4189316

8/13/2019 4189316

1/14

The Relationship between Integrated Marketing Communication, Market Orientation, and

Brand OrientationAuthor(s): Mike Reid, Sandra Luxton and Felix MavondoSource: Journal of Advertising, Vol. 34, No. 4, Integrated Marketing Communication (IMC)(Winter, 2005), pp. 11-23Published by: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4189316.

Accessed: 10/09/2013 02:06

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.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 [email protected].

.

M.E. Sharpe, Inc.is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal of

Advertising.
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=meshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4189316?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4189316?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mes

8/13/2019 4189316

2/14

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTEGRATED MARKETING COMMUNICATION,MARKET ORIENTATION, AND BRAND ORIENTATIONMike Reid, Sandra Luxton, and Felix Mavondo

ABSTRACT: This paper relates integrated marketing communication (IMC)to marketorientation(MO), brandorientation(BO), and external performancemeasures.The perspective adopted herearguesthat forclarity of meaning, IMC should begrounded 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, andorganizationalperformance.The paperconcludesby discussing implicationsof the study for both academicsandpractitioners.

Marketing communication plays an important role in build-ing and maintaining stakeholder relationships, and in le-veraging these relationships in terms of brand and channelequity (Dawar 2004; Duncan and Moriarty 1998; Lannonand Cooper 1983; Srivastava, Fahey, and Shervani 2000;White 1999). As Dawar states: Advertising and promo-tions of brands drive traffic and sales volume; marketingefforts and outcomes aremeasuredand managed at the brandlevel; and brands are central to a firm's responses to short-term competitive moves. In effect, brands have become thefocal point of many a company's marketing efforts and areseen as a source of market power, competitive leverage andhigher returns (2004, p. 31).In response to concerns about the impact of hostile mar-keting environments on brand equity and increased manage-ment expectations related to marketing performance andaccountability, many organizations are considering how toimprove the managementand integration of their marketingcommunication programs using integrated marketing com-munication (IMC). Nevertheless, various authorssupport thecontention that there is ambiguity surrounding the defini-tion of IMC, with no consistent or mutually agreed uponmeaning, and with many areas n need of clarification (Bakerand Mitchell 2000; Beard 1996; Cornelissen 2001; Duncanand Mulhern 2004; Kitchen and Schultz 1999; Low 2000;Phelps 1996). This ambiguity is likely to have an impact onthe development of measuresto operationalizeand assessIMCin organizations.Indeed, Pickton and Hartley (1998, p. 450)

state: It is very difficult to conceptualize the big picture andto muster all the organizational influences needed to achieveintegration. There are many levels and dimensions to inte-gration which all pose their individual and collective diffi-culties. To be implemented, IMC requiresthe involvement ofthe whole organization and its agents from the chief execu-tive downward. It needs consideration from the highest cor-porate strategic level down to the day-to-day implementationof individual tactical activity.In recognizing this complexity, this paper attempts to ex-plain the role of IMC in organizations. The paper also at-tempts to delineate or establish a relationship between IMC,market orientation (MO), and an emerging concept of brandorientation(BO) by proposing that both MO and BO arenec-essaryconditions forsuccessful IMC. We accept that IMC canbe conceived at two distinct levels, that is, strategic or tacti-cal; however, we will emphasize the strategic component ofIMC, which takes into account the cultural and learning re-quirements of positioning brandsover time. The paper rec-ognizes the complementarities between IMC to MO and BO,and how each addressesa critical facet of achieving a com-petitive advantage through building brandequity.Figure 1 introduces our discussion and presents the rela-tionship between the three concepts. Briefly, market orienta-tion represents the culture of the organization through theadoption of the marketing concept and the systems and pro-cesses that underlie being market oriented (Harris 1998).Brand orientation represents the fuinctionalor business-unitfocus on brands and brandstrategies that support strong cus-tomer and stakeholder relationships regardless of the brandbeing at the corporateor product level, or being a service or amanufactured good (Bridson and Evans 2004). IMC in this

Mike Reid (Ph.D., Otago University) is a senior lecturerin the De-partment of Marketing, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.Sandra Luxton (M.Bus.-Research,UniSA) is a senior lecturer n theDepartment of Marketing, Monash University,Melbourne,Australia.Felix Mavondo (Ph.D., Monash University) is a professor n the De-partment of Marketing,Monash University,Melbourne,Australia.

The authors gratefully acknowledge the positive and constructivefeedback from the guest editorial team-Tom Duncan, Don E. Schultz,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 14.139.246.27 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 02:06:41 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

8/13/2019 4189316

3/14

12 TheJournal of AdvertisingFIGURE 1Intersection of Integrated Marketing Communication(IMC) and Market and Brand Orientation

Brandrientationrenttio

- Aspects of organizationalculture- Linked to organization P/Lnto i performance S- Organization-wide ea ('ing~~~~Cmpetitor rientatio

/ Brandvlue-addincapabilty -us tomer andkn e/ \orientation / \coordinativity/ Brand orientation R comiten

| -Shared brandvision > - t ) IMC-Shared brand unctionality Bad -Driven by market-based ssets-Shared brandpositioning identity and perfomrance xpectationsL -Link to financialperform,ance -Strategic consistency-Symbolic value of brand ( one voice/one look )\ -Brand value-addingcapability \ /-Customer and stakeholder /\ \ / ~~~~~~~~~~~~connectivity/\ \ / - ~~~~~~~~~Resourceommitment

model represents the development of integrated marketingcommunication to achieve stated brand and communicationobjectives, and provides the bridge between brand strategyand actions taken to build the necessarycustomer and stake-holder relationships. In doing so, IMC draws on the culturalpredisposition to work cooperatively, leveraging the market-and customer-sensing mechanisms of the organization to de-vise message and media strategies. Furthermore, t adopts aninformed zero-based approach to choosing the appropriatetools for the communication task and is also linked to brandand target-market history through the learning mechanismsof a market- and brand-orientedorganization (Stewart 1996).

In justifying and presenting our model, we first present abackgroundto the IMC, MO, and BO concepts, highlightingvarious approaches to conceptualizing IMC and the linkagesto MO and BO. We then present a model that illustrates thetestable relationships between market orientation, brand ori-entation, and IMC, as well as the linkages to performanceoutcomes. Finally, we discuss the managerial and researchimplications of this paper.

