Download Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC): Where to from here

Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC): Where to from here?
Gayle F. Kerr and Charles H Patti, Queensland University of Technology
Abstract
IMC is one of the most controversial areas of marketing education during the past decade.
While many definitions of IMC have been put forth, agreement on the discipline’s constructs
remains unresolved. The core of future legitimacy of IMC resides in the development of a
stream of research that develops theory and methods for evaluation of IMC effectiveness.
This paper reviews more than a decade of research on IMC effectiveness, suggests where the
field is heading, and identifies future directions for IMC research.
Introduction and Purpose
One of the most controversial areas in marketing education during the past decade involves
the legitimacy of integrated marketing communication (IMC). In their 1998 article, Spotts et
al analyse the various claims of the proponents of IMC and conclude that IMC is little more
than a loose collection of traditional marketing concepts dressed in a new label. Despite their
assertions, IMC has penetrated the marketing discipline in a variety of meaningful ways. For
example, there are at least two academic journals (Journal of Marketing Communications and
Journal of Promotion Management) that are solely dedicated to advancing the area. Also,
entire academic programs programs are built around IMC, including at least two
(Northwestern University and the University of Colorado) at the postgraduate area. The
existence of dedicated journals, conferences, texts, and academic programs are strong
suggestions of a discipline. However, the core of a discipline resides in the development of a
literature that reflects the evolution of theory. The purpose of this paper is to examine the
state of the scholarly literature in IMC, with particular emphasis on the literature concerned
with evaluation of IMC effectiveness, arguably the most important aspect of IMC. This
review indicates where the field is heading in terms of definition and evaluation, considers the
implications of this for marketers and identifies directions for the future of IMC research.
Defining the Discipline
A core dimension of a discipline is agreement on its definition. Despite a lack of consensus
over a definition for IMC, there has been no lack of suggestions (AAAA, 1989, Schultz, 1991,
Keegan et al, 1992, and Duncan and Moriarty, 1994). These four definition offerings
demonstrate an evolution in the understanding of the concept of IMC, and collectively they
express several key dimensions of the field, including a process; emphasis on audience,
particularly customers and prospects; a behavioural response as intended outcome;
relationship building between customer and brand; all sources of information; attitudinal
change; and marketplace dialogue.
ANZMAC 2002 Conference Proceedings
2381
The IMC literature and the state of evaluation
An irony of IMC is that the concept is built around the goal of making marketing
communications more accountable, yet there is no method of evaluation or measurement of
the integration of marketing communication programs. As Kitchen (1999) notes,
"The critical issue concerning IMC is that of evaluation and measurement of integrated
programs. This issue, as yet, has not been soundly addressed by advertising agencies or
clients and still remains ambiguous among writers in this area."
The legacy of measurement techniques from marketing communication disciplines of
advertising, marketing publicity, personal selling, and sales promotion are an obstacle to new
thinking on integration and evaluation. Should each discipline be evaluated in isolation? Is
such a measurement possible? How does IMC fit into the hierarchy-of-effects models of
communication? How can we account for the presence of synergy?
Some writers suggest that measurement of an integrated campaign should begin with its
component parts. Their contribution should be defined and objectives measured. However,
such measurement must take account of the difficulty of isolating the individual parts and in
estimating synergistic effect (White 1999, Kitchen and Schultz 1999).
Baldinger (1996) suggests that the substantial body of research on advertising effectiveness
makes it an ideal place to start examining the impact of integrated campaigns. Other writers
draw from direct marketing to suggest the consideration of measures such as Customer
Lifetime Value or profitability segmentation (Moriarty 1999) or the inclusion of a response
device on all communications (Schultz and Barnes 1995).
There is also a body of literature to support the evaluation of the totality of the IMC effect. It
is felt that it is impossible to isolate the effect of each individual discipline and the concept of
synergy too ambiguous to measure. Schultz (1999) states,
“The fact is, in today’s marketing systems, there is almost no organization that can separate
or isolate advertising, no matter how it is defined, from other promotional and
communication elements. …Therefore, we suggest that Jones, Ehrenberg and others when
they discuss how advertising works, are likely to be measuring the impact and effect of a
combination of advertising and several other brand marketing and communication elements
rather than advertising alone.”
Schultz’s work has focused on measuring the totality of the communication, rather than its
inherent parts. He defines Brand Communication as the total returns of external brand
programs designed to affect consumer response. Put simply, it is the aggregation of all brand
messages. It is measured by determining the dollar value of the consumer group and deciding
how much the organisation will spend to add new customers, retain existing ones or increase
their purchase value. The effect is evaluated through a measurable behavioural response.
