
was diffusing by considering how senior
advertising agency executives, within a
judgment sample in the United Kingdom
and United States, perceived, utilized,
and developed IMC on behalf of clients,
by considering the importance and value
of traditional advertising agencies in a
marketplace where IMC was becoming
more important (Kitchen and Schultz,
1997). Apparently, IMC increased communications
impact, made creative ideas
more effective, provided greater communication
consistency, and agency executives
believed integrated approaches could#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#
and would improve client return on investment.
There were some misgivings,
however. Agency executives did not believe
the application of IMC could provide
faster solutions or more effective
measurement. Thus, while agency executives
recognized the potential value of
IMC, its time and cost efficiencies were
viewed as uncertain (Kitchen and Schultz,
1997).
Kitchen and Schultz (1999) then conducted
a multinational cross-cultural study
in the United States, United Kingdom,
New Zealand, Australia, and India—
attempting again to consider the theoretical
underpinnings and support for the
rapid growth of IMC with regard to advertising
agency acceptance, involvement,
and development. This study
revealed that the percentage of client budgets
devoted to IMC through individual
agencies varied considerably, while the
sensitivity of the data in some countries
did not allow a comparison between small,
medium, and large agencies in relation
to budget. It was noted that much of the
budget-side distribution in the United
States and Australia was driven by smaller
agencies spending more time on client
IMC programs than large or larger agencies,
with further analysis supporting the
perspective that the majority of time devoted
to IMC activities and/or budgetary
allocation then related to agency size
(Kitchen and Schultz, 1999). Australia and
New Zealand, noted as two countries that
had moved least toward IMC, displayed
the greatest percentage split in favor of
above-the-line traditional advertising unlike
the United Kingdom and United
States that favored below-the-line communication,
with India being somewhere
in the middle.
Thus, in just a short decade, the concept
of IMC has swept around the planet
and become a watch cry—not only of
the marketing and marketing communication
literatures, but also an apparently
integral part of the marketing and even
corporate communication strategies of
many companies.
Let us now place IMC in the wider context
of marketing and communications. For,
if such development has taken place, it is
almost certain by now to have had some
impact on the academic literature.
THE IMPACT OF IMC UPON MARKETING
COMMUNICATIONS
Although marketing communications has
been used for several years as an umbrella
term to refer to the various communication
functions used by marketing,
strategic integration of these functional
areas is what makes IMC a new approach
to reaching consumers and other stakeholders
(Duncan and Everett, 1993). An
early definition of IMC adopted by the
AAA and developed by Schultz was inevitably
focused—correctly for its time—as#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#
. . . a concept of marketing communications
planning that recognizes the
added value of a comprehensive plan
that evaluates the strategic roles of a
variety of communications disciplines
(for example, general advertising, direct
response, sales promotion, and
public relations) and combines these
disciplines to provide clarity, consistency,
and maximum communications
impact. (Schultz, 1993a, p. 10)
The weakness of this definition is its focus
on the bundling together of promotional
mix elements so they in essence “speak
with one voice.” Why is this weak? Because,
inevitably, such an approach can
be managed internally (i.e., inside-out
IMC), and this despite the word “strategic.”
Adoption by the AAA and AMA in
America, however, not to mention its inclusion
in most American marketing texts,
meant that across the Atlantic and any
other ocean or sea, IMC has found some
acceptance, even in this simplified form.
Fill (2002, p. 15), for example, in the
United Kingdom, reaffirmed the idea of
consistent communication and strategic
development when he considered that IMC
THE EMERGENCE OF IMC
March 2004 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 21
“was a management process that would
reinforce brand propositions.” Notice
though that by 2002, IMC was no longer
just a communication process, but one
associated with management and with
brands. It does seem evident now that
IMC had to become more than an insideout
device for bringing promotional mix
elements together. But, back in 1993,
Schultz (1993a) had already recognized
the necessity for IMC to move beyond
this stage. It is worth considering the following
citation:
IMC is the process of developing and
implementing various forms of persuasive
communications programs with
customers and prospects over time. The
goal of IMC is to influence or directly
affect the behaviour of the selected communications
audience. IMC considers
all sources of brand or company contacts
which a customer or prospect has
with the product or service as potential
delivery channels for future messages.
In sum, the IMC process starts
with the customer or prospect and then
works back to determine and define
the forms and methods through which
persuasive communications programs
should be developed. (Schultz, 1993a,
p. 17)
In this quotation, IMC is no longer insideout,
but outside-in—that is, driven by the
buyers or potential buyers of goods and services.