THE CONCEPT AND DIMENSIONS OF IMCIn a recentwhite paper on IMC(Duncan and Mulhern 2004),it was stated that its scope was expanding and the conceptand processwere still evolving. It was also argued that IMC isgenerally considered to be a philosophy or process related tostrategically managing all brand messages in a way that con-tributes to the building of strong brands. In attempting toachieve this aim, managers of the IMC process are likely todraw on the cultural predisposition to work cooperatively,

leverage the market- and customer-sensing mechanisms ofthe organization to devise message and media strategies, andadopt an informed approach to choosing and orchestratingthe 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 isthe major communications development of the last decade,and that it is a potential driver of competitive advantage. Thepower of IMC is said to counter a range of changes in themarketing communication environment that are having animpact on the ability of companies to attract, retain,and le-verage customers. Kitchen,Joanne, and Tao (2004) also arguethat IMC seems to have passed through, and is still passingthrough, significant debateover its meaning and purpose, andthat it is struggling to emerge and distinguish itself fromother marketing concepts such as integrated marketing,CRM(customer relationshipmanagement), andmarket orientation.From Kitchen, Joanne, and Tao's (2004) perspective, IMCneeds to be seen as a new paradigm that will facilitate themanagement of marketing communication.

IMC is centered on building and leveraging customer andconsumer interests and relationships. This relationship ori-entation ties IMC to one-to-one marketing and CRM, andchallenges managersto deal with the integration, alignment,measurement, and accountabilityof both traditional and newinteractive marketing approaches Bakerand Mitchell 2000).In further extending this notion of customer-orientedcom-munication, managersmust realize that as long as IMC pro-vides the organization with a superior market advantage,onoccasions, it can be a marketdriver, and on others, it may bemarket driven (Carrillat, Jaramillo, and Locander 2004;Duncan and Mulhern2004;Jaworski, Kohli, andSahay2000).Defining IMC and PhilosophySince initial attempts to define IMC in the early 1990s, anabundance of definitions have emerged, and have been dis-cussed in detail in many recentpapers (Duncan 2002; Gould2004; Kitchen, Joanne, and Tao 2004; Kliatchko 2005). InDuncan's representation,IMC is seen as aprocessformanag-ing the customer relationshipsthat drive brand value. Morespecifically, it is a cross-functional process for creating andnourishing profitable relationshipswith customersand otherstakeholders by strategically controlling or influencing allmessages sent to these groups and encouraging data driven,purposeful dialogue with them (2002, p. 8).As an indicationof ongoing conceptualand theoreticalde-velopment,a recentIMCwhitepaper uggestedthatIMCshould

* be more strategic than executional,* be about more than just advertising and salespromotion messages,


8/13/2019 4189316

4/14

8/13/2019 4189316

5/14

14 TheJournal of AdvertisingTABLE IStrategic and Tactical Characteristics of Integrated Marketing Communication (IMC)

Strategic TacticalI. Driven by market-based ssets and financial xpectations 1.Campaign-levelonsistency2. Customerand stakeholderconnectivity 2. Campaign-level larity3. Strategicconsistency 3. Campaign-leveloordination4. Cross-functional ntegration5. Resource commitment for IMC

Phase 4: Strategic and financial integrationforconsistentmonitoringfperformancef marketingcommunicationffortsor returnon investment.

A review of the contributions of various researchershas beenundertakento elucidate the components of IMC that poten-tially fall under the bannerof strategic versus tactical aspectsof IMC, which is summarizedin Table 1. The significance ofthis division is the recognition that IMC is a holistic process.While bringing the global or big picture strategic aspectsof IMC to the fore has been widely advocated, it is nonethe-less still critical to ensure that the day-to-day managementoftactical aspects are not overlooked or taken as a given if aneffective IMC approachis to be implemented. In essence, re-cent definitions (suchasthose highlighted earlier)reflect thesedual aspects of IMC.

While strategic-level IMC relates to effecting the brand-positioning strategy in a holistic sense, the tactical aspects ofIMC primarily relate to the planning and implementation ofindividual holistic campaigns that, over time, work to buildand reinforce brand positioning and contribute incrementallyto building strong customer-basedbrand equity. In essence,this should reflectbest practicein developing and implement-ing individual campaigns.Forthe purposesof this paper,ourfocus is primarily on the strategic aspects of IMC.Strategic Dimensions of IMCThe strategicdimensions of IMC relateprimarilyto the qual-ity, comprehensiveness,and flexibility of the processof IMCplanning and strategy development. In this model, the pa-rametersof IMC at the strategic level can be grouped underfive broad dimensions:1. Market-BasedAssetsand FinancialExpectationsIt is imperative that IMC planning is performanceor out-come driven (Duncan and Moriarty 1997; Duncan andMulhern 2004; Kitchen, Brignall, and Li 2004; Low 2000;Schultz 1998; Schultz, Cole, and Bailey 2004; Smith 1996).The decisions madewith regard o devising andeffectingstrat-egy need to be underpinned and shared through clear and

consistent linkages to building and maintaining brand equityand to financial ndicatorsof performance uch as sales,marketshare, profit, and returnon investment. The use of improveddata and measurement echnologiesare paramount n shapingIMC and facilitating its acceptanceby seniormanagement.2. Customer nd Stakeholder onnectivityIMC requiresthe adoption of an outside-in approachthatenhances customer connectivity and organizational respon-siveness to change by putting the customer first (DuncanandMoriarty1997; Pickton and Hartley 1998; Schultz 1998;Smith 1996). More specifically, IMC planners and strate-gists require the existence, calibration, and application of amarketing information system designed to elicit a clear un-derstanding of brand touch points, effect a timely dialoguewith customers and other key stakeholders, and facilitateinsights into competitive brand activity. The existence of adatabasecalibratedto measurecustomer and stakeholder re-sponsiveness of campaigns will also facilitate measurementof performance.3. StrategicConsistencyThis dimension recognizes that all parts of the brandentitysend a message to customersand other stakeholders. The co-ordinationof brandmessages, from whateversource, includ-ing other aspects of the marketing mix, coordination ofcustomer-facing staff, and, more broadly, contact with theorganization, must be consistent to protect brand image(Duncan and Moriarty 1997). Achieving strategicconsistencyhasalso been likened to centralcoordinationof IMCprograms(Cornelissen 2001; Duncan and Moriarty 1997; Eagle andKitchen 2000; Low 2000; Pickton and Hartley 1998). En-abling strategic consistency requiresthe use of meetings andother planning mechanisms that facilitate linkages betweenmarketing and brand strategy and IMC strategy,and also theuse of mechanisms to ensure that the brand has the best op-portunity forachieving one voice/one look across all elementsof the marketingmix (Duncan and Moriarty 1997; EagleandKitchen 2000; Schultz 1998; Smith 1996). The issue of con-sistencyshouldalso extend to coverthe design and implemen-


