A Marketing Management View of IMC

8/6/2019 A Marketing Management View of IMC

1/9

A marketing management view of

integrated marketing communicationsAuthor: McArthur, David N; Griffin, Tom Source: Journal of Advertising Research v37n5,(Sep/Oct 1997): p.19-26 (Length: 8 pages) ISSN: 0021-8499 Number: 01552525 Copyright:

Copyright Advertising Research Foundation 1997

McArthur, David N., Tom Griffin, "A marketing management view of integrated marketing

communications," Journal of Advertising Research, vol.37, no.5, Sep/Oct 1997, pp.19-26

Headnote:

A number of inconsistencies have arisen as a result of articles published about integrated

marketing communications (IMC) in recent years. In an attempt to shed new light on some of

these inconsistencies and related issues, this articles treats the findings of a study among

advertising and marketing executives in consumer, business, service, and retail organizations.

Specific topics addressed among the four distinct business types include the time and attention

devoted to IMC and other communication subjects, various IMC activities considered in campaign

planning, the extent to which IMC activities are coordinated, and where IMC activities are

sourced. While this study confirms that the subject of IMC is of substantial importance, little else

conforms with information previously reported. Of cardinal importance is the need to respect the

differences of various types of marketers in planning marketing communication activities.

"THE BODY OF LITERATURE ON IMC is thin and what is available mostly deals with

superficial case histories and anecdotes" (Duncan and Everett, 1993). Those of us who are

interested in but not directly involved with managing integrated marketing communications (IMC)

programs have been exposed to a considerable amount of information disseminated through the

trade press and journal articles on the subject in recent years (Lucaire, 1989; Totorici, 1991;

Stanton, 1991; Hume, 1992, 1993; Harris, 1993; Schultz [articles in Marketing News], 1993;

Duncan [Advertising Age Forum], 1993, 1994); Marketing, 1994; Mitchell, 1994; Finn, 1994).

INCONSISTENCIES EXIST

While IMC has been viewed as a valuable concept by practitioners (Duncan and Everett, 1993),

some believe that organizational factors have imposed constraints on its institution. In certain

client situations, because of organizations' preoccupation with functional focus, capable people are

seen as being "strapped in functional boxes, constrained and trained not to solve business

problems but to 'do advertising' or 'do public relations' or 'do direct marketing'" (Schultz,

Tannenbaum, and Lauterborn, 1993). In others, where brand management is practiced,

communications "are being developed and implemented at the lowest levels, that is, by the most

junior and inexperienced employees" (Schultz et al., 1993). Both conditions are considered as

barriers to implementation.


2/9

Duncan and Everett (1993) reported that multiple communication function responsibility was

being assigned to a single agency and a single position internally. However, the span of functional

responsibility (respondents were queried about their involvement or lack of same in five

communication functions) for either agencies or one of four client positions, such as "director of

advertising," appeared to be limited in the majority of cases. Without knowledge of the client-reporting relationships, it's not possible to conceptualize how the assorted functions, limited to

only five in their study, were coordinated or controlled. Also left unanswered was the question:

who should direct the IMC program, client or agency?

Argument has been made for the advertising agency to coordinate and control the IMC function

(Goldstein, 1992). However, other evidence indicates that clients don't place a high priority on

"full service" agencies (Wackman, Salmon, and Salmon, 1986; Harris, 1993; Fawcett, 1993). If

companies are not looking to their advertising agencies to provide multiple communication

services, where are they sourced?

Other related questions concern the extent of use of marketing communication activities by clients

and the variance in usage by different business types since no single tool or technique is

appropriate for all situations (Jackson and Frigon, 1994-As they pointed out, one way to choose

the appropriate tool(s) is to study what others have done.).

