The Emergence of IMC:

A Theoretical Perspective
Within a short period of just over a decade, IMC has swept around the world and be-
come 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-
keting communications, (3) barriers to further progress, and (4) current location identifi-
cation 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 promo-
tional mix elements together so they look and sound alike. But, IMC has to move be-
yond 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 un-
known 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, be-
fore we float further on the waves of this
debate, refer to the point from which we de-
parted, that we may at least be able to conjec-
ture 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 pur-
pose. 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 inter-
esting. 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 emer-
gence of a new dynamic paradigm that will fi-
nally facilitate business movement to marketing
communications (and the related range of activi-
ties) that are clearly in customer and consumer
interests. Currently, IMC extends no more than a
promise of this.
Thus, this article will explore the phenom-
enon 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
PHILIP J. KITCHEN
University of Hull
p.j.kitchen@hull.ac.uk
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
DOI: 10.1017/S0021849904040048 March 2004 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 19
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 com-
ponent to strategic business partner. And
that movement will depend not just on
the theoretical literature but on the nature
of business, the development of market-
ing itself, and the required investment by
businesses and the organizations that ser-
vice their needs in becoming customer-
oriented and customer-driven.
THE IMC DEVELOPMENTAL PROCESS
Insofar as communications is concerned,
IMC is undoubtedly the major communi-
cations 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; Weil-
bacher, 2001).
In its practical guise, IMC attempts to
combine, integrate, and synergize ele-
ments of the communications mix, as the
strengths of one are used to offset the
weaknesses of others. In addition, many
organizations have actively undertaken in-
tegration of their communications disci-
plines under the umbrella of one strategic
marketing communications function, spe-
cifically IMC (Hackley and Kitchen, 1998;
Smith, 2002). Smith (2002) suggests, for
example, that publicity and advertising
support each other and create greater im-
pact in a cost-effective manner.
IMC approaches have grown in recogni-
tion and importance for effective market-
ing, 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 ac-
cess to consumer databases and computa-
tional resources (Kitchen and Schultz, 1999;
McGoon, 1999; Reich, 1998), the impor-
tance of reinforcing consumer loyalty via
relationship marketing (Gonring, 1994;
Reich, 1998; Schultz, 2002), and the impor-
tance 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 market-
ing communications was an unrecog-
nized paradigm, and many professionals
and academics within the field of market-
ing considered each marketing communi-
cations function to operate with various
degrees of autonomy. Dyer (1982), for ex-
ample, presented the basic ideas and con-
cepts 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 man-
ner or as individual disciplines.
By early 1983, Coulson-Thomas (1983)
described the wide spectrum of market-
ing communications vehicles, presenting
the means and techniques used to com-
municate messages and how these can be
evaluated. While it has to be acknowl-
edged that he did emphasize an element
of interdependence and interrelationship
between the different communication spe-
cialties 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 ac-
tually thereunderlying the surface, but
little or no effort was channeled into de-
veloping the concept. Schultz (1991), an-
other 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 verita-
ble wave of academic articles started to
appear in the academic literature. Miller
and Rose (1994) noted that there was in-
creasing 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 ques-
tioned whether or not IMC was just an-
other managerial fada question that has
been reiterated many times since. Acheson
(1993) also noted that a significant num-
ber of practitioners and academics were
exploring new methods of promotional
integration. Integration apparently pro-
vided a framework to consider the wider
ramifications of marketing communica-
tions 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, reveal-
ing that marketing managers and organi-
zations 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
THE EMERGENCE OF IMC
20 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH March 2004
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 juxtaposi-
tion would rely heavily on marketing bud-
gets, staffing, skills, and infrastructure. It
could not just rely on integration of pro-
motional mix elements at the agency level.
But already, popularity for integrated ap-
proaches in the United States had swollen
to such proportions that most respon-
dents in a national survey of advertisers
believed that integration would increase
the impact of their marketing communi-
cation programs (Schultz, 1996).
The diffusion curve of IMC now began
to accelerate and with increasing world-
wide interest in the emergent concept.
