This article was downloaded by: [University of Saskatchewan Library]On: 25 August 2012, At: 01:48Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Marketing ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmm20

IMC - A UK Ad' Agency PerspectivePhilip J. Kitchen & Don E. Schultz

Version of record first published: 01 Feb 2010

To cite this article: Philip J. Kitchen & Don E. Schultz (1998): IMC - A UK Ad' Agency Perspective,Journal of Marketing Management, 14:5, 465-485

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1362/026725798784867806

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. Theaccuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independentlyverified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions,claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever causedarising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of thismaterial.

Journal of Marketing Managemen~ 1998, 14,465-485

Philip J.Kitchen andDonE.Schultz

IMC - A UK Ad' Agency Pers pective

This paper concerns Integrated MarketingCommunications aMC) in terms of its theoreticalbackground, and by providing initial findings from anexploratory study of IMC within a judgement sample ofUK advertising agencies (total estimated billings -£3.5billionJ. We consider arguments put forward byacademics and practitioners in relation to what IMC isperceived to be, and whether it offers significant value toad agencies and their clients in the dynamiC marcomsmarketspace leading toward the next century. Researchfindings show that IMC is not a short-term managerialfad, nor is it just a re-formulation of existent praxis.Instead, IMC oOers a clear response by advertisingagencies and their clients driven by a constellation of

of factors: new forms of information technology (includingdevelopment and usage of databases), mediafragmentation, client desires for interaction/synergy, andglobal and regional coordination. Thepaper concludesbystating that IMC is a fundamental, probably irreversible,shift in both the thinking and practice of ad agenciesandtheir clients as reflected by advertising executives. fMC isdriven by technological developmen~ customers,consumers, and by organisational drive to properlyallocate finite resources to the key element of creatingexchanges- marketing communications.

Queen's School ofManagemen~Queen's UniversityBelfas~ UK

Medill SchoolJournalism,NorthwesternUniversity; USA

Acknowledgements:The authors would like to thank two anonymous reviewers who did a first

class job in reviewing the paper, initially. Their comments have helped improvethe structure and argument of the paper significantly.

An earlier rendition of this paper was first presented as the keynote paper byProfessor Kitchen at the ESOMAR Seminar "New Ways for OptimisingIntegrated Communications" Paris (France) April 1997.

Permission for using this material has been granted by the European Societyfor Opinion and Marketing Research (E.S.O.MAR) J.J. Viottastraat 29, 1071 JP,Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Introduction

This paper is part of a worldwide investigation of the emergent IMC conceptOri~inal research commenced in 1991 by faculty at the Medill School ofISSN0267-257X198/050465+20 $12.00 ©Westbum Publishers Ltd.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:48

25

Aug

ust 2

012

466 Philip J. Kitchen and Don E. SchultzJournalism, Northwestern University, USA (Caywood et ai, 1991). Admittedly,while Caywood et al was the first to conceptualise the concept, thinking andpractice concerning integrated communication approaches by companiesaround the world greatly predates this. In this paper, the concern is to extendknowledge on how the IMC concept is diITusing by providing initial analysis ofdata on how senior advertising agency executives perceive IMC use anddevelopment in the United Kingdom. Thus, the paper provides a perspective onthe current state of IMC, and levels of implementation and usage in animportant segment of the marketing communications landscape. A comparativestudy with ad' agencies and marketing organisations is being carried out in NewZealand, and the current study is being replicated in the USA, Australia, andIndia.

The paper represents an interactive effort from three groups: the ResearchCentre for Corporate and Marketing Communications at Strathclyde University,UK; the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University, USA, and theInstitute of Practitioners in Advertising (IPA), UK. The first group wereresponsible for adapting and extending the research study from NorthwesternUniversity. The study was furthered by the support of the IPA who provided notonly a membership list of active agencies for questionnaire distribution but acover letter of support as well.

The research explored three related objectives:

1. To deepen understanding of how and in what areas the IMC concept isdeveloping in the UK

2. To examine the extent to which UK advertising agency executives aredeveloping, practising, or utilising IMC on behalf of clients.

3. To understand the importance and value of traditional advertising agenciesin a marketplace where IMC is apparently becoming more important.

The research is predicated on the dynamiC that there may well be widevariation and differing views concerning what IMC conceptually represents.Thus, the implementation of an integrated approach by advertising agenciesmay well differ not only in thought but in practice. Thus the paper is notnecessarily concerned with either a consensual or conclusive mission, its overallaim is to explore the multiple dimensions of the concept thus helping underpinfurther research in the future.

Literature Review

Prior to the study conducted by Caywood et al (1991), there appeared to be littleor no formal discussion or even description of what is now being calledIntegrated Marketing Communications, despite earlier organisational thoughtand practice regarding integrated solutions to marketing communications someof which, doubtless, had been reflected in practitioner discussions and tradepress articles. Nonetheless, the Northwestern study, which was funded by theAmerican Association of Advertising Agencies (AAAA)(USA)and the Associationof National Advertisers (USA) appears to be the first formal, structured attemptto bring some conceptual understanding to the literature. Thus, most of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:48

25

Aug

ust 2

012

IMC - A UK Ad' Agency Perspective 467history of IMC thinking and discussion from a theoretical context is generallyless than seven years old. While there has been considerable debate anddiscussion of the subject, who does it, how it is done, etc. the formalpresentation of research, theory development and other materials by eitherpractitioners or academics has been slow in coming. Given its history, much ofthe !MC literature and learning has focused on the explanation of IMC in themarketplace, i.e., what it is, how it operates in the marketplace, rather than ontheory building or understanding of basic principles. These points must be keptin mind for while there is paucity of literature, it is growing rapidly.

Schultz (I 99 1) formalized the IMC discussion by arguing that nothing lin theUSA] had received as much publicity, discussion at learned meetings, whileseeing little real activity, as had the concept of IMC in 1990. At that time mostmanufacturers and marketing organisations in the USA were still trying to sortout the need for and value of IMC. What is evident now, some five years later,is that the concept is still undergoing development

A special issue of the Journal of Marketing Communications (I996) devotedto IMC found virtually all the papers dealt with theory building and/oridentification of key issues - in other words IMC still appears to be in a pre-paradigm as opposed to a post-paradigm state (Mills 1959; Kuhn, 1964; Crane,1972). While the special issue can be regarded as a significant move forward,the entire developing field can be seen as benchmark to the established conceptof integration. The pre-paradigm phenomenon for IMC was to an extentanticipated, for integration is not the norm in Western cultures despite papersto the contrary (Kotler, 1972, 1986, 1997; Kitchen and Proctor, 1991; Kitchen,1993, 1994, 1996; Kitchen and Moss, 1995; Duncan, 1993, 1995; Duncan andEverett, 1993; Novelli, 1989-1990; Waterschoot and van Bulte, 1992). However,most mainstream marketing texts and more specialist texts on marketingcommunications have practically all adopted some type of integrated approachor perspective (Kotler, 1997; Zikmund and D'Amico, 1996; Shimp, 1993; Belchand Belch, 1995; Krugman et ai, 1994) - a sure sign that IMC is progressing intoacceptability and has become entrenched as perceived 'academic wisdom'.