8/13/2019 4189316

6/14

Winter2005 15tation of campaigns over time (Duncan and Moriarty 1997;Eagle and Kitchen 2000; Phelps andJohnson 1996).4. Cross-FunctionalntegrationIt has been argued that an organizationcannot be integratedexternally without being integrated internally (Duncan andMulhern 2004). Cross-functional integration is built on fo-cused internal marketing processesand provides the founda-tion for effective IMC planning and reporting (Conduit andMavondo 2001; Cornelissen 2001; Duncan and Moriarty1997). Top management needs to be involved to drive theprocess (Duncan and Mulhern 2004), and there needs to be awillingness to change policies that inhibit the implementa-tion of IMC (Phelps and Johnson 1996; Smith 1996).5. Resource ommitmentor IMCIn order for IMC to be performedeffectively, there must beadequate resourceprovision, including time, funds, and skilledand knowledgeable personnel (Duncan and Moriarty 1997;Eagle and Kitchen 2000; Smith 1996). Resource commit-ment can also be a useful mechanism for signaling the legiti-macy of behaviors and mental models consistent withimplementing IMC.

MARKET ORIENTATION ANDITS RELATIONSHIP TO IMC

Marketorientation has been an implicit theme underlying theimplementationandmanagementof IMC.Thereis an assump-tion that firms adopting IMC have in placea customer-centricorientation and systems for linking the organization to themarketandcustomer,as well asprocesses,systems, and mentalmodels that link various functional areasof the organization(Duncan and Moriarty 1998; Slater 1997; Stewart1996).Market orientation in various forms has been discussedextensivelyin the literature(Carrillat,Jaramillo,andLocander2004; Kohli and Jaworski 1990; Narver and Slater 1990).Helfert, Ritter, and Walter (2002) split the literature intothree main streams:(1) a behavioralperspective (e.g., Kohliand Jaworski 1990), where market orientation is focused onorganization-wide market intelligence generation, dissemi-nation, and responsiveness to the information; (2) a culturalperspective (e.g., Narver and Slater 1990), where market ori-entation is reflected through the values and attitudes of theorganization in providing superior customer value throughpaying attention to current and emerging customer needs;and (3) a competitive perspective that understands currentand potential competitors and coordinates the organizationalresources to deliver superiorcustomer value. Other research-ers have adopted a systems perspective (e.g., Becker and Hom-

burg 1999), where marketorientation sconceptualizedn termsof different systems underpinningthe organizationalactivities(i.e., organization, nformation, planning, controlling, and hu-man resources).Despite these apparent differences, there areimportant overlapsin these conceptualizations (Cadogan andDiamantopoulos 1995). In the final analysis, one realizes thatmarketorientation suggests that all information on all impor-tant buying influences permeatesevery corporate unction, andthat strategicand tacticaldecisions are made interfunctionallyand interdivisionally.

A review and synthesis of the ideas embedded in marketorientation concludes that it consists of:* A customer rientation:Active encouragement of

customer comments and complaints, an after-salesservice emphasis, regularevaluation of ways to createsuperior product/service value, and the regularmeasurement of customer satisfaction levels.* A competitorrientation: he regular monitoring ofcompetitor activity, the collection and use of marketinformation on competitors to develop marketingplans, and using the sales force to monitor and reportcompetitor activity.* Interfunctionaloordination: he sharing of marketinformation acrossdepartments, the involvement of alldepartments in the preparationof business plans andstrategies, the integration of the activities acrossdepartments, the interaction of marketing personnelwith other departments, and joint assessment ofcustomer needs.* A profit emphasis: ased on the capability ofmanagement information systems to determine theprofitability of each major customer, product line, salesterritory, and distribution channel.

FromFigure 1 we imply that the primarylink between IMCand market orientation is through interfunctional coordina-tion. Fundamental to the success of market orientation is thecoordination of effortacrossdepartmentsto ensurethat orga-nizationalresourcesoptimally serve to createcustomer value.As noted in our prior discussion of IMC, fundamental to ef-fective IMC is the harmonization of the business's voice insupport of the brand (be it product or corporate).Given theconceptualization of market orientation as an aspect of anorganization's culture, we suggest that it is thereforea foun-dation for IMC. The common link between MO and IMCthrough interfunctional coordination is consistent with in-ternal marketing (Conduit and Mavondo 2001; Lings 2004).It is evident that one of the main contributions to emergefrom IMC s the concept of emphasizing the employees whomaybe the principalmeansof communicatingthe brandvalue.As noted by Berryand Parasuramann discussing the internal-izing process for service brands: Internalizing the brandin-


8/13/2019 4189316

7/14

16 TheJournal of Advertisingvolves explainingand selling the brand oemployees.... sharingwith employees the research and strategy behind thebrand.... training employees in brand-strengtheningbehav-iors and rewarding and celebrating employees whose actionssupport the brand 1991, p. 129).

Figure 1 also suggests that competitor orientation providesa partial context in which IMC takes place and that competi-tor orientation is critical to the nexus between IMC, MO, andBO, as discussed further in the next section.

BRAND ORIENTATION ANDITS RELATIONSHIP WITH IMC

The term brand orientation was first used in its currentcontext by Urde (1994), who defines it as an approach inwhich the processes of the organization revolve around thecreation, development, and protection of brand identity in anongoing interaction with target customers with the aim ofachieving lasting competitive advantages (Urde 1999, p.117). Brandorientation thus represents he functional or busi-ness-unit focus on brandsthat support strong customer andstakeholder relationships regardlessof the brand being at thecorporateor product level or being a service or manufacturedproduct (Bridson and Evans 2004), and suggests that an or-ganization has a clear brand vision and identity. This alsoimplies that market-sensing systems have been calibrated toprovide insight into managing the relationship between thebrand and its main stakeholders.In providing a background to brand orientation, Ewingand Napoli (2004) suggest that brandmanagementhas beenviewed from several perspectives, with some authors havingtaken a broad overview of the brand management process(Kapferer 1997; Keller 1998; Park, Jaworski, and Maclnnis1986), while others have focused on specific elements orthemes, including creating a unique brand identity, structur-ing brand portfolios, managing brand communication, andmonitoring brand value (Aaker 1996; Duncan and Moriarty1998; Keller 2000). By focusing on each of these aspects, anorganization is able to effectively monitor consumers'brandperceptions, identify whether such perceptions correspondwith their own brandvision, and instigate strategies that re-inforcepositive brandbeliefs or change negative perceptions.In recognizing this need to use brands as a basis for com-petitive advantage, organizations are reaching beyond thetraditional market orientation framework and are develop-ing a brand orientation. In this sense, one sees market ori-entation, with its long-term focus, ascreating the conditionsfor brand orientation as a means of translating the goals andobjectives of market orientation into a medium- to long-term actionable set of activities.A review of the literature (Bridson and Evans 2004; Ewingand Napoli 2004; Simoes and Dibb 2001) indicates the no-

