Auditing of IMC Action and Outcomes

8/9/2019 Auditing of IMC Action and Outcomes

1/15

Journal of Advertising, vol. 34, no. 4 (Winter 2005), pp. 41–54

© 2005 American Academy of Advertising. All rights reserved

ISSN 0091-3367 / 2005 $9.50 + 0.00

PERFORMANCE AUDITING OF INTEGRATED MARKETING

COMMUNICATION (IMC) ACTIONS AND OUTCOMES

Mike Reid

ABSTRACT: Proving the value of the integrated marketing communication (IMC) process in its relation to brand outcomes,such as brand awareness, brand loyalty, and sales, are critical issues. The research presented in this paper employs a

modified version of the Duncan-Moriarty IMC miniaudit (Duncan and Moriarty 1997) to examine the relationship between

the IMC process and brand outcomes. Data were collected from managers in both consumer goods and consumer services

organizations. Results demonstrate a positive relationship between the implementation of the IMC process and brand

outcomes, and provide encouragement for further research to validate the findings. It was also found that IMC is used

more in companies with a market orientation, and in those that encounter a high level of competition.

Mike Reid (Ph.D., Otago University) is a senior lecturer in the De-

partment of Marketing, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

The author gratefully acknowledges the positive and constructive

feedback from the guest editorial team—Professor Tom Duncan,

Professor Don E. Schultz, and Professor Charles Patti—and two

anonymous reviewers. The author also thanks Associate Professor Felix

Mavondo, Professor Arch Woodside, and Professor Art Kover for their

comments on earlier drafts of the paper.

Traditionally, academics and practitioners in the field of mar-

keting have supported the notion that marketing communi-

cation plays an important role in building and maintainingstakeholder relationships, and in leveraging these relation-

ships to build brand and customer equity (Ambler et al. 2002;

Duncan and Moriarty 1998; Jones and Blair 1996; Rust et al.

2004). Nevertheless, achieving a positive return on market-

ing communication investment is becoming harder as the

dynamics of markets change. A number of issues that affect

how customers respond to marketing offers, and how market-

ing communication is managed, have been identified (Duncan

and Mulhern 2004; Schultz and Schultz 1998; Shimp 1999).

These include

• reduced faith in mass marketing as marketingcommunication channels fragment and consumer

brand and media loyalties diminish or dilute;

• increasing reliance on more highly targeted marketing

communication methods to reflect a growing

“relationship-marketing” orientation in many

organizations;

• increased turnover of brand-management personnel

and a subsequent loss of learning and knowledge

regarding consistent promotional strategy and market

experience;

• greater demand placed on marketing communication

agencies to become brand custodians or guardiansrather than simply transaction-based suppliers of

marketing communication services; and

• increased efforts to measure and improve marketing-

communication return on investment (ROI), reflecting

greater demands by both agencies and clients for

accountability and measurement of alternative

customer acquisition and relationship activities.

In the drive to provide demonstrable evidence of the effec-

tiveness of their marketing communication programs, man-

agers need to investigate new marketing communication

processes and practices. In the literature, an increasing em-

phasis on integrated marketing communication (IMC) as a

paradigm shift provides an opportunity for creating improved

brand and communication performance (Duncan and Moriarty

1998; Hartley and Pickton 1999; Kitchen et al. 2004; Nowak

and Phelps 1994; Schultz and Schultz 1998).

This present research is exploratory and seeks to provide

insight into a range of questions related to understanding howthe IMC process might be evaluated in organizations, and

whether successful implementation of IMC might result in

more favorable brand outcomes. Specifically, the research ex-

plores the extent to which the IMC process, as measured by a

modified Duncan-Moriarty IMC miniaudit (Duncan and

Moriarty 1997), is correlated with brand-related outcomes

which in this study includes items related to sales, customer

satisfaction and loyalty, brand awareness, price premiums, and

channel support. Second, the research explores how well the

normative Duncan-Moriarty IMC miniaudit performs as an

empirically generalizable instrument for auditing the strengths

and weaknesses of IMC implementation in organizations, andwhether it can be extended from a diagnostic tool to one that


2/15

42 The Journal of Advertising

measures the effect of the IMC process on brand outcomes.

Finally, this research seeks to explore the extent to which a

range of organizational and market environment characteris-

tics are correlated with the IMC process. Organizational char-

acteristics include level of market orientation, size of

organization, organizational type, and size of the marketing

communication budget. Market characteristics include com-

petitor, customer, and technological turbulence faced by theorganization.

