The Relationship between Integrated Marketing Communication, Market Orientation, and

Brand Orientation
Author(s): Mike Reid, Sandra Luxton and Felix Mavondo
Source: Journal of Advertising, Vol. 34, No. 4, Integrated Marketing Communication (IMC)
(Winter, 2005), pp. 11-23
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: [Link]
Accessed: 01-03-2022 08:03 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@[Link].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
[Link]

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Advertising

This content downloaded from [Link] on Tue, 01 Mar 2022 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTEGRATED MARKETING COMMUNICATION,
MARKET ORIENTATION, AND BRAND ORIENTATION
Mike Reid, Sandra Luxton, and Felix Mavondo

ABSTRACT: This paper relates integrated marketing communication (IMC) to market orientation (MO), brand orientation
(BO), and external performance measures. The perspective adopted here argues that for clarity of meaning, IMC should be
grounded and interpreted with these other concepts in mind. Specifically, this paper clarifies the links between IMC, MO,
and BO, and proposes a testable model linking the relationships among these concepts and facets of customers, and
organizational performance. The paper concludes by discussing implications of the study for both academics and practitioners.

Marketing communication plays an important role in build- state: "It is very difficult to conceptualize the big picture and
ing and maintaining stakeholder relationships, and in le- to muster all the organizational influences needed to achieve
veraging these relationships in terms of brand and channel integration. There are many levels and dimensions to inte-
equity (Dawar 2004; Duncan and Moriarty 1998; Lannon gration which all pose their individual and collective diffi-
and Cooper 1983; Srivastava, Fahey, and Shervani 2000; culties. To be implemented, IMC requires the involvement of
White 1999). As Dawar states: "Advertising and promo- the whole organization and its agents from the chief execu-
tions of brands drive traffic and sales volume; marketing tive downward. It needs consideration from the highest cor-
efforts and outcomes are measured and managed at the brand porate strategic level down to the day-to-day implementation
level; and brands are central to a firm's responses to short- of individual tactical activity."
term competitive moves. In effect, brands have become the In recognizing this complexity, this paper attempts to ex-
focal point of many a company's marketing efforts and are plain the role of IMC in organizations. The paper also at-
seen as a source of market power, competitive leverage and tempts to delineate or establish a relationship between IMC,
higher returns" (2004, p. 31). market orientation (MO), and an emerging concept of brand
In response to concerns about the impact of hostile mar- orientation (BO) by proposing that both MO and BO are nec-
keting environments on brand equity and increased manage- essary conditions for successful IMC. We accept that IMC can
ment expectations related to marketing performance and be conceived at two distinct levels, that is, strategic or tacti-
accountability, many organizations are considering how to cal; however, we will emphasize the strategic component of
improve the management and integration of their marketing IMC, which takes into account the cultural and learning re-
communication programs using integrated marketing com- quirements of positioning brands over time. The paper rec-
munication (IMC). Nevertheless, various authors support the ognizes the complementarities between IMC to MO and BO,
contention that there is ambiguity surrounding the defini- and how each addresses a critical facet of achieving a com-
tion of IMC, with no consistent or mutually agreed upon petitive advantage through building brand equity.
meaning, and with many areas in need of clarification (Baker Figure 1 introduces our discussion and presents the rela-
and Mitchell 2000; Beard 1996; Cornelissen 2001; Duncan tionship between the three concepts. Briefly, market orienta-
and Mulhern 2004; Kitchen and Schultz 1999; Low 2000; tion represents the culture of the organization through the
Phelps 1996). This ambiguity is likely to have an impact on adoption of the marketing concept and the systems and pro-
the development of measures to operationalize and assess IMC cesses that underlie being market oriented (Harris 1998).
in organizations. Indeed, Pickton and Hartley (1998, p. 450) Brand orientation represents the fuinctional or business-unit
focus on brands and brand strategies that support strong cus-
tomer and stakeholder relationships regardless of the brand
Mike Reid (Ph.D., Otago University) is a senior lecturer in the De- being at the corporate or product level, or being a service or a
partment of Marketing, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
manufactured good (Bridson and Evans 2004). IMC in this
Sandra Luxton ([Link].-Research, UniSA) is a senior lecturer in the
Department of Marketing, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the positive and constructive
Felix Mavondo (Ph.D., Monash University) is a professor in the De- feedback from the guest editorial team-Tom Duncan, Don E. Schultz,
partment of Marketing, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. and Charles Patti-and from two anonymous reviewers.

Journal of Advertising, vol. 34, no. 4 (Winter 2005), pp. 1 1-23.

C 2005 American Academy of Advertising. All rights reserved.
ISSN 0091-3367 / 2005 $9.50 + 0.00.

This content downloaded from [Link] on Tue, 01 Mar 2022 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
12 The Journal of Advertising

FIGURE 1 leverage the market- and customer-sensing mechanisms of

Intersection of Integrated Marketing Communication the organization to devise message and media strategies, and
(IMC) and Market and Brand Orientation adopt an informed approach to choosing and orchestrating
the right tools for the communication task.
In furthering the debate and development of the IMC con-
cept, Kitchen, Joanne, and Tao (2004) suggest that IMC is
- Aspects of organizational culture
- - Linked to organization P the major communications development of the last decade,
/Lnto i performance S and that it is a potential driver of competitive advantage. The
- Organization-wide lea ('ing