By 2002, Duncan had developed an
IMC process model shown here as Figure
1. IMC is different from other customercentric
processes in that its foundation is
communication. This is regarded as the center#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#
of all relationships and is envisaged as
a circular process as opposed to a linear
one. The figure reveals an ongoing, circular
process that creates brand value in the
form of sales, profits, and brand equity, and
there is no starting and stopping related to
obtaining, retaining, and growing customers
(Duncan, 2002). Again, he offers an IMC
definition as
. . . a process for managing the customer
relationships that drive brand
value. More specifically, it is a crossfunctional
process for creating and nourishing
profitable relationships with
customers and other stakeholders by
strategically controlling or influencing
all messages sent to these groups and
encouraging data-driven, purposeful dialogue
with them. (Duncan, 2002, p. 7)
He then breaks down the major elements
of his definition to help explain its meaning.
The cross-functional process means
. . . IMC is no longer inside-out, but outside-in—that is,
driven by the buyers or potential buyers of goods and
services.
Figure 1 The IMC Process Model (Duncan, 2002). Used here
with permission of the author.
THE EMERGENCE OF IMC
22 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH March 2004
that all departments and outside agencies
must work in unison in planning and
monitoring phases of brand relationships.
By creating and nourishing stakeholder
relationships, new customers are attracted
and then interacted with to find ways to
satisfy their needs and wants. The idea of
profitable customer relationships is important
because not all relationships are of
equal value to the company. Strategically
controlling or influencing all messages refers
to all aspects of the marketing mix.
Encouraging purposeful dialogue identifies
that customers are tired of being talked
at by companies and want the opportunity
to interact.
Apparently, IMC can be defined in a
variety of ways, but each definition suggests
five significant features according to
Shimp (2000):
• The primary goal of IMC is to affect behavior
through directed communication.
• The process should start with the customer
or prospect and then work backward
to the brand communicator.
• IMC should use all forms of communication
and all sources of brand or company
contacts as prospective message
delivery channels.
• The need for synergy is paramount with
coordination helping to achieve a strong
brand image.
• IMC requires that successful marketing
communications needs to build a relationship
between the brand and the
customer.
Indicative of many other marketing activities,
IMC would appear to be defined by
those implementing it. Kaye (1999) argued
that the generally accepted definition ofIMC#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#
is self-limiting because its focus is on external,
nonpersonal communications: advertising,
publicity, database, and direct
marketing and, now, interactive media.
There are so many different definitions and
ideas of what IMC is about and what it entails,
right through to its implementation.
It is possible that perceptions of IMC are
tainted by what people believe to be the
true definition. Kitchen and Schultz (1999),
for example, recognized the importance of
highlighting various reactions to the IMC
definition, with an obvious need to generate
greater salience from a conceptual and
operational perspective. The Schultz (1993a)
definition of IMC was supported by most
respondents, but not tremendously, although
all respondents agreed that companies
should be integrated in terms of
communication.
The value of formal definitions of IMC
has been continually underlined by academic
authors (Duncan, 2002; Fill, 2002;
Kitchen, 1999; Schultz, Tannenbaum, and
Lauterborn, 1994), but little has been done
to resolve the fact that the theoretical concept
of IMC remains vague and uncertain
(Kitchen, 1999; Kitchen and Schultz, 1997,
1998, 2000). It was argued by Cornelissen
and Lock (2000, p. 9), for example, that:
On the basis of the observation that
IMC as a theory is quite shallow
through its lack of definition, formal
theory construction, and research, the
hypothesis emerges that IMC is a management
fashion.
The idea behind the Cornelissen and Lock
(2000) argument is that because there is
no established academic or professional
definition of IMC, or recognized measurement
system in place to gauge the influence
and bearing of the various IMC
concepts, it must be a managerial fad.
While Schultz and Kitchen (2000a) agree
that IMC is not yet a theory and currently
lacks a formal agreed-upon definition, the
foundations are being laid on an international
level.
It is argued by Percy, Rossiter, and Elliott
(2001) that although some view IMC
as a valuable concept, there is a large
amount of evidence to suggest that “truly
integrated marketing communication is the
exception rather than the rule.” Frequently,
IMC is considered to be nothing
more than using several means of delivering
a message, although using a range
of different marketing communications
tools does not necessarily mean an IMC
program (Percy, Rossiter, and Elliott, 2001).
The definition of IMC is thus argued by
Percy, Rossiter, and Elliott (2001) as the
planning and execution of all types of
marketing communication needed for a
brand, service, or company to satisfy a
common set of communication objectives,
or put more specifically, to support a single#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#
positioning.
