The Emergence of IMC: A Theoretical Perspective

PHILIP J. KITCHEN University of Hull p.j.kitchen@hull.ac.uk

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

JOANNE BRIGNELL Hull University Business School jo_brignell@hotmail.com TAO LI Hull University Business School taoli@yahoo.com GRAHAM SPICKETT JONES Hull University Business School g.s.spickett-jones@hull. ac.uk

keting communications, (3) barriers to further progress, and (4) current location identification 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 promotional mix elements together so they look and sound alike. But, IMC has to move beyond this 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 current location and the processes that have led to this location. Many years ago, Daniel Webster said: . . . When the mariner has been tossed for many days in thick weather, and on an unknown sea, he naturally avails himself of the first pause in the storm, the earliest glance of the sun, to take his latitude, and ascertain how far the elements have driven him from his true course. Let us imitate this prudence, and, before we float further on the waves of this debate, refer to the point from which we departed, that we may at least be able to conjecture where we are now. I ask for a reading of the resolution. . . (cited in Packer, 1979, p. 307) Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC) seems to have passed through and still is passing through a conjectural storm as to its meaning and purpose. Certainly, if its meaning simply amounts to bundling promotional mix elements together to create the one-voice phenomenon, then it is not saying much that is new, relevant, or even interesting. Yet, this was the starting point of IMC. It has progressed apparently beyond this stage as

we shall see in this article. Its ending point may well be the emergence of integrated marketing. Yet, if integrated marketing is merely based on promotional juxtaposition, if it is just an extension of old-style marketing dressed in new clothes, then this too will have its rhetorical day (see Kitchen, 2003), but will pass away. What IMC promises, and what is really needed, is the emergence of a new dynamic paradigm that will finally facilitate business movement to marketing communications (and the related range of activities) that are clearly in customer and consumer interests. Currently, IMC extends no more than a promise of this. Thus, this article will explore the phenomenon of IMC from a theoretical perspective. We do this by

1. considering the IMC developmental process 2. evaluating how and in what ways IMC has 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 March 2004

DOI: 10.1017/S0021849904040048

JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH

19

THE EMERGENCE OF IMC

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 frag-

mentation and increasing segmentation of consumer tastes and preferences (Durkin and Lawlor, 2001; Eagle and Kitchen, 2000; Schwartz, 2001; Tedlow, 1990), easier access 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 brands image-based equity (McLaughlin, 1997; Schultz, 1999; Wood, 1997). Yet, just a short time agoin the early 1980sthe 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, re-

veals that the idea of integration was actually thereunderlying 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 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 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

20

JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH

March 2004

THE EMERGENCE OF IMC

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 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 execu-

tives recognized the potential value of IMC, its time and cost efficiencies were viewed as uncertain (Kitchen and Schultz, 1997). Kitchen and Schultz (1999) then 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 crynot 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 focusedcorrectly for its timeas . . . 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

March 2004

JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH

21

THE EMERGENCE OF IMC

. . . IMC is no longer inside-out, but outside-inthat is, driven by the buyers or potential buyers of goods and

ers (Duncan, 2002). Again, he offers an IMC definition as . . . a process for managing the cus-

services.

tomer relationships that drive brand value. More specifically, it is a crossfunctional process for creating and nourishing profitable relationships with

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-inthat 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 customer-

centric processes in that its foundation is communication. This is regarded as the center 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 custom-

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

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

22

JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH

March 2004

THE EMERGENCE OF IMC

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 of IMC 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 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

March 2004

JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH

23

THE EMERGENCE OF IMC

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 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 Roses 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 Kitchen, 2000a). Cornelissen and Lock (2000, p. 9) doubted IMCs 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 Locks 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-

24

JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH

March 2004

THE EMERGENCE OF IMC

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

However, he also acknowledged that . . . measuring the complex interaction

cies 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 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:

Needless to say, Schultz and Kitchens 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 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)

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 Brodericks (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 Belchs 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. Roses (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 agen-

March 2004

JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH

25

THE EMERGENCE OF IMC

(Source: Schultz and Kitchen, 2000b)

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

. . . 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 todays world) have moved to stage 4 (see 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

26

JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH

March 2004

THE EMERGENCE OF IMC

control issues; client skills, centralization/ organization, and cultural issues; agency skills/talents and overall time/resources issues; and flexibility/modification issues. Schultz (2000) saw structurethe way the firm is put togetheras 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 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

Only strategically oriented integrated brand communications can help businesses move forward in the highly competitive world of the 21st century.

