Kliatchko (2008) asserts that the primary objective of Integrated Marketing Communications, IMC’s is “for the target audiences to receive and form in their minds a unified and integrated message” and that “if this desired goal is achieved, then integration, at this stage, may be said to be effective.”
From a traditional point of view, marketing is considered to be synonymous with sales. In this case, traditionists equate effective marketing with making huge sales. However, marketing as a discipline has evolved tremendously for the last 30 years. Currently, there are distinct differences between the two terms; marketing is treated as a distinct discipline from sales. ‘Sales’, on the other hand is considered to be one a constituent of marketing.
Ultimately, marketing has increasingly become vital not only for the growth of business but also its sustainability. As a result of this, several concepts in marketing such as ‘Integrated Marketing Communication’ have been developed and are thought to play key role in ensuring success of businesses in an increasingly competitive business environment (Laric and Lynagh 2010).
The purpose of this essay is to evaluate Kliatchko (2008) assertions mentioned earlier in this essay. To put Kliatchko’s (2008) assertions in perspective, it is imperative to first highlight a few definitions of the term Integrated Marketing Communication, and evaluate the definitions Vis a Vis Kliatchko’s (2008) assertions.
According to Clow and Baack (2007), Integrated Marketing Communication is the “coordination and integration of all marketing communication tools, avenues, functions and sources within an organization, into a seamless program that maximizes the impact on consumers and other end users at a minimal cost”.
In Clow and Baack’s (2007) perspective, IMCs are aimed at integrating all the functions of marketing such as sales, advertising and PR into a single marketing program that makes communication with the customer more effective. Clow and Baack (2007) views IMCs from a structural point of view, and assert that IMCs are designed to benefit both the marketers and consumers. Nevertheless, in Clow and Baack’s (2007) definition, the effectiveness of IMCs in making marketing communication more effective to the consumer is not lost.
Green (2006) adopts a holistic approach to Integrated Marketing Communication, and asserts that IMCs constitute an assortment of communication methods, “whereby diverse media and messages become integrated, stressing on one-on-one communication” with the consumer.
As such, Green (2006), like Kliatchko (2008), sees IMC as customer-centered. Green (2006) further asserts that IMC capitalizes on marketing to individual consumers, and therefore ought to appeal to the consumer’s values, behaviors, interests, perceptions, practices and attitudes. As such Green (2006) sees IMCs as important to effective communication with consumers as medicine is important to a patient’s health.
According to Kliatchko (2008) integration of marketing communication tools occurs at four levels. However, Schultz and Schultz (2004) explain that the four levels are not rigid, and that firms may incorporate various activities that overlap between the four levels of integrating marketing communication.
Regardless of this, there are several key elements of integrating marketing communication. These include coordination and integration of all marketing communication strategies for the purpose of “achieving synergy and consistency in marketing communication” (Schultz and Schultz 2004).
As such, the derivation of a unified marketing communication program is the desired goal. Amidst all these, the “delivery and reception of a clear and consistent message (content) for maximum communication impact” is the overarching aim of integrating marketing communication strategies (Thorson and Moore 1996). These assertions seem to resonate well with Kliatchko (2008) who states that the primary objective of IMCs is to “target the consumers to receive and form in their minds a unified and integrated message”.
Kliatchko’s (2008) perception of IMC reflects the current thinking with regards to marketing communication. Kliatchko (2008) however fails to account for the changes in theory and practice that have occurred in the last three decades. According to Kehinde (2011), IMC was developed in the early 1980s, and traces its roots to mass marketing, a poplar product centric approach to marketing communication, developed in the 1950s.
Furthermore, Kehinde (2011) adds that Integrated Marketing Communication developed as a result of the desire by American advertising agencies to maximize profits made through advertising.
In the 1980s, advertising agencies in America foresaw the need to protect themselves from their clients, who sought to maximize profits through direct media advertising. This implies that advertising agencies failed to add sufficient value their clients businesses. Thus, IMC was developed as a new strategy through which businesses would maximize profit making.
In view of the assertions made above, IMC is the most fundamental development in marketing communication in the last 30 years. This is despite the fact that current conceptualization of IMCs fails to capture its initial theoretical approaches (Cornelissen 2001). As indicated by Kehinde (2011) marketing communication was largely anonymous in the 1980s.
This however, this is not to mean that the various elements that constitute marketing communication were anonymous during the early 1980s. According to Thorson and Moore (1996), marketing communication experts, scholars and academics thought that the various marketing communication elements functioned autonomously, and that they had no relationship whatsoever.
In this instance, sales, public relations, promotion and any other discipline that currently constitutes Integrated Marketing Communication were treated separately, both in theory and in practice.
Thorson and Moore (1996) further allude to the fact that some activities associated with marketing communication were not intentionally designed as part of a firm’s marketing strategies. Yet, any activity associated with marketing was product centered, and that consumer interests were not the concern of marketing communication experts. As such, as opposed to Kliatchko (2008) assertions, marketing communication was not primarily designed with the consumer in mind.