In this brief review of the IMC development
process, it is evident that there
are some doubts and misgivings. Nonetheless,
IMC has become the dominant
mode or paradigm for explaining how
marketing communications works. Few
writers, in either article or textbook form,
could fail to mention integrated marketing
communications. Let us now consider
how this topic has impact upon marketing
communications.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
By using the sextant of hindsight, the
ideal of using various marketing communication
tools in unison has now become
an 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 helped
define marketing communications and
IMC, clarify the ideas behind the concept,
and simultaneously show that many
new theories, practices, and principles
were beginning to emerge in the 1990s,
all of which impacted upon communications.
From an environmental perspective,
these included
THE EMERGENCE OF IMC
March 2004 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 23
• the engine of information technology
allowing massive customer data holding
and manipulation (Clow and Baack,
2002; Duncan, 2002; Maddox, 2001)
• the use of the internet as information
source, communication channel, transaction
facilitator, and distribution tool
(Durkin and Lawlor, 2001; Gronstedt,
1997; Reich, 1998)
• development in agency practices—
internationalization, globalization, client
mirroring, organizational learning
and practice driven by client need, multicountry,
multioffice structures and networks
(Clow and Baack, 2002; Gould,
Lerman, and Grein, 1999; Kitchen and
Schultz, 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; Terpstra
and Sarathy, 2000)
• the fact that “the world has changed,
the nature and forms of communication
have changed, and, therefore, the
practice of developing and managing
marketing and communication must
change as well” (Kitchen and Schultz,
2000, p. 16)
All of these changes have been used to
buttress the argument concerning the development
of IMC. As we have seen, the
early literature indicated that IMC has
stimulated significant interest in the marketing
world. An early paper of Caywood,
Schultz, and Wang (1991) shows
that the majority of enquiries, philosophies,
and arguments reviewed in this
paper are around 10 years old, making
this a comparatively new, dynamic area#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#
of research that still could be in an early
growth phase (Kitchen and Schultz, 1999).
Although there has been some skepticism
in the past surrounding the value of an
IMC campaign, “. . . there seems little
doubt that IMC is an emergent concept
whose time seems to have arrived”
(Kitchen, 1999, p. 211).
But has IMC really conquered the literature
so easily? Has it been so readily
absorbed by clients, adverting agencies,
and public relations agencies? As we have
seen in this article, there are dissenting
voices among the crescendo of chorused
approvals. Perhaps the best way to illustrate
the weakness of IMC is to consider
both the positive and the negative aspects.
Pros and cons about IMC
As with the debate concerning whether
e-commerce represents the “new economy”
or “bubble economy” for every piece
of new thinking and innovative theory,
there are different views and disparate
voices. It is the same with the “one sight,
one voice” marketing communication concept
in the academic field. At the very
beginning when the IMC concept was initiated,
advertising educators were in favor
of IMC, seeing it as the best of both
worlds. Public relations educators, on the
other hand, tended to be vehemently opposed
(Miller and Rose, 1994). A number
of public relations thinkers and practitioners
saw IMC as not only an encroachment
but also a form of marketing imperialism
where public relations was concerned (Dozier
and Lauzen, 1990) because public relations
was seen as a management function,
while advertising and other forms of promotion
are seen as part of the marketing
function. Wightman (1999) assumed that
IMC was only an excuse for advertising
agencies to engulf public relations to deal
with reductions in client budgets for mass
media communications. However, Miller
and Rose’s research with advertising and
public relations practitioners shows that
public relations professionals support integrated
marketing communications and
had even accepted it as a reality and necessity
(Miller and Rose, 1994). Moriarty
(1994) argued that public relations had
much to contribute as well as benefit from
IMC thinking. Later on, some academics
questioned the newness of the IMC concept.
Spotts, Lambert, and Joyce (1998)
claimed that the bulk of the IMC literature
is a development parallel to marketing
that misrepresents marketing and
merely reinvents and renames existing concepts.
Hutton (1995) even likened IMC to
new wine put into old wineskins. There
has also been the debate of whether IMC
is a “management fashion” or a “developing
academic theory” (Schultz and#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#
Kitchen, 2000a). Cornelissen and Lock
(2000, p. 9) doubted IMC’s theoretical robustness
as well as its actual significance
for marketing and advertising thought and
practice. They viewed IMC as “simple
rhetoric” and, from their point of view,
IMC was a management fashion, apparent
in its lack of definition and transient
influence. Schultz and Kitchen (2000a) rebutted
this challenge by arguing that Cornelissen
and Lock’s citations were “selected
and incomplete” by focus and location
almost completely (i.e., inside the public
relations discipline), and that IMC itself
was in a preparadigm stage of development
and thus not bound by an accepted
definition. Their views were supported
by Gould (2000) who argued that
. . . IMC as a major strategic concept is
not much different from other marketing
or managerial concepts, methodologies,
or strategies that have arisen.