power of IMC is said to counter a range of changes in the

~~~~Cmpetitor
Brand orientationrenttio orientatio
marketing communication environment that are having an
impact on the ability of companies to attract, retain, and le-
/ Brandvlue-addincapabilty - Cus tomer andkn e
/ \orientation / \coordinativity verage customers. Kitchen, Joanne, and Tao (2004) also argue

/ Brand orientation R comiten that IMC seems to have passed through, and is still passing
| -Shared brand vision > - t ) IMC through, significant debate over its meaning and purpose, and
-Shared brand functionality Bad -Driven by market-based assets
-Shared brand positioning identity and perfomrance expectations that it is struggling to emerge and distinguish itself from
L -Link to financial perform,ance -Strategic consistency
-Symbolic value of brand ("one voice/one look") other marketing concepts such as integrated marketing, CRM
\ -Brand value-adding capability \ /-Customer and stakeholder / (customer relationship management), and market orientation.
\ \ / ~~~~~~~~~~~~connectivity/
\ \ / - ~~~~~~~~~Resource commitment From Kitchen, Joanne, and Tao's (2004) perspective, IMC
needs to be seen as a new paradigm that will facilitate the
management of marketing communication.
IMC is centered on building and leveraging customer and
model represents the development of integrated marketing consumer interests and relationships. This relationship ori-
communication to achieve stated brand and communication entation ties IMC to one-to-one marketing and CRM, and
objectives, and provides the bridge between brand strategy challenges managers to deal with the integration, alignment,
and actions taken to build the necessary customer and stake- measurement, and accountability of both traditional and new
holder relationships. In doing so, IMC draws on the cultural interactive marketing approaches (Baker and Mitchell 2000).
predisposition to work cooperatively, leveraging the market- In further extending this notion of customer-oriented com-
and customer-sensing mechanisms of the organization to de- munication, managers must realize that as long as IMC pro-
vise message and media strategies. Furthermore, it adopts an vides the organization with a superior market advantage, on
informed zero-based approach to choosing the appropriate occasions, it can be a market driver, and on others, it may be
tools for the communication task and is also linked to brand market driven (Carrillat, Jaramillo, and Locander 2004;
and target-market history through the learning mechanisms Duncan and Mulhern 2004;Jaworski, Kohli, and Sahay 2000).
of a market- and brand-oriented organization (Stewart 1996).
In justifying and presenting our model, we first present a
Defining IMC and Philosophy
background to the IMC, MO, and BO concepts, highlighting
various approaches to conceptualizing IMC and the linkages Since initial attempts to define IMC in the early 1990s, an
to MO and BO. We then present a model that illustrates the abundance of definitions have emerged, and have been dis-
testable relationships between market orientation, brand ori- cussed in detail in many recent papers (Duncan 2002; Gould
entation, and IMC, as well as the linkages to performance 2004; Kitchen, Joanne, and Tao 2004; Kliatchko 2005). In
outcomes. Finally, we discuss the managerial and research Duncan's representation, IMC is seen as "a process for manag-
implications of this paper. ing the customer relationships that drive brand value. More
specifically, it is a cross-functional process for creating and

THE CONCEPT AND DIMENSIONS OF IMC nourishing profitable relationships with customers and other
stakeholders by strategically controlling or influencing all
In a recent white paper on IMC (Duncan and Mulhern 2004), messages sent to these groups and encouraging data driven,
it was stated that its scope was expanding and the concept purposeful dialogue with them" (2002, p. 8).
and process were still evolving. It was also argued that IMC is As an indication of ongoing conceptual and theoretical de-
generally considered to be a philosophy or process related to velopment, a recent IMC white paper suggested that IMC should
strategically managing all brand messages in a way that con-
tributes to the building of strong brands. In attempting to * be more strategic than executional,
achieve this aim, managers of the IMC process are likely to * be about more than just advertising and sales
draw on the cultural predisposition to work cooperatively, promotion messages,

This content downloaded from [Link] on Tue, 01 Mar 2022 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 Winter 2005 13

* include two-way as well as one-way communication, and stood that the strategic dimension of marketing management
* be results driven. is the framework that provides guidance for actions (tactics)
to be taken, and, at the same time, is shaped by the actions
This has led to a redefinition of IMC as "an on-going, interac- taken and the response to such actions by competitors, cus-
tive, cross-functional process of brand communication plan- tomers, and other stakeholders. In a broad sense, strategic
ning, execution, and evaluation that integrates all parties in focus emphasizes the proper identification of market oppor-
the exchange process in order to maximize mutual satisfac- tunities as the basis for marketing planning and growth, with
tion of each other's wants and needs" (Duncan and Mulhern the objective of achieving sustainable competitive advantage
2004, p. 9). This redefinition reflects a shift to view the man- (Rust et al. 2004). Tactical dimensions relate to the shorter-
agement of marketing communication more as an interweav-
term activities to be used in implementing those strategies to
ing of processes that cross traditional departmental boundaries,
achieve planned marketing objectives.
employing the knowledge and skills of specialists and non- This division into strategic and tactical dimensions is con-
specialists alike (Cornelissen 2001). sidered to be congruent with earlier classifications according
IMC is also regarded by some as a management philoso- to vertical and horizontal integration (Cornelissen 2001; Smith
phy to be incorporated into the organization's approach to 1996) and process and organizational levels (Duncan and
business (Cornelissen 2001; Duncan 1998), whereas others Moriarty 1998). Vertical integration requires that marketing
regard it primarily as a process of campaign development con-
and communication objectives be aligned with higher-level
nected to a wider brand strategy (Nowak and Phelps 1994;
corporate objectives and corporate missions, whereas horizontal
Percy 1997). The notion of IMC as a philosophy or concept was integration focuses on the marketing mix and coordination
evident as early as 1991 in the widely cited definition by the across business functions such as production, finance, and dis-
American Association of Advertising Agencies (see Caywood,
tribution. All personnel in these functional areas are required
Schultz, and Wang 1991). Furthermore, Duncan and Everett, to work cooperatively and consistently, conscious that deci-
when speaking of the experience in large U.S.-based organiza-
sions made by any of them can send messages that ultimately
tions, suggested, "an organization that has an IMC philosophy
influence customers (Smith 1996). This is also consistent with
may or may not physically integrate into one department the
Petrison and Wang's (1996) proposition that IMC could be
people responsible for the various marketing communication interpreted in two distinct ways: "planning integration" and
functions, although the trend is to do so" (1993, p. 31).
"executional integration." Planning integration advocates that
IMC as a philosophy suggests that an organization may
to maximize efficiency and effectiveness, marketers need to
subscribe to the concept of integrating communication coordinate all marketing activities to ensure that they are in
whereby the emphasis is on raising awareness of the benefits,
line with the overall strategy of the product and brand (verti-
and hence intention, to integrate communication messages.
cal), whereas executional integration is associated with con-
Establishing a positive and conscious attitude toward inte-
sistency between communication messages (horizontal). It is
gration may build "esprit de corps" with a flow-on effect on
useful to point out that implementing integration of any kind
what is done and how it is done, that is, organizational artifacts
is fraught with difficulty and requires management to over-
and values (Harris 1998). This may occur without necessarily
come many barriers in the process (see Baker and Mitchell
physically integrating the functional areas responsible for mes-
2000; Duncan and Everett 1993; Kitchen and Schultz 1999;
sage creation and delivery (Duncan and Everett 1993; Stewart
Pickton and Hartley 1998; Smith 1996).
1996). At its most basic, it may be a matter of directing inter-
The division between strategic and tactical dimensions is
nal staff and external service providers such as advertising agen-
also reflected in Schultz's (Schultz 1998; Schultz and Schultz
cies to ensure that positioning strategy and communication
1998) representation of integration as a continuum from
consistency are attained. In this sense, the guiding philosophy
lower-level integration through to "absolute integration" in-
acknowledges the value of IMC, legitimizes the language used,
volving a number of evolutionary phases:
and sees coordinated and integrated communication processes
as a desired outcome. We view the philosophical domain of Phase 1: Tactical coordination of messages that
IMC as being similar to that of brand orientation, to which it ensures consistent depiction of core values.
is strongly related and which is discussed below.
Phase 2: Redefining the scope of marketing
communications to take an "outside-in"
IMC as Process approach, with all potential communication focused
on consumers' perceptions.
Duncan and Mulhern (2004) note that a common element to
most of the recent definitions of IMC is its representation as Phase 3: Application of information technology
either a strategic or tactical process. It is commonly under- to turn customer data into customer knowledge.

This content downloaded from [Link] on Tue, 01 Mar 2022 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
14 The Journal of Advertising

TABLE I

Strategic Tactical
Strategic and Tactical Characteristics of Integrated Marketing Communication (IMC)

I. Driven by market-based assets and financial expectations 1. Campaign-level consistency

2. Customer and stakeholder connectivity 2. Campaign-level clarity
3. Strategic consistency 3. Campaign-level coordination
4. Cross-functional integration
5. Resource commitment for IMC