BACKGROUND AND CONCEPTUALIZATION

The Duncan-Moriarty Miniaudit

A number of consistent themes can be drawn from prominent

IMC definitions identified in the literature (Duncan and

Mulhern 2004; Kliatchko 2005) including

• a sound knowledge of the organization’s stakeholders,

acquired through two-way interaction with these

parties;

• communication tools selected on the bases of the

organization’s resources, and their favorability to the

intended recipient;

• the strategic coordination of various communication

tools in a manner consistent with the organization’s

brand positioning, and which maximizes their

synergistic effect so as to build strong brands and

stakeholder relationships;

• the use of appropriate, timely, and data-driven

evaluation and planning to determine the effectiveness

of this process; and• strong interfunctional and interorganizational

relationships with those responsible for implementing

marketing communication campaigns.

IMC is therefore seen as a planning process that evaluates

the strategic and synergistic role of a variety of communica-

tion disciplines and considers how best to integrate them across

the firm (Zahay et al. 2004). Furthermore, IMC plays a stra-

tegic role in managing the intangible side of business by as-

sisting in crafting relationships with customers and other

stakeholders to create positive perceptions, attitudes, and be-

haviors toward brands (Duncan and Moriarty 1997; Keller

2001).

One of the critical issues identified in a recent white paper

on IMC is the importance of advancing the body of knowl-

edge through empirical research designed to assess IMC pro-

cess in organizations, and of relating this to brand- and

customer-related performance (Duncan and Mulhern 2004;

Kitchen et al. 2004; Swain 2004). In seeking to forward this

aim, this research adopts a modified version of the Duncan-

Moriarty IMC miniaudit (Duncan and Moriarty 1997) to ex-

plore the IMC process and its possible link to brand outcomes

(see Appendix for main IMC process and brand outcome

items). Further underpinning this approach is Phelps and

Johnson’s suggestion (1996) that different representations of

IMC need to be evaluated and assessed for their broader em-

pirical generalizability.

The Duncan-Moriarty IMC miniaudit is a diagnostic tool

designed to help managers assess areas of integration strengthand weakness. As Duncan (2005) states, the audit is about

the evaluation of IMC relationship-building practices; in ex-

amining organizational structure and the extent of understand-

ing of marketing communication objectives and strategies, it

measures the extent to which company-created brand mes-

sages are strategically consistent. Presented initially in Duncan

and Moriarty’s 1997 book titled Driving Brand Value, the

miniaudit is subsequently elaborated on through the presen-

tation of a communication-based model for managing rela-

tionships (Duncan and Moriarty 1998).

Duncan and Moriarty are not alone in devising approaches

to assessing IMC. Phelps and Johnson (1996) identified a five-dimensional structure for IMC orientation and this was re-

vised and employed by Ewing, De Bussy, and Caruana (2000)

using only four of the factors. More recently, other authors

have examined different approaches to IMC. For example,

Cornelissen, Lock, and Gardner (2001) focus on a narrower

interpretation of integration and discuss the psychosocial ben-

efits of increased integration, while Low (2000) employs only

a few items to measure IMC and proposes these be part of a

larger measurement instrument.

The basis for the Duncan-Moriarty IMC miniaudit is the

premise that there are 10 brand relationship drivers; these are

divided into three categories. The first category relates to cre-

ating and nourishing relationships, focusing on all stakeholders

rather than just customers. Many authors have put forward a

view that IMC is about building relationships (Beard 1996;

Duncan and Moriarty 1998; Hutton 1996; Schultz, Cole, and

Bailey 2004), adopting a relational approach, and building a

bond between people with shared values, common objectives,

mutual commitment, and mutual trust. According to Zahay

et al. (2004), firms engaged in relationship-marketing activi-

ties designed to facilitate relational exchanges tend to view

customers as valuable assets, and adopt strategies to facilitate

the strength of such relationships. In a broader sense, Duncan

and Moriarty (1998) suggest that everything organizations

do and say sends a message, and that these messages are re-

ceived by a broad array of stakeholders. In many instances,

these stakeholders have multiple associations with the orga-

nization and receive a variety of messages; these messages

should be consistent. This relational focus has been facili-

tated in part through advances in new media and computer

technologies that enable more active listening (Zahay et al.