Competition and market changes are factored in and a benchmark gained for the next
campaign.
Much of Schultz’s work on Brand Communication evolves from a Return-On-Investment
premise and previous work including a spreadsheet approach conducted by the researcher
ANZMAC 2002 Conference Proceedings
2382
(1994). It makes no attempt to isolate the effects of advertising or other marketing
communication elements. Nor does it try to estimate synergistic effect.
Another measure suggested Katz and Lendrevie (1996) is called Segmenting Total Exposures.
It also takes a holistic approach by segmenting all marketing communication impacts into
media impressions, product impressions and personal contacts. However, the difficulty with
this proposal comes in its operationalisation. The measurement of product impressions and
personal contacts is extremely difficult.
The following table draws from key writers in the field of marketing communication to
summarise the evaluation methods of marketing communication disciplines.
Table: Methods of Marketing Communication Evaluation
Method
Evaluation of Advertising
Benefits
Difficulties
Awareness/Recall
Gallup/Starch
1920s
Day After Recall
Theatre Testing
Tracking studies
Noted, Associated
and
Read most
TVC screened
once, sample who
saw program asked
recall advertising
Audience dial
reaction to TVCs
Monitor product
status amongst
competition
Some indication of
impact of print
advertising
Indication of
memorability of
advertising
Provides audience
reaction
Strategic
assessment and
planning tool
No clear connection to behaviour
Low correlation between brand
preference and recall; recall levels
vary by different program
environment and type of claim
Unrealistic surrounds; poor predictor
of sales effectiveness
No definitive relationship between
marketing communication and
outcome
Persuasion Measures
rsc Persuasion
Method
91% track record
of ads that will/not
sell
Connection between persuasion and
behaviour?
Easy to calculate
Data is aggregated temporally over
purchase occasion and crosssectionally over buyers; different
studies find wide range of measures
of advertising elasticity
Wide coverage of
key variables and
in-depth coverage
of purchase
timing and
choices
Fully developed
STAS would
revolutionize
tools used to
evaluate TV
advertising’s
benefit to a brand
Weak or nonsignificant effect of TV
advertising using single source data
Sales Response Models
Econometrics
Choice Models
Kanetkar,
Weinberg and
Weiss 1991, Tellis
and Weiss 1995
Short Term
Advertising
Strength (STAS) –
John Philip Jones
Short term
advertising
elasticity; effect on
sales of changes in
absolute amounts of
advertising pressure
in budgetary period
Single source data –
scanner and cable
data of household
exposure
STAS differential is
indexed measure of
share of purchase
occasions using
single source data
ANZMAC 2002 Conference Proceedings
Doesn’t distinguish advertising from
promotion; absence of control;
unstable for infrequently purchased,
low penetration brands, does not
take account of brand loyalty
2383
Direct Marketing Evaluation
Response rate
Number of inquiries
Number of qualified leads
New customers acquired
Customer acquisition cost
Lapsed customers reactivated
Average sale
Product returns & adjustments
Customer service requests
Customer Lifetime Value
% of customers contacted who
responded
Number who responded
Number of genuine prospects
who responded
Number of new prospects
Total marketing costs divided
by number of new customers
Inactive customers who
purchased
Average sale per customer
Number/cost of product returns
Number/cost of customer
service
Net present value of customers
over specific period of time
Easy to calculate
Easy to calculate
Easy to calculate
Easy to calculate
Useful managerial tool
Useful managerial tool
Easy to calculate
Calculates additional costs
incurred in DM
Calculates additional costs
incurred in DM
Best single measure of success
of any DM program
Sales Promotion Evaluation
Lost revenue or
break even analysis
Incremental case analysis
New dollars needed to cover
cost of promotion
Sales increases pre-promotion,
during promotion and after
promotion
Advertising Value Equivalents
Converts press coverage into
advertising dollars
Sets campaign objectives and
evaluates outcomes against
these
Determines effectiveness of
promotion
Considers volume/profit/sales
increase and residual effect
Public Relations Evaluation
Campaign objectives
Disregards inherent differences
in advertising and publicity
Difficult to set realistic
objectives; costly and time
consuming to measure
Suggested Methods of IMC Evaluation
Brand Communication/ Return
on Investment Schultz 1995
Start with customer segments
and measure impact of
marketing communications
Segmenting Total Exposures –
Katz and Lendrevie 1996
Divide exposures into three
types – media, product
impressions, personal contacts
Does not attempt to separate
advertising from other
marketing communications;
assumes marketer has database
or detailed customer
information; longitudinal
Difficulty of measuring product
and personal exposures
Conclusions and Recommendations
As the discipline is still in its pre-paradigm stage, the authors suggest that the priority of IMC
research should be two-fold. It should address what IMC is (definition and construct
identification) and how it works (integration, synergy and evaluation). The benefit of a
universally agreed upon definition whose unique constructs were clearly identified would
mean that research could proceed from a common premise. It would also encourage a shared
understanding of the discipline amongst marketers.