tion that brand orientationshould be embedded in all organi-zationalactivities to build a strong relationshipwith principalstakeholders.BridsonandEvans's 2004) conceptualizationandoperationalizationof brandorientation indicates four compo-nents: (1) a focus on distinctiveness (measuredusing elementsof Narver and Slater 1990 and Hankinson 2000), (2) func-tionality (utility) (drawn from de Chernatonyand Dall'OlmoRiley 1997 and Bhat and Reddy 1998), (3) value adding (in-corporating elements from McEnally and de Chernatony1999), and (4) symbolic capabilities(similarto Goodyear 1996and Kapferer 1997). We emphasizethis to indicate the link-ages or potential linkages to IMC.

The model currently under development asserts that thelink between IMC and brand orientation is related to thedevelopment of brand identity (see Figure 1). We argue thatto create successful brand identity, it is necessary to ensurethat brand messages are strategically driven, with the syn-chronization of communication being identified as one ofthe most important aspects of the brand orientation process(Urde 1994). Consistency of the brand message has beenidentified as being one of the key determinants of brandsuccess by a numberof authors(Aaker 1996; de Chernatonyand Segal-Horn 2003; Urde 1994). Duncan and Moriarty(1998, p. 6), for instance, suggest, messages sent by thecompany's overall business practices and philosophies havecommunications dimensions.... its mission, hiring prac-tices, philanthropies, corporateculture, and practice of re-sponding to inquiries all send messages that confirm,strengthen, or weaken brand relationships. Duncan andMoriarty (1998) further suggest that the implications of

everything sends a message is that brand messages mustbe strategically consistent, and that there is a focus on otherstakeholders beyond customers.To furtherhighlight the link between IMC and brandori-entation, we note that the focus of brand orientation is also oncreating branddistinctiveness. We arguethat the distinctive-ness of a brand in the eyes of consumersis not a propertyofthe actual product, but a product of communication of thebrand. We note that brand functionality (utility) is not anabsolute attribute of a productor servicebecausemany prod-ucts can potentially servethe same function. This leads us tosuggest that brand unctionalityis heavily influencedby brandcommunication.These argumentsindicate the close relation-ship and interdependenceof brand orientationand IMC.Twofurtheraspectsof brandorientationoperationalized n Bridsonand Evans's 2004) paperarevalueadding andsymbolicvalue.Brand orientation seeks to add value to an existing or newproduct or service to give it a competitive advantage and areason for customers to choose it. Value is increasingly beingcreatedoutside the physical product by such factors as inter-actions between the customer and organization, responsive-ness o complaints, andcustomer needsand expectations.


8/13/2019 4189316

8/14

Winter2005 17These activities lie in the domain of IMC, implying that suc-cessftl value adding is critically dependent on the effective-ness of IMC. Finally, the symbolic value of a brand is not aninherent attribute of the brand, nor does it exist outside thecommunication, behavior,and attitude of the business, orhowthese are perceived by the consumers.

In general, we suggest that BO consists of the followingsix elements, drawn from the brand orientation literature:

* Sharedbrandvision:The brand is central to corporatedecision making and the corporatemission. It involvesa broadened perspective on the operationsof theorganization, with strategic goals being directlyrelated to the brand.The brand is considered to beintegral with other resources and competencies, andthere is an explicitly communicated vision with clearallocation of responsibility and authority.* Sharedbrand unctionality:The organization recognizesthat the brand facilitates differentiation fromcompetitors by communicating specific functionalattributes and benefits to customers.* Sharedbrandpositioning:The brand forms a means ofidentification, differentiation, and a guaranteeofconsistency to customers. The organization recognizesthat the brand is central to building customer loyaltyin the marketplace,and all communication related tothe brand is linked to appropriate competitivepositioning and value.* Brand returnon investmentROI; inancial performance):The brand and building brand equity areacknowledged as being critically important inachieving positional advantage in the market and inleveraging this into financial rewards.Brand-orientedmanagerssee brands as underpinning theorganization's strategic resourcebase.* Brandsymbolism:Managerial recognition that the brandhas a strong emotional and symbolic appeal, and is anexpression of customers' personality and values. Theemotional aspects communicated in relation to thebrand are recognized for their ability to bond acustomer to a brand.* Brand value-adding apability:To achieve brandobjectives, organizations need to manage their internaland external activities to maximize value-addingcapabilities. Brand orientation focuses on consumers'utilitarian satisfaction, and hence a critical role in thisis the communication of the beliefs and capabilities theorganization employs to add value beyond thefunctional aspects. This can include, for example, anemphasis on service, quality, or brand personality,andit facilitates the establishment of mutual brandknowledge with customers and other key stakeholders.