All have an evolutionary, discursive
and behavioural history in which the
particular concept is defined and redefined,
often many times. (p. 22)
Gould further argued
. . . that theory may take many forms and
Cornelissen and Lock are holding to one
version of the theory, which postulates
relationships among well-defined con-
THE EMERGENCE OF IMC
24 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH March 2004
structs and then deductively develops
hypotheses for empirical testing. (p. 23)
Needless to say, Schultz and Kitchen’s
earlier work, and indeed much of the
work by many authors to date, have indeed
focused on an inductive approach,
representative of an emergent paradigmatical
development.
Another criticism to IMC centers on the
lack of measurement to the effectiveness
of IMC programs. While urging that more
attention should be paid on measuring
“outcomes” rather than “outputs” of marketing
communication activities, Schultz
and Kitchen (2000b) raised concerns that
many marketing activities cannot be measured,
and the value of communication effects
and impacts are even more tenuous. Therefore,
measurability is not only the problem
of IMC, but the primary concern of
all marketing communication activities.
Schultz and Kitchen (2000b) proposed an
IGMC Communication Planning Matrix
that divided marketing communication
programs into two categories, one to serve
the purpose of business building and the
other to serve the purpose of brand building.
Current inflows from customers and
prospects will be measured for the short
term, which will be turned into marginal
returns and incremental revenue; whereas
the return of investment on brand building
will be measured based on the brand#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#
equity among customers and prospects.
Semenik (2002) introduced yet further but
still basic approaches to measuring the effectiveness
of an overall IMC program:
. . . one approach is to merely take on
the measurement of each of the promotional
tools used in a campaign, another
approach is to use single-source
tracking measures, and the third alternative
is to measure media exposures,
product (brand) impressions, and personal
contacts. (p. 29)
However, he also acknowledged that
. . . measuring the complex interaction
of all the promotional mix elements is
very, very complicated and may be
beyond the methodological tools available
at this time. (p. 545)
Despite the fact that there are a number
of criticisms of IMC as over the last 10
years that the IMC concept has been debated
and developed, this initiative has
been accepted by many marketing leading
theorists and writers. For example,
Kotler (2000) in his leading marketing management
text wrote two chapters with the
heading of “Managing and Coordinating
Integrated Marketing Communications.”
Both Smith (2002) and Fill (2002) devote
several chapters of their books to discussing
IMC. Pickton and Broderick’s (2001)
articulate and persuasive text was titled
Integrated Marketing Communications, and
the term “marketing communication” has
been frequently replaced by “integrated
marketing communications” as in Belch
and Belch’s book (2001). In the United
States where IMC originated, “twenty years
ago 75 percent of marketing budgets went
into advertising; today, 50 percent goes
into trade promotions, 25 percent to consumer
promotions, and less than 25 percent
to advertising” (Levinson, 2001, p. 10).
IMC or derivative theory has now been
diffused and the concept has been widely
implemented by many advertising agencies
and firms across many countries
worldwide as well as the United States.
Rose’s (1996) research about the perception
of IMC among 143 advertising and
public relations professionals concludes
that the majority of Latin American communication
practitioners believed in the
IMC concept and viewed their roles as
encompassing the broader areas of communication.
In the study undertaken by
Kitchen and Schultz (1999) among agencies
in the United States, United Kingdom,
Australia, New Zealand, and India,
conclusions derived from their multicountry
comparison indicated that
. . . there is a widespread development
of IMC approaches across the five countries
concerned, but IMC was still in
the early stages of its development. To
follow the product life cycle analogy, it#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#
would seem to vary from introduction,
in the case of Australia and India, to
growth, in the case of the United Kingdom
and New Zealand, and possibly
early maturity, in the case of the United
States. (Kitchen and Schultz, 1999, p. 35)
While the concept of IMC is being diffused
to more and more countries, the adopters
are not limited to the product and packaged
goods industries, there are more service
providers trying this new concept in
their own areas. Nowak, Cameron, and Delorme
(1996) conducted research among retailers
and service providers in selected
Latin American countries that valued the
IMC concept to examine the viability of IMC
concept in retail and service marketing.
Their findings revealed that
integrated approaches have much value
particularly as a means for coordinating
media and message delivery elements
in a fashion that provides a way
to link behavioural responses to media
vehicles and advertising messages.