While various authors and researchers have developed some type of IMCapproach or concept for their teaching and research, each appears to have doneso independently from the others, or at least each appears to have developedthe concept from his or her own view. There does not, at this point, appear tobe any consistent or mutually agreed upon definition, description or process toidentify what is IMC and what it is not Thus, while the subject is generallyaccepted in the marketing literature, at this point, there are still many grey areaswhich are in need of clarification.

Against this groundswell of academic opinion, ably supported by case studymaterial (mainly US in origin), discordant voices can be heard asking 'what'snew?' (Hutton, 1995; Wolter, 1993); or 'what does IMC actually mean?' (Phelpset al, 1994; Nowak and Phelps, 1994) The real issue expressed by many UKacademics and practitioners (Kitchen, 1996) is that IMC may be no more thananother management 'fad', no different from Total Quality Management (TQM)or re-engineering or Effective Customer Response (ECR). Indeed, experts arguethat IMC is simply another term to embrace many already well known notions,or a minority concern by those anxious to differentiate themselves in some way,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:48

25

Aug

ust 2

012

468 Philip J. Kitchen and Don E. Schultzperhaps 'much ado about nothing'. However, it could be argued that theselatter arguments are missing the point. Insofar as marketing communications isconcerned, most activities in the past have been focussed on breaking downconcepts and activities into ever more finite specialisations. This may bebecause most marketing communications activities are bought in terms ofspecific media and specific point-of-sale, hence in a practical and commercialsense measures of 'effectiveness' have to be gained at this functional level.What has evidently failed to occur has been the integration of theseeffectiveness measures into a more comprehensive model. But then, fewmarketing or communications approaches have involved integration or holisticthinking. It appears that much marketing thought is driven by the basics ofsegments and segmentation. So, despite the development of integrative orsystems thinking particularly in the area of marketing and marketingcommunications, this may not be reflected in companies practisingcommunications or in advertising agencies servicing their needs. Indeed,generally, the decomposition of existing systems and processes underpins thenature of social science investigation, that is - to separate, reduce, orindividualise activities and events, the correct assumption being that if the partsof the subject can be understood. the whole can be understood as well. But thewhole, from an integrated perspective, is precisely what is not understood, andneeds to be So, the concept of integration. while conceptually sound, may bemet with scepticism, challenge, even rejection by both academicians andpractitioners alike. Certainly specialists, say in advertising. may not want to seethe whole, only their part of it

Recent studies have tended to show that while IMC is welcomed, accepted,and attempted elsewhere its prevalence may not be as strong as in the USA(Rose. 1996). Its practice is indeterminant in global communication strategies(Grein and Gould, 1996) despite the pronouncement by Keegan (1995) thatmedia advertising and its integration are pre-eminent as the main instrument inglobal marketing and 'global' promotional campaigns. Further, evidence(Duncan and Caywood, 1996) supports the view that IMC is contingent onextensive use of behavioural (preferably individualised) databases (Jackson andWang, 1994; Junu, 1993) which underpin the process of active organisationallearning in order to develop increasingly sophisticated integrated marketingcommunication activities. The extent to which behavioural databases are usedmay well differ more by commercial sector than on the basis of US/othercountry comparators.

Since databases are considered to be so critical to the development andpractice of IMC, it is worth considering how these are evolving on a global scale.To alleviate the concerns that a behavioural database is required for thepractice of integrated marketing communications, an emerging concept of whata database is and what data is or may be needed to practice IMC in a lessresearch-developed economy should be considered. Increasingly, the conceptof a database is taken to include all the information which an organization cangather on both customers and consumers (Schultz, 1996) While there are oftencritical lacks of consumer or end-user data in channel-delivered systems,business-to-business and service organizations have considerable internal datawhich will allow the developmen t of such behavioural databases. Indeed. even

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:48

25

Aug

ust 2

012

IMC - A UK Ad' Agency Perspective 469within fast moving consumer goods organizations, there is substantial customer(channel) data which could prOvide the basis for the developmen t of aconsumer (end-user) database. Unfortunately, it is the lack of connection orcooperation between marketing, sales and research which prevents the use ofthis system-wide data. So, it may be that the lack of actual data is more afunction of the lack of internal ability to gather existing data than it is one oflack of actual marketplace information (Baumann, 1989;Business Week, 1994;Fletcher, 1995; Hopper, 1990; Powell, 1991; Schultz, 1996; Wall St Journal,1994).

From this scenario two arguments arise. The tirs~ in favour of integration,centres on rapidly diffusing information technologies which are impacting on themarketplace, consumers, media, and distribution of products and services(Shocker et al, 1994). This argument has been particularly well advanced byRayport and Sviokla (1994) whose approach to retailing as "marketspace" ratherthan "marketplace" leads to a wide variety of supporting arguments for newforms of electronic communication which impact not only existing systems butevolve into new forms such as the World Wide Web and the nebulous Internet(Kitchen and Wheeler, 1996). These arguments, though led by USA academicsand practitioners with some inputs from Europe, is finding correspondence inliterature, albeit embryonic and emergent, drawn from the international marketThe second argumen~ against IMC, challenges the approach as being nothingmore than traditional marketing and advertising dressed up in new clothes andgiven a new title. Such an argument suggests that integration is nothing new,that it revolves around an academic argumen~ and has few real managerialimplications (Duncan and Everett 1993; Eagle et al, 1998; Grons ted~ 1997;Gronstedt and Thorsen, 1996; Hutton, 1996; Kiely, 1993a, 1993b; Sloan, 1994).The latter would appear to be an argument that would tind somecorrespondence in the United Kingdom. Therefore the time appears to be ripefor exploratory academic study. While the ideal solution would be to tacklemqior firms directly, experience with an earlier phase of research (Kitchen,1997) indicated that analysing perceptions of advertising agency seniorexecutives would proffer greater light on the subject in the short term. Resultsof this initial study follow.