Phase 4: Strategic and financial integration for consistent linkages to building and maintaining brand equity
consistent monitoring ofperformance of marketing and to financial indicators of performance such as sales, market

communication efforts for return on investment. share, profit, and return on investment. The use of improved
data and measurement technologies are paramount in shaping
A review of the contributions of various researchers has been IMC and facilitating its acceptance by senior management.
undertaken to elucidate the components of IMC that poten-
tially fall under the banner of strategic versus tactical aspects
2. Customer and Stakeholder Connectivity
of IMC, which is summarized in Table 1. The significance of
this division is the recognition that IMC is a holistic process. IMC requires the adoption of an "outside-in" approach that
While bringing the global or "big picture" strategic aspects enhances customer connectivity and organizational respon-
of IMC to the fore has been widely advocated, it is nonethe- siveness to change by putting the customer first (Duncan
less still critical to ensure that the day-to-day management of and Moriarty 1997; Pickton and Hartley 1998; Schultz 1998;
tactical aspects are not overlooked or taken as a "given" if an Smith 1996). More specifically, IMC planners and strate-
effective IMC approach is to be implemented. In essence, re- gists require the existence, calibration, and application of a
cent definitions (such as those highlighted earlier) reflect these marketing information system designed to elicit a clear un-
dual aspects of IMC. derstanding of brand touch points, effect a timely dialogue
While strategic-level IMC relates to effecting the brand- with customers and other key stakeholders, and facilitate
positioning strategy in a holistic sense, the tactical aspects of insights into competitive brand activity. The existence of a
IMC primarily relate to the planning and implementation of database calibrated to measure customer and stakeholder re-
individual holistic campaigns that, over time, work to build sponsiveness of campaigns will also facilitate measurement
and reinforce brand positioning and contribute incrementally of performance.
to building strong customer-based brand equity. In essence,
this should reflect best practice in developing and implement- 3. Strategic Consistency
ing individual campaigns. For the purposes of this paper, our
focus is primarily on the strategic aspects of IMC. This dimension recognizes that all parts of the brand entity
send a message to customers and other stakeholders. The co-
ordination of brand messages, from whatever source, includ-
Strategic Dimensions of IMC
ing other aspects of the marketing mix, coordination of
The strategic dimensions of IMC relate primarily to the qual- customer-facing staff, and, more broadly, contact with the
ity, comprehensiveness, and flexibility of the process of IMC organization, must be consistent to protect brand image
planning and strategy development. In this model, the pa- (Duncan and Moriarty 1997). Achieving strategic consistency
rameters of IMC at the strategic level can be grouped under has also been likened to central coordination of IMC programs
five broad dimensions: (Cornelissen 2001; Duncan and Moriarty 1997; Eagle and
Kitchen 2000; Low 2000; Pickton and Hartley 1998). En-
abling strategic consistency requires the use of meetings and
1. Market-Based Assets and Financial Expectations
other planning mechanisms that facilitate linkages between
It is imperative that IMC planning is performance or out- marketing and brand strategy and IMC strategy, and also the
come driven (Duncan and Moriarty 1997; Duncan and use of mechanisms to ensure that the brand has the best op-
Mulhern 2004; Kitchen, Brignall, and Li 2004; Low 2000; portunity for achieving one voice/one look across all elements
Schultz 1998; Schultz, Cole, and Bailey 2004; Smith 1996). of the marketing mix (Duncan and Moriarty 1997; Eagle and
The decisions made with regard to devising and effecting strat- Kitchen 2000; Schultz 1998; Smith 1996). The issue of con-
egy need to be underpinned and shared through clear and sistency should also extend to cover the design and implemen-

This content downloaded from [Link] on Tue, 01 Mar 2022 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 Winter 2005 15

tation of campaigns over time (Duncan and Moriarty 1997; burg 1999), where market orientation is conceptualized in terms
Eagle and Kitchen 2000; Phelps and Johnson 1996). of different systems underpinning the organizational activities
(i.e., organization, information, planning, controlling, and hu-

4. Cross-Functional Integration man resources). Despite these apparent differences, there are
important overlaps in these conceptualizations (Cadogan and
It has been argued that an organization cannot be integrated Diamantopoulos 1995). In the final analysis, one realizes that
externally without being integrated internally (Duncan and market orientation suggests that all information on all impor-
Mulhern 2004). Cross-functional integration is built on fo- tant buying influences permeates every corporate function, and
cused internal marketing processes and provides the founda- that strategic and tactical decisions are made interfunctionally
tion for effective IMC planning and reporting (Conduit and and interdivisionally.
Mavondo 2001; Cornelissen 2001; Duncan and Moriarty A review and synthesis of the ideas embedded in market
1997). Top management needs to be involved to drive the orientation concludes that it consists of:
process (Duncan and Mulhern 2004), and there needs to be a
* A customer orientation: Active encouragement of
willingness to change policies that inhibit the implementa-
customer comments and complaints, an after-sales
tion of IMC (Phelps and Johnson 1996; Smith 1996).
service emphasis, regular evaluation of ways to create
superior product/service value, and the regular
5. Resource Commitment for IMC
measurement of customer satisfaction levels.
* A competitor orientation: The regular monitoring of
In order for IMC to be performed effectively, there must be
competitor activity, the collection and use of market
adequate resource provision, including time, funds, and skilled
information on competitors to develop marketing
and knowledgeable personnel (Duncan and Moriarty 1997;
plans, and using the sales force to monitor and report
Eagle and Kitchen 2000; Smith 1996). Resource commit-
competitor activity.
ment can also be a useful mechanism for signaling the legiti-
* Interfunctional coordination: The sharing of market
macy of behaviors and mental models consistent with
information across departments, the involvement of all
implementing IMC.
departments in the preparation of business plans and
strategies, the integration of the activities across
MARKET ORIENTATION AND departments, the interaction of marketing personnel
ITS RELATIONSHIP TO IMC with other departments, and joint assessment of
customer needs.
Market orientation has been an implicit theme underlying the
* A profit emphasis: Based on the capability of
implementation and management of IMC. There is an assump-
management information systems to determine the
tion that firms adopting IMC have in place a customer-centric
profitability of each major customer, product line, sales
orientation and systems for linking the organization to the
territory, and distribution channel.
market and customer, as well as processes, systems, and mental
models that link various functional areas of the organization From Figure 1 we imply that the primary link between IMC
(Duncan and Moriarty 1998; Slater 1997; Stewart 1996). and market orientation is through interfunctional coordina-
Market orientation in various forms has been discussed tion. Fundamental to the success of market orientation is the
extensively in the literature (Carrillat,Jaramillo, and Locander coordination of effort across departments to ensure that orga-
2004; Kohli and Jaworski 1990; Narver and Slater 1990). nizational resources optimally serve to create customer value.
Helfert, Ritter, and Walter (2002) split the literature into As noted in our prior discussion of IMC, fundamental to ef-
three main streams: (1) a behavioral perspective (e.g., Kohli fective IMC is the harmonization of the business's voice in
and Jaworski 1990), where market orientation is focused on support of the brand (be it product or corporate). Given the
organization-wide market intelligence generation, dissemi- conceptualization of market orientation as an aspect of an
nation, and responsiveness to the information; (2) a cultural organization's culture, we suggest that it is therefore a foun-
perspective (e.g., Narver and Slater 1990), where market ori- dation for IMC. The common link between MO and IMC
entation is reflected through the values and attitudes of the through interfunctional coordination is consistent with in-
organization in providing superior customer value through ternal marketing (Conduit and Mavondo 2001; Lings 2004).
paying attention to current and emerging customer needs; It is evident that one of the main contributions to emerge
and (3) a competitive perspective that understands current from IMC is the concept of emphasizing the employees who
and potential competitors and coordinates the organizational may be the principal means of communicating the brand value.
resources to deliver superior customer value. Other research- As noted by Berry and Parasuraman in discussing the internal-
ers have adopted a systems perspective (e.g., Becker and Hom- izing process for service brands: "Internalizing the brand in-

This content downloaded from [Link] on Tue, 01 Mar 2022 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
16 The Journal of Advertising

volves explaining and selling the brand to employees.... sharing tion that brand orientation should be embedded in all organi-
with employees the research and strategy behind the zational activities to build a strong relationship with principal
brand.... training employees in brand-strengthening behav- stakeholders. Bridson and Evans's (2004) conceptualization and
iors and rewarding and celebrating employees whose actions operationalization of brand orientation indicates four compo-
support the brand" (1991, p. 129). nents: (1) a focus on distinctiveness (measured using elements
Figure 1 also suggests that competitor orientation provides of Narver and Slater 1990 and Hankinson 2000), (2) func-
a partial context in which IMC takes place and that competi- tionality (utility) (drawn from de Chernatony and Dall'Olmo
tor orientation is critical to the nexus between IMC, MO, and Riley 1997 and Bhat and Reddy 1998), (3) value adding (in-
BO, as discussed further in the next section. corporating elements from McEnally and de Chernatony