(Nowak, Cameron, and Delorme, 1996,
p. 185)
As major participants in planning, coordinating,
and implementing IMC, advertising
and public relations agencies play a
critical part in the whole process although
the clients are regarded as the impetus of
moving IMC forward. As Belch and Belch
(2001) note:
THE EMERGENCE OF IMC
March 2004 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 25
. . . advertisers assume major responsibility
for developing the marketing
program and making the final decisions
regarding the advertising and
promotional program to be employed,
while advertising agencies are expected
to assist them in developing,
preparing, and executing promotional
plans. (p. 14)
Client-based research, despite inherent
methodological difficulties, will yet represent
the “gold standard” of what IMC is,
or what is perceived to be. For, despite the
focus on agencies servicing client needs, this
does not mean that IMC has passed to any
level beyond stage 1 as shown in Figure 2.
And, there are still many barriers standing
in the way of IMC development.
BARRIERS TO FURTHER
DEVELOPING IMC
Schultz and Kitchen (2000b) identified four
stages of IMC starting from tactical coordination
of promotional elements, redefining
the scope of marketing communications,
application of information technology, to
financial and strategic integration. They argued,
based on the empirical findings from
their research with advertising agencies that
develop and implement marketing communication
plans for their clients, that the
majority of clients are anchored in either
stage 1 or stage 2 scenarios. Some are moving
into stage 3, but very few (a handful in
today’s world) have moved to stage 4 (see#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#
Figure 2).
Major questions here are: What are the
primary barriers hindering the diffusion
of the concept of IMC into companies?
What are the major problems preventing
further development of IMC in practice?
And what can be done to accelerate the
implementation of IMC from lower stages
to higher stages? Since IMC is to enable
various messages from different communication
channels coming together to
create a coherent corporate and brand
image, Moriarty (1994) considered the
cross-disciplinary managerial skills the
biggest barrier to IMC, while Duncan
and Everett (1993) reported that egos
and turf battles were primary obstacles
to integration. Eagle and Kitchen (2000)
identified four groups of potential barriers
to IMC success in their study of
the New Zealand advertising and marketing
industry: power, coordination, and
(Source: Schultz and Kitchen, 2000b)
Figure 2 Stages in IMC Development (Source: Schultz and Kitchen, 2000b)
THE EMERGENCE OF IMC
26 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH March 2004
control issues; client skills, centralization/
organization, and cultural issues; agency
skills/talents and overall time/resources
issues; and flexibility/modification issues.
Schultz (2000) saw structure—the
way the firm is put together—as the most
challenging problem of integration. He
argued that the traditional command-andcontrol
structures should be replaced by
the quick-response model in new economy
firms, and only when management
starts to focus on outcomes rather than
outputs do most of the integration problems
go away. Schultz (2001) further noted
that one of the problems with the current
approach to marketing and marketing
communications is likely the concept
of a campaign, which is contrary to the
customer-focused idea and the long-term
relationship building purpose of IMC because
campaigns generally are developed
and executed for a limited time
period . . . to achieve some type of advantage
during some timeframe. Although
there are difficulties of ensuring
the full integration of marketing communications
and there are barriers of achieving
final success of IMC, these difficulties
and barriers will not be able to prevent
people from trying, as the rewards of
synergy and coherence are significant
(Pickton and Broderick, 2001). Smith (2002)
further illustrated the merits of implementing
IMC: IMC can create competitive
advantage and boost sales and profits,
while saving time, money, and stress. A
unified message has more impact than a
disjointed myriad of messages.
WHERE IMC IS NOW AND A RATIONALE
FOR ITS SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT
OR DECLINE
Taking Figure 2 as an example of where#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#
IMC is, or could be located, if businesses
have stopped their IMC development at
stage 1, then this is stating no more than
Caywood, 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 be
termed “inside-out marketing.” It requires
little or no focus on customers,
consumers, or their needs and is a relatively
simple matter of bundling promotional
mix elements together so “they
speak with one voice.” Moreover, if this
indeed what companies are doing, it is a
serious blow against the development of
marketing in the 20th century for stage 1
implies product, production, or sales
orientation—orientations long thought to
be receding into the sedimentary social
and economic strata of the past. Yet, paper
after paper has revealed that the majority
of client organizations and the
agencies who service their needs are located
at this level. What does this mean
from a communication perspective? Simply
that all communications, not matter
how neatly synergized, are driven by client
edict and control. Put another way,
they may not focus on customer and their
needs and may in fact be detrimental to
organizational development and growth.
Reiteration of messages that plainly contradict
business reality damage business
credibility in the long term. A recent U.K.
example developed by chocolate giant
Cadbury promises consumers free sporting
goods if they will save and submit
special wrappers from Cadbury products.
On the one hand, the campaign is
integrated in terms of advertising, sponsorship,
sales promotion, package design,
and marketing public relations. On
the other hand, there is a distinct unease
in the minds of customers, consumers,
and industry experts on the links between
chocolate and obesity, and between
chocolate and sporting prowess.
The entire campaign, while ostensibly offering
a consumer benefit, is inside-out
in its approach.