Methodology

The study was approached as follows. IMC was defined, conceptually andoperationally, and 'real world' measurements were then developed through aseIies of scaled questions. The conceptual definition of IMC which has beenadapted in a variety of forms by authors (Brannan, 1995; Linton and Morley,1995; Smith, 1993; Smith, 1996) was that given by Schultz et al (1993) in theirmilestone text:

"IMC is a concept of marketing communications planning that recognises theadded value of a comprehensive plan that evaluates the strategic roles of avariety of communications disciplines (for example general advertising, directresponse, sales promotion, and public relations) ..... and combines thesedisciplines to provide clarity, consistency, and maximum communications

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:48

25

Aug

ust 2

012

470 Philip J. Kitchen and Don E. Schultzimpact" (Schultz, 1993)

The operational exploration was of areas related to this definition. The originalresearch instrument was developed to quantify perceived conceptual andoperational aspects of IMC and was adapted from the original NorthwesternUniversity study (Caywood, et.al, 1991). Thus, some comparisons of the U.S.adoption and development in 1990 and the diffusion of the concept in the UKin 1996 are possible.

The research instrument was a self-completion questionnaire. Questionswere organised into major topic areas related to the three objectives 1. reactionto the definition; 2. personal and organisational demographies; 3. agreement orotherwise with contingent statements using a ten-point Likert scale (I-stronglydisagree to lO-stronglyagree). The remainder of the questions were categorical,descriptive, or open-ended. The questionnaire was pre-tested by submission toexperts at the Institute of Advertising Practitioners (IPA) (UK), and via screeningby 10 industry practitioners. Questionnaires were sent to all members of theIPA in the u.K, names and addresses of which were provided by thatorganization. Each questionnaire was accompanied by a cover letter from asenior member of the IPA (uK) encouraging participation. A postage paidenvelope was enclosed, and respondents could request a summary of theresearch findings. The questionnaire was posted first class to IPA members inSummer, 1996. By the cut-off date 65 usable responses had been received, aresponse rate of 29%. Thus perceptions of IMC as given relate purely to ajudgement sample of advertising agency executives.

Research Findings

Demographic ProtiJesResponses were received from the following Managing Director (19)

Chairman (9), CEO (7), the rest were of senior positions of authority inadvertising agencies ranging from Media and Research Director to SBUDirector. The average period of time respondents had spent with their firm was10.2 years (standard deviation of 7 years). 34 of the respondents were educatedto degree level, 8 to postgraduate level, 10 were of HND equivalence, and 13had achieved "A" or "0" level qualification.

Reactions to fMC Definition and Evaluative Issues100% of respondents agreed that companies should be integrated in terms of

communication. This demonstrates that even if IMC is nothing more than acurrent management fad, it is a well accepted concept and area of interest tothe responding agencies. However, whether the 100% agreement to the termintegrated was necessarily the same as the term 'integrated'in Schultz'sdefinition is debateable. Because 'IMC' includes the word 'integrated', thisundoubtedly has implicit positive connotations in the business environment ascompared with its opposite 'non-integrated, disparate, separate' etc, implyingthat there may be a methodological bias toward acceptance. Though noattempts were made in the survey instrument to extropolate what was meant byagreemen~ some assessment was made as to the reasons why agreement was

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:48

25

Aug

ust 2

012

IMC - A UK Ad' Agency Perspective 471forthcoming. Suggestions by executives indicated that client firms requiredgreater synergy and consistency among all types of marketing communicationbecause of the need for cumulative impact and effects, consistency andreinforcement, style, tone, content, and key measures, and that each elementadded value to communications expression. Likewise, executives indicated thatfrom a consumer perspective there was a perceived need to get communicationreinforcement via many different channels using the same message. Forclients and agencies, IMC was seen to offer a multi-disciplinary, multi-integrated,and cost-effective solution to communication needs. However, amidstaffirmation, the point was made repeatedly that the definition may imply thatIMC = one agency with multi-disciplines as indicated in the qualitativeresponses. Thus, we continu e to see the struggle between what IMC is and howit might be practised.

In Table 1, reactions to the Schultz definition are given. As can be seen, them<ijority of respondents agreed with the definition which seems acceptable tothe respondents. However, most firms when faced with such an all-encompassing definition, would find it difficult to develop an alternativeapproach. While no attempt was made to explore which aspects of thedefinition offered saliency (ie strategic, combination etc) the qualitativecomments requested raise the issue of definition versus practice of IMC.

Table 1 Reactions to IMC Definition

Statement

Definition captures IMC meaning

Mean

7.68

SD

1.84

Positive Aspects* m<ijority of respondents agreed with the definition strongly, but felt a need toa) add the strategic and tactical roles of IMCb) include internal and external audiencesc) add creatived) include brand experiences, informative communications, and relationship

marketinge) add key words, such as 'cost efficient' and 'synergistic'

Negative Aspects* says nothing about the 'how' and the 'why'* doesn't really indicate who does the coordinating (client or agency)

Thus, while the definition of IMC seems acceptable, there is a need for furtherdevelopment to generate greater salience from a conceptual and operationalview. Table 2 seeks to explore in further detail fMC measurement issues.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:48

25

Aug

ust 2

012

472 Philip J. Kitchen and Don E. Schultz

Table 2. IMC MeasurementlEvaluation Issues

Abbreviated Statement

* IMC relies on measurements similar to thosealready used* IMC makes evaluation of marcoms eITectivenessmore difficult* !MC sidesteps the issue of measuring programmeeITectiveness

Mean

6.16

4.41

3.49

SD

2.09

2.81

2.25

The table indicates that IMC measurement is neither simple nor straightforward,in a very similar way to measuring existent measurement of eITectiveness forsingular aspects of marcoms. Bearing in mind that in a later table referring tointernal beliefs about IMC the category of response: 'provides method foreITective measurement' comes 12 out of 13 entries (mean 6.55, SD 2.83), is notsignificantly diITerent from category I above, nor for that matter for category 2.This underpins the view that while IMC appears to oITersignificant advantages,evaluation of integrated communication programmes still has a long way to goin terms of development Thus, we include in Figure I, sample responsestoward the eITectiveness or otherwise of IMC evaluation.