1999), and (4) symbolic capabilities (similar to Goodyear 1996
and Kapferer 1997). We emphasize this to indicate the link-
BRAND ORIENTATION AND
ages or potential linkages to IMC.
ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH IMC
The model currently under development asserts that the
The term "brand orientation" was first used in its current link between IMC and brand orientation is related to the
context by Urde (1994), who defines it as "an approach in development of brand identity (see Figure 1). We argue that
which the processes of the organization revolve around the to create successful brand identity, it is necessary to ensure
creation, development, and protection of brand identity in an that brand messages are strategically driven, with the syn-
ongoing interaction with target customers with the aim of chronization of communication being identified as one of
achieving lasting competitive advantages" (Urde 1999, p. the most important aspects of the brand orientation process
117). Brand orientation thus represents the functional or busi- (Urde 1994). Consistency of the brand message has been
ness-unit focus on brands that support strong customer and identified as being one of the key determinants of brand
stakeholder relationships regardless of the brand being at the success by a number of authors (Aaker 1996; de Chernatony
corporate or product level or being a service or manufactured and Segal-Horn 2003; Urde 1994). Duncan and Moriarty
product (Bridson and Evans 2004), and suggests that an or- (1998, p. 6), for instance, suggest, "messages sent by the
ganization has a clear brand vision and identity. This also company's overall business practices and philosophies have
implies that market-sensing systems have been calibrated to communications dimensions.... its mission, hiring prac-
provide insight into managing the relationship between the tices, philanthropies, corporate culture, and practice of re-
brand and its main stakeholders. sponding to inquiries all send messages that confirm,
In providing a background to brand orientation, Ewing strengthen, or weaken brand relationships." Duncan and
and Napoli (2004) suggest that brand management has been Moriarty (1998) further suggest that the implications of
viewed from several perspectives, with some authors having "everything sends a message" is that brand messages must
taken a broad overview of the brand management process be strategically consistent, and that there is a focus on other
(Kapferer 1997; Keller 1998; Park, Jaworski, and Maclnnis stakeholders beyond customers.
1986), while others have focused on specific elements or To further highlight the link between IMC and brand ori-
themes, including creating a unique brand identity, structur- entation, we note that the focus of brand orientation is also on
ing brand portfolios, managing brand communication, and creating brand distinctiveness. We argue that the distinctive-
monitoring brand value (Aaker 1996; Duncan and Moriarty ness of a brand in the eyes of consumers is not a property of
1998; Keller 2000). By focusing on each of these aspects, an the actual product, but a product of communication of the
organization is able to effectively monitor consumers' brand brand. We note that brand functionality (utility) is not an
perceptions, identify whether such perceptions correspond absolute attribute of a product or service because many prod-
with their own brand vision, and instigate strategies that re- ucts can potentially serve the same function. This leads us to
inforce positive brand beliefs or change negative perceptions. suggest that brand functionality is heavily influenced by brand
In recognizing this need to use brands as a basis for com- communication. These arguments indicate the close relation-
petitive advantage, organizations are reaching beyond the ship and interdependence of brand orientation and IMC. Two
traditional market orientation framework and are develop- further aspects of brand orientation operationalized in Bridson
ing a brand orientation. In this sense, one sees market ori- and Evans's (2004) paper are value adding and symbolic value.
entation, with its long-term focus, as creating the conditions Brand orientation seeks to add value to an existing or new
for brand orientation as a means of translating the goals and product or service to give it a competitive advantage and a
objectives of market orientation into a medium- to long- reason for customers to choose it. Value is increasingly being
term actionable set of activities. created outside the physical product by such factors as inter-
A review of the literature (Bridson and Evans 2004; Ewing actions between the customer and organization, responsive-
and Napoli 2004; Simoes and Dibb 2001) indicates the no- ness to complaints, and customer needs and expectations.

This content downloaded from [Link] on Tue, 01 Mar 2022 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 Winter 2005 17

These activities lie in the domain of IMC, implying that suc- BRINGING IMC, MO, AND BO TOGETHER
cessftl value adding is critically dependent on the effective-
ness of IMC. Finally, the symbolic value of a brand is not an Figure 1 is designed to show the overlapping and interdepen-
inherent attribute of the brand, nor does it exist outside the dent conceptualization of the relationship between IMC, MO,
communication, behavior, and attitude of the business, or how and BO. We start by noting that the interplay between IMC,
these are perceived by the consumers. MO, and BO occurs in a context of competition. Thus, MO,
In general, we suggest that BO consists of the following through the dimension of competitor orientation, provides
six elements, drawn from the brand orientation literature: the context. By being conceptualized and operationalized as
organizational culture, MO is conceived as being foundational
* Shared brand vision: The brand is central to corporate to both IMC and BO. In prior discussion, we have noted that
decision making and the corporate mission. It involves a principal link between IMC and MO is provided by their
a broadened perspective on the operations of the common reference to interfunctional coordination, which is
organization, with strategic goals being directly also closely related to the concept of internal marketing. We
related to the brand. The brand is considered to be observe that interfunctional coordination in the context of
integral with other resources and competencies, and MO is a means of optimizing resource use, while in the con-
there is an explicitly communicated vision with clear text of IMC, it is maximizing communication effectiveness
allocation of responsibility and authority. and consistency. However, the foundational base is the same;
* Shared brand functionality: The organization recognizes that is, departments or functional areas must cooperate and be
that the brand facilitates differentiation from integrated to achieve optimum results for the organization.
competitors by communicating specific functional Our earlier discussion also noted that the principal link
attributes and benefits to customers. between IMC and BO is the brand. BO seeks to provide a
* Shared brand positioning: The brand forms a means of foundation for building and managing brands that are dis-
identification, differentiation, and a guarantee of tinctive, that provide functional and symbolic value for cus-
consistency to customers. The organization recognizes tomers and stakeholders, and that are the basis for ongoing
that the brand is central to building customer loyalty profitable relationships. We have noted that to achieve these
in the marketplace, and all communication related to objectives, integrated marketing communication is a sine qua
the brand is linked to appropriate competitive non. Though somewhat peripheral to the focus of this paper,
positioning and value. we also note that the principal link between MO and BO is the
* Brand return on investment (ROI; financial performance): customer, since BO provides a means of translating the long-
The brand and building brand equity are term objectives of MO into an actionable set of activities.
acknowledged as being critically important in The most interesting observation from Figure 1 is what
achieving positional advantage in the market and in we have labeled as the NEXUS-the area where the dynamic
leveraging this into financial rewards. Brand-oriented interplay of IMC, MO, and BO occurs. The position labeled
managers see brands as underpinning the the NEXUS represents the region of commonality among MO,
organization's strategic resource base. BO, and IMC. This provides the common link between the
* Brand symbolism: Managerial recognition that the brand three concepts. It can be see that in this region, there is an
has a strong emotional and symbolic appeal, and is an equal contribution from MO, BO, and IMC. Clearly, the domi-
expression of customers' personality and values. The nant feature of this region is simultaneous focus on custom-
emotional aspects communicated in relation to the ers, interfunctional coordination, and brand identity. The
brand are recognized for their ability to bond a larger this region can be made, the closer the harmonization
customer to a brand. between MO, BO, and IMC, and the more effective the orga-
* Brand value-adding capability: To achieve brand nization becomes at building brand equity (or however per-
objectives, organizations need to manage their internal formance is measured).
and external activities to maximize value-adding This suggests that a full understanding of the dynamics at
capabilities. Brand orientation focuses on consumers' the NEXUS between the three concepts involves understand-
utilitarian satisfaction, and hence a critical role in this ing the shared commonality of focus. The three concepts are
is the communication of the beliefs and capabilities the concerned with meeting the needs of customers while recog-
organization employs to add value beyond the nizing that IMC has to meet the needs and expectations of a
functional aspects. This can include, for example, an wide range of other stakeholders, such as investors, media,
emphasis on service, quality, or brand personality, and and employees. There is also an indication that fundamental
it facilitates the establishment of mutual brand to all three concepts is the need for integration, without which
knowledge with customers and other key stakeholders. there is no cultivation of shared meaning or commitment.

This content downloaded from [Link] on Tue, 01 Mar 2022 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
18 The Journal of Advertising

FIGURE 2
Conceptual Model Linking Integrated Marketing Communication (IMC) to
Market Orientation, Brand Orientation, and Brand Performance

Market
orientation

\ ( ~~~~~~~communication
~~~~~H eromance