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to address these inconsistencies and questions in an attempt to better

understand the perceptions of client managers toward IMC and to learn more about the extent ofuse of communication alternatives and the organization, coordination, and sourcing of these

activities across different types of business. To accomplish this, client-side practitioners were

queried in a survey about:

the amount of time and attention devoted to different marketing communication subjects,

including IMC

the extent to which various communication alternatives were considered a part of the total

communication effort when a campaign was being planned

the title of the person responsible for objective-setting and strategy formulation of various

marketing communication functions, reporting relationships, and assigned duties, and

the source(s) of marketing communication functions or activities

METHODOLOGY

A disproportionate stratified sample (Zikmund, 1982) was drawn from the Leading National

Advertisers list of the top 1,000 U.S. advertisers-disproportionate to compensate for the greater

variability of advertising expenditures among the larger advertisers. Names and addresses of

advertising and marketing executives in these companies were obtained from the 1994 Standard

Directory of Advertisers. In a few instances (less than 2 percent) where neither were listed, a topmanagement title was chosen as the person to contact. A questionnaire which contained IMC and


3/9

other types of advertising questions was developed and pretested among advertising and

marketing executives working in seven firms among the top 1,000 advertisers. Changes based on

the suggestions of pretesters were made prior to the initial mailing of the questionnaire. This initial

mailing plus two follow-up mailings during the fall of 1994 produced 121 usable questionnaires

from a total sample frame of 539 subjects, yielding a response rate of 22 percent.

Ninety-six percent of the respondents were vice presidents, directors, or managers. Six percent of

these held the title of vice president without functional designation. The remaining 90 percent

were advertising or marketing executives. The few "others" included one product manager and

marketing or advertising assistants. The mean media budget for respondents' core business was

$41 million, the median was $15 million.

Two procedures were used to evaluate and estimate nonresponse bias. Armstrong and Overton

(1977) maintain that a profile of nonrespondents is likely to be more similar to late respondents

than early respondents. These groups were easily determined since this study used three

successive mailings of the questionnaire, the second and third mailings roughly four and eight

weeks after the first. The means of the last set of respondents did not differ significantly from

those of the first set when comparing the variables discussed here. A second procedure consisted

of gathering secondary data on total advertising expenditures for the firms in the sample. This

measure of overall advertising effort indirectly captures differences in firm size and level of

resources available for marketing communications coordination and sourcing. A two-tailed test of

mean differences on this measure over the whole sample indicated that no significant differences

existed between firms that responded and those that did not.

To determine interest in IMC, communication usage, organization, coordination, and sourcing

similarities and differences among different business types, respondents were divided into four

groups: consumer product, business/industrial, services (other than retail), and retail.

FINDINGS

The relative Importance of IMC to survey participants

Participants were given a list of 13 advertising and marketing subjects, including IMC, and asked

to rank each on a 5-point scale in terms of receiving their time and attention during the past year.

In Figure 1 mean scores for each type of firm and the four types combined are plotted on a scale of

5 ("receiving a lot of attention") to 1 ("receiving very little attention") for the 13 subjects.

Based on the mean of the four business types, IMC was a subject receiving major attention-less so,

however, in the case of consumer firms than the three other types (significant at the 0.05

confidence level). Individually, the most attention was devoted to "advertising effect on sales" on

the part of retailers. This was in contrast to business-firm respondents who gave it relatively little

attention (significant at the 0.01 confidence level). Other than those two instances, and with

"division of advertising $ among media alternatives" where business firms also deviated

considerably from the others, time and attention devoted to subjects was relatively uniform with

no significant differences between types of firms revealed.lActivities included in a total communication effort


4/9

Respondents were given the opportunity to relate which of 13 specific communication alternatives

were considered and to what extent when a campaign was being planned. Against each alternative

they had the opportunity to check one of four possibilities: "always," "frequently," "seldom," or

"never." The findings are set forth in Figure 2. The vertical axis gives the percentage of

respondents in total and by type of firm who reported that a given alternative in campaignplanning was "always" or "frequently" considered. The 13 alternatives are listed along the

horizontal axis across the bottom of the figure in descending order of their overall means for all

types of firms. The five symbols lined vertically over each alternative stand for the percent

responding "always" or "frequently" for each of the four business types and the same average for

all firms. The horizontal line at 50 percent assists in evaluating differences in usage.

Two general observations can be made about this data. There is a substantial variance among the

various alternatives from "mass media" on the left to "telecommunications" on the right. There is

also significant dispersion of data points among the four types of marketers from top to bottom.