As can be seen in Figure I. IMC measurement and evaluation still needsfurther work, or, further dissemination of appropriate evaluation techniques.While IMC is recognised as of significant value and importance to clients andagencies alike the fact that no clear proposal of measurement or evaluation hasbeen developed weakens conceptual application in a global sense. It may wellbe that the lack of capacity to measure the impact and eITect of currentindividually planned and implemented functional elements such as advertisingor public relations or sales promotion leads agency executives to believe thatperhaps IMC oITerssome new or innovative solution to these on-going questions.That seems to be the case when the qualitative results are considered.

Interaction of Communication FunctionsTable 3 illustrates how client budgets are allocated in the responding

agencies. It is interesting to note that almost 50 percent of the advertisingagency billings are now in activities other than traditional advertising, withmore than 20 percent now in direct marketing. This distribution of functionalbilling seems to indicate that the agencies are indeed developing some forms ofIMC and not concentrating their billing only in advertising. However, full detailsof how and in what ways integrated programmes were developed from thefunctional areas billed was not tackled in the research, though a comparison ofthese findings with the 42% of billings devoted to integrated programmes, oITerspotential for further research.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:48

25

Aug

ust 2

012

IMC - A UK Ad' Agency Perspective

Figure 1: Views of IMC Measurement

473

Neither 'Simple NorStraightforward'

*it is as simple or ascomplex as you wish.specialists have a vestedinterest in perpetuatingthe myth that IMCmeasurement is complex

*there is no simple orstraightforward way ofmeasuring the individualelements either.

* the level playing field ofsales=impact doesn'texist

* strongly agree (n=25)* it is no different, you

still measurecomponents

* we haven't really begunto understand how to dothis

* for marcoms wi th ameasurable ROI it isrelativelystraightforward.measuring brand valueis much more difficult

* PR, Direct Marketing,Sales Promotion,Advertising all usedifferent measurementdevices. question is howto integratemeasurementJevaluation

* it is always going to bea) what the client wants;and b) whether thereare clear objectiveswhich can be evaluatedsystematically

Provides MeasurementMethod

* no basis for this claim* depends on discipline,

analysis, sophisticationof measurement, andcommitment

* very underdevelopedarea

* exchange rate doesn'tyet exist

* no, the methods areno different than atpresent

* still need to measureindividualcomponents

* potentially, this is thecase

* how?* a single multi-media,

multi- disciplinecampaign working to acommon objective willmake it easier toattribute measurableresults

* IMC is a totalmarcoms program nota method ofmeasurement; nor atthis time have anyclaims been made for itto provide a method ofmeasurement

* depends upon clearobjectives, andcoordination across theboard

* yes, but which partcontributes theeffectiveness?

Evaluation of MarcomsEffectiveness Made More

Difftcult by IMC

* it was difficult withoutIMC; ithasn't really got anyeasier

* it is easier to track IMCprograms, but how andwhere do you break dow nthe individual elements?

* as before, no commonexchange rate

* each element needs to bemeasured in its own right,the objective(s) of eachcampaign, itscommunication, and theintegrated outcomes willalso have to be measured

* should be no more but noless difficult

* the measurementtechniques will need tobe designed moresensitively, but it is to thebenefit of the client toknow which element iscontributing most strongly

* it will be more difficult atfirst, as it is new, but it isworth the struggle for

* sales is the fundamentalmeasure and this is mucheasier to relate to IMC

* IMC will/should allowclient companies tohave a greaterunderstanding of this totalmarketing and salesactivity

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:48

25

Aug

ust 2

012

474 Philip J. Kitchen and Don E. SchultzTable 3 Clients Budget Allocations for 1996

Function Mean SD Count CL@95%*

Advertising 51.3 19.3 34 6.5

Sales Promotion 21.0 12.3 32 4.3

Marketing PR 11.5 7.1 32 2.4

Direct Mktg 21.6 15.7 31 5.5Note means sum to more than 100%, not all respondents divulged thisinformation.

Most agencies do not get the opportunity to control all communicationprogrammes for clients, therefore the onus is on clients to develop and controlintegrated programmes.

Table 4 Internal Beliefs and Considerations About IMC

Abbreviated Statement1. Greater communications consistency2. Increased impact2. Creative ideas more impactual when !MC is used3. Increases impact of marcoms programmes4. Increased importance of one brand personality, one voice5. Enables greater client control over marc oms6. Helps eliminate misconceptions between multiple agencies7. Greater client control8. Provides client with greater professional expertise9. IMC necessitates fewer meetings10.Enables client consolidation of responsibilitiesII.Reduces cost of marcom programs12.Provides method for effective measurement13..Agencycan provide faster solutions

Mean SD9.25 1.029.03 1.599.03 1.598.92 1.248.61 1.507.85 2.047.62 2.397.49 2.517.28 1.987.14 2.317.01 2.066.87 2.066.55 2.836.15 2.27

Contingent IssuesFindings from the research now break into several subcategories. The first of

these relate to internal beliefs and considerations about IMC. Major aspects aresummarised in Table 4

Most agency executives indicated that !MC is a sound idea and has

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:48

25

Aug

ust 2

012

IMC - A UK Ad' Agency Perspective 475significant value for client organisations, not least of which are the idea of 'onevoice' and 'one brand personality', increased impact of marcoms programs andcreative ideas, and greater communications consistency. Notably IMC otTersthepromise of fewer statTmeetings, potentially lowers costs, and otTersgreater clientcontrol over marcoms programs. From the agency side the issues are stillpositive with greater perceived professional expertise offered to clients, but notnecessarily a basis for etTective measuremen~ though IMC does apparentlycontribute to decreased misconceptions between multiple agencies, presumablyas the client has greater control over the design of messages, media choices,and setting and evaluating stipulated objectives. Other explanations concerningelimination misconception may concern client sophistication, ie the greater thesophistication, the more experience clients have of operating in a multi-agencyenvironmen t However, this would require further in-depth study beyond theparameters of the current research.

It is interesting to evaluate the responses on a decreasing mean scale. Itappears that Statements I through 5, which have the highest agreement,primarily involve the product that advertising agencies produce, i.e. variousforms of advertising and communication. Those in the mid-range of agreement,Statements 6 through 9, seem to focus on how to do IMC. The tinal group,statements 10 through 13 all revolve around the value of !MC to the agency.So, while not necessarily being designed to do so, the mean rankings ofagreement with the "Internal Beliefs and Considerations About IMC" seem toindicate the varying values agencies put on the issues which IMC raises .Perhaps this reflects, to a certain extent, what agencies believe are their primaryinterests which they have then related to IMC. The least agreement occurredon the statement "Agency can prOvide faster solutions" which may indicate thatagencies believe integration takes more time or is more difficult to develop thantraditional advertising alone programs. This information, while highly promising,requires further examination with clients and agencies.