2004).


3/15

Winter 2005 43

The second category of brand relationship drivers relates

to process dimensions and includes achieving strategic con-

sistency, purposeful interactivity, mission marketing, and zero-

based planning. Duncan and Moriarty (1998) suggest that a

process and system should be in place to facilitate purposeful

dialogue with stakeholders and to ensure that messages being

received by these stakeholders are strategically consistent and

support the identity and reputation of the brand. By endeavor-ing to influence these dimensions of communication by reduc-

ing and, at best, eliminating conflicting messages, organizations

can improve the opportunity to establish clear brand position-

ing, to make their brand more distinct, and to cement profit-

able long-term relationships with stakeholders. Underpinning

the ability to be strategically consistent is a planning process

that enables effective determination of the communication-

mix elements that can deliver messages in an effective way

(Kliatchko 2005). Furthermore, the championing of the mis-

sion statement of the organization internally and externally

assists in calibrating expectations regarding interaction with

stakeholders and promotes consistency in both the thoughtand behavior of employees.

The final category relates to organizational drivers, includ-

ing cross-functional management, core competencies, data-

driven marketing, and working with an integrated agency. It

has been argued that an organization cannot be integrated

externally without being integrated internally and that inte-

gration presents a great challenge to the implementation of

IMC (Duncan and Mulhern 2004). Providing some similar-

ity with Narver and Slater’s (1990) market orientation con-

cept of interfunctional coordination, this category of drivers

considers the importance of cross-functional cohesion, mana-

gerial competence in utilizing all available marketing com-

munication tools, internal marketing to optimize employee

productivity and creativity, and the unbiased commitment of

resources across synergistic teams (Duncan and Moriarty

1998). Internal marketing is also identified as a necessary pro-

cess for facilitating cross-functional integration (Cornelissen

2000; Duncan and Moriarty 1997).

The involvement of top management in IMC has been iden-

tified as an important aspect in driving the process. Managers

should be willing to change policies that inhibit the imple-

mentation of IMC (Duncan and Mulhern 2004; Phelps, Har-

ris, and Johnson 1996; Smith 1996). Their involvement in

IMC planning should assist in cross-functional integration

and in overcoming “turf wars” and “departmental silos,” which

are two factors seen as significant barriers to successfully imple-

menting the IMC process (Duncan and Everett 1993; Eagle

and Kitchen 1999). In summary, IMC is a strategic process

for better managing the brand messages that create, main-

tain, and grow customer relationships and brands (Duncan

2005; Duncan and Moriarty 1997; Duncan and Moriarty

1998). The Duncan-Moriarty IMC miniaudit and the five

normative constructs that underpin it are a useful approach

to evaluating the IMC process and assessing brand-related

performance.

IMC Performance and Brand-Related Performance

There is agreement in the literature that a likely correlation

exists between the IMC process and customer, brand, andbusiness performance (Duncan and Mulhern 2004). To date

however, there have been few empirical attempts at support-

ing such relationships (Cornelissen 2001; Cornelissen, Lock

and Gardner 2001; Low 2000; Schultz, Cole, and Bailey 2004

Zahay et al. 2004). Previous studies in the United States have

found some initial evidence to support the IMC–brand out-

come relationship (e.g., Low 2000), but the author notes that

significant unexplained variances mean that further concep-

tual development of the definition of IMC, and of the mea-

surement instrument designed to capture the IMC–brand

outcome relationship, are required. More recently, Zahay et

al. (2004), and Schultz, Cole, and Bailey (2004), have startedto examine a range of customer relationship and brand metrics

and their relationship to the IMC process, and have begun to

provide further insight into IMC outcomes.

In discussing IMC and the outcomes of its implementa-

tion, one must make a distinction between outcomes of IMC

in terms of the customer and brand metrics employed (Keller

1993), and IMC in terms of how well the integration process

is implemented and the psychosocial benefits of the process

including a reduction in internal conflict and increased re-

sponsiveness to stakeholder needs (Cornelissen, Lock, and

Gardner 2001). A review of the various definitions of IMC

suggest that one might expect organizations with a well-implemented IMC process to have a greater capacity to achieve

their stated direct and indirect campaign objectives (see

Duncan and Mulhern 2004; Kliatchko 2005). These objec-

tives might include increased brand awareness, increased posi-

tive brand attitude and brand preference, higher brand action

intention, and purchase facilitation (Swain 2004; Rossiter and

Bellman 2005). From a customer relationship perspective, a

range of metrics might exist, including return on customer

touch point (Schultz, Cole, and Bailey 2004), customer prof-

itability, lifetime customer value, recency and referral indices

churn rates, rate of customer migration, and share of customer

(Duncan and Moriarty 1997; Duncan and Mulhern 2004).