H3 /H4 Brand
orientation~8 erfrmnc

We note that brand identity also emerges as a critical con- organizational benefits (Duncan and Moriarty 1998; Kitchen
cept. The brand's identity creates value through customer fran- and Schultz 1999; Low 2000; Reid 2003; Schultz, Cole, and
chise, which leads to brand equity. This is a focus for MO and Bailey 2004; Swain 2004). Nevertheless, despite this concep-
BO, and it is increasingly becoming the central role of IMC. tual support, very little empirical evidence exists to substan-
Finally, Figure 1 does not negate the contributions of the other tiate the value of IMC in quantifiable terms (Baker and
elements of MO (i.e., competitor orientation) or the various Mitchell 2000; Cornelissen and Locke 2000; Eagle and Kitchen
aspects of brand orientation and IMC, since these also con- 2000; Kitchen, Brignell, and Li 2004; Low 2000; Swain 2004).
tribute to the NEXUS region and can be incorporated con- One of the problems associated with performance measures
ceptually, and in any empirical consideration. This analysis in marketing is the conceptualization of marketing inputs.
leads us to conclude that IMC, MO, and BO are three partly As a discipline, we think of IMC as an investment in commu-
overlapping concepts, each vital to the fulfillment of organi- nication, but accountants see this as an expense. This creates
zational objectives, and each a worthwhile academic and prac- problems of revenue-stream recognition. Thus, apparently
tical field of further investigation. suitable measures of IMC become inappropriate when closely
Drawing from the discussion presented above and from examined from an accounting perspective. There are no easy
the work of Cornelissen, Lock, and Gardner (2001), we de- answers, but attempts must be made to improve the situa-
velop the following hypotheses (see Figure 2). tion. Such measures as ROI (Ambler et al. 2002; Kitchen and
Schultz 2001), return on touch point investment (ROTPI)
HI: The higher the level of market orientation, the higher the
(Schultz, Cole, and Bailey 2004), and improvements in brand
level of IMC.
equity and customer equity (Duncan and Mulhern 2004;
H2: The higher the level of market orientation, the higher the Hutton 1996; Keller 1993) are useful, but must be seen in
level of brand orientation. the context in which marketing inputs are accounted for in
the balance sheet and income statements. (See Table 2.)
H3: The higher the level of brand orientation, the higher the In our view, a "chain of IMC productivity" is likely to exist
level of IMC. that links performance in marketing communication man-
agement and campaigns with customer and brand equity out-
H4: Brand orientation mediates the relationship between
comes, and parallels the brand value chain concept espoused
market orientation and IMC.
by Keller and Lehmann (2003) and Ambler et al. (2002). In a
recent article on measuring marketing productivity, Rust et
al. (2004) also developed a framework that links marketing
LINKING IMC TO MARKETING OUTCOMES
strategy and tactics to customer, marketplace, and financial
The IMC-brand performance link is, in principle, supported benefits for the organization. From an IMC perspective, Rust
in the literature, with IMC providing campaign, brand, and et al. (2004) identify the impact of marketing strategy and

This content downloaded from [Link] on Tue, 01 Mar 2022 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 Winter 2005 19

TABLE 2
Integrated Marketing Communication (IMC) Outcome Measures

IMC performance level Source Performance/outcomes

Marketing communication performance

Operational Beard 1996; Cornelissen and Lock 2001; Hartley Psychosocial outcomes, including
and Pickton 1999; Linton and Morley 1995; reduced interdepartmental
Schultz 1993; Stewart 1996 conflict, decreased transaction
costs through cooperation,
reduced duplication of effort,
reduced duplication of
communication strategies, clear
alignment of brand positioning,
one voice-one look.