BRINGING IMC, MO, AND BO TOGETHERFigure 1 is designed to show the overlapping and interdepen-dent conceptualizationof the relationship between IMC, MO,and BO. We start by noting that the interplay between IMC,MO, and BO occurs in a context of competition. Thus, MO,through the dimension of competitor orientation, providesthe context. By being conceptualized and operationalized asorganizationalculture, MO is conceived asbeing foundationalto both IMC and BO. In priordiscussion, we have noted thata principal link between IMC and MO is provided by theircommon referenceto interfunctional coordination, which isalso closely related to the concept of internal marketing. Weobserve that interfunctional coordination in the context ofMO is a means of optimizing resourceuse, while in the con-text of IMC, it is maximizing communication effectivenessand consistency.However, the foundationalbase is the same;that is, departmentsor functional areasmust cooperateand beintegrated to achieve optimum results for the organization.Our earlier discussion also noted that the principal linkbetween IMC and BO is the brand. BO seeks to provide afoundation for building and managing brands that are dis-tinctive, that provide functional and symbolic value for cus-tomers and stakeholders, and that are the basis for ongoingprofitablerelationships.We have noted that to achieve theseobjectives, integrated marketing communicationis a sine quanon. Though somewhat peripheralto the focus of this paper,we also note that the principal ink between MO and BO is thecustomer,since BO providesa means of translatingthe long-term objectives of MO into an actionable set of activities.The most interesting observation from Figure 1 is whatwe have labeled as the NEXUS-the areawhere the dynamicinterplay of IMC, MO, and BO occurs. The position labeledthe NEXUS represents he regionofcommonalityamong MO,BO, and IMC. This provides the common link between thethree concepts. It can be see that in this region, there is anequalcontribution fromMO, BO, andIMC.Clearly, he domi-nant featureof this region is simultaneous focus on custom-ers, interfunctional coordination, and brand identity. Thelargerthis region can be made, the closer the harmonizationbetween MO, BO, and IMC, and the more effective the orga-nization becomes at building brand equity (or however per-formanceis measured).This suggests that a full understanding of the dynamicsatthe NEXUS between the three concepts involves understand-ing the sharedcommonality of focus. The three concepts areconcernedwith meeting the needs of customers while recog-nizing that IMC has to meet the needs and expectations of awide range of other stakeholders, such as investors, media,and employees. There is also an indication that fundamentalto all threeconcepts is the need forintegration, without whichthere is no cultivation of shared meaning or commitment.


8/13/2019 4189316

9/14

18 TheJournal of AdvertisingFIGURE 2Conceptual Model Linking Integrated Marketing Communication (IMC) toMarket Orientation, Brand Orientation, and Brand Performance

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

H3 /H4 Brandorientation~8 erfrmnc

We note that brand identity also emerges as a critical con-cept. The brand's dentity createsvalue throughcustomerfran-chise, which leads to brand equity. This is a focus forMO andBO, and it is increasingly becoming the central role of IMC.Finally,Figure 1does not negate the contributionsof the otherelements of MO (i.e., competitor orientation) or the variousaspects of brand orientation and IMC, since these also con-tribute to the NEXUS region and can be incorporated con-ceptually, and in any empirical consideration. This analysisleads us to conclude that IMC, MO, and BO are three partlyoverlapping concepts, each vital to the fulfillment of organi-zational objectives, and eacha worthwhile academic and prac-tical field of further investigation.

Drawing from the discussion presented above and fromthe work of Cornelissen, Lock, and Gardner (2001), we de-velop the following hypotheses (see Figure 2).

HI: Thehigher he levelofmarket rientation,he higher helevelof IMC.H2: The higher he levelofmarket rientation,he higher helevelof brandorientation.H3: Thehigher he level of brandorientation,he higher helevel of IMC.H4: Brand orientationmediates he relationshipbetweenmarket rientation nd IMC.

LINKING IMC TO MARKETING OUTCOMESThe IMC-brand performance ink is, in principle, supportedin the literature, with IMC providing campaign, brand, and

organizationalbenefits (Duncan and Moriarty 1998; Kitchenand Schultz 1999; Low 2000; Reid 2003; Schultz, Cole, andBailey 2004; Swain 2004). Nevertheless, despite this concep-tual support, very little empirical evidence exists to substan-tiate the value of IMC in quantifiable terms (Baker andMitchell 2000; Cornelissenand Locke2000; Eagle andKitchen2000; Kitchen,Brignell,andLi 2004; Low 2000; Swain2004).

One of the problemsassociatedwith performancemeasuresin marketing is the conceptualization of marketing inputs.As a discipline, we think of IMC as an investment in commu-nication, but accountantssee this as an expense. This createsproblems of revenue-stream recognition. Thus, apparentlysuitable measuresof IMC become inappropriatewhen closelyexamined from an accounting perspective.There are no easyanswers, but attempts must be made to improve the situa-tion. Such measuresas ROI (Ambler et al. 2002; Kitchen andSchultz 2001), return on touch point investment (ROTPI)(Schultz,Cole, and Bailey 2004), and improvementsin brandequity and customer equity (Duncan and Mulhern 2004;Hutton 1996; Keller 1993) are useful, but must be seen inthe context in which marketing inputs are accounted for inthe balance sheet and income statements. (See Table 2.)In our view, a chainof IMC productivity is likely to existthat links performancein marketing communication man-agement and campaignswith customerand brandequity out-comes, and parallelsthe brand value chain concept espousedby Keller and Lehmann(2003) and Ambler et al. (2002). In arecent article on measuring marketing productivity, Rust etal. (2004) also developed a frameworkthat links marketingstrategy and tactics to customer, marketplace,and financialbenefits for the organization.From an IMC perspective, Rustet al. (2004) identify the impact of marketing strategy and


8/13/2019 4189316

10/14

Winter2005 19TABLE 2Integrated Marketing Communication (IMC) Outcome Measures

IMCperformance level Source Performance/outcomesMarketingommunicationerformanceOperational Beard 1996;Cornelissen and Lock2001; Hartley Psychosocialoutcomes, including

and Pickton 1999;Lintonand Morley 1995; reduced interdepartmentalSchultz1993;Stewart 1996 conflict,decreasedtransactioncosts through cooperation,reduced duplicationof effort,reduced duplicationofcommunication trategies,clearalignmentof brandpositioning,one voice-one look.Campaign Cornelissen and Lock2000; Lintonand Synergybetween theMorley 1995;Rossiter and Bellman2005 communicationmix (battingaboveweight), perceptions of success onindirect campaignobjectivesrela-tive to competitors,economicreturnon campaign nvestment

(ROCI).Brand erformanceCustomerimpactand Aaker 1996;Ambler et al.2002;Blattberg Brandequityand customer-basedasset-related and Deighton 1996;Keller1993; brandequity, ncludingRust et al.2004; Schultz,Cole, and intermediatemeasures of changeBailey2004 in customer awareness,customerassociations,customerattitudes,customer attachments,customerexperiences,returnon touchpoint investment(ROTPI).Marketmpactandposition-related Aaker 1996; Ambler et al.2002; Blattbergand Low price elasticityof customers,Deighton 1996;Duncan and Moriarty pricepremiums,decreasingsales1997;Keller 1993;Rustet al.2004; and servicingcosts, decreasing

Srivastava t al. 1998 rate of churn anddefection,share of wallet trend,market-shareposition,sales andsales growth.Financialmpactand impacton firmvalue Rust et al. 2004;Srivastava t al. 1998 Profitand profitgrowth, EBIT(earningsbefore interest andtaxes), cash flow stabilityandgrowth,ROI(returnoninvestment)/ROBIreturnonbrandinvestment-current andfuture),EVA economic value-add),MVA marketvalue-add),marketcapitalization,hare price.