In a broader sense, market-based outcomes from IMC could

be linked into the brand value chain concept (Ambler et al

2002; Rust et al. 2004), which identifies a chain of market-

ing investments and their possible impact on customer mind-

set, market performance, and shareholder value. Parameters

affecting the chain include such issues as brand clarity, dis-

tinctiveness, consistency, and relevance, and also external fac-

tors such as competitive reaction, channel support, and


4/15


customer size and profile (Ambler et al. 2002). In summary,

the issue of outcomes of IMC is one that requires signifi-

cantly more research and refinement (Duncan and Mulhern

2004).

Organizational and Market Influences on IMC

There is an assumption that firms implementing IMC havein place a customer-centric notion; systems for linking the

organization to the market and customer; and processes, sys-

tems, and mental models that link various functional areas of

the organization (Duncan and Moriarty 1998; Stewart 1996;

Zahay et al. 2004). These themes are consistent with the mar-

ket orientation literature (Gray et al. 1998). Helfert, Ritter,

and Achim (2002) identify three main approaches to viewing

market orientation, including a behavioral perspective (Kohli

and Jaworski 1990), where market orientation is focused on

organization-wide market intelligence generation, dissemi-

nation, and response; a cultural perspective (Narver and Slater

1990), where market orientation is reflected through the val-ues and attitudes of the organization in providing superior

customer value; and a systems perspective (Becker and Hom-

burg 1999), where market orientation is conceptualized in

terms of different systems underpinning the organization (e.g.,

organization, information, planning, controlling, and human

resources).

The IMC process is likely to be stronger, or at least more

readily recognized for its importance, in those organizations

that have adopted a market orientation (Zahay et al. 2004).

In general, it is suggested that employees in market-

oriented organizations understand the importance of inte-

grating marketing communication messages, as well as theirindividual roles in the integration process and in managing

customer relationships. Furthermore, higher levels of mar-

ket orientation are complementary to the collaborative de-

cision-making process required in implementing IMC

(Cornelissen 2001).

IMC has also been associated with the size and type of or-

ganization (Low 2000). It is suggested that the size of the

company may account for variation in an organization’s abil-

ity to implement IMC (Cornelissen, Lock, and Garner 2001;

Low 2000; Nowak and Phelps 1994). Smaller organizations

with less complex brand hierarchies may be less likely to un-

dertake diverse marketing communication programs, less

likely to have adopted rigid departmental formalization, and

thus may be more likely to be integrated or to have adopted

processes that are consistent with IMC (Cornelissen, Lock,

and Gardner 2001; Low 2000; Nowak and Phelps 1994). Low

(2000) further suggests that service companies are likely to

be more integrated than product-oriented companies, based

on the premise that service companies have greater direct ac-

cess to consumers. The close interaction between the organi-

zation and the consumer is said to assist IMC via the gather-

ing of consumer information and the tracking of behavioral

responses.

Hostile market environments characterized by intense com-

petition and a lack of exploitable opportunities, and dynamic

environments characterized by rapid technological advance-

ments and rapidly changing consumer preferences, are con-

sidered to have a significant influence on business performance(Covin and Slevin 1989; Gray et al. 1998; Jaworski and Kohli

1993; Low 2000; Rust et al. 2004; Slater and Narver 1994).

The desire to be competitive in such environmental conditions

may provide the impetus for organizations to implement IMC

to facilitate strategic coordination of brand messages and to

effect brand strategy.

METHOD

Measures

Where appropriate, this study used existing scales to capturethe data on the IMC process, brand outcomes, market envi-

ronment, and market orientation (see the Appendix for IMC

and brand outcome items). A modified version of the Duncan-

Moriarty IMC miniaudit (Duncan and Moriarty 1997) was

used to capture information on IMC process. After evaluating

the questionnaire with a small convenience sample of manag-

ers and academics, the phrasing of the 20 items was modified

to improve managers’ understanding of concepts. IMC items

were measured on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = not at all,

7 = to a great extent).