Campaign Cornelissen and Lock 2000; Linton and Synergy between the
Morley 1995; Rossiter and Bellman 2005 communication mix (batting above
weight), perceptions of success on
indirect campaign objectives rela-
tive to competitors, economic
return on campaign investment
(ROCI).
Brand performance

Customer impact and Aaker 1996; Ambler et al. 2002; Blattberg Brand equity and customer-based
asset-related and Deighton 1996; Keller 1993; brand equity, including
Rust et al. 2004; Schultz, Cole, and intermediate measures of change
Bailey 2004 in customer awareness, customer
associations, customer attitudes,
customer attachments, customer
experiences, return on touch
point investment (ROTPI).

Market impact and position-related Aaker 1996; Ambler et al. 2002; Blattberg and Low price elasticity of customers,
Deighton 1996; Duncan and Moriarty price premiums, decreasing sales
1997; Keller 1993; Rust et al. 2004; and servicing costs, decreasing
Srivastava et al. 1998 rate of churn and defection,
share of wallet trend, market-
share position, sales and
sales growth.

Financial impact and impact on firm value Rust et al. 2004; Srivastava et al. 1998 Profit and profit growth, EBIT
(earnings before interest and
taxes), cash flow stability and
growth, ROI (return on
investment)/ROBI (return on
brand investment-current and
future), EVA (economic value-
add), MVA (market value-add),
market capitalization, share price.

This content downloaded from [Link] on Tue, 01 Mar 2022 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
20 The Journal of Advertising

tactics (including marketing communication) on customer brand awareness, positive brand attitude and preference, brand
attitudes, loyalty, satisfaction, churn, and retention, among action intention, and purchase facilitation (Rossiter and
others. These intermediate measures of performance can then Bellman 2005). The successful attainment of such campaign
be aggregated to the level of marketing assets and measured objectives would likely be felt over time through increased
through metrics related to brand equity and customer equity. customer and brand equity, measured through associated
Finally, such actions have flow on effects to financial impact metrics. Increased customer and brand equity would likely
(ROI, EVA [economic value-added]), as measured by finan- be felt through improvements in price premiums achieved
cial position (including profits and cash flow). The net result and reductions in price elasticity, as well as increased market
of this chain of impacts is felt through the increased organi- share and improved profitability, among other factors (Keller
zation value and market value of the firm. and Lehmann 2003). Overall, one of the most desirable out-
In our model (Figure 2), we propose measurement of brand comes of effective IMC is more differentiation leading to more
outcomes at two interrelated levels, including marketing com- monopolistic brands (Rust et al. 2004), making the brand
munication performance and brand performance. Table 2 iden- less vulnerable to competition.
tifies a range of possible measures that can be employed to From prior discussion, we advance the following hypoth-
gauge this performance. In general, marketing-communica- eses linking IMC, MO, and BO to performance measures.
tion performance measures encompass internal process metrics
and return on campaign efforts, whereas brand performance H5: IMC is directly and positively related to marketing
in this model is related to customer impact and market im- communication performance.
pact measures, as well as profit and cash flow metrics.
H6: IMC is directly and positively related to brand
Given the lack of empirical research on the relationship
performance.
between IMC and various performance outcomes, it is too
early to specify an exact relationship between them. Never- H7: Marketing communication performance is directly and

theless, from an operational perspective, IMC has been hy- positively related to brand performance.

pothesized to provide benefits in the coordination of marketing

H8: Brand orientation is directly and positively related to
communication activities and across the various functions
brand performance.
involved in the implementation of marketing campaigns
(Beard 1996; Cornelissen and Lock 2000; Schultz 1993; H9: IMC totally mediates the relationship between MO and

Stewart 1996). Cornelissen and Lock (2000) present such ben- BO with marketing communication performance.

efits as being psychosocial, including reduced conflict and

decreased transaction costs across functions. Additional means CONCLUSION: MANAGERIAL AND
of cost savings relate to organizational infrastructure, in which RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS
cooperation among an organization's departments avoids un-
necessary duplication of communication strategies, thereby Throughout the discussion, we have attempted to show the
improving operational efficiency and message consistency complementarities between IMC, market orientation, and
(Hartley and Pickton 1999; Linton and Morley 1995). brand orientation. We have emphasized that each concept re-
From the perspective of individual campaigns, it could be flects specific emphasis, but collectively, they provide a rich
expected that firms that have successfully implemented IMC description and complex insight into the relationship. For
would show improvement in the outcomes from individual most organizations, the issue of what is an antecedent to what
campaigns. Cornelissen and Lock (2000) term these "func- does not seriously arise, because it is the exploitation of the
tional outcomes," and include such things as synergy between complementarities that is more important. However, for or-
the communication-mix elements of the campaign (Linton ganizations with low market orientation, in this case, the cul-
and Morley 1995) and improved ability to employ a wider tural context for interfunctional coordination and focusing
and more appropriate range of communication tools result- on customers, attempts to develop IMC may not succeed. This
ing predominantly from the application of "zero-based" plan- is because the cultural foundation for cooperation across func-
ning principles (Duncan and Moriarty 1997). The success of tions, departments, and SBUs (strategic business units), or
campaigns can potentially be measured using an economic analy- with suppliers and other stakeholders, may not exist. Along
sis of return on campaign investment through direct behav- the same line of argument, we believe that where brand ori-
ioral objectives and, on a more subjective basis, on managers entation is low, implying low sharing of corporate or brand
perceptions of success relative to competitors' campaigns. identity and vision, attempts at introducing IMC may not
Generally, one would expect that organizations employing be as successful as when both MO and BO are adequately
IMC would have a greater capacity to achieve their stated developed.
direct and indirect campaign objectives, including increased The arguments presented in this study have implications

