The Relationship Between Integrated Marketing Communication, Market .

Winter2005* include two-way as well as one-way communication, and* be results driven.This has led to a redefinition of IMC as "anon-going, interactive, cross-functional process of brand communication planning, execution, and evaluation that integrates all parties inthe exchange process in order to maximize mutual satisfaction of each other's wants and needs" (Duncan and Mulhern2004, p. 9). This redefinition reflects a shift to view the management of marketing communication more as an interweaving of processesthat cross traditionaldepartmentalboundaries,employing the knowledge and skills of specialists and nonspecialists alike (Cornelissen 2001).IMC is also regarded by some as a management philosophy to be incorporated into the organization's approach tobusiness (Cornelissen 2001; Duncan 1998), whereas othersregard it primarily as a processof campaign development connected to a wider brand strategy (Nowak and Phelps 1994;Percy 1997). The notion of IMC as a philosophy or concept wasevident as early as 1991 in the widely cited definition by theAmerican Association of Advertising Agencies (see Caywood,Schultz, and Wang 1991). Furthermore,Duncan and Everett,when speaking of the experience in large U.S.-based organizations, suggested, "anorganizationthat has an IMC philosophymay or may not physically integrate into one department thepeople responsible for the various marketing communicationfunctions, although the trend is to do so" (1993, p. 31).IMC as a philosophy suggests that an organization maysubscribe to the concept of integrating communicationwhereby the emphasis is on raising awarenessof the benefits,and hence intention, to integrate communication messages.Establishing a positive and conscious attitude toward integration may build "esprit de corps" with a flow-on effect onwhat is done and how it is done, that is, organizationalartifactsand values (Harris 1998). This may occur without necessarilyphysically integrating the functional areasresponsiblefor message creation and delivery (Duncan and Everett 1993; Stewart1996). At its most basic, it may be a matter of directing internal staff and externalserviceproviderssuch as advertisingagencies to ensure that positioning strategy and communicationconsistency are attained. In this sense, the guiding philosophyacknowledgesthe value of IMC, legitimizes the language used,and sees coordinatedand integrated communication processesas a desired outcome. We view the philosophical domain ofIMC as being similar to that of brand orientation, to which itis strongly related and which is discussed below.IMC as ProcessDuncan and Mulhern (2004) note that a common element tomost of the recent definitions of IMC is its representation aseither a strategic or tactical process. It is commonly under-13stood that the strategic dimension of marketing managementis the framework that provides guidance for actions (tactics)to be taken, and, at the same time, is shaped by the actionstaken and the response to such actions by competitors, customers, and other stakeholders. In a broad sense, strategicfocus emphasizes the proper identification of market opportunities as the basis for marketing planning and growth, withthe objective of achieving sustainable competitive advantage(Rust et al. 2004). Tactical dimensions relate to the shorterterm activities to be used in implementing those strategies toachieve planned marketing objectives.This division into strategic and tactical dimensions is considered to be congruent with earlier classifications accordingto vertical and horizontalintegration (Cornelissen2001; Smith1996) and process and organizational levels (Duncan andMoriarty 1998). Vertical integration requires that marketingand communication objectives be aligned with higher-levelcorporateobjectivesand corporatemissions, whereashorizontalintegration focuses on the marketing mix and coordinationacrossbusiness functions such as production, finance, and distribution. All personnel in these functional areasare requiredto work cooperatively and consistently, conscious that decisions made by any of them can send messages that ultimatelyinfluence customers (Smith 1996). This is also consistent withPetrison and Wang's (1996) proposition that IMC could beinterpreted in two distinct ways: "planning integration" and"executional integration." Planning integration advocatesthatto maximize efficiency and effectiveness, marketers need tocoordinate all marketing activities to ensure that they are inline with the overall strategy of the product and brand (vertical), whereas executional integration is associated with consistency between communication messages (horizontal). It isuseful to point out that implementing