Market orientation was measured using a validated 19-item

scale employed by Conduit and Mavondo (2001) in their studyon internal customer orientation and its relationship with

market orientation (1 = not at all, 7 = to a great extent). The

external market environment scales were drawn from the re-

search undertaken by Gray et al. (1998) and included ques-

tions on customer, competitor, and technological turbulence

(associated with Jaworski and Kohli 1993), as well as market

opportunity (based on work by Porter 1985). These were also

measured using a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly dis-

agree, 7 = strongly agree). Similarly, the performance mea-

sures were drawn from the research by Gray et al. (1998) and

were modified for use in a brand outcomes context. The nine

items included four perceptual items related to relative sales

and profitability, four items related to relative customer brand

equity, and one item related to relative channel support for

the brand. All perceptual-based items were measured using a

seven-point Likert scale (1 = much less, 7 = much more).

Other items in the questionnaire sought information on re-

spondent characteristics, company characteristics, and brand

position and objectives, as well as on the size of the market-

ing communication budget.


5/15

Winter 2005 45

Sample

The data for this research were gathered using a self-adminis-

tered questionnaire. A sample of one thousand companies was

drawn from a commercially available Dun and Bradstreet list-

ing of Australian companies and was based on the Australian

Standard Industrial Classifications system. To promote suffi-

cient variation in organization type and organization size, the

sample was comprised of 250 each of small service and con-

sumer goods organizations and 250 each of large consumer

goods and services organizations. Examples of services orga-

nizations targeted by the survey included legal services, man-

agement consultants, architects, and engineering firms.Consumer goods organizations included food and electronics

manufacturers. The questionnaires were subsequently mailed

to managers responsible for managing brand communication.

If recipients believed they were poorly targeted, they were

requested to pass the questionnaire on to the most appropriate

person in the organization. In targeting smaller-sized organiza-

tions, it was found that specifically titled brand-management

positions often did not exist, with this role being performed

instead by marketing managers, marketing directors, or com-

pany directors.

Following an initial mailing of the questionnaire, a fol-

low-up letter was sent to encourage response. The question-

naire was also placed on the marketing department Web site

and made available for managers to download and complete if

they had initially discarded the original copy. Twenty-seven

responses were received after the follow-up mailing. After

adjusting for returns-to-sender, the total sample was reduced

to 904 companies. A total of 169 fully completed usable re-

sponses were received for an effective response rate of 18.7%.

A caution must be sounded because the characteristics of

nonrespondents were not examined due to university ethic

requirements of completely de-identified data. In four cases

however, organizations indicated that they would not respond

due to a policy of nonparticipation in this type of research. In

all four cases, the organizations were larger consumer goods

marketers. The issue of nonresponse is one that needs to be

addressed in further research. Apart from incentives to im-

prove response, nonresponse can be reduced through design

creativity and the use of mixed designs that may include tri-

angulation of survey data and case study (Dwyer 1980). I

researchers are unable to evaluate nonresponse due to privacy

issues, a final strategy is to examine late responders as thoseholding potentially similar characteristics to nonresponders

Final respondent characteristics are reported in Table 1.

Analysis Procedures

Analysis of data followed a process of, first, assessing discrimi

nant validity for both the modified Duncan-Moriarty IMC

miniaudit and the brand outcome measures. Path analysis (AMOS

v5) was then employed to test the relationship between the IMC

process and brand outcomes. Following this, organizational and

market-related variables were correlated and then regressed against

an aggregate IMC score to examine possible drivers of the IMC

process by organizations in this sample (Low 2000).

To assess construct validity, the internal reliabilities of each

of the existing normative constructs from the Duncan

Moriarty IMC miniaudit were examined using Cronbach’s α(Churchill 1979). This resulted in the removal of five items

(see the Appendix for all items, deleted items, and Cronbach’