Kitchen and Schultz (1997, 1999) under-
took 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 under-
standing 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 com-
munications impact, made creative ideas
more effective, provided greater commu-
nication consistency, and agency execu-
tives believed integrated approaches could
and would improve client return on in-
vestment. There were some misgivings,
however. Agency executives did not be-
lieve the application of IMC could pro-
vide 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 con-
ducted a multinational cross-cultural study
in the United States, United Kingdom,
New Zealand, Australia, and India
attempting again to consider the theoret-
ical underpinnings and support for the
rapid growth of IMC with regard to ad-
vertising agency acceptance, involve-
ment, and development. This study
revealed that the percentage of client bud-
gets 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 agen-
cies, with further analysis supporting the
perspective that the majority of time de-
voted to IMC activities and/or budget-
ary 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 un-
like the United Kingdom and United
States that favored below-the-line com-
munication, with India being somewhere
in the middle.
Thus, in just a short decade, the con-
cept of IMC has swept around the planet
and become a watch crynot only of
the marketing and marketing communi-
cation 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 con-
text of marketing andcommunications. 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 um-
brella term to refer to the various commu-
nication functions used by marketing,
strategic integration of these functional
areas is what makes IMC a new approach
to reaching consumers and other stake-
holders (Duncan and Everett, 1993). An
early definition of IMC adopted by the
AAA and developed by Schultz was in-
evitably focusedcorrectly for its timeas
. . . a concept of marketing communi-
cations 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, di-
rect response, sales promotion, and
public relations) and combines these
disciplines to provide clarity, consis-
tency, 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? Be-
cause, inevitably, such an approach can
be managed internally (i.e., inside-out
IMC), and this despite the word strate-
gic. Adoption by the AAA and AMA in
America, however, not to mention its in-
clusion 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
THE EMERGENCE OF IMC
March 2004 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 21
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 inside-
out 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 fol-
lowing citation:
IMC is the process of developing and
implementing various forms of persua-
sive communications programs with
customers and prospects over time. The
goal of IMC is to influence or directly
affect the behaviour of the selected com-
munications audience. IMC considers
all sources of brand or company con-
tacts which a customer or prospect has
with the product or service as poten-
tial delivery channels for future mes-
sages. 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 inside-
out, but outside-inthat is, driven by the
buyers or potential buyers of goods andser-
vices. By 2002, Duncan had developed an
IMC process model shown here as Fig-
ure 1. IMCis different fromother customer-
centric processes in that its foundation is
communication. This is regarded as the cen-
ter of all relationships and is envisaged as
a circular process as opposed to a linear
one. The figure reveals an ongoing, circu-
lar process that creates brand value in the
formof sales, profits, and brand equity, and
there is no starting and stopping related to
obtaining, retaining, and growing custom-
ers (Duncan, 2002). Again, he offers an IMC
definition as
. . . a process for managing the cus-
tomer relationships that drive brand
value. More specifically, it is a cross-
functional process for creating and nour-
ishing profitable relationships with
customers and other stakeholders by
strategically controlling or influencing
all messages sent to these groups and
encouraging data-driven, purposeful di-
alogue with them. (Duncan, 2002, p. 7)
He then breaks down the major elements
of his definition to help explain its mean-
ing. The cross-functional process means
. . . IMC is no longer inside-out, but outside-inthat is,
driven by the buyers or potential buyers of goods and
services.
Figure 1 The IMC Process Model (Duncan, 2002). Used here
with permission of the author.
THE EMERGENCE OF IMC
22 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH March 2004
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 impor-
tant because not all relationships are of
equal value to the company. Strategically
controlling or influencing all messages re-
fers to all aspects of the marketing mix.
Encouraging purposeful dialogue identi-
fies that customers are tired of being talked
at by companies and want the opportu-
nity to interact.
Apparently, IMC can be defined in a
variety of ways, but each definition sug-
gests five significant features according to
Shimp (2000):
The primary goal of IMC is to affect be-
havior through directed communication.
The process should start with the cus-
tomer or prospect and then work back-
ward to the brand communicator.
IMC should use all forms of communi-
cation and all sources of brand or com-
pany 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 rela-
tionship between the brand and the
customer.
Indicative of many other marketing activ-
ities, IMC would appear to be defined by
those implementing it. Kaye (1999) argued
that the generallyaccepteddefinitionof IMC
is self-limiting because its focus is on ex-
ternal, nonpersonal communications: ad-
vertising, 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 en-
tails, 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 gener-
ate greater salience from a conceptual and
operational perspective. The Schultz (1993a)
definition of IMC was supported by most
respondents, but not tremendously, al-
though all respondents agreed that com-
panies should be integrated in terms of
communication.