As for individual types, consumer marketers' responses were patterned after the norms in most

instances with "mass media," "point-of-sale material," "public relations," "publicity," and "end-

user promotions" being the most important alternatives. The greatest deviation below the norm

was "direct response," followed by "personal selling."

The picture is markedly different for business marketers. Wide divergences from the norm

occurred in a number of instances. Most notable and most frequently considered in campaign

planning were "trade publications," "exhibits/shows," "product publicity," and "public relations"

on the up side. Other up-side divergences in descending order of importance included "collateral

material," "trade promotions," "personal selling," and "telecommunications." On the down side,though of considerable importance, were "mass media" and "point-of-sale" material.

With respect to service marketers, the three most frequently considered alternatives in campaign

planning were "mass media," "point-of-sale" material, and "direct response," the last of which was

the largest deviation from the four marketer norm. "Product publicity," "trade publications,"

"exhibits/shows," and "trade promotions" were down-side deviations in descending order and of

lesser importance.

As for retail respondents, the two most frequently considered and above-norm alternatives were

"mass media" and "point-of-sale" material. "Public relations" and "product publicity" were other

alternatives given considerable attention. "Trade publications" and "exhibits and shows" were of

minor importance and well below the norm.

(Chart Omitted)

Captioned as: Figure 1

Was the coordination of various communication activities among different types of marketers as

varied as their selection of alternatives when planning a total communication effort? This will be

considered next.


5/9


6/9

Captioned as: Figure 2

Sourcing of marketing communication activities

In conducting marketing communication operations, firms have several options for sourcing thevarious communication activities. Essentially, it is a make or buy decision: source from within or

externally. If communications functions are sourced on the outside, one option is to employ a

fullservice advertising agency. Other options include using specialized suppliers for creative,

media planning/buying, direct response programs, public relations, and other services.

To learn how firms in this study sourced selected communication activities, respondents were

asked to identify whether each was supplied in-house, from a full-service advertising agency, or

from some other source. If supplied from more than one source, they were asked to report the

percentage supplied by each. Functions included were creative, media, sales promotion, public

relations, publicity, and direct-response programs. The findings are reported in total and by

marketer type for each service in Table 2.

Observing the findings for "all" organizational types first, it can be observed that the "full service"

advertising agency (FSAA) is the principal supplier of creative and media services and that the

principal source for sales promotion, public relations, publicity, and direct response is "in-house."

Though tertiary in importance, "other suppliers" do play a role in providing all types of services,

more so in support of those services provided principally in-house than by advertising agencies.

Examining Table 2 data by type of marketer, consumer respondents placed greatest importance on

their FSAA as a single source for both creative and media followed by "in-house" as a partialsource. "In-house" was the primary single and partial source for all other services. FSAAs and

"other suppliers" were used as secondary sources for sales promotion; others were also secondary

sources for public relations and direct response, and to a lesser degree, publicity.

Business marketers place primary emphasis on the FSAA for creative and media services with

secondary partial sourcing from within the firm. The reverse is true for sales promotion, public

relations, and publicity, where the FSAA plays a relatively more important role than in the case of

other marketer types. When it comes to direct response, FSAAs are the primary source followed

by "in-house" as a partial source.

(Table Omitted)

Captioned as: TABLE 1

(Table Omitted)

Captioned as: TABLE 2

Service marketers also place primary sourcing emphasis on FSAAs with respect to creative and

media with "in-house" being secondary. For all other services the primary source is "in-house."

The finding that more emphasis is placed on other suppliers for sales promotion, public relations,

and direct response is a differentiating factor for service marketers. Retail marketers are moreconsistently different than other types with "in-house" being the most important single source for


7/9


8/9

What may be obvious to practitioners and academics should not be taken for granted from a

pedagogical point of view. Students need to understand that different product-market situations

demand different communication tools and techniques. Case work and planning practice are both

needed to promote this understanding.

Finally, it is acknowledged that this study is not an end but a beginning. Further investigation of

the manner in which integrated marketing communication programs are constructed, coordinated,

sourced, and implemented among various types of businesses will be beneficial to students and

practitioners alike.

Footnote:

1. This was supported by a test of the null hypothesis that the four types of firms have the same

mean responses to the amounts of time and attention devoted to the 13 subjects. ANOVA was used

to show that the types of firms did differ significantly with respect to the two subjects mentioned

but not in any other instance, even though variances between means can be observed.