Schultz, Tannenbaum, and Lauterborn (1994) were saying at that point in time. Moreover, a stage 1 focus is what can be termed inside-out marketing. It 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 orientationorientations 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, 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

March 2004

JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH

27

THE EMERGENCE OF IMC

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, indi-

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 . . .

cated 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 constructintegrated 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 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 Queens 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 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 CEOs in U.K. advertising and public relations agencies.

28

JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH

March 2004

THE EMERGENCE OF IMC

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

Significance of IMC. Journal of Advertising Research 40, 5 (2000): 715. 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): 3039. 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): 17590.

, B. Lerman, and A. F. Grein. Agency Perceptions and Practices on Global IMC. Journal of Advertising Research 39, 1 (1999): 720. Grein, A. F., and S. J. Gould. Globally Integrated Marketing Communications. Journal of 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 Consumer Psychological Perspective. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 16, 3 (1998): 22935. 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): 7989. Kaye, R. L. Companies Need to Realize Internal Marketings Potential. Advertising Ages Business Marketing, 1999.

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: McGrawHill/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.

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): 667686. 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.: ButterworthHeinemann, 2001. Gonring, M. P. Putting Integrated Marketing 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): 718. , and . IMCA UK Ads Agency Perspective. Journal of Marketing Management 14, 2 (1998): 46585. , and . A Multi-Country Comparison of the Drive for IMC. Journal of Advertising Research 39, 1 (1999): 2138. , and . A Response to Theoretical Concept or Management Fashion? Journal of Advertising Research 40, 5 (2000): 1721.

Clow, K. E., and D. Baack. Integrated Advertising, Promotion and Marketing Communications. Cranbury, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc., 2002.

Communications to Work Today. Public Relations Quarterly (Rhinebeck) 39, 3 (1994): 45. Gould, S. J. The State of IMC Research and

Cornelissen, J. P., and A. R. Lock. Theoretical Concept or Management Fashion? Examining the

Applications. Journal of Advertising Research 40, 5 (2000): 2223.

March 2004

JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH

29

THE EMERGENCE OF IMC

, and . Raising the Corporate Umbrella: Corporate Communications in the 21st Century. Hampshire, U.K.: Palgrave Publishers Ltd., 2001.

Reich, K. IMC: Through the Looking Glass of the New Millennium. Communication World 15, 9 (1998): 2628.

Business Books, NTC/Contemporary Publishing Group, 2000c. , S. I. Tannenbaum, and R. F. Lauter-

Rose, P. B. Practitioner Opinions and Interests Kotler, P. Marketing Management, 10th ed. London: Prentice Hall International (UK) Limited, 2000. Levinson, J. C. Integrated Marketing. Executive 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. Communication 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. . Structural Flaws Dash Marcom Plans. 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): 17390. 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 Communications. Essex, U.K.: Pearson Education Limited, 2001. , and . Communicating Globally: An Integrated Marketing Approach. Chicago, IL: NTC , and . Communicating Globally: An Integrated Marketing Approach. London: Macmillan Press Ltd., 2000b. . Campaign Approach Shouldnt Exist in IMC. Marketing News 35, 5 (2001): 1113. . Summit Explores Where IMC, CRM Meet. Marketing News 36, 5 (2002): 1112. Marketing News 34, 3 (2000): 14. . IMC Has Become a Global Concept. Marketing News 30, 5, (1996): 6. . Manage Customers, Not Loyalty Programs. Marketing News 33, 1, (1999): 3536. Schultz, D. E. Integrated Marketing Communications: The Status of Integrated Marketing Communications Programs in the US Today. Journal of Promotion Management 1, 1, (1991): 99104. . Integrated Marketing Communications: 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. Regarding Integrated Marketing Communications in Selected Latin American Countries. Journal of Marketing Communications (1996): 125139.

born. 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. Marketing Dj Vu: The Discovery of Integrated Marketing Communications. Journal of Marketing Education 20, 3 (1998): 21018. 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 Ad-

, and P. J. Kitchen. A Response to Theoretical Concept or Management Fashion? Journal of Advertising Research 40, 5 (2000a): 1721.

vertising Cause a Hierarchy of Effects? Journal of Advertising Research 41, 6 (2001): 1926. 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.

30

JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH

March 2004