The value of formal definitions of IMC
has been continually underlined by aca-
demic authors (Duncan, 2002; Fill, 2002;
Kitchen, 1999; Schultz, Tannenbaum, and
Lauterborn, 1994), but little has been done
to resolve the fact that the theoretical con-
cept 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 man-
agement 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 measure-
ment system in place to gauge the influ-
ence 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 inter-
national level.
It is argued by Percy, Rossiter, and El-
liott (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. Fre-
quently, IMC is considered to be nothing
more than using several means of deliv-
ering 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 sin-
gle positioning.
In this brief review of the IMC devel-
opment process, it is evident that there
are some doubts and misgivings. None-
theless, 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 market-
ing communications. Let us now consider
how this topic has impact upon market-
ing communications.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
By using the sextant of hindsight, the
ideal of using various marketing commu-
nication 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 con-
cept, and simultaneously show that many
new theories, practices, and principles
were beginning to emerge in the 1990s,
all of which impacted upon communica-
tions. From an environmental perspec-
tive, these included
THE EMERGENCE OF IMC
March 2004 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 23
the engine of information technology
allowing massive customer data hold-
ing and manipulation (Clow and Baack,
2002; Duncan, 2002; Maddox, 2001)
the use of the internet as information
source, communication channel, trans-
action facilitator, and distribution tool
(Durkin and Lawlor, 2001; Gronstedt,
1997; Reich, 1998)
development in agency practices
internationalization, globalization, cli-
ent mirroring, organizational learning
and practice driven by client need, multi-
country, multioffice structures and net-
works (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 communica-
tion 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 de-
velopment of IMC. As we have seen, the
early literature indicated that IMC has
stimulated significant interest in the mar-
keting world. An early paper of Cay-
wood, Schultz, and Wang (1991) shows
that the majority of enquiries, philoso-
phies, 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 liter-
ature 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 illus-
trate 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 econ-
omy 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 con-
cept in the academic field. At the very
beginning when the IMC concept was ini-
tiated, advertising educators were in fa-
vor of IMC, seeing it as the best of both
worlds. Public relations educators, on the
other hand, tended to be vehemently op-
posed (Miller and Rose, 1994). A number
of public relations thinkers and practition-
ers saw IMC as not only an encroachment
but also a form of marketing imperialism
where public relations was concerned (Do-
zier and Lauzen, 1990) because public re-
lations was seen as a management function,
while advertising and other forms of pro-
motion 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 in-
tegrated marketing communications and
had even accepted it as a reality and ne-
cessity (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 con-
cept. Spotts, Lambert, and Joyce (1998)
claimed that the bulk of the IMC litera-
ture is a development parallel to market-
ing that misrepresents marketing and
merely reinvents and renames existing con-
cepts. 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 devel-
oping academic theory (Schultz and
Kitchen, 2000a). Cornelissen and Lock
(2000, p. 9) doubted IMCs theoretical ro-
bustness 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, appar-
ent in its lack of definition and transient
influence. Schultz and Kitchen (2000a) re-
butted this challenge by arguing that Cor-
nelissen 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 develop-
ment 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 market-
ing or managerial concepts, methodol-
ogies, or strategies that have arisen.
All have an evolutionary, discursive
and behavioural history in which the
particular concept is defined and re-
defined, 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-
THE EMERGENCE OF IMC
24 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH March 2004
structs and then deductively develops
hypotheses for empirical testing. (p. 23)
Needless to say, Schultz and Kitchens
earlier work, and indeed much of the
work by many authors to date, have in-
deed focused on an inductive approach,
representative of an emergent paradigmat-
ical 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 mar-
keting communication activities, Schultz
and Kitchen (2000b) raised concerns that
many marketing activities cannot be mea-
sured, and the value of communication effects
and impacts are even more tenuous. There-
fore, measurability is not only the prob-
lem 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 build-
ing. 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 build-
ing will be measured based on the brand
equity among customers and prospects.
Semenik (2002) introducedyet further but
still basic approaches to measuring the ef-
fectiveness of an overall IMC program:
. . . one approach is to merely take on
the measurement of each of the promo-
tional tools used in a campaign, an-
other approach is to use single-source
tracking measures, and the third alter-
native is to measure media exposures,
product (brand) impressions, and per-
sonal contacts. (p. 29)
However, he also acknowledged that
. . . measuring the complex interaction
of all the promotional mix elements is
very, very complicated and may be
beyond the methodological tools avail-
able 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 de-
bated and developed, this initiative has
been accepted by many marketing lead-
ing theorists and writers. For example,
Kotler (2000) in his leading marketing man-
agement 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 discuss-
ing 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 con-
sumer promotions, and less than 25 per-
cent to advertising (Levinson, 2001, p. 10).