8/13/2019 4189316

11/14

20 TheJournal of Advertisingtactics (including marketing communication) on customerattitudes, loyalty, satisfaction, churn, and retention, amongothers. These intermediatemeasuresof performancecan thenbe aggregated to the level of marketing assets and measuredthrough metrics related to brandequity and customer equity.Finally, such actions have flow on effects to financial impact(ROI, EVA [economic value-added]), as measured by finan-cial position (including profits and cash flow). The net resultof this chain of impacts is felt through the increased organi-zation value and market value of the firm.In our model (Figure 2), we propose measurement of brandoutcomesat two interrelated evels, including marketing com-municationperformance nd brandperformance.Table2 iden-tifies a range of possible measures that can be employed togauge this performance.In general, marketing-communica-tion performancemeasuresencompassinternal process metricsand return on campaign efforts, whereas brand performancein this model is related to customer impact and market im-pact measures,as well as profit and cash flow metrics.Given the lack of empirical research on the relationshipbetween IMC and various performance outcomes, it is tooearly to specify an exact relationship between them. Never-theless, from an operational perspective, IMC has been hy-pothesizedto providebenefitsin the coordinationof marketingcommunication activities and across the various functionsinvolved in the implementation of marketing campaigns(Beard 1996; Cornelissen and Lock 2000; Schultz 1993;Stewart 1996). Cornelissenand Lock(2000) presentsuch ben-efits as being psychosocial, including reduced conflict anddecreasedtransactioncosts acrossfunctions. Additional meansof cost savingsrelate to organizational nfrastructure,n whichcooperation among an organization'sdepartments avoids un-necessary duplication of communication strategies, therebyimproving operational efficiency and message consistency(Hartley and Pickton 1999; Linton and Morley 1995).From the perspective of individual campaigns, it could beexpected that firms that havesuccessfully implemented IMCwould show improvement in the outcomes from individualcampaigns. Cornelissen and Lock (2000) term these func-tional outcomes, and include such things assynergybetweenthe communication-mix elements of the campaign (Lintonand Morley 1995) and improved ability to employ a widerand more appropriaterange of communication tools result-ing predominantlyfrom the applicationof zero-based lan-ning principles (Duncan and Moriarty 1997). The success ofcampaignscanpotentiallybemeasuredusing aneconomicanaly-sis of return on campaign investment through direct behav-ioralobjectives and, on a more subjective basis, on managersperceptions of success relative to competitors' campaigns.Generally,one would expect that organizationsemployingIMC would have a greater capacity to achieve their stateddirect and indirect campaign objectives, including increased

brandawareness,positive brandattitude andpreference,brandaction intention, and purchase facilitation (Rossiter andBellman 2005). The successfulattainment of such campaignobjectives would likely be felt over time through increasedcustomer and brand equity, measured through associatedmetrics. Increased customer and brand equity would likelybe felt through improvements in price premiums achievedand reductions in price elasticity, as well as increased marketshare and improvedprofitability, among other factors (Kellerand Lehmann2003). Overall, one of the most desirable out-comes of effectiveIMC is moredifferentiationleading to moremonopolistic brands (Rust et al. 2004), making the brandless vulnerable to competition.

From prior discussion, we advance the following hypoth-eses linking IMC, MO, and BO to performancemeasures.

H5: IMC is directly and positively related to marketingcommunicationerformance.H6: IMC is directly and positively related to brandperformance.H7: Marketingcommunicationerformances directlyandpositively elated o brandperformance.H8: Brand orientations directlyand positivelyrelated obrandperformance.H9: IMC totallymediatesherelationshipetweenMOandBO with marketing ommunicationerformance.

CONCLUSION: MANAGERIAL ANDRESEARCH IMPLICATIONS

Throughout the discussion, we have attempted to show thecomplementarities between IMC, market orientation, andbrandorientation.We haveemphasizedthat eachconcept re-flects specific emphasis, but collectively, they provide a richdescription and complex insight into the relationship. Formost organizations, the issue of what is an antecedentto whatdoes not seriously arise, because it is the exploitation of thecomplementarities that is more important. However, for or-ganizationswith low marketorientation, in this case, the cul-tural context for interfunctional coordination and focusingon customers,attempts to developIMCmay not succeed.Thisis becausethe culturalfoundationforcooperationacrossfunc-tions, departments, and SBUs (strategic business units), orwith suppliers and other stakeholders, may not exist. Alongthe same line of argument, we believe that where brand ori-entation is low, implying low sharing of corporateor brandidentity and vision, attempts at introducing IMC may notbe as successful as when both MO and BO are adequatelydeveloped.The arguments resented n this study have mplications


8/13/2019 4189316

12/14

Winter2005 21for managers.It is known and accepted that any form of inte-gration is generally difficult. This is because efforts to inte-grate move people out of their comfort zones and threatenthestatus quo. It is also known that the reward systems in mostorganizationsare not designed to rewardcooperation(in fact,more often, organizations encourage competition and paro-chial interests). Some approachesto overcome this includebuilding a strong market orientation and building a strongbrand orientation. This allows for setting a positive culturalenvironment and will encourage routine cooperation,whichwill significantly assist in the implementation of IMC. Fromthe model developed in this paper, there is a suggestion thatIMC is positively associated with some performancemetrics.There is also the suggestion that perhapsIMC mediates therelationship between market orientation and performance,orthat IMC mediates the relationship between brand orienta-tion and performance,or both. This conceptualization pro-vides a rich insight into how IMC might be linked to variousperformancemeasures.

Finally, we see the conceptual model presented in the pa-per as being imminently testable. The measures of marketorientation have been around for over a decade and are be-coming well accepted. The measures of brand orientationare slowly becoming acceptable, although still at an earlystage of development. The performancemeasuressuggestedin the study have been empirically tested by other research-ers and present no special problems with operationalization.The most difficult part of the model relates to the develop-ment of scales that adequatelycapture the essence of the IMCprocess and can link to the appropriateexternalperformancemeasures. The use of existing instruments such as Duncanand Moriarty's(1997) IMC miniaudit may prove useful as astarting point fortesting these relationships. Overall, the dataanalysis implied by the model (structural equation model-ing) is well established to provide direct, indirect, and totaleffects of the independent variables (MO and BO) throughIMC, and the direct effects of IMC on external performancemeasures. The value of operationalizing this model will beseen through a clearer understanding of IMC's relationshipto other marketing concepts and to customer and brand eq-uity and marketplace performance.