The assertions made above indicate that integration, as it is known today, did not exist in the early 1980s. Nevertheless, Coulson-Thomas (1983) explains that by 1984 there had emerged numerous marketing communication tools which provided marketers with an array of tools through which messages were passed to the consumer.
As a result of this, marketing managers began looking for ways through which these tools could be integrated to present a unified message about the products being marketed. This however, was not an easy task. During this period, marketing managers had very little understanding of how these tools could be integrated. An Integrated Marketing Communication strategy was thus obscured by the lack of understanding, which effectively hindered the development of effective IMC programs.
The situation remained as such up to the late 1980s, when the first Integrated Marketing Communication study was conducted. According to Thorson and Moore (1996) by 1991, marketing management professionals began to realize that integrating all elements of marketing communication could not be ignored, and that the mass media played a key role in highlighting the need to harmonize all marketing communication tools.
The attention created by the mass media helped to attract scholars, who published numerous articles based on findings from a number of studies conducted at that time. By 1993, Integrated Marketing Communication had emerged as one of the most important topics within the marketing communication domain. However, Schultz (1996) notes that during the 1980s, marketing communication was seen as a general management practice rather than a function of marketing.
As such, Integrated Marketing Communication was perceived as a preserve of general managers rather than that of marketing managers. Taking into consideration the assertions made by Kliatchko (2008), in early 1990s, Integrated Marketing Communication was perceived more as a general management practice and as such was not primarily designed with the consumer as the primary target.
Assertions made by Thorson and Moore (1996) indicate that efforts to integrate all marketing communication strategies in the early 1990s was cognizant of the fact that marketing communication could be more effective if all tools involved in it were harmonized. Marketing communication managers saw the futility in enhancing the value of each element separately.
However, as indicated by Schultz (1996) harmonization of marketing communication mix was more of juxtaposition than integration. By juxtaposition, Schultz (1996) refers to coincidental combination of sales, advertising, promotion and public relations into a single marketing communication program. Juxtaposition of marketing communication programs heavily depended on the availability of the right personnel, infrastructure and appropriate budgeting.
The assertions made above indicate that instead of “targeting the audiences to receive and form in their minds a unified and integrated message” (Kliatchko 2008), integrating marketing communication tools aimed at meeting the structural demands of marketing communication.
As such, in the mid 1990s, designers of IMCs had not yet seen the need to make the consumer the primary target of Integrated Marketing Communication programs. Yet, as reported by Schultz (1996), integration of marketing communication programs was perceived to have a significant effect in enhancing business outcomes.
Assertions made by Schultz (1996) seem to resonate well with the definition provided by Clow and Baack (2007). These assertions can be analyzed Vis a Vis the activities of numerous firms in the mid 1990s with regards to marketing communication. For instance, in the mid 1990s, companies such as McDonalds began combining a variety of marketing communication tools into a unified marketing communication program.
These companies combined agency advertising with mass media commercials. To harness the power of juxtaposition, such firms also engaged advertising agencies in designing mass media commercials and adverts. Schultz (1996) asserts that in the 1990s, the primary objective of ‘integrating’ all these activities was to create “public awareness on the value and purpose of consumer products”. As such, Schultz (1996) alludes to the fact IMCs began to target the consumer in the mid 1990s.
As earlier mentioned, IMCs were developed by adverting agencies in a bid to avoid loss of business in the early 1990s (Kehinde 2011). This implies that the much of marketing communication activities were limited to services offered by advertising agencies. Schultz (1996) asserts that in the mid 1990s, advertising agencies started offering more than their traditional services, and as such they became more proactive in the development of IMC programs for their clients.
The involvement of advertising agencies ensured that IMCs became more effective in increasing the impact of communication within the marketing domain. By the early 2000s, advertising agencies recognized the fact that IMC programs resulted in increased client returns. By clients, Green (2006) refers to firms, organizations or companies that engaged advertising agencies. As such, during this period, IMCs were client centric, and as such were primarily designed to meet the client, and not consumer’s interests.
The evolution of IMCs saw the gradual death of advertising agencies, such that by 2004, the influence of advertising agencies in designing IMC programs had waned considerably. This can also be attributed to the fact that advertising agencies had increased the budget meant for IMC programs and the fact that firms preferred to work with more than one agency.
This meant that advertising agencies down-priced each other out of the market and at the same time increasing the power of companies to develop more effective IMC programs. During this period, Picton and Broderick (2005) assert that Integrated Marketing Communication had matured as a discipline to the extent that it mainly involved attracting new customers. To sustain business, marketing communication experts had to design new techniques which would enable this.
As such, Integrated Marketing Communication also incorporated customer relations as one of the tools through which mutual customer relations were established. This was attained through such methods as network and relationship marketing. As explained by Kehinde (2011) some consumers are not beneficial to business.