IMC or derivative theory has now been
diffused and the concept has been widely
implemented by many advertising agen-
cies and firms across many countries
worldwide as well as the United States.
Roses (1996) research about the percep-
tion of IMC among 143 advertising and
public relations professionals concludes
that the majority of Latin American com-
munication practitioners believed in the
IMC concept and viewed their roles as
encompassing the broader areas of com-
munication. In the study undertaken by
Kitchen and Schultz (1999) among agen-
cies in the United States, United King-
dom, Australia, New Zealand, and India,
conclusions derived from their multicoun-
try comparison indicated that
. . . there is a widespread development
of IMC approaches across the five coun-
tries 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 King-
dom 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 pack-
aged goods industries, there are more ser-
vice providers trying this new concept in
their own areas. Nowak, Cameron, and De-
lorme (1996) conducted research among re-
tailers and service providers in selected
Latin American countries that valued the
IMCconcept 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 coordinat-
ing media and message delivery ele-
ments 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, coor-
dinating, and implementing IMC, adver-
tising 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:
THE EMERGENCE OF IMC
March 2004 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 25
. . . advertisers assume major respon-
sibility for developing the marketing
program and making the final deci-
sions regarding the advertising and
promotional program to be employed,
while advertising agencies are ex-
pected to assist them in developing,
preparing, and executing promotional
plans. (p. 14)
Client-based research, despite inherent
methodological difficulties, will yet repre-
sent the gold standard of what IMC is,
or what is perceived to be. For, despite the
focus onagencies 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 coor-
dination of promotional elements, redefin-
ing the scope of marketing communications,
application of information technology, to
financial and strategic integration. They ar-
gued, based on the empirical findings from
their researchwithadvertising agencies that
develop and implement marketing com-
munication plans for their clients, that the
majority of clients are anchored in either
stage 1 or stage 2 scenarios. Some are mov-
ing 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 commu-
nication 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 bar-
riers to IMC success in their study of
the New Zealand advertising and mar-
keting industry: power, coordination, and
(Source: Schultz and Kitchen, 2000b)
Figure 2 Stages in IMC Development (Source: Schultz and Kitchen, 2000b)
THE EMERGENCE OF IMC
26 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH March 2004
control issues; client skills, centralization/
organization, and cultural issues; agency
skills/talents and overall time/resources
issues; and flexibility/modification is-
sues. Schultz (2000) saw structurethe
way the firm is put togetheras the most
challenging problem of integration. He
argued that the traditional command-and-
control structures should be replaced by
the quick-response model in new econ-
omy firms, and only when management
starts to focus on outcomes rather than
outputs do most of the integration prob-
lems go away. Schultz (2001) further noted
that one of the problems with the cur-
rent approach to marketing and market-
ing 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 be-
cause campaigns generally are devel-
oped and executed for a limited time
period . . . to achieve some type of ad-
vantage during some timeframe. Al-
though there are difficulties of ensuring
the full integration of marketing commu-
nications and there are barriers of achiev-
ing 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 imple-
menting IMC: IMC can create competi-
tive 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
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 re-
quires little or no focus on customers,
consumers, or their needs and is a rela-
tively simple matter of bundling promo-
tional 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, pa-
per after paper has revealed that the ma-
jority of client organizations and the
agencies who service their needs are lo-
cated at this level. What does this mean
from a communication perspective? Sim-
ply that all communications, not matter
how neatly synergized, are driven by cli-
ent 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 con-
tradict business reality damage business
credibility in the long term. A recent U.K.
example developed by chocolate giant
Cadbury promises consumers free sport-
ing goods if they will save and submit
special wrappers from Cadbury prod-
ucts. On the one hand, the campaign is
integrated in terms of advertising, spon-
sorship, sales promotion, package de-
sign, 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 be-
tween chocolate and obesity, and be-
tween chocolate and sporting prowess.
The entire campaign, while ostensibly of-
fering 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 me-
dia. 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 mar-
keting communication activities. Yet, it has
been estimated by Kitchen and Schultz
(1999) that only 25 percent of businesses
base their marketing communication ac-
tivities 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 lo-
cated 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 re-
source in building segmented databases
and organizational restructuring to be-
come customer-focused and customer-
driven. Only if communication resources
are invested and measured against actual
customer behavior can financial returns
be compiled. Thus stages 3 and 4 are a
Only strategically oriented integrated brand communica-
tions can help businesses move forward in the highly
competitive world of the 21st century.