REFERENCESAaker,David A. (1996), BuildingStrongBrands,New York:FreePress.Ambler,Tim,C. B. Bhattacharya,ulie Edell,KevinLaneKeller,KatherineN. Lemon,and Vikas Mittal (2002), RelatingBrandand CustomerPerspectiveson MarketingManage-ment, Journal fService esearch, (August), 13-25.Baker,Susan,and Helen Mitchell (2000), IntegratedMarket-ing Communication:Implications for Managers, Euro-

peanSocietyforOpinion ndMarketingResearchNovember),239-24 1.Beard,Fred (1996), IntegratedMarketingCommunications:New Role Expectationsand Performance ssues in the Cli-ent-Ad Agency Relationship? JournalfBusinessResearch,37 (3), 207-215.Becker,Jan, and ChristianHomburg (1999), Market-OrientedManagement: A Systems-Based Perspective, Journal ofMarket-Focusedanagement, (1), 17-4 1.Berry,LeonardL., and A. Parasuraman1991), Marketing er-vices:Competing hroughQuality,New York:FreePress.Bhat, Subodh, and SrinivasK. Reddy (1998), Symbolic andFunctionalPositioning of Brands, JournalfConsumer ar-keting,15 (1), 32-43.Blattberg, RobertC., andJohn Deighton (1996), ManageMar-keting by the CustomerEquityTest, HarvardBusinessRe-view, 74 (July/August),136-144.Bridson,Kerrie,andJodie Evans 2004), TheSecret to a Fash-ion AdvantageIs BrandOrientation, nternationalJournalofRetailand DistributionManagement,2 (8), 403-411.Cadogan, John, and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (1995),Narver and Slater,Kohli and Jaworski and the MarketOrientation Construct:Integrationand Internationaliza-tion, ournalofStrategicMarketing, , 41-60.Carrillat, FranqoisA., FernandoJaramillo, and William B.Locander2004), Market-Driving rganizations:A Frame-work, AcademyfMarketingcience eview 004 (5).Caywood,Clarke,Don E. Schultz,and Paul Wang (1991), In-tegratedMarketingCommunications:A Surveyof NationalConsumerGoods Advertisers, eport(June),Northwest-ern University.Conduit,Jodie, and Felix Mavondo(2001), How Critical IsInternal CustomerOrientation to MarketOrientation?JournalofBusinessResearch,1, 11-24.Cornelissen,Joep P. (2001), IntegratedMarketingCommuni-cations and the Languageof MarketDevelopment, Inter-nationalJournal fAdvertising,0 (4), 483-499., and Andrew R. Lock(2000), TheoreticalConceptorManagementFashion?Examining heSignificance f IMC,JournalofAdvertising esearch,0 (5), 7-15., - , and Hanne Gardner 2001), TheOrganiza-tion of ExternalCommunicationDisciplines:An Integra-tive FrameworkfDimensions ndDeterminants, nternationalJournalofAdvertising, 0 (1), 67-88.Dawar,Niraj (2004), What Are BrandsGood For, MITSloanManagementeview, 6 (1), 31-37.de Chernatony,Leslie, and FrancescaDall'Olmo Riley (1997),

Modelingthe Components of the Brand, Europeanour-nal ofMarketing, 2 (11), 1074-1090., and SusanSegal-Horn(2003), The Criteriafor Suc-cessfulServicesBrands, Europeanournal of Marketing, 7(7/8), 1095-1118.Duncan, Thomas R. (2002),IMC:UsingAdvertisingnd Promo-tiontoBuildBrands,New York:McGraw-Hill., and StephenE. Everett(1993), ClientPerceptionsofIntegratedMarketingCommunications, ournalofAdver-tising Research,33 (3), 30-40.


8/13/2019 4189316

13/14

22 TheJournal ofAdvertising, andSandraMoriarty 1997), DrivingBrandValue,NewYork:McGrawHill.and (1998), A Communication-BasedMar-keting Model forManagingRelationships, Journalf Mar-keting,62 (2), 1-13., and FrankMulhern, eds. (2004), A WhitePaperon theStatus,ScopendFuture f IMC(fromIMCsymposiumspon-sored by the IMC programsat NorthwesternUniversityand the Universityof Denver), New York:McGraw-Hill.Eagle,Lynne, and Phillip J. Kitchen(2000), Building Brandsor Bolstering Egos? A ComparativeReviewof the Impactand Measurementof Advertising on BrandEquity, Jour-

nal of MarketingCommunications,, 91-106.Ewing, Michael T., andJulie Napoli (2004), Developing andValidating a MultidimensionalNonprofit Brand Orienta-tion Scale, Journal f BusinessResearch,8 (6), 841-853.Goodyear,Mary 1996), Divided by a CommonLanguage:Di-versityand Deception in the World of GlobalMarketing,Journalof the MarketResearchociety, 8 (2), 105-122.Gould, StephenJ. (2004), IMC sTheoryand asaPoststructuralSet of Practicesand Discourses:A ContinuouslyEvolvingParadigmShift, Journal fAdvertising esearch,4 (1), 66.Hankinson,Philippa2000), BrandOrientationnCharityOrgani-zations:QualitativeResearch nto Key CharitySectors, n-ternationalJournalf NonprofitndVoluntaryectorMarketing,5 (3), 207-219.Harris, Lloyd C. (1998), CulturalDomination: The Key toMarket-OrientedCulture? Europeanournalof Marketing,32 (3/4), 354-373.Hartley,Bob, and David Pickton (1999), IntegratedMarket-ing CommunicationsRequires a New Way of Thinking,Journal of MarketingCommunications, , 97-106.Helfert, Gabriele,Thomas Ritter, and Achim Walter (2002),RedefiningMarketOrientation froma Relationship Per-spective:TheoreticalConsiderationsndEmpiricalResults,EuropeanournalofMarketing, 6 (9-10), 1119-1139(21).Hutton, James G. (1996), IntegratedMarketingCommunica-tions and the Evolution of MarketingThought, ournalofBusinessResearch,7 (3), 155-163.Jaworski, Bernard, Ajay K. Kohli, and Arvind Sahay (2000),Market-DrivenVersusDriving Markets, ournal of theAcademy f Marketing cience, 8 (1), 45-54.Kapferer,ean-Noel(1997), Strategic randManagement:reatingandSustaining randEquityLong-Term,ondon:KoganPage.Keller, Kevin Lane(1993), Conceptualizing,Measuring,andManagingCustomer-BasedBrandEquity, ournalofMar-keting,57 (1), 1-22.