Stage 2 of Figure 2 is at least an attempt
by businesses to actively consider what
customers and consumers want to hear or
see, when, where, and through which media.
It represents “outside-in marketing.”
It is a major step in the direction toward
IMC being driven by customers and their
needs. Certainly few businesses or their
agencies would decry the need for market
research to underpin marketing and marketing
communication activities. Yet, it has
been estimated by Kitchen and Schultz
(1999) that only 25 percent of businesses
base their marketing communication activities
on a sound understanding of the
dynamics of their served segment. Yet,#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#
stage 2 of IMC is an improvement. It
potentially avoids many of the mistakes,
pitfalls, and arrogance of marketers located
in stage 1.
Yet, it is only in stages 3 and 4 that
integration moves beyond juxtaposition
of promotional mix elements, or use of
market research, for in these latter stages
businesses have to invest significant resource
in building segmented databases
and organizational restructuring to become
customer-focused and customerdriven.
Only if communication resources
are invested and measured against actual
customer behavior can financial returns
be compiled. Thus stages 3 and 4 are a
Only strategically oriented integrated brand communications
can help businesses move forward in the highly
competitive world of the 21st century.
THE EMERGENCE OF IMC
March 2004 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 27
movement from attitudinal measurement
to behavioral measurement. And only
when we move into stage 4, do we arrive
at a position that resembles integrated marketing.
The problem is that integrated marketing
may be based on stage 1 (not stage
4) foundations.
The real weakness of IMC is the very
weakness of firms to invest resources in
the marketing and communication process.
If that investment is not made, then
businesses will find themselves anchored
at the dock of stage 1 or stage 2. Indeed,
IMC will have made a contribution, but it
is not one of a strategic nature. It is instead
tactical. And, yet, communication has to
move from tactical partner to strategic
integrator. Only strategically oriented integrated
brand communications can help
businesses move forward in the highly
competitive world of the 21st century.
The current location of IMC in a global
sense is at stage 1 or stage 2 of the IMC
process. Yet stage 1 is a body blow to true
integration and indeed to the discipline of
marketing itself. Such a location cannot
represent any more than a form of marketing
communication myopia. Stage 2 is
an improvement. Stages 3 and 4 represent
organizational investment and real organizational
change. But, if a business decides
to jump from stage 1 to integrated
marketing (the new buzz word on the
marketing block), then integrated marketing
is integrated from an organizational
but not from a customer or consumer
perspective. The early promise of IMC
will have faded into yet another form of
rhetoric (see Kitchen, 2003). Only if businesses
follow through with sustained investment
will IMC continue upward in
terms of growth.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
This article has considered and critiqued
the IMC developmental process, its impact
on marketing communications, indicated#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#
barriers to its further development,
and located IMC in terms of where it is
now, and where it likely to go in the
future. Undoubtedly, a broad awareness
of the IMC concept has been created and
its diffusion worldwide is evident. Such
development and diffusion is dependent
upon underlying environmental factors
that show evidence of increased acceleration
in the 21st century, which augers
well for the future development of IMC
and its related construct—integrated
marketing.
And, yet, at the same time, IMC has
provoked intense, diverse discussion and
criticism. While we cannot return to the
crucible of forces from which IMC emerged
in the late 1980s, plainly these forces are
no longer applicable today (in 2003). Yet,
the early literature, albeit conceptualized
and crystallized in modular stage form,
continues to be illustrative of business
reality.
IMC is becoming more widely accepted
and recognized, but there are still many
conceptual issues that need further exploration
and analysis. If further research is
undertaken, it needs to be preeminently
http://www.ttc-switch.com/dissertation_writing/with client organizations. Further critical
discussion is also needed from a conceptual
perspective.
This detailed critical review of selected
literature has provided an interesting consideration
of how the IMC concept has
evolved, where it came from, and how it
is perceived in modern society. It will be
interesting to see what happens over the
next decade.
................................................................................................
PHILIP J. KITCHEN holds the Chair in Strategic Marketing
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 Queen’s University, Belfast, where he
founded and directed the executive MBA program. At
Hull, he teaches and carries out research in marketing
management, marketing communications, corporate
communications, promotion management, and
international communications management and has a
specific aim to build an active team of marketing
researchers. A graduate of the CNAA (BA[Hons]) initially,
he received Masters degrees in Marketing from
UMIST (M.Sc.) and Manchester Business School
(M.B.Sc.), respectively, and his Ph.D. from Keele University.
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#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#
around the world.
................................................................................................
JOANNE BRIGNELL 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 integrated
marketing communications, and she has recently
completed an interview-based study of IMC with
CEO’s 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 . . .