Table 5 offers further insight into the perceived interaction of multipleagencies:

Table 5 Perceived Interaction Among Differential Communication Agencies

2.962.21

SD1.961.53

1.53

3.29

2.467.06

7.31

6.70

Mean7.977.577.57

I.Closerinteraction between dilTerentmarcom agencies2.Clientfirms reliance on external marcoms personnel2.Agencies offer broader range of services beyond

advertising3.Closer interaction between DM and other marcom

agencies4.Closer interaction between PR and other marcom

agencies5.Closer interaction between SP and other marcom

agencies6.Clientsto work with variety of unaffiliatedagencies 5.37

DM= direct marketing,PR = public relations, SP = sales promotion

Abbreviated Statement

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:48

25

Aug

ust 2

012

476 Philip J. Kitchen and Don E. SchultzFrom the above table it can be seen that there is an expectation by advertisingagencies that clients will increasingly make use of integrated communicationsapproaches, generally though these are perceived as directed from 'one-stop'suppliers as opposed to a series of unaffiliated agencies. This suggests againthat IMC is more than a passing fad, but is likely to have considerablemanagerial implications for marcoms planning and strategy. The further pointto note is that in the UK, clients rather than agencies have the control when itcomes to designing, implementing and measuring IMC programmes. While 'onestop' shops seem a viable client-centred approach, disagreement (mean - 4.83)was expressed with the view that over the next three years client firms woulduse one advertising agency and its various divisions for their marcom needs.Thus while 'one-stop' shops may be emergent it does not necessarily follow thatthey will be selected for clients promotional needs. It seems more likely that thebattle for consistency, creativity, continuity, imagery, and past performance ofadvertising and other agencies activities in these areas will prove a usefulbarometer of future agency billings.

Again, if one compares agency executive responses on a decreasing meanscale in terms of agreement, it becomes clear that agencies believe their clientsexpect closer interaction of all communication elements and that both servicesand personnel are expected to support this need (Responses I, 2 and 3).Comparing these findings in Table 5 to those in Table 3 one can see how theperceptions of integration of the various specific disciplines such as salespromotion and public relations are reftected in the actual integration which istaking place.

TIme Allocated to Integrated ProgrammesTable 6 indicates the amount of time these executives estimated they

devoted to IMC programmes on behalf of client firms:

Table 6 Amount of Time Devoted to IMC Programmes For Client Firms

Amount of Time (%)

10 or Less10 - 2425 - 49

50 - 74

75 or more

PercentageDistribution

92823

30

9

As can be seen in this table, executives are spending a significant amount oftime on integrated programmes on behalf of client firms. Thus, whiledevelopment of IMC programs is not dominan~ it appears that it is receivingsubstantial time and attention from senior UK advertising agency executives.

Among the agencies, mean annual gross billings were £58.3 million whichaccount for in excess of total billings of £3.5billion (standard deviation 12.45).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:48

25

Aug

ust 2

012

2.34

2.402.082.512.422.172.262.282.45

SD1.672.512.082.062.251.75

6.09

5.235.035.004.354.213.943.773.49

Mean6.986.876.676.446.436.25

IMC - A UK Ad' Agency Perspective 477Expectations, following a period of recession in the UK, were on average thatincreases in billings in 1996 would be in the order of 12.3% (standard deviation1.3). The percentage of client budgets devoted to IMC programs by agencieswas 42% according to respondents. Thus, integrated programmes would appearto form a significant percentage of all billings for agencies (compare to Table 3).

Of concern to academicians and practitioners is the extent to which clientbudgets for marcoms to increase, stabilise, or decline in the near future. In thisstudy, 41 agencies expected client budgets to increase over the next three years(33 of these by up to 10% pa), 21 agencies expected client budgets to remain thesame, and the rest expected a decline. Given clients who had purportedlyintegrated, 33 agencies expected budgets to increase (26 by up to 10% pa), 25thought integrated firms budgets would remain the same, and the rest expecteda decrease of up to 10% pa. For firms which have integrated, 16 agenciesexpected client communications staff to increase, compared to 29 whoenvisioned the same staffing levels, and 20 who anticipated a decline in clientcommunications staff. Thus these findings, while inconclusive, offer thesuggestion that it may be difficult to substantiate the often-stated view that IMCis a client-driven effort to reduce costs or budget It appears at best that UKagencies believe that most of their clients will maintain the status quo or do noworse than par.Barriers to /Me Programmes

Factors derived from the literature were evaluated to see whether theyconstituted barriers to the adoption of IMC as a concept or IMC in terms of aprogram for client firms. Table 8 indicates the level of agreement to barriers to!Me programs.Table 8 Perceived Barriers to IMC ProgramsAbbreviated Statementl.IMCprogs' at one agency helps bring client SBU's together2.Integrated agencies do not have talent in all marcom areas3.IMCmeans client staff have to develop new skills4.IMCgives a few individuals too much control5.Requires client staff to be more generalist6.Clientstaff lack expertise to undertake IMCprograms7.Client organisational structures constrain IMC

development8.Clientcentralisation difficulties9. Clients decide the 'what' and 'how' of IMCprogramslO.Over-dependenceon single suppliersII.Goes against client's corporate culture12.IMCimplies additional staff to manage programs13.IMCprograms modificationdifficulties14.Increased cost15.Providesadvertising agencies with too much control

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:48

25

Aug

ust 2

012

478 Philip J. Kitchen and Don E. SchultzIn the responses to the questions on Perceived Barriers to IMC Programs, theagencies tended to agree with statements which suggested that clients wouldhave difficulty with the development of integrated programs (Responses 3,5,6,7and 8) while at the same time, they disagreed that the development of IMCwould be a problem for them (Responses 12, 13, 14 and 15). Interestingly,agency executives most strongly agreed that IMC programs at one agency couldhelp bring client SBUs together. Thus, agency executives indicate that whileclients may have problems developing and implementing IMC programs, theybelieve they can offer potential solutions, but the probability of any alternativeresponse is questionable. However, the respondents did agree that IntegratedAgencies do not have the talent in all marcom areas, but still [apparently] candrive an integrated effort more effectively than clients. From responses to thequestion, it is difficult to determine if agency personnel were referring to theirown agenCies or other agencies which bill themselves as integrated or capableof integration but it does reinforce the idea that most agenCies believe they arevery skilled at the development of advertising but are somewhat lacking in otherpromotional areas. Advertising agencies have always seen themselves as thepremier supplier of marketing communications, in other words that marketingcommunication programmes other than advertising need to be 'added on' orintegrated into the advertising programme, rather than vice versa. This mayhave affected the way(s) in which agency representatives had responded tosome of the questions about the value of integration.