integration of any kindis fraught with difficulty and requires management to overcome many barriers in the process (see Baker and Mitchell2000; Duncan and Everett 1993; Kitchen and Schultz 1999;Pickton and Hartley 1998; Smith 1996).The division between strategic and tactical dimensions isalso reflected in Schultz's (Schultz 1998; Schultz and Schultz1998) representation of integration as a continuum fromlower-level integration through to "absolute integration" involving a number of evolutionary phases:Phase 1: Tactical coordination of messagesthatensuresconsistentdepictionof corevalues.Phase2: Redefining the scope of marketingcommunications to take an "outside-in"approach,with all potentialcommunicationfocusedon consumers'perceptions.Phase3: Application of information technologyto turn customerdata into customerknowledge.This content downloaded from 41.186.11.214 on Sun, 13 Oct 2013 14:24:12 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

14TheJournal of AdvertisingTABLE IStrategic and Tactical Characteristics of Integrated Marketing Communication (IMC)TacticalStrategicI. Driven by market-basedassets and financialexpectations2. Customer and stakeholderconnectivity3. Strategicconsistency4. Cross-functionalintegration5. Resource commitmentfor IMCPhase4: Strategic and financial integration forof or returnon investment.communicationA review of the contributions of various researchershas beenundertaken to elucidate the components of IMC that potentially fall under the banner of strategic versus tactical aspectsof IMC, which is summarized in Table 1. The significance ofthis division is the recognition that IMC is a holistic process.While bringing the global or "big picture" strategic aspectsof IMC to the fore has been widely advocated, it is nonetheless still critical to ensure that the day-to-day management oftactical aspects are not overlooked or taken as a "given" if aneffective IMC approach is to be implemented. In essence, recent definitions (such as those highlighted earlier)reflect thesedual aspects of IMC.While strategic-level IMC relates to effecting the brandpositioning strategy in a holistic sense, the tactical aspects ofIMC primarily relate to the planning and implementation ofindividual holistic campaigns that, over time, work to buildand reinforcebrandpositioning and contribute incrementallyto building strong customer-based brand equity. In essence,this should reflect best practice in developing and implementing individual campaigns. For the purposes of this paper, ourfocus is primarily on the strategic aspects of IMC.Strategic Dimensions of IMCThe strategic dimensions of IMC relate primarily to the quality, comprehensiveness, and flexibility of the process of IMCplanning and strategy development. In this model, the parameters of IMC at the strategic level can be grouped underfive broad dimensions:1. Market-BasedAssetsand Financial ExpectationsIt is imperative that IMC planning is performance or outcome driven (Duncan and Moriarty 1997; Duncan andMulhern 2004; Kitchen, Brignall, and Li 2004; Low 2000;Schultz 1998; Schultz, Cole, and Bailey 2004; Smith 1996).The decisions made with regardto devising and effecting strategy need to be underpinned and shared through clear and1.Campaign-levelconsistency2. Campaign-levelclaritycoordination3. Campaign-levelconsistent linkages to building and maintaining brandequityand to financialindicatorsof performancesuch as sales, marketshare, profit, and return on investment. The use of improveddata and measurementtechnologies are paramountin shapingIMC and facilitating its acceptanceby senior management.2. Customerand StakeholderConnectivityIMC requires the adoption of an "outside-in" approach thatenhances customer connectivity and organizational responsiveness to change by putting the customer first (Duncanand Moriarty 1997; Pickton and Hartley 1998; Schultz 1998;Smith 1996). More specifically, IMC planners and strategists require the existence, calibration, and application of amarketing information system designed to elicit a clear understanding of brand touch points, effect a timely dialoguewith customers and other key stakeholders, and facilitateinsights into competitive brand activity. The existence of adatabase calibrated to measure customer and stakeholder responsiveness of campaigns will also facilitate measurementof performance.3. StrategicConsistencyThis dimension recognizes that all parts of the brand entitysend a message to customers and other stakeholders. The coordination of brand messages, from whatever source, including other aspects of the marketing mix, coordination ofcustomer-facing staff, and, more broadly, contact with theorganization, must be consistent to protect brand image(Duncan and Moriarty 1997). Achieving