REFERENCES

Advertising Age. "Memo to Agencies: O'Toole Is Right." Editorial, May 3,1993. ARMSTRONG,

J. S., and T. S. OVERTON. "Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys." Journal of Marketing

Research 14 (1977): 396-402.

Duncan, Thomas R., "To Fathom Integrated Marketing, Dive!"Advertising Age, October 11, 1993.

Duncan, Thomas R., "Is Your Marketing Communications Integrated?" Advertising Age, January23,1994.

Duncan, Thomas R., STEPHEN E. EVERETT. "Client Perceptions of Integrated Marketing

Communications." Journal of Advertising Research 33, 3 (1993): 30-39.

Fawcett, Adrienne Ward, "Integrated Marketing-Marketers Convinced: Its Time Has Arrived,"

Advertising Age, November 6, 1993.

Finn, Michael, "Integration Once Again Rears Its Not-So-Ugly Head," Marketing, June 16, 1994.

Goldstein, Mark, "Execs Debate: Who Rules in Integrated Marketing Arena," Advertising Age,

November 16,1992.

HARRIS, THOMAS L. "How MPR Adds Value to Integrated Marketing Communications."

Public Relations Quarterly Summer (1993): 13-18.

Hume, Scott, "Integrated Marketing: Who's in Charge Here?"Advertising Age, March 22, 1993.

Hume, Scott, "Execs Debate: Who Rules in Integrated Marketing Arena?" Advertising Age,

November 16, 1992.

JACKSON, HARRY K., JR., and NORMAN L. FRIGoN. Management 2000. New York: Van

Nostrand Reinhold, 1994.

LUCAIRE, L. EDWARD. "The Ad Agency of the Future." International Advertiser, May-June

1989.

Marketing. "Challenges for One-Stop Shops." November 24, 1995.

M, ALAN. "A Clear Message." Marketing, February 17,1994.Schultz, Don E., "We Simply Can't Afford to Go Back to Mass Marketing," Marketing News,


9/9

February 15, 1993.

Schultz, Don E., "Integration Helps You Plan Communications from Out-side in," Marketing

News, March 15, 1993.

Schultz, Don E., "How to Overcome the Barriers to Integration," Marketing News, July 19, 1993.

STANLEY I. TANNENBAUM, and ROBERT F. LAUTERBORN. Integrated MarketingCommunications. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Books, 1993.

Stanton, Edward M., "PR's Future Is Here: Worldwide Integrated Communications," Public

Relations Quarterly, Spring 1991, pp.46-47.

TOTORICI, ANTHONY J. "Maximizing Marketing Communications Through Horizontal and

Vertical Orchestration." Public Relations Quarterly Spring (1991): 20-21. WACKMAN, DANIEL

B., CHARLES T. SALMON, and CARYN C. SALMON. "Developing an Advertising Agency-

Client Relationship." Journal of Advertising Research 26, 6 (1986): 21-28.

ZIKMUND, WILLIAM G. Exploring Marketing Research, 2nd ed. Chicago: Dryden Press, 1982.

DAVID N. McARTHUR University of South Carolina

TOM GRIFFIN Pace University

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Yoshida Memorial Foundation,

Tokyo, Japan, and the Center for International Business Education and Research (CIBER) at the

University of South Carolina.

DAVID N. McARTHUR is finishing a dissertation in the International Business Program Area at

the University of South Carolina and is an instructor of international business and strategicmanagement at Augusta State University, Augusta, GA. He has published in the Journal of

Business Research, International Marketing Review, and R&D Management. A graduate of the

U.S. Merchant Marine Academy with an M.A. and M.B.A. from Brigham Young University, he

previously served as marketing manager for the Power Systems Division of the Skinner Engine

Company of Erie, PA, and as engineering officer on various U.S. merchant ships.

ToM GRIFFIN, as an observer, writer, and instructor of marketing and marketing communications

subjects, has enjoyed a long-term affiliation with Pace University following industry and agency

assignments in consumer marketing, advertising, promotion, and new-product development.

Documents

A Marketing Management View of IMC