As such, after 2005, IMCs evolved and incorporated consumer de-selection. Consumer de-selection involved choosing and targeting profitable consumers with integrated messages. Consumer de-selection also involves carefully examination of the needs, attitudes, desires, preferences and wishes of the consumer and designing an Integrated Marketing Communication program that complements these.
Kehinde (2011) asserts that Integrated Marketing Communication has come of age, and that its evolution is likely to go on in the future. Currently, Integrated Marketing Communication endeavors to influence consumer behavior using any tools necessary.
This, according to Kehinde (2011) achieves synergy within the Marketing Communication domain, and as such helps in building strong relationships between consumers and organizations. As such, IMCs primary objective is to “convey unified messages to customers via the correct blending of the promotional mix” (Kehinde 2011).
Kliatchko (2008) concludes that “if this desired goal (targeting and reaching audiences with an integrated message) is achieved, then integration, at this stage, may be said to be effective.” There are numerous arguments with regards to the effectiveness of integrating marketing communication strategies.
For instance Schultz (1996) states that integrating marketing communication disciplines allows for the “combination of these strategies, which provide clarity, consistency and maximum communications impact”. However, Schultz’s (1996) definition equates integrating marketing communication disciplines with juxtaposition, which in this case refers to coincidental combination of sales, advertising, promotion and public relations into a single marketing communication program.
Nevertheless, assertions made by Kitchen, Brignell, Li and Jones (2004) echoes conclusions stated earlier by Kliatchko (2008). Kitchen, Brignell, Li and Jones (2004) asserts that “the goal of integrating marketing communications is to influence or directly affect the behavior of the selected communications audience”.
Kitchen, Brignell, Li and Jones (2004) further assert that integrating marketing communications 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”.
The assertions made by Kitchen, Brignell, Li and Jones (2004) indicate that the process of integrating marketing communication disciplines starts with determining consumers interests and then establish the necessary tools which enables consumers to form an integrated message.
Additionally, Kliatchko (2005) asserts that integrating marketing communication disciplines not only helps to develop effective IMC programs but also ensures that firms realize a higher return-on-investment (ROI). This is attained through approximating each consumer’s ROI which enhances the value of each customer. Thus, by enabling consumers “to receive and form in their minds a unified and integrated message”, integration effectively improves marketing communication.
Integrated Marketing Communication has grown tremendously for the last 30 years. This can be attributed to a number of factors, but mostly due to the waning influence of advertising agencies. Its original conceptualization involved coincidental combination of all marketing communication strategies, a concept Schultz (1996) referred to as juxtaposing.
Juxtaposition had two major aims. To begin with it primarily focused on fulfilling the structural demands of IMC. Secondly, it aimed at developing an integrated message about the nature of the product being sold. However, major changes occurred in the 2000s, such that the main objective of integrating marketing communication strategies shifted from the product to the interests, desires, attitudes, practices and perceptions of the consumer.
The main objective of IMCs also goes beyond this, to customer de-selection; identifying and reaching out to the most profitable consumer with an integrated message that suits consumer needs. As such, according to Kliatchko’s (2008) IMCs effectively enable consumers “to receive and form in their minds a unified and integrated message”.
References
Clow, E and Baack, E. 2007, Integrated advertising promotion and marketing communications, New Jersey, Pearson Education.
Cornelissen, J. 2001, ‘Integrated marketing communications and the language of marketing development’, International Journal of Advertising, vol. 20, no. 4,
Coulson-Thomas, C. 1983, Marketing communications, Oxford, U.K., Butterworth- Heinemann Ltd.
Green, B. 2006, Marketing to leading-edge baby boomers: perceptions, principles, practices, predictions, New York, Paramount Market Publishing Co.
Kehinde, J. 2011, ‘Integrated marketing communication: a catalyst for the growth of e- business management’, The Social Sciences. Web.
Kitchen, P., Brignell, J., Li, T. and Jones, G. 2004, ‘The emergence of IMC: A theoretical perspective’, Journal of Advertising Research. Web.
Kliatchko, J. 2005, ‘Towards a new definition of integrated marketing communications (IMC)’, International Journal of Advertising, vol. 24, no.1. Web.
Kliatchko, J. 2008, ‘Revisiting the IMC construct: A revised definition and four pillars’ International Journal of Advertising, vol. 27, no.1. Web.
Laric, V. and Lynagh, M. 2010, ‘The Role of Integrated Marketing Communications in Sustainability’, Marketing Journal of Vacation Marketing. Web.
Picton, D. and Broderick, A. 2005, Integrated marketing communications, New York, Prentice Hall.
Schultz, D. 1996, ‘Integrated Marketing Communications: Maybe definition is in the point of view’. Marketing News, vol. 27, no. 2
Schultz, D. and Schultz, H. 2004, IMC next generation, New York, McGraw-Hill.
Thorson, E. and Moore, J. 1996, Integrated communication: synergy of persuasive voices, Mahwah NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.