Is /Me a Management Fad!

Table 9 Marketing Communication CriteriaAbbreviated StatementI. Call for synergy among promotional tools2. Changes in media bUying practices3. Rapid growth and development of database marketing4. Recognition that IMC for clients equates to further

growth5. Rapid growth in IMC importance6 Emergence of a variety of compensation methods7. Fragmentation of media markets8. Changing role of advertising agencies9. Shift in marketplace power from manufacturers to

retailers10.Ongoing revolution changing rules of marketingII.Lack of 'rules of marketing'12.Escalating price competition13.Shift in advertising £'s to sales promotion14.Traditional advg too expensive & not cost effective

Mean7.757.747.52

7.497.327.207.076.60

6.56

6.355.825.775.585.30

SD1.591.591.85

1.82

1.742.202.022.422.00

2.302.181.921.922.31

Table 9 appears to resolve the question of whether IMC is simply amanagement fad or a the renection of a major change in the field of marketing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:48

25

Aug

ust 2

012

IMC - A UK Ad' Agency Perspective 479communications. From the responses to the questions regarding MarketingCommunications Criteria, it becomes clear that the advertising agencyrespondents see marketplace changes which are truly reflective of substantialchange. For example, those statements such as "Changes in Media BuyingPractices" (mean 7.74, s.d. 1.4), "Fragmentation of media markets" (mean 7.07,s.d. 2.02), "Changing Role of Advertising Agencies" (mean 6.60, s.d. 2.42), "Shiftin Marketplace Power from Manufacturers to Retailers" (mean 6.56, s.d.2.00),"Ongoing Revolution Changing Rules of Marketing" (mean 6.35, s.d. 2.30) and"Lack of 'Rules of Marketing'" (mean 5.82, s.d. 2.18) all appear to confirm thatagencies perceive or have observed substantial change in the general structureof the marketplace and their role in it. Thus, they feel a need to respond to theirclient's changing needs. There appears to be some slight dissonance withregard to whether advertising is perceived as too expensive and not costetTective, compared to the shift in advertising £'s toward sales promotion.Evidently, further research is needed on both these issues.

The drive for IMC appears to be stemming from all areas of client functions,i.e., corporate management (mean 6.94), marketing (7.72), advertising (6.67),andsales management (6.28). Notably marketing management lead the ranks forsupporting IMC initiatives, ably seconded by corporate management. Thisappears to bode well for the development of IMC based on the seniormanagement support which appears to be present.

Perhaps a major factor underpinning this management support relates tobudgetary or measurement considerations. Based on this study, client budgetsare likely to be centrally controlled over the next three years (mean 7.57), butthis does not necessarily relate to a belief, however founded, that throughintegrated approaches, budgets will be held in check for greater etTectiveness.In relation to measurement issues agreement was expressed with the view thatIMC does appear to provide a basis for more etTective measurement (see Table1.5).

Discussion

The research confirms that IMC is developing and/or of importance within firmsserved by UK advertising agencies. Also, it is of importance to the agenciesthemselves in the way(s) they conduct their business. As might be expected inan advertising agency context advertising is being integrated more rapidly thanother marcom functions. From this perspective IMC is not a management fadas advertising agency statT are spending 25% of more of their time on integratedprogrammes. Moreover, the trend is toward more, not less, integration. IMC isbeing driven by fundamental changes in the marcoms business such as thedevelopment of databases, media fragmentation, client desires for interaction,coordination, and synergy. The agencies concern is much more on practice andfacilitation rather than an understanding of how or why IMC needs to be done.Measurement of integrated communications is of crucial significance to adagencies and measurement of IMC is more readily comprehensible now than atany time in the past

In Tables 1 and 2 it clearly shows that a significant amount of time andbudget is being devoted to integration. Agency executives seem to spend a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:48

25

Aug

ust 2

012

480 Philip J. Kitchen and Don E. Schultzsubstantive amount and money of time on integrated activities. Referring tointernal beliefs, agencies believed that clients have to develop IMC. Unlessclients demand/require integrated programme, with all that entails, integration ismost unlikely to take place. Agencies believe that they can do the coordinationbut not necessarily all the activities within the agency - ie the agencies seethemselves as the general contractor. Thus while they may not have all theskills in-house, from the planning standpoint they believe they could be helpful.

Following up the previous point, agencies could well be the vehicle wherebyIMC becomes the norm, but it is doubtful that individual agencies will begranted authority to develop integrated programmes on behalf of clients, simplybecause of the ceding of control this would entail by clients. Despite thisperceived reluctance the future of advertising agencies may well lie in theirability to work with other marc om agencies, prOvide a broader range of services,and fultil the coordination and the evaluation function. If this is the case itchanges the agency from a tactical implementor to a strategic partner. This, ofcourse, raises major compensation issues (Table 9). Agencies currently have avariety of compensation methods (7.2 ranking on the scale of agreement) andthese are likely to be further diversified.

Conclusion

The major points from this exploratory research are:

1. The critical issue concerning IMC is that of evaluation and measurementof integrated programs. This issue, as yet, has not been soundly addressedby advertising agencies or clients, and still remains ambiguous among writersin this area. Part of the difficulty is that traditionally advertising, salespromotion, direct marketing, and the public relations diSCiplines havedeveloped separate and distinct measurement approaches - themeasurement of integrated programs which can estimate the synergybetween elements is a totally new field which remains relativelyundeveloped.2. Public relations is that part of marketing communications which is lessintegrated than other marcom activities. While the reason for this maybe thepublic relations boundary spanning role, integrated communications seemsto require a more interactive approach with the promise of greater synergy.3. The primary value that agencies see with IMC is the consistency, impact,and continuity which an integrated program provides.4. This continuity aspect is to be expected of agencies since they generallyhave long term and continuing relationships with clients whereas salespromotion, direct marketing, and public relations are often handled on aproject basis so it would be expected that agencies would focus more oncommunication continuity than on short term projects.5. IMC is being taken very seriously by an important group of marcompractitioners who ostensibly may have wished to stay in the advertisingfunction, but whose role is diversifying and expanding as driven by marketforces.6. Barriers to !MC would appear to be the lack of synergy among

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:48

25

Aug

ust 2

012

IMC - A UK Ad' Agency Perspective 481promotional tools. The focus in the past has been on specialisation butintegration calls for generalists, ie the ability to consolidate and bring togetherall the specialisms but in a single, structured, comprehensive, andmeasurable fashion. Generalists will need not a broad vacuous overview,but a deep appreciation of all communication disciplines; and, how toperceive their interactions from two angles - 1. The organisational context;and 2. The consumer dimension. Indeed one might view this as a systemsapproach to the development of marketing communications similar to thesystems approaches which have been developed in manufacturing anddistribu tion.7. IMC is not a management fad, but is a fundamental and marked shift inthinking and practice of marketing communications of clients and advertisingagenCies as reflected by agency executives.