THE EMERGENCE OF IMC
March 2004 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 27
movement from attitudinal measurement
to behavioral measurement. And only
when we move into stage 4, do we arrive
at a position that resembles integrated mar-
keting. The problem is that integrated mar-
keting 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 pro-
cess. 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 in-
tegrated 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 mar-
keting communication myopia. Stage 2 is
an improvement. Stages 3 and 4 represent
organizational investment and real orga-
nizational change. But, if a business de-
cides to jump from stage 1 to integrated
marketing (the new buzz word on the
marketing block), then integrated market-
ing 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 busi-
nesses follow through with sustained in-
vestment will IMC continue upward in
terms of growth.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
This article has considered and critiqued
the IMC developmental process, its im-
pact on marketing communications, indi-
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 acceler-
ation 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 explo-
ration and analysis. If further research is
undertaken, it needs to be preeminently
with client organizations. Further critical
discussion is also needed from a concep-
tual perspective.
This detailed critical review of selected
literature has provided an interesting con-
sideration 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 Market-
ing 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 market-
ing management, marketing communications, corpo-
rate 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] ) ini-
tially, he received Masters degrees in Marketing from
UMIST (M.Sc.) and Manchester Business School
(M.B.Sc.), respectively, and his Ph.D. from Keele Uni-
versity. 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 inte-
grated marketing communications, and she has re-
cently completed an interview-based study of IMC with
CEOs in U.K. advertising and public relations
agencies.
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 . . .
THE EMERGENCE OF IMC
28 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH March 2004
................................................................................................
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 responsi-
bility 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 post-
graduate pathway coordinator in the marketing disci-
pline. Graham has published papers previously in the
International Journal of Market Research and the Jour-
nal of Promotion Management. His research interests
lie in the domain of brand marketing communications
with specific focus on cognitive information process-
ing and psycholinguistics.
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 Communica-
tions Perspective, 5th ed. New York: McGraw-
Hill/Irwin, 2001.
Caywood, C., D. E. Schultz, and P. Wang.
Integrated Marketing Communications: ASur-
vey of National Goods Advertisers, unpub-
lished report. Bloomington, IN: Medill School
of Journalism, Northwestern University, June
1991.
Clow, K. E., and D. Baack. Integrated Advertis-
ing, Promotion and Marketing Communications.
Cranbury, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc., 2002.
Cornelissen, J. P., and A. R. Lock. Theoretical
Concept or Management Fashion? Examining the
Significance of IMC. Journal of Advertising Re-
search 40, 5 (2000): 715.
Coulson-Thomas, C. J. Marketing Communica-
tions. 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 Ed-
ucation in Journalism, Minneapolis, MN, 1990.
Duncan, T. IMC: Using Advertising and Promo-
tion to Build Brands (International Edition). New
York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2002.
Duncan, T. R., and S. E. Everett. Client Per-
ceptions of Integrated Communications. Jour-
nal of Advertising Research 32, 3 (1993): 3039.
Durkin, M., and M. A. Lawlor. The Impli-
cations of the Internet on the Advertising
Agency-Client Relationship. The Service Indus-
tries Journal (London) 21, 2 (2001): 17590.
Dyer, G. Advertising as Communication. Lon-
don: 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, Eu-
rope: Prentice Hall Limited, 2002.
, and T. Yeshin. Integrated Marketing
Communications. Oxford, U.K.: Butterworth-
Heinemann, 2001.
Gonring, M. P. Putting Integrated Marketing
Communications to Work Today. Public Rela-
tions Quarterly (Rhinebeck) 39, 3 (1994): 45.
Gould, S. J. The State of IMC Research and
Applications. Journal of Advertising Research
40, 5 (2000): 2223.
, B. Lerman, and A. F. Grein. Agency
Perceptions and Practices on Global IMC. Jour-
nal of Advertising Research 39, 1 (1999): 720.
Grein, A. F., and S. J. Gould. Globally Inte-
grated 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 Con-
sumer Psychological Perspective. Marketing In-
telligence & Planning 16, 3 (1998): 22935.
Hutton, J. Integrated Marketing Communi-
cations and the Evolution of Marketing
Thought. Presented to the American Academy
of Advertising Annual Conference, New York, 1995.