THE EMERGENCE OF IMC
28 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH March 2004
................................................................................................
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
China–U.S. joint venture consultation company in
shopping center development in China and then at
Beijing COFCO Development Company with responsibility
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 SPICKETT-JONES is a lecturer in marketing at
Hull University Business School, where is also postgraduate
pathway coordinator in the marketing discipline.
Graham has published papers previously in the
International Journal of Market Research and the Journal
of Promotion Management. His research interests
lie in the domain of brand marketing communications
with specific focus on cognitive information processing
and psycholinguistics.
REFERENCES
Acheson, K.L. “Integrated Marketing Must
Bring Two Perspectives Together.” Marketing
News 27, 17 (1993): 4.
Belch, G.E., and M. A. Belch. Advertising and
Promotion: An Integrated Marketing Communications
Perspective, 5th ed. New York: McGraw-
Hill/Irwin, 2001.
Caywood, C., D. E. Schultz, and P. Wang.
“Integrated Marketing Communications: A Survey
of National Goods Advertisers,” unpublished
report. Bloomington, IN: Medill School
of Journalism, Northwestern University, June
1991.
Clow, K. E., and D. Baack. Integrated Advertising,
Promotion and Marketing Communications.
Cranbury, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc., 2002.#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#
Cornelissen, J. P., and A. R. Lock. “Theoretical
Concept or Management Fashion? Examining the
Significance of IMC.” Journal of Advertising Research
40, 5 (2000): 7–15.
Coulson-Thomas, C. J. Marketing Communications.
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 Education
in Journalism, Minneapolis, MN, 1990.
Duncan, T. IMC: Using Advertising and Promotion
to Build Brands (International Edition). New
York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2002.
Duncan, T. R., and S. E. Everett. “Client Perceptions
of Integrated Communications.” Journal
of Advertising Research 32, 3 (1993): 30–39.
Durkin, M., and M. A. Lawlor. “The Implications
of the Internet on the Advertising
Agency-Client Relationship.” The Service Industries
Journal (London) 21, 2 (2001): 175–90.
Dyer, G. Advertising as Communication. London:
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): 667–686.
Fill, C. Marketing Communications: Contexts,
Strategies and Applications, 3rd ed. London, Europe:
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 Relations
Quarterly (Rhinebeck) 39, 3 (1994): 45.
Gould, S. J. “The State of IMC Research and
Applications.” Journal of Advertising Research
40, 5 (2000): 22–23.
–——, B. Lerman, and A. F. Grein. “Agency
Perceptions and Practices on Global IMC.” Journal
of Advertising Research 39, 1 (1999): 7–20.
Grein, A. F., and S. J. Gould. “Globally Integrated
Marketing Communications.” Journal of
Marketing Communications 2, 3 (1996): 141–58.
Gronstedt, A. “Internet: IMC on Steroids.”
Marketing News 31, 11 (1997): 16.
Hackley, C., and P. J. Kitchen. “IMC: A Consumer
Psychological Perspective.” Marketing Intelligence
& Planning 16, 3 (1998): 229–35.
Hutton, J. “Integrated Marketing Communications
and the Evolution of Marketing
Thought.” Presented to the American Academy
of Advertising Annual Conference, New York, 1995.
Kanso, A., and R. Nelson. “Advertising Localisation
Overshadows Standardisation.” Journal
of Advertising Research 42, 1 (2002): 79–89.#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#
Kaye, R. L. “Companies Need to Realize Internal
Marketing’s Potential.” Advertising Age’s Business
Marketing, 1999.
Kitchen, P. J. Marketing Communications: Principles
and Practice. London: International Thomson
Business Press, 1999.
–——. The Rhetoric and Reality of Marketing: An
International Managerial Approach. Hampshire,
U.K.: Palgrave Publishers Ltd., 2003.
–——, and D. E. Schultz. “Integrated Marketing
Communications in US Advertising Agencies:
An Exploratory Study.” Journal of Advertising
Research 37, 5 (1997): 7–18.
–——, and –——. “IMC—A UK Ad’s Agency
Perspective.” Journal of Marketing Management
14, 2 (1998): 465–85.
–——, and –——. “A Multi-Country Comparison
of the Drive for IMC.” Journal of Advertising
Research 39, 1 (1999): 21–38.
–——, and –——. “A Response to ‘Theoretical
Concept or Management Fashion?’” Journal of
Advertising Research 40, 5 (2000): 17–21.
THE EMERGENCE OF IMC
March 2004 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 29
–——, and –——. Raising the Corporate Umbrella:
Corporate Communications in the 21st Century.
Hampshire, U.K.: Palgrave Publishers Ltd.,
2001.