α). The remaining items were then subjected to confirmatoryfactor analysis (CFA). Three CFA models were tested to ex-

amine the nature of these relationships. In the first model, a

TABLE 1

Profile of Respondents

Position Percent Years at company Percent

Marketing manager 39.2 Less than 1 year 17.3

Brand manager 3.6 1–3 years 35.1

Senior brand manager 1.8 3–6 years 23.2

Sales manager 2.4 6–9 years 6.5

(Company and marketing director) 53.0 More than 9 years 17.9

Total 100% Total 100%

Number of employees Percent Company type Percent

1–99 44.4 Large consumer 22.5

100–399 27.2 Small consumer 14.8

400–699 11.8 Large service 30.2

700–999 4.2 Small service 32.5

1,000+ 12.4

Total 100% Total 100.0%


6/15


highly significant correlation existed between the constructs

of “strategic consistency” and “planning and evaluation,” and

these were subsequently combined. The second CFA model

resulted in similarly strong relationships between “infrastruc-

ture” and the combined “strategic consistency” and “plan-

ning and evaluation” items, and, again, these were combined

to form a single construct (“cross-functional strategic plan-

ning”). The underlying structure of the brand outcome mea-

sures was not known and they were subjected to exploratory

factor analysis resulting in three factors (principal compo-

nents with varimax rotation, 67% of variance explained).

The three factors were then subjected to CFA to assess the

strength of the underlying relationships and the discrimi-

nant validity of the final factor structures. The level of ag-

gregation in the analysis is a factor that needs to be addressed

in further research.Table 2 presents the final result for internal consistency of

the modified IMC audit and brand outcome measures to be

employed in the path analysis, along with the square root of

average variance extracted and correlations. The average vari-

ance extracted in the remaining constructs was always greater

than .50, which is indicative of convergent validity (Sarkar,

Cavusgil, and Aulakh 2001). Also, the overall model provided

evidence of discriminant validity in that the variance shared

between any two constructs was less than the average vari-

ance extracted by the constructs. In total, these statistics in-

dicate that the properties of the final IMC model are sufficient

to enable the analysis of the IMC process and brand outcomesrelationship to proceed.

RESULTS

Path Analysis

Path analysis has been used by other researchers for decom-

posing effects into direct and indirect (causal) effects and for

eliminating noncausal (spurious effects). Thus, path analysis

often makes available results that are not readily identifiable

using ordinary regression analysis. Estimating the goodness-

of-fit for the model is the first step in model testing (see Fig-

ure 1). In this study, the χ2 test was not significant, suggestingthat the estimated model was a good fit with the observed

data. Additional goodness-of-fit measures are presented in

Figure 1. Estimation of path significance for the proposed

association between IMC process and brand outcomes was the

second step in the analysis. A significant relationship was found

with the model, explaining 16% of the variance in brand out-

comes ( γ = .40, t = 2.606, p≤ .05). Overall, these results lendsome initial support to the notion that IMC is an important

strategic business process and that it may indeed have sig-

nificant brand outcome implications. The results also high-

light the complex and multidimensional nature of the IMC

process.

Other Correlates of IMC Performance

As in Low’s (2000) analysis, a stepwise multiple regression

analysis is used to examine the effects of a set of organiza-

tional and market variables that may be associated with the

degree to which processes consistent with IMC exist in an

organization. Table 3 shows the results of this analysis. Of

the 23 independent variables entered into a correlation analy-

sis, 12 were identified as having a significant relationship

with the aggregate IMC dependent variable, and were subse-

quently entered into a regression analysis.The overall stepwise regression model indicates that 6 of

the 12 variables are relatively good predictors of the IMC pro-

cess achieved by respondents ( R2 = .42, F = 19.45, p ≤ .01).First, the IMC process in this sample appears to be more preva-

lent in larger organizations or those with market-leading po-

sitions ( β = .19, p ≤ .01) and larger budgets ( β = .18, p ≤.05). Though probably not surprising, it is interesting to note

that the implementation of the IMC process is related to hav-

ing a strong customer orientation ( β = .26, p ≤ .01) and a

TABLE 2

Internal Consistency, Square Roots of Average Variance Extracted, and Correlation Matrix

Internal consistency 1 2 3

IMC construct

1. Interactivity .66 .70a

2. Mission marketing .87 .31 .86

3. Cross-functional strategic planning .86 .59 .46 .59

Performance construct

1. Brand advantage .59 .55

2. Sales performance .81 .56 .71

3. Customer satisfaction .70 .49 .18 .63

Note: IMC = integrated marketing communication.

a The diagonal in bold italic shows square root of average variance extracted for each construct.