strategic consistencyhas also been likened to central coordinationof IMC programs(Cornelissen 2001; Duncan and Moriarty 1997; Eagle andKitchen 2000; Low 2000; Pickton and Hartley 1998). Enabling strategic consistency requires the use of meetings andother planning mechanisms that facilitate linkages betweenmarketing and brand strategy and IMC strategy, and also theuse of mechanisms to ensure that the brand has the best opportunity for achieving one voice/one look acrossall elementsof the marketing mix (Duncan and Moriarty 1997; Eagle andKitchen 2000; Schultz 1998; Smith 1996). The issue of consistency should also extend to cover the design and implemen-This content downloaded from 41.186.11.214 on Sun, 13 Oct 2013 14:24:12 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Winter2005tation of campaigns over time (Duncan and Moriarty 1997;Eagle and Kitchen 2000; Phelps and Johnson 1996).4. Cross-FunctionalIntegrationIt has been argued that an organization cannot be integratedexternally without being integrated internally (Duncan andMulhern 2004). Cross-functional integration is built on focused internal marketing processes and provides the foundation for effective IMC planning and reporting (Conduit andMavondo 2001; Cornelissen 2001; Duncan and Moriarty1997). Top management needs to be involved to drive theprocess (Duncan and Mulhern 2004), and there needs to be awillingness to change policies that inhibit the implementation of IMC (Phelps and Johnson 1996; Smith 1996).Commitment5. Resourcefor IMCIn order for IMC to be performed effectively, there must beadequateresourceprovision, including time, funds, and skilledand knowledgeable personnel (Duncan and Moriarty 1997;Eagle and Kitchen 2000; Smith 1996). Resource commitment can also be a useful mechanism for signaling the legitimacy of behaviors and mental models consistent withimplementing IMC.MARKET ORIENTATION ANDITS RELATIONSHIP TO IMCMarketorientation has been an implicit theme underlying theimplementation and management of IMC. There is an assumption that firms adopting IMC have in place a customer-centricorientation and systems for linking the organization to themarket and customer, as well as processes,systems, and mentalmodels that link various functional areas of the organization(Duncan and Moriarty 1998; Slater 1997; Stewart 1996).Market orientation in various forms has been discussedextensively in the literature(Carrillat,Jaramillo,and Locander2004; Kohli and Jaworski 1990; Narver and Slater 1990).Helfert, Ritter, and Walter (2002) split the literature intothree main streams: (1) a behavioral perspective (e.g., Kohliand Jaworski 1990), where market orientation is focused onorganization-wide market intelligence generation, dissemination, and responsiveness to the information; (2) a culturalperspective (e.g., Narver and Slater 1990), where market orientation is reflected through the values and attitudes of theorganization in providing superior customer value throughpaying attention to current and emerging customer needs;and (3) a competitive perspective that understands currentand potential competitors and coordinates the organizationalresourcesto deliver superior customer value. Other researchers have adopted a systems perspective (e.g., Becker and Hom-15burg 1999), wheremarketorientationis conceptualizedin termsof different systems underpinning the organizationalactivities(i.e., organization,information,planning, controlling, and human resources).Despite these apparent differences, there areimportant overlaps in these conceptualizations (Cadogan andDiamantopoulos 1995). In the final analysis, one realizes thatmarket orientation suggests that all information on all important buying influences permeatesevery corporatefunction, andthat strategic and tactical decisions are made interfunctionallyand interdivisionally.A review and synthesis of the ideas embedded in marketorientation concludes that it consists of:* A customerorientation:Active encouragement ofcustomer comments and complaints, an after-salesservice emphasis, regular evaluation of ways to createsuperior product/service value, and the regularmeasurement of customer satisfaction levels.* A competitororientation:The regular monitoring ofcompetitor activity, the collection and use of marketinformation on competitors to develop marketingplans, and using the sales force to monitor and reportcompetitor activity.* Interfunctionalcoordination:The sharing of marketinformation across departments, the involvement of alldepartments in the preparationof business plans andstrategies, the integration of the activities acrossdepartments, the interaction of marketing personnelwith other departments, and joint assessment ofcustomer needs.