Kotler, P. Marketing Management, 10th ed. London:
Prentice Hall International (UK) Limited,
2000.
Levinson, J. C. “Integrated Marketing.” Executive
Excellence 18, 11 (2001): 9–10.
Maddox, K. “Shop Turns to Collaboration Tool.”
B to B 86, 13 (2001): 10.
McGoon, C. “Cutting-Edge Companies Use
Integrated Marketing Communication.” Communication
World 16, 1 (1999): 15–19.
McLaughlin, J. P. “Why Is IMC Taking So
Long? Blame It on the Clients.” Marketing News
31, 19 (1997): 27–30.
Miller, D. A., and P. B. Rose. “Integrated
Communications: A Look at Reality.” 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. Delorme.
“Beyond the World of Packaged Goods:
Assessing the Relevance of Integrated Marketing
Communications for Retail and Consumer
Service Marketing.” Journal of Marketing Communications
2, 1 (1996): 173–90.
Packer, B. K. Teach Ye Diligently. Salt Lake City,
UT: Deseret Books, 1979.
Percy, L., J. R. Rossiter, and R. Elliott. Strategic
Advertising Management. New York: Oxford
University Press Inc., 2001.
Pickton, D., and A. Broderick. Integrated Marketing#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#
Communications. Essex, U.K.: Pearson Education
Limited, 2001.
Reich, K. “IMC: Through the Looking Glass of
the New Millennium.” Communication World
15, 9 (1998): 26–28.
Rose, P. B. “Practitioner Opinions and Interests
Regarding Integrated Marketing Communications
in Selected Latin American Countries.”
Journal of Marketing Communications (1996):
125–139.
Schultz, D. E. “Integrated Marketing Communications:
The Status of Integrated Marketing
Communications Programs in the US Today.”
Journal of Promotion Management 1, 1, (1991):
99–104.
–——. “Integrated Marketing Communications:
Maybe Definition Is in the Point of View.”
Marketing News, January 18, 1993a.
–——. “We Simply Can’t 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 Programs.”
Marketing News 33, 1, (1999): 35–36.
–——. “Structural Flaws Dash Marcom Plans.”
Marketing News 34, 3 (2000): 14.
–——. “Campaign Approach Shouldn’t Exist in
IMC.” Marketing News 35, 5 (2001): 11–13.
–——. “Summit Explores Where IMC, CRM
Meet.” Marketing News 36, 5 (2002): 11–12.
–——, and P. J. Kitchen. “A Response to ‘Theoretical
Concept or Management Fashion?’” Journal
of Advertising Research 40, 5 (2000a): 17–21.
–——, and –——. Communicating Globally: An
Integrated Marketing Approach. London: Macmillan
Press Ltd., 2000b.
–——, and –——. Communicating Globally: An
Integrated Marketing Approach. Chicago, IL: NTC
Business Books, NTC/Contemporary Publishing
Group, 2000c.
–——, S. I. Tannenbaum, and R. F. Lauterborn.
The New Marketing Paradigm: Integrated
Marketing Communications. Chicago, IL: NTC
Business Books, NTC/Contemporary Publishing
Group, 1994.
Schwartz, M. “IBM Adopts New Agency
Model.” B to B 86, 16 (2001): 21.
Semenik, R. J. Promotion and Integrated Marketing
Communications, South-Western. Cincinnati,
OH: South-Western, Thomson Learning, 2002.
Shimp, T. A. Advertising Promotion: Supplemental
Aspects of Integrated Marketing Communications,
5th ed. Fort Worth, TX: The Dryden Press,
Harcourt College Publishers, 2000.
Smith, P. R. Marketing Communications: An Integrated
Approach, 3rd ed. London: Kogan Page
Limited, 2002.
Spotts, H. E., D. R. Lambert, and M. L. Joyce.#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#
“Marketing Déjà Vu: The Discovery of Integrated
Marketing Communications.” Journal of
Marketing Education 20, 3 (1998): 210–18.
Tedlow, R. S. New and Improved: The Story of
Mass Marketing in America. New York: Basic
Books, 1990.
Terpstra, V., and R. Sarathy. International Marketing,
8th ed. New York: The Dryden Press,
Hartcourt College Publishers, 2000.
Weilbacher, W. M. “Point of View: Does Advertising
Cause a ‘Hierarchy of Effects’?” Journal
of Advertising Research 41, 6 (2001): 19–26.
Wightman, B. “Integrated Communications:
Organisation and Education.” Public Relations
Quarterly 44, 2 (1999): 18–22.
Wood, M. B. “Clear IMC Goals Build Strong
Relationships.” Marketing News 31, 13 (1997):
11–15.
THE EMERGENCE OF IMC
30 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH March 2004\