This content downloaded from [Link] on Tue, 01 Mar 2022 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 Winter 2005 21

for managers. It is known and accepted that any form of inte- pean Societyfor Opinion and Marketing Research (November),
gration is generally difficult. This is because efforts to inte- 239-24 1.
grate move people out of their comfort zones and threaten the Beard, Fred (1996), "Integrated Marketing Communications:
status quo. It is also known that the reward systems in most New Role Expectations and Performance Issues in the Cli-
ent-Ad Agency Relationship?"Journal of Business Research,
organizations are not designed to reward cooperation (in fact,
37 (3), 207-215.
more often, organizations encourage competition and paro-
Becker, Jan, and Christian Homburg (1999), "Market-Oriented
chial interests). Some approaches to overcome this include
Management: A Systems-Based Perspective," Journal of
building a strong market orientation and building a strong Market-Focused Management, 4 (1), 17-4 1.
brand orientation. This allows for setting a positive cultural Berry, Leonard L., and A. Parasuraman (1991), Marketing Ser-
environment and will encourage routine cooperation, which vices: Competing Through Quality, New York: Free Press.
will significantly assist in the implementation of IMC. From Bhat, Subodh, and Srinivas K. Reddy (1998), "Symbolic and
the model developed in this paper, there is a suggestion that Functional Positioning of Brands,"Journal of Consumer Mar-

IMC is positively associated with some performance metrics. keting, 15 (1), 32-43.
There is also the suggestion that perhaps IMC mediates the Blattberg, Robert C., and John Deighton (1996), "Manage Mar-
keting by the Customer Equity Test," Harvard Business Re-
relationship between market orientation and performance, or
view, 74 (July/August), 136-144.
that IMC mediates the relationship between brand orienta-
Bridson, Kerrie, and Jodie Evans (2004), "The Secret to a Fash-
tion and performance, or both. This conceptualization pro-
ion Advantage Is Brand Orientation," InternationalJournal
vides a rich insight into how IMC might be linked to various of Retail and Distribution Management, 32 (8), 403-411.
performance measures. Cadogan, John, and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (1995),
Finally, we see the conceptual model presented in the pa- "Narver and Slater, Kohli and Jaworski and the Market
per as being imminently testable. The measures of market Orientation Construct: Integration and Internationaliza-
orientation have been around for over a decade and are be- tion," Journal of Strategic Marketing, 3, 41-60.

coming well accepted. The measures of brand orientation Carrillat, Franqois A., Fernando Jaramillo, and William B.
are slowly becoming acceptable, although still at an early Locander (2004), "Market-Driving Organizations: A Frame-
work," Academy of Marketing Science Review 2004 (5).
stage of development. The performance measures suggested
Caywood, Clarke, Don E. Schultz, and Paul Wang (1991), "In-
in the study have been empirically tested by other research-
tegrated Marketing Communications: A Survey of National
ers and present no special problems with operationalization.
Consumer Goods Advertisers," report (June), Northwest-
The most difficult part of the model relates to the develop- ern University.
ment of scales that adequately capture the essence of the IMC Conduit, Jodie, and Felix Mavondo (2001), "How Critical Is
process and can link to the appropriate external performance Internal Customer Orientation to Market Orientation?"
measures. The use of existing instruments such as Duncan Journal of Business Research, 51, 11-24.
and Moriarty's (1997) IMC miniaudit may prove useful as a Cornelissen, Joep P. (2001), "Integrated Marketing Communi-
starting point for testing these relationships. Overall, the data cations and the Language of Market Development," Inter-
analysis implied by the model (structural equation model- nationalJournal of Advertising, 20 (4), 483-499.
, and Andrew R. Lock (2000), "Theoretical Concept or
ing) is well established to provide direct, indirect, and total
Management Fashion? Examining the Significance of IMC,"
effects of the independent variables (MO and BO) through
Journal of Advertising Research, 40 (5), 7-15.
IMC, and the direct effects of IMC on external performance
, - , and Hanne Gardner (2001), "The Organiza-
measures. The value of operationalizing this model will be tion of External Communication Disciplines: An Integra-
seen through a clearer understanding of IMC's relationship tive Framework of Dimensions and Determinants," International
to other marketing concepts and to customer and brand eq- Journal of Advertising, 20 (1), 67-88.
uity and marketplace performance. Dawar, Niraj (2004), "What Are Brands Good For," MIT Sloan
Management Review, 46 (1), 31-37.
de Chernatony, Leslie, and Francesca Dall'Olmo Riley (1997),
REFERENCES "Modeling the Components of the Brand," European Jour-
nal of Marketing, 32 (11), 1074-1090.
Aaker, David A. (1996), Building Strong Brands, New York: Free , and Susan Segal-Horn (2003), "The Criteria for Suc-
Press. cessful Services Brands," European Journal of Marketing, 37
Ambler, Tim, C. B. Bhattacharya, Julie Edell, Kevin Lane Keller, (7/8), 1095-1118.
Katherine N. Lemon, and Vikas Mittal (2002), "Relating Duncan, Thomas R. (2002), IMC: Using Advertising and Promo-
Brand and Customer Perspectives on Marketing Manage- tion to Build Brands, New York: McGraw-Hill.
ment,"Journal of Service Research, 5 (August), 13-25. , and Stephen E. Everett (1993), "Client Perceptions of
Baker, Susan, and Helen Mitchell (2000), "Integrated Market- Integrated Marketing Communications," Journal of Adver-
ing Communication: Implications for Managers," Euro- tising Research, 33 (3), 30-40.

This content downloaded from [Link] on Tue, 01 Mar 2022 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
22 The Journal of Advertising