IMC is a new approach to marketing communications planning being driven bytechnology, customers, consumers, and by organisational desire to properlyallocate finite resources. IMC is still an emerging discipline and integration islike a transition between the old historical prOduct-driven outbound marketingsystems versus the new information-driven interactive consumer focussedmarketplaces of the twenty first century.

Directions for Further Research

From the analysis of these advertising agency executives responses to thequestions regarding the development and implementation of IntegratedMarketing Communications in the United Kingdom, several pertinent researchissues become clear.

First, while !MC is growing in use and popularity, there is really no cleardefinition of what it is nor what it encompasses. While we used a definitiondeveloped by Schultz (I 993), it is clear that Changes in approach, themarketplace and technOlogy demand that the concept be further defined andrefined. Until we can agree on what IMC is, it is extremely difficult to buildmuch of a theory base. So, while IMC appears to be much like pornography (Iwill know it when I see it) it leaves much to be desired in terms of scholarly andthoughtful development of the concept and approach. Much of this likely stemsfrom the practitioner community who appear to be saying it is not as importantto understand and define IMe as it is to tind ways to practice it for that is thedemand of the moment.

Second, we found an underlying theme in most of the responses whichcentered on the need to find ways to measure the impact and effect of all typesof marketing communications, not just IMC. Much of this no doubt comes fromthe frustration of both scholars and practitioners to find suitable and effectivemethods of measuring the impact of various marketing communicationsfunctional activities such as advertising, publiC relations and sales promotion. Itappears that many of the practitioners who responded to the questionnairebelieved that IMC would or could provide a new method or approach tomarketplace effectiveness measurement. So, while we have been unable tosolve the riddle of functional communication activity measurement, hope seems

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:48

25

Aug

ust 2

012

482 Philip J. Kitchen and Don E. Schultzto spring eternal and that hope is based on some type of IMC measurementsystem or approach which will provide the (or a) solution. Present levels of IMCpractice and understanding do not provide these answers to this. In otherwords this is a substantial area for development.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, there are methodological issues thatneed to be addressed. The adaptation of the questionnaire from its USAmoorings should perhaps have been preceded or followed by depth interviewswith clients and advertising agency executives. These interviews, among otherthings, it is suggested, should focus primarily on the strategic, conceptual, andpractical parameters of IMC (ie what it means and how it works) in order todevelop a revised definition, while simultaneously moving forward the subject ofhow to evaluate integrated approaches. This latter issue is absolutely crucial tofurther developmen t of the IMC domain and yet seems to be an issue that istackled using individual evaluative mechanisms as in those used for ad-effect,direct marketing effec~ and so forth. Practitioners and researchers in the area,in our view, would do well to tackle this area, probably by means of casestudies. Until this is done, IMC, however conceptually attractive, will not moveforward as rapidly.

Finally, despite the fact that !MC appears to be driven by new technologyand new marketplace information such as that gathered or contained indatabases and other repositories, there does not seem to be any consistentmethodology or approach for developing or implementing an IMe plan. Whilemanagement tools such as marketing and financial plans are well developedtoday, there appears to be no real system, concept or approach for developingan integrated communications plan. If IMC is to grow and mature asrespondents to this survey have indicated it mus~ IMC must have its owntheoretical base, i.e., this is why one develops integrated programs, this is howone goes about i~ and this is how one evaluates whether or not the integratedplan or program is strong or weak. It is this lack of intellectual support for IMCwhich sorely needs addressing. There must be more to IMC than simply takinga set of functional activities and trying to make them look alike or sound alikeor the current theme "one sigh~ one sound". In our view, it is the need fortheoretical development which is the key. If the theoretical base can bedeveloped, which depends to a great extent on definitional agreement, then theissue of measurement should be pOSSibleand practical.

References

Baumann, T. (1989) "How Quaker Oats Transforms Information into MarketLeadership" Sales and Marketing Managemen~ June, p79.

Belch, G.E. and Belch, MA (1995) Introduction to Advertising and Promotion:An Integrated Marketing Communications Perspective, 3rd Edition, Irwin,Chicago,IL.

Brannan, T. (1995) A Practical Guide to Integrated Marketing Communications,Kogan Page, London.

Business Week (1994) "A Potent Tool for Selling: Database Marketing"September 5, pp56-62.

Caywood, C., Schultz, D. and Wang, P. (199I) "Integrated Marketing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:48

25

Aug

ust 2

012

IMC - A UK Ad' Agency Perspective 483Communications: A Survey of National Goods Advertisers" unpublishedreport, Medill School of Journalism, Northwestern University, June, pp 1-42.

Crane, D. (1972) Invisible Colleges and Social Circle: A SociologicalInterpretation of Scientiiic Growth, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Duncan, T. (1993) "Integrated Marketing? It's Synergy" Advertising Age, Volume64, March 8, p22.

Duncan, T. (1995) "The Concept and Process of Integrated MarketingCommunication" Integrated Marketing Communications Research Journal,Volume 1, Spring, pp3-1O.

Duncan, T. and Everett S.E. (993) "Client Perceptions of Integrated MarketingCommunications" Journal of Advertising Research, Volume 33, May-June,pp30-39.

Duncan, T. and Caywood, C. (1996) "The Concept Process, and Evolution ofIntegrated Marketing Communications" in Thorson, E. and Moore, J. (Eds)Integrated Communications: Synergy of Persuasive Voices, Hillsdale, NJ,Earlbaum, pp 13-34.

Eagle, L; Hyde, K; Fourie, W; Padisetti, N; Kitchen, P.J. (1998) "IMC: AComparative New Zealand Study" under review by the Asia-AustraliaMarketing Journal.

Fletcher, K (1995) Information Technology and Marketing Managemen~ 2ndEdition, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Grein, AF. and Gould, S.J. (996) "Globally Integrated MarketingCommunications" Journal of Marketing Communications, Volume 2, No 3,ppI41-158.