ANZMAC 2002 Conference Proceedings
2384
Despite the ambiguity over definitional issues, construct identification and the lack of
rigorous theory, there is one aspect of IMC to which all writers subscribe--the urgent need for
further work in the area of evaluation and measurement. Several researchers have called
attention to this need (Kitchen and Schultz 1999, Moriarty 1996, Hartley and Pickton 1999,
Banham in Heath 1999); however, perhaps Kitchen’s 1999 comments best expresses the
current state of IMC evaluation.
"IMC measurement and evaluation still needs further work, or further dissemination of
appropriate evaluation techniques. While IMC is recognised as of significant value and
importance to clients and agencies alike, the fact that no clear proposal of measurement or
evaluation has been developed weakens conceptual application in a global sense." (Kitchen
1999)
Further empirical investigation needs to explore how IMC works in order to legitimise the
new discipline. The development of evaluative measures would help marketers justify their
marketing communication budget. Further, the concept of integration only makes sense for
marketers if it delivers something more than their traditional methods – if it affords
marketing communication plans the added benefit of synergy.
Future research might also investigate the organisational benefit of IMC. Perhaps there is
value in IMC apart from its alleged synergistic effect on stakeholders. Writers such as
Duncan and Caywood (1996) and Low (2000) have suggested that a real benefit of IMC lies
in the stronger internal coordination of the marketing communication disciplines and the
push for shared objectives and greater accountability.
IMC has clearly had an impact on academic thought, curricula development and the practice
of marketing; yet, there is a significant area of research ahead of this discipline, particularly
in the development of measures of effectiveness, including the challenging of the field’s
basic constructs of synergy and integration.
ANZMAC 2002 Conference Proceedings
2385
References
American Association of Advertising Agencies, New York, New York, (www.aaa.org)
Baldinger, A. (1996). Integrated Communication and Measurement: The Case for Multiple
Measures in Integrated Communication: Synergy of Persuasive Voices, edited by Thorson, E.
and Moore, J.. New Jersey USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Duncan, T. and Moriarty, S. (1998). A Communication-Based Marketing Model for
Managing Relationships. Journal of Marketing Vol. 62, April.
Hartley, B. and Pickton, D. (1999). Integrated marketing communications requires a new way
of thinking. Journal of Marketing Communications, Volume 5, Number 2.
Heath, R. (1999). Can tracking studies tell lies? International Journal of Advertising, Volume
18 Issue 2.
Katz, H. and Lendrevie, J. (1996). In Search of the Holy Grail: First Steps in Measuring Total
Exposures of an Integrated Communications Program in Integrated Communication: Synergy
of Persuasive Voices, edited by Thorson, E. and Moore, J.. New Jersey USA: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Kitchen, P. (1999) Marketing Communications: Principles and Practice. London:
International Thomson Business Press.
Kitchen, P. and Schultz, D. (1999). A multi-country comparison of the drive for IMC. Journal
of Advertising Research, Volume 39 Issue 1.
Moriarty, S. (1996). The Circle of Synergy: Theoretical Perspectives and an evolving IMC
Research agenda in Integrated Communication: Synergy of Persuasive Voices, edited by
Thorson, E. and Moore, J.. New Jersey USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schultz, Don E. (1993). Integrated Marketing Communications: Maybe Definition Is in the
Point of View. Marketing News, January 18.
Schultz, D. (1994). Trying to determine ROI for IMC,” Marketing News, January 3.
Schultz, D. (1998). Determining how brand communication works in the short and long
terms. International Journal of Advertising, Volume 17 Issue 4.
Schultz, D. and Barnes, B. (1995). Strategic Advertising Campaigns, (4th edition).
Lincolnwood, Illinois USA: NTC Business Books.
Schultz, D., Tannenbaum, S. and Lauterborn, R. (1993). The New Marketing Paradigm:
Integrated Marketing Communications. Lincolnwood, Illinois USA: NTC Business Books.
Spotts, H., Lambert, D. and Joyce, M. (1998). Marketing Deja Vu: The Discovery of
Integrated Marketing Communication. Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 20 No. 3.
ANZMAC 2002 Conference Proceedings
2386
White, R. (1999). What can advertising really do for brands? International Journal of
Advertising, Volume 18 Issue 1.
ANZMAC 2002 Conference Proceedings
2387