, and Sandra Moriarty (1997), Driving Brand Value, New parison of the Drive for IMC," Journal of Advertising Re-
York: McGraw Hill. search, 39 (1), 21-36.
and (1998), "A Communication-Based Mar- , and (2001), "A Comparative Analysis of Inte-
keting Model for Managing Relationships,"Journal of Mar- grated Corporate and Product Brand Communication,"Jour-
keting, 62 (2), 1-13. nal of Global Communication, 9 (1), 438-45 1.
, and Frank Mulhern, eds. (2004), A White Paper on the Kliatchko, Jerry (2005), "Towards a Definition of Integrated
Status, Scope and Future of IMC (from IMC symposium spon- Marketing Communications (IMC)," InternationalJournal
sored by the IMC programs at Northwestern University of Advertising Research, 24 (1), 7-34.
and the University of Denver), New York: McGraw-Hill. Kohli, Ajay K., and Bernard J. Jaworski (1990), "Market Orien-
Eagle, Lynne, and Phillip J. Kitchen (2000), "Building Brands tation: The Construct, Research, Propositions, and Mana-
or Bolstering Egos? A Comparative Review of the Impact gerial Implications,"Journal of Marketing, 54, 1-18.
and Measurement of Advertising on Brand Equity,"Jour- Lannon, Judie, and Peter Cooper (1983), "Humanistic Advertis-
nal of Marketing Communications, 6, 91-106. ing: A Cultural Perspective," InternationalJournal of Adver-
Ewing, Michael T., and Julie Napoli (2004), "Developing and tising, 2 (3), 195-213.
Validating a Multidimensional Nonprofit Brand Orienta- Lings, Ian N. (2004), "Internal Market Orientation: Construct and
tion Scale,"Journal of Business Research, 58 (6), 841-853. Consequences,"Journal of Business Research, 57 (4), 405-414.
Goodyear, Mary (1996), "Divided by a Common Language: Di- Linton, Ian, and Kevin Morley (1995), Integrated Marketing Com-
versity and Deception in the World of Global Marketing," munications, Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
Journal of the Market Research Society, 38 (2), 105-122. Low, George S. (2000), "Correlates of Integrated Marketing Com-
Gould, Stephen J. (2004), "IMC as Theory and as a Poststructural munications,"Journal of Advertising Research, 40 (3), 27-39.
Set of Practices and Discourses: A Continuously Evolving McEnally, Martha R., and Leslie de Chernatony (1999), "The Evolv-
Paradigm Shift,"Journal of Advertising Research, 44 (1), 66. ing Nature of Branding: Consumer and Managerial Consid-
Hankinson, Philippa (2000), "Brand Orientation in Charity Organi- erations," Academy ofMarketing Sience Review 1999(2), 1-40.
zations: Qualitative Research into Key Charity Sectors," In- Narver, John C., and Stanley F. Slater (1990), "The Effect of a
ternationalJournal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Market Orientation on Business Profitability," Journal of
5 (3), 207-219. Marketing, 54, 20-35.
Harris, Lloyd C. (1998), "Cultural Domination: The Key to Nowak, Glen J., and Joseph Phelps (1994), "Conceptualizing
Market-Oriented Culture?" European Journal of Marketing, the Integrated Marketing Communications Phenomenon:
32 (3/4), 354-373. An Examination of Its Impact on Advertising Policies and
Hartley, Bob, and David Pickton (1999), "Integrated Market- Its Implications for Advertising Research,"Journal of Cur-
ing Communications Requires a New Way of Thinking," rent Issues and Research in Advertising, 16 (1), 49-66.
Journal of Marketing Communications, 5, 97-106. Park, C. Whan, Bernard J. Jaworski, and Deborah Maclnnis
Helfert, Gabriele, Thomas Ritter, and Achim Walter (2002), (1986), "Strategic Brand Concept-Image Management,"
"Redefining Market Orientation from a Relationship Per- Journal of Marketing, 50 (4), 135-146.
spective: Theoretical Considerations and Empirical Results," Percy, Larry (1997), Strategies for Implementing Integrated Market-
European Journal of Marketing, 36 (9-10), 1119-1139(21). ing Communications, Chicago: NTC Business Books.
Hutton, James G. (1996), "Integrated Marketing Communica- Petrison, Lisa A., and Paul Wang (1996), "Integrated Market-
tions and the Evolution of Marketing Thought," Journal of ing Communication: Examining Planning and Executional
Business Research, 37 (3), 155-163. Considerations," in Integrated Communication: Synergy of Per-
Jaworski, Bernard, Ajay K. Kohli, and Arvind Sahay (2000), suasive Voices, Esther Thorson and Jeri Moore, eds., Mahwah,
"Market-Driven Versus Driving Markets," Journal of the NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 153-166.
Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (1), 45-54. Phelps, Joseph E., and Edward Johnson (1996), "Entering the
Kapferer, Jean-Noel (1997), Strategic Brand Management: Creating Quagmire: Examining the 'Meaning' of Integrated Commu-
and Sustaining Brand Equity Long-Term, London: Kogan Page. nications,"Journal of Marketing Communications, 2, 159-172.
Keller, Kevin Lane (1993), "Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Pickton, David, and Bob Hartley (1998), "Measuring Integra-
Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity," Journal of Mar- tion: An Assessment of the Quality of Integrated Market-
keting, 57 (1), 1-22. ing Communications," InternationalJournal of Advertising,
(1998), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measur- 17, 447-457.
ing, and Managing Brand Equity, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Reid, Michael (2003), "IMC-Performance Relationship: Further
(2000), "The Brand Report Card," Harvard Business Re- Insight and Evidence from the Australian Marketplace,"
view, 78 (1), 147-156. InternationalJournal of Advertising, 22, 2.
, and Donald R. Lehmann (2003), "How Do Brands Cre- Rossiter, John R., and Steven Bellman (2005), Marketing Communi-
ate Value?" Marketing Management, 12 (3), 26-32. cation: Theory and Applications, Australia: Pearson Education.
Kitchen, Philip J., Joanne Brignell, and Li Tao (2004), "The Rust, Roland T., Tim Ambler, Gregory S. Carpenter, V. Kumar,
Emergence of IMC: A Theoretical Perspective,"Journal of and Rajendra K. Srivastava (2004), "Measuring Marketing
Advertising Research, 44 (1), 1 9-30. Productivity: Current Knowledge and Future Directions,"
, and Don E. Schultz (1999), "A Multi-Country Coin- Journal of Marketing, 68 (October), 76-89.

This content downloaded from [Link] on Tue, 01 Mar 2022 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 Winter 2005 23

Schultz, Don E. (1993), "Integrated Marketing Communications: Srivastava, Rajendra K., Liam Fahey, and Tasadduq A. Shervani
Maybe Definition Is in the Point of View," Marketing News (2000), "Linking Advertising to Brand and Market-Based
(January 18), 17. Assets," Admap (February), 33-36.
(1998), "Determining How Brand Communication , Tasadduq A. Shervani, and Liam Fahey. (1998), "Mar-
Works in the Short and Long Terms," InternationalJournal ket-based assets and shareholder value: A framework for
of Advertising, 17 (4), 403-426. analysis," Journal of Marketing, 62 (1), 2-18.
, Bill Cole, and Scott Bailey (2004), "Implementing the Stewart, David W. (1996), "Market-Back Approach to the De-
'Connect the Dots' Approach to Marketing Communica- sign of Integrated Communications Programs: A Change
tion," InternationalJournal of Advertising, 23, 455-477. in Paradigm and a Focus on Determinants of Success,"Jour-
, and Heidi Schultz (1998), "Transitioning Marketing nal of Business Research, 37 (3), 147-153.
Communication into the 21st Century," Journal of Market- Swain, William N. (2004), "Perceptions of IMC After a Decade of
ing Communications, 4, 9-26. Development: Who's at the Wheel, and How Can We Mea-
Simoes, Claudia, and Sally Dibb (2001), "Rethinking the Brand sure Success?" Journal of Advertising Research, 44 (1), 46-65.
Concept: A New Brand Orientation," Corporate Communica- Urde, Mats (1994), "Brand Orientation: A Strategy for Survival,"
tions: An InternationalJournal, 6 (4), 217-224. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 11 (3), 18-32.
Slater, Stanley F. (1997), "Developing a Customer Value-Based (1999), "Brand Orientation: A Mindset for Building
Theory of the Firm," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Brands into Strategic Resources," Journal of Marketing Man-
Science, 25 (2), 162-176. agement, 15, 117-133.
Smith, Paul (1996), "Benefits and Barriers to Integrated Com- White, Roderick (1999), "What Can Advertising Really Do for
munications," Admap (February), 19-22. Brands?" InternationalJournal of Advertising, 18 (1), 3-22.

This content downloaded from [Link] on Tue, 01 Mar 2022 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]