A marketing management view of
integrated marketing communications
Author: 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.
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 of
use 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 top
management title was chosen as the person to contact. A questionnaire which contained IMC and
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.l
Activities included in a total communication effort
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 campaign
planning 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.
Coordination of marketing communication activities
Determination of the extent to which organizations coordinate marketing communication activities
was based on the premise that coordination can be achieved by either having one person in charge
of the various activities or by means of a reporting relationship. This necessitated several
questions. One listed seven communication activities and asked respondents to name the title of
the person responsible for objective-setting and strategy formulation for each activity. The seven
marketing communication activities were:







Creative
Media
Sales Promotion
Special events
Direct response
Publicity
Public Relations
Other questions asked for titles of respondents, their assigned duties, titles of individuals who
reported to them, and the title of the person to whom they reported. Analysis and synthesis of
answers to these questions produced the findings shown in Table 1. As in the case of previous
findings, the information is shown for respondents in total and for each marketer type.
Nearly one-half of all respondents combined indicated the seven activities were coordinated.
Findings were quite equally divided between "by a single person" and "through a reporting
relationship." More than one-quarter indicated five to six activities were coordinated, more so
through a reporting relationship than by a single person. Added together, these results indicate that
in three-fourths of the cases five or more of seven communication activities were coordinated,
somewhat more commonly so through a reporting relationship than by a single person. Further
examination of "all" organizations shows a third segment (18 percent) where three to four
activities were coordinated, predominantly by a single person.
Making comparisons among types of marketers where all seven activities were coordinated,
consumer and retail were on or close to the category mean or norm, business was above, and
service was below. Combining results of the first two categories ("all" and "five to six" activities)
show that four out of five or more consumer, business, and retail organizations were coordinated.
This is in contrast to service where coordination was indicated in slightly more than one-half of
the cases.
Other results of the analysis showed that, in instances where a single person set objectives and
strategies for a single activity (coordinated through a reporting relationship or uncoordinated), the
two most frequently mentioned were sales promotion and direct response. In instances where a
single person set objectives and strategies for two activities most frequently mentioned were
public relations and publicity followed by creative and media.
(Chart Omitted)
Captioned as: Figure 2
Sourcing of marketing communication activities
In conducting marketing communication operations, firms have several options for sourcing the
various 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 partial
source. "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 more
consistently different than other types with "in-house" being the most important single source for
all services. FSAAs do play an important role, as in the case of other marketers, for creative and
media services. "Other suppliers" are of secondary importance as the source for public relations,
publicity, and direct-response programs.
SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS
As indicated by the amount of time and attention devoted to IMC by firms in this survey, it was
considered to be a subject of major importance when considered along with 12 other advertising
and/or marketing subjects.
Marketing communication activities most frequently considered in campaign planning among
consumer, service, and retail marketers included point-of-sale material and mass media. Service
marketers also gave special attention to direct response programs. Special events received special
attention from retailers. Business marketers stood apart from the other three; top consideration was
given to a mix of four activities, not two or three. They were product publicity, public relations,
trade publications, and exhibits and shows.
As for the coordination of seven major communication activities, findings showed that the
majority were coordinated by a single person or a reporting relationship, significantly more so on
the part of consumer, business, and retail marketers than service marketers.
When it came to sourcing marketing communication activities, findings revealed that the
full-service advertising agency was the leading source for creative and media services while
in-house was the principal source for all other services. Other suppliers, though tertiary in
importance, played a greater role in instances where the house was the primary source.
Sourcing of activities was by no means uniform across the four marketer types. Consumer
marketers used other suppliers for creative work more extensively than others. Business relied
more heavily on their advertising agencies for all communication activities and also used other
suppliers for publicity to a greater degree than the norm. Service marketers relied on other
suppliers to a greater degree for sales promotion, public relations, and direct response than the
others. The distinguishing difference for retail marketers was greater sourcing of all activities
inhouse.
The survey data retrieved in this current study did not indicate a lack of coordination among an
assortment of communication activities. Nor was there indication that communication objectives
and strategies were being formulated at the lowest managerial levels. The direction of marketing
communication activities was clearly an internal, upper management affair.
What the survey did produce was an indication that the selection and sourcing of marketing
communication activities varied significantly among different types of marketers, for example, the
importance of mass media to several types of marketers, the distinctly different package of
activities of importance to business marketers, the special attention given to direct response
programs on the part of service marketers and to special events on the part of retailers, and the
greater reliance on internal sourcing of activities by retail versus other marketers.
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, January
23,1994.
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,
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 Marketing
Communications. 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 strategic
management 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.