Gronstedt, A (1997) "Internet: IMC on Steroids" Marketing News, May 26, p9.Gronstedt, A and Thorsen, R (996) "Five Approaches to Organise an Integrated

Marketing Communications Agency" Journal of Advertising Research,March/April, pp48-58.

Hopper, M. (1990) "Rattling SABRE - New Ways to Compete on Information"Harvard Business Review, May-June, ppI25-126.

Hutton, J. (1995) "Integrated Marketing Communications and the Evolution ofMarketing Thought" paper presented at the American Academy ofAdvertising Annual Conference, March, and Journal of Business Research,March/April, Volume 37, ppI55-162.

Jackson, R. and Wang, P. (1994) Strategic Database Marketing, Lincolnwood, IL,NTC Publishing.

Journal of Marketing Communications (996) special edition devoted toIntegrated Marketing Communications, Volume 2, No 3, guest edited by DonSchultz.

Junu, BK (993) "Databases Open Doors for Retailers" Advertising Age, Volume64, 15 February, pp38-39.

Keegan, WJ. (1995) Global Marketing Managemen~ Prentice Hall International,5th Edition, pp553-578.

Kiely, M. (1993a) "Integrated Marketing: Starting Out" Marketing (Australia)April, pp44-46.

Kiely, M. (1993b) Integrated Marketing: Way of the Future or Ghost from thePast?" Marketing (Australia), February, pp51-56.

Kitchen, P.J. and Proctor RA (199 I) "The Increasing Importance of Public

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:48

25

Aug

ust 2

012

484 Philip J. Kitchen and Don E. SchultzRelations in UK FMCG Firms" Journal ot Marketing Managemen~ Volume 7,pp357-39I

Kitchen, P.J. (1993) "Marketing Communications Renaissance" InternationalJournal ot Advertising, Volume 12, No 4, pp367-386.

Kitchen, P.J. (1994) "The Marketing Communications Revolution: A LeviathanUnveiled?" Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Volume 12, No 2, ppI9-25.

Kitchen, P.J. (1996) Quotes from unpublished letters from leading UKacademies, and CEO's in UK Public Limited Companies.

Kitchen, P.J. and Moss, DA (1995) "Marketing and Public Relations: TheRelationship Revisited" Journal of Marketing Communications, Volume 1, No2, ppI05-119.

Kitchen, P.J. and Wheeler, C. (1996) "Global Developments in MarketingCommunications: A Time of Renaissance or Reflection?" under considerationby the Journal of Advertising Research.

Kotler, P. (1972) "A Generic Concept of Marketing" Journal of Marketing,Volume 36, No 2, pp46-50.

Kotler, P. (1986) "Megamarketing" Harvard Business Review, Volume 64, No 2,ppI17-124.

Kotler, P. (1997) Marketing Managemen~ 9th edition, Prentice Hall International,pp603-635.

Krugman, D.M. et aI (1994) Advertising: Its Role in Modem Marketing, 8thEdition, Dryden Press, New York.

Kuhn, T.S. (1964) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Phoenix, University ofChicago Press.

Linton, I. and Morley, K (1995) Integrated Marketing CommunicationsButterworth- Heinemann, Oxford.

Mills, C.W. (1964) The Sociological Imagination, Oxford University Press, NewYork, pp31-72.

Nowak, G. and Phelps, J. (1994) "The Integrated Marketing Communications'Phenomenon: An Examination of its Impact on Advertising Practices and itsImplications for Advertising Research" Journal of Current Issues andResearch in Advertising, Volume 16, No I, pp49-66.

Novelli, W.D. (1989-1990) "One-Stop Shopping: Some Thoughts on IntegratedMarketing Communications" Public Relations Quarterly, (Winter) pp7-8.

Phelps, J. Plumley, J. and Johnson, E. (I994) "Integrated MarketingCommunications: Who is Doing What?" in King, KW. (ed) Proceedings of the1994 Conference ot the American Academy ot Advertising, University ofGeorgia, Athens, GA ppI43-145.

Powell, T. (1991) "Despite Myths, Secondary Research is a Valuable Tool"Marketing News, September 21, pp28, 33.

Raypor~ G.F. and Sviokla, J.G. (1994) "Managing and Marketspace", HarvardBusiness Review, NovemberlDecember.

Rose, P.B. (1996) "Practitioner Opinions and Interests Regarding IMC in SelectedLatin American Countries" Journal otMarketing Communications, Volume 2,No 3, ppI25-139.

Shocker, AD. Srivastava, RK and Ruekert, RW. (1994) "Challenges andOpportunities Facing Brand Management: An Introduction" Journal ofMarketing Research, Spring, pp 149-157.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:48

25

Aug

ust 2

012

IMC - A UK Ad' Agency Perspective 485Schultz, D.E. (1991) "Integrated Marketing Communications: The Status of

Integrated Marketing Communications Programs in the US Today" Journal ofPromotion Managemen~ Volume I, No I, pp 37-41.

Schultz, D.E.Tannenbaum, S.1.and Lauterborn, RF. (1992) Integrated MarketingCommunications: Pulling It Together and Making It Work, NTC BusinessBooks, Illinois.

Schultz, D.E. (1993) "Integrated Marketing Communications: Maybe Definition isin the Point of View" Marketing News, January 18, pI7.

Schultz D.E. (1996) "Integrating the Organisation's Infonnation Resources"Marketing News.

Shimp, TA (1993) Promotion Management and Marketing Communjcations, 3rdEdition, Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich International Edition (nb fourth editionis far more integrated in its approach).

Sloan, J.R "Ad Agencies Should Learn the Facts of Life" Marketing News,February 28, p4.

Smith, P.R (1993) Marketing Communications: An Integrated Approach, KoganPage, London.

Smith, P.R. (1996) "Benefits and Barriers to Integrated MarketingCommunications" ADMAP. February.

Wall St Journal, (1994) "Companies Go On-Line to Chat, Spy, and Rebut"September 15, ppB I, B6.

Waterschoot, W. and Bulte, C. (1992) "The Four P Classification of theMarketing Mix Revisited" Journal of Marketing, Volume 56, October, pp83-93.

Wolter, 1. (1993) "Superficiality, Ambiguity Threatens IMC's Implementation andFuture" Marketing News, Volume 27, September 13, p12.

Zikmund W.G. and D'Amico, M. (1996) Marketing, 5th Edition, West PublishingCompany, New York, pp482-515.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:48

25

Aug

ust 2

012

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:48

25

Aug

ust 2

012