Kanso, A., and R. Nelson. Advertising Lo-
calisation Overshadows Standardisation. Jour-
nal of Advertising Research 42, 1 (2002): 7989.
Kaye, R. L. Companies Need to Realize Inter-
nal Marketings Potential. Advertising Ages Busi-
ness Marketing, 1999.
Kitchen, P. J. Marketing Communications: Prin-
ciples and Practice. London: International Thom-
son 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 Market-
ing Communications in US Advertising Agen-
cies: 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 Compari-
son of the Drive for IMC. Journal of Advertis-
ing Research 39, 1 (1999): 2138.
, and . A Response to Theoretical
Concept or Management Fashion? Journal of
Advertising Research 40, 5 (2000): 1721.
THE EMERGENCE OF IMC
March 2004 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 29
, and . Raising the Corporate Um-
brella: Corporate Communications in the 21st Cen-
tury. Hampshire, U.K.: Palgrave Publishers Ltd.,
2001.
Kotler, P. Marketing Management, 10th ed. Lon-
don: Prentice Hall International (UK) Limited,
2000.
Levinson, J. C. Integrated Marketing. Execu-
tive 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. Com-
munication 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.
Nowak, G. J., G. T. Cameron, and D. De-
lorme. Beyond the World of Packaged Goods:
Assessing the Relevance of Integrated Market-
ing Communications for Retail and Consumer
Service Marketing. Journal of Marketing Com-
munications 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. Stra-
tegic Advertising Management. New York: Ox-
ford University Press Inc., 2001.
Pickton, D., and A. Broderick. Integrated Mar-
keting Communications. Essex, U.K.: Pearson Ed-
ucation Limited, 2001.
Reich, K. IMC: Through the Looking Glass of
the New Millennium. Communication World
15, 9 (1998): 2628.
Rose, P. B. Practitioner Opinions and Interests
Regarding Integrated Marketing Communica-
tions in Selected Latin American Countries.
Journal of Marketing Communications (1996):
125139.
Schultz, D. E. Integrated Marketing Commu-
nications: The Status of Integrated Marketing
Communications Programs in the US Today.
Journal of Promotion Management 1, 1, (1991):
99104.
. Integrated Marketing Communica-
tions: 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.
. IMC Has Become a Global Concept.
Marketing News 30, 5, (1996): 6.
. Manage Customers, Not Loyalty Pro-
grams. Marketing News 33, 1, (1999): 3536.
. Structural Flaws Dash Marcom Plans.
Marketing News 34, 3 (2000): 14.
. Campaign Approach Shouldnt Exist in
IMC. Marketing News 35, 5 (2001): 1113.
. Summit Explores Where IMC, CRM
Meet. Marketing News 36, 5 (2002): 1112.
, and P. J. Kitchen. AResponse to Theo-
retical Concept or Management Fashion? Jour-
nal of Advertising Research 40, 5 (2000a): 1721.
, and . Communicating Globally: An
Integrated Marketing Approach. London: Mac-
millan Press Ltd., 2000b.
, and . Communicating Globally: An
Integrated Marketing Approach. Chicago, IL: NTC
Business Books, NTC/Contemporary Publish-
ing Group, 2000c.
, S. I. Tannenbaum, and R. F. Lauter-
born. The New Marketing Paradigm: Integrated
Marketing Communications. Chicago, IL: NTC
Business Books, NTC/Contemporary Publish-
ing Group, 1994.
Schwartz, M. IBM Adopts New Agency
Model. B to B 86, 16 (2001): 21.
Semenik, R. J. Promotion and Integrated Market-
ing Communications, South-Western. Cincinnati,
OH: South-Western, Thomson Learning, 2002.
Shimp, T. A. Advertising Promotion: Supplemen-
tal Aspects of Integrated Marketing Communica-
tions, 5th ed. Fort Worth, TX: The Dryden Press,
Harcourt College Publishers, 2000.
Smith, P. R. Marketing Communications: An In-
tegrated Approach, 3rd ed. London: Kogan Page
Limited, 2002.
Spotts, H. E., D. R. Lambert, and M. L. Joyce.
Marketing Dj Vu: The Discovery of Inte-
grated 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 Mar-
keting, 8th ed. New York: The Dryden Press,
Hartcourt College Publishers, 2000.
Weilbacher, W. M. Point of View: Does Ad-
vertising Cause a Hierarchy of Effects? Jour-
nal 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.
THE EMERGENCE OF IMC
30 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH March 2004