* A profit emphasis:Based on the capability ofmanagement information systems to determine theprofitability of each major customer, product line, salesterritory, and distribution channel.From Figure 1 we imply that the primary link between IMCand market orientation is through interfunctional coordination. Fundamental to the success of market orientation is thecoordination of effort across departments to ensure that organizational resourcesoptimally serve to create customer value.As noted in our prior discussion of IMC, fundamental to effective IMC is the harmonization of the business's voice insupport of the brand (be it product or corporate). Given theconceptualization of market orientation as an aspect of anorganization's culture, we suggest that it is therefore a foundation for IMC. The common link between MO and IMCthrough interfunctional coordination is consistent with internal marketing (Conduit and Mavondo 2001; Lings 2004).It is evident that one of the main contributions to emergefrom IMC is the concept of emphasizing the employees whomay be the principal means of communicating the brandvalue.As noted by Berryand Parasuramanin discussing the internalizing process for service brands: "Internalizingthe brand in-This content downloaded from 41.186.11.214 on Sun, 13 Oct 2013 14:24:12 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

16TheJournal of Advertisingvolves explainingand selling the brandto employees. sharingwith employees the research and strategy behind thebrand. training employees in brand-strengtheningbehaviors and rewarding and celebrating employees whose actionssupport the brand"(1991, p. 129).Figure 1 also suggests that competitor orientation providesa partial context in which IMC takes place and that competitor orientation is critical to the nexus between IMC, MO, andBO, as discussed further in the next section.BRAND ORIENTATION ANDITS RELATIONSHIP WITH IMCThe term "brand orientation" was first used in its currentcontext by Urde (1994), who defines it as "an approach inwhich the processes of the organization revolve around thecreation, development, and protection of brand identity in anongoing interaction with target customers with the aim ofachieving lasting competitive advantages" (Urde 1999, p.117). Brandorientation thus representsthe functional or business-unit focus on brands that support strong customer andstakeholder relationships regardlessof the brand being at thecorporate or product level or being a service or manufacturedproduct (Bridson and Evans 2004), and suggests that an organization has a clear brand vision and identity. This alsoimplies that market-sensing systems have been calibrated toprovide insight into managing the relationship between thebrand and its main stakeholders.In providing a background to brand orientation, Ewingand Napoli (2004) suggest that brand management has beenviewed from several perspectives, with some authors havingtaken a broad overview of the brand management process(Kapferer 1997; Keller 1998; Park, Jaworski, and Maclnnis1986), while others have focused on specific elements orthemes, including creating a unique brand identity, structuring brand portfolios, managing brand communication, andmonitoring brand value (Aaker 1996; Duncan and Moriarty1998; Keller 2000). By focusing on each of these aspects, anorganization is able to effectively monitor consumers' brandperceptions, identify whether such perceptions correspondwith their own brand vision, and instigate strategies that reinforce positive brand beliefs or change negative perceptions.In recognizing this need to use brands as a basis for competitive advantage, organizations are reaching beyond thetraditional market orientation framework and are developing a brand orientation. In this sense, one sees market orientation, with its long-term focus, as creating the conditionsfor brand orientation as a means of translating the goals andobjectives of market orientation into a medium- to longterm actionable set of activities.A review of the literature (Bridson and Evans 2004; Ewingand Napoli 2004; Simoes and Dibb 2001) indicates the no-tion that brandorientation should be embedded in all organizational activities to build a strong relationshipwith principalstakeholders.Bridsonand Evans's(2004) conceptualizationandoperationalizationof brand orientation indicates four components: (1) a focus on distinctiveness (measuredusing elementsof Narver and Slater 1990 and Hankinson 2000

other marketing concepts such as integrated marketing, CRM (customer relationship management), and market orientation. From Kitchen, Joanne, and Tao's (2004) perspective, IMC needs to be seen as a new paradigm that will facilitate the management of marketing communication. IMC is centered on building and leveraging customer and