(1998), StrategicBrandManagement:uilding,Measur-ing,andManagingBrandEquity,New Jersey:PrenticeHall.(2000), TheBrandReportCard, HarvardBusinessRe-view,78 (1), 147-156., andDonaldR. Lehmann 2003), HowDo BrandsCre-ate Value? MarketingManagement,2 (3), 26-32.Kitchen, Philip J., Joanne Brignell, and Li Tao (2004), TheEmergenceof IMC:A TheoreticalPerspective, Journal fAdvertising Research,44 (1), 19-30., and Don E. Schultz (1999), A Multi-Country Coin-

parison of the Drive for IMC, Journal of Advertising Re-search, 39 (1), 21-36.

, and (2001), A Comparative Analysis of Inte-grated Corporate and Product Brand Communication, Jour-nal of Global Communication, (1), 438-45 1.

Kliatchko, Jerry (2005), Towards a Definition of IntegratedMarketing Communications (IMC), InternationalJournalof AdvertisingResearch,24 (1), 7-34.Kohli, Ajay K., and BernardJ. Jaworski (1990), Market Orien-tation: The Construct, Research, Propositions, and Mana-gerial Implications, Journal of Marketing, 54, 1-18.

Lannon, Judie, and Peter Cooper (1983), Humanistic Advertis-ing: A Cultural Perspective, InternationalJournalof Adver-tising, 2 (3), 195-213.

Lings, Ian N. (2004), InternalMarket Orientation: Construct andConsequences, Journalof BusinessResearch,7 (4), 405-414.

Linton, Ian, and Kevin Morley (1995), IntegratedMarketingCom-munications,Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.

Low, George S. (2000), Correlatesof Integrated Marketing Com-munications, Journal of AdvertisingResearch, 0 (3), 27-39.

McEnally,MarthaR., and Lesliede Chernatony(1999), TheEvolv-ing Nature of Branding: Consumer and Managerial Consid-erations, Academy fMarketingSienceReview1999(2), 1-40.Narver, John C., and Stanley F. Slater (1990), The Effect of aMarket Orientation on Business Profitability, Journal of

Marketing,54, 20-35.Nowak, Glen J., and Joseph Phelps (1994), Conceptualizingthe Integrated Marketing Communications Phenomenon:An Examination of Its Impact on Advertising Policies andIts Implications for Advertising Research, Journal of Cur-rent Issuesand Research n Advertising, 16 (1), 49-66.

Park, C. Whan, Bernard J. Jaworski, and Deborah Maclnnis(1986), Strategic Brand Concept-Image Management,

Journal of Marketing, 50 (4), 135-146.Percy, Larry (1997), Strategies or ImplementingntegratedMarket-ing Communications,Chicago: NTC Business Books.

Petrison, Lisa A., and Paul Wang (1996), Integrated Market-ing Communication: Examining Planning and ExecutionalConsiderations, in IntegratedCommunication: ynergyofPer-suasiveVoices,EstherThorson and Jeri Moore, eds., Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 153-166.Phelps, Joseph E., and Edward Johnson (1996), Entering theQuagmire: Examining the 'Meaning'of Integrated Commu-nications, Journal ofMarketingCommunications,, 159-172.

Pickton, David, and Bob Hartley (1998), Measuring Integra-tion: An Assessment of the Quality of Integrated Market-ing Communications, InternationalJournalof Advertising,17, 447-457.Reid, Michael (2003), IMC-Performance Relationship: FurtherInsight and Evidence from the Australian Marketplace,InternationalJournalof Advertising, 22, 2.

Rossiter, John R., and Steven Bellman (2005), MarketingCommuni-cation:Theory nd Applications,Australia:Pearson Education.Rust, Roland T., Tim Ambler, Gregory S. Carpenter,V. Kumar,and Rajendra K. Srivastava(2004), Measuring MarketingProductivity: Current Knowledge and Future Directions,Journal of Marketing,68 (October), 76-89.


8/13/2019 4189316

14/14

Winter2005 23Schultz,Don E.(1993), IntegratedMarketingCommunications:MaybeDefinition Is in the Point of View, Marketing ews(January18), 17.(1998), Determining How Brand CommunicationWorksin the Short and Long Terms, nternationalJournalof Advertising, 7 (4), 403-426., Bill Cole, and Scott Bailey (2004), Implementing he

'Connect the Dots' Approachto Marketing Communica-tion, InternationalJournalfAdvertising, 3, 455-477., and Heidi Schultz (1998), TransitioningMarketingCommunication nto the 21st Century, ournalofMarket-ing Communications,, 9-26.Simoes, Claudia,andSallyDibb (2001), Rethinking he BrandConcept:A New BrandOrientation, Corporateommunica-tions:An InternationalJournal, (4), 217-224.Slater,StanleyF.(1997), Developinga CustomerValue-BasedTheoryof the Firm, Journal of the Academy f MarketingScience, 5 (2), 162-176.Smith, Paul (1996), Benefitsand Barriers o IntegratedCom-munications, Admap February),19-22.

Srivastava, Rajendra K., Liam Fahey, and Tasadduq A. Shervani(2000), Linking Advertising to Brand and Market-BasedAssets, Admap (February), 33-36.

, Tasadduq A. Shervani, and Liam Fahey. (1998), Mar-ket-based assets and shareholder value: A framework foranalysis, Journal of Marketing, 62 (1), 2-18.Stewart, David W. (1996), Market-Back Approach to the De-

sign of Integrated Communications Programs: A Changein Paradigm and a Focus on Determinants of Success, Jour-nal of BusinessResearch,37 (3), 147-153.Swain, William N. (2004), Perceptionsof IMC After a Decade ofDevelopment: Who's at the Wheel, and How Can We Mea-sure Success? Journal ofAdvertisingResearch, 4 (1), 46-65.Urde, Mats (1994), Brand Orientation: A Strategy forSurvival,Journal of ConsumerMarketing, 11 (3), 18-32.(1999), Brand Orientation: A Mindset for BuildingBrands into Strategic Resources, Journal ofMarketingMan-

agement,15, 117-133.White, Roderick (1999), What Can Advertising Really Do forBrands? InternationalJournal of Advertising, 18 (1), 3-22.

Documents

4189316