7/15

Winter 2005 47

higher level of interfunctional coordination ( β = .21, p ≤ .05),both of which are dimensions of various market orientation

models (Gray et al. 1998). Similarly, facing markets with

higher competitor turbulence is also positively associated with

the level of IMC achieved ( β = .14, p ≤ .05). It is also inter-esting to note that the model identified a potential negativeassociation between level of IMC achieved and being a small

service organization ( β = −.22, p ≤ .01).Overall, the results of the regression and path analyses have

a number of implications for both managers and IMC research-

ers. Of particular concern are those implications related to

further improvement of the explanatory power of the IMC

instrument, as well as those related to organizing for and

implementing the IMC process in organizations.

DISCUSSION

The primary objective of this study was to provide an explor-

atory insight into the relationship between the IMC process

and brand outcomes. In pursuing this goal, a modified ver-

sion of the Duncan-Moriarty IMC miniaudit was adopted and

subsequently evaluated for its explanatory power. Brand out-

comes in this research were operationalized through a set of

nine items that were subsequently reduced to three factors—

sales performance, customer satisfaction, and brand advan-

tage. Overall, there was a strong and significant main effect

indicating a positive relationship between the IMC process

and brand outcomes, suggesting that managers should pay

more attention to implementing IMC.

The second objective related to the performance of the

IMC instrument in terms of its discriminant and conver

gent validity, determining whether the normative structure

of the IMC miniaudit was robust under this form of analy

sis. The findings from this data suggested that the five origi

nal normative constructs could be collapsed into three

“interactivity,” “mission marketing,” and a larger, more in-

clusive construct called “cross-functional strategic planning.”

The limitations of the data mean that this new structure is

exploratory and requires more extensive testing to validate

such conclusions. The findings suggest, however, that an

opportunity exists to further develop this instrument for

use by other IMC researchers.

The third and fourth objectives relate to the influence o

other organizational and market factors on the level of IMC

achieved. Findings suggest that the market orientation of the

organization is positively related to the level of IMC, and sec-

ond, that characteristics of the organization including size

and type, as well as position in the market, may also influence

the IMC process. Finally, level of competitive turbulence in

the market was also associated with IMC and may provide

impetus for implementing the IMC process in organizations

One of the key findings of a recent white paper on IMC

FIGURE 1Path Model of the IMC–Performance Relationship

Notes: IMC = integrated marketing communication; GFI = goodness-of-fit index; AGFI = adjusted goodness-of-fit index; NFI = normed fit index;

TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.

Market

Performance

IMC

Performance

Cross-functional

Strategic Planning

Interactivity

Mission

Marketing

Brand

Advantage

Customer

Satisfaction

Sales

Performance

.40***

.44.51.88

.73 .44 .50

Model goodness-of-fit

χ2= 5.83 (df = 8, p = .666)

GFI = .989AGFI = .970NFI = .955

TLI = 1.00RMSEA = .000

Path sig. p ≤ .05


8/15


was that there is limited empirical evidence supporting IMC

outcomes, which may be constraining the acceptance of IMC

in boardrooms and the practice of IMC by organizations

(Duncan and Mulhern 2004). This study found that approxi-

mately 16% of the variation in brand outcomes as captured

by measures of customer satisfaction, brand advantage, and

sales performance could be explained by the IMC process of

respondents. Although this study is exploratory in nature and

has very defined limitations, it nevertheless suggests that the

importance of IMC should be recognized, and that managers

should seek to implement the IMC process as a way of im-

proving brand-related outcomes. If implementing IMC can

be demonstrated to have tangible benefits for organizations,

including intermediate effects such as stronger customer rela-

TABLE 3

Factors Correlated to the Level of Integrated Marketing Communication (IMC) Performance Achieved

Regression

Type Number of Correlation

Variable of scale items with IMC β t

Company characteristics

Larger manufacturing/consumer 0–1 Dummy 1a .29** Smaller manufacturing/consumer 0–1 Dummy 1a .02

Larger service 0–1 Dummy 1a .08

Smaller service 0–1 Dummy 1a –.35** –.22 –3.278**

Annual sales 6 point 1b .29**

Respondent experience 5 point 1c .02

Brand position

Market leader 0–1 Dummy 1a .26** .19 3.057**

Market challenger 0–1 Dummy 1a –.02

Stable middle 0–1 Dummy 1a –.10

Struggling middle 0–1 Dummy 1a –.10

Market niche 0–1 Dummy 1a –.14

Brand objectives

Maintain position 0–1 Dummy 1a .02

Grow existing markets 0–1 Dummy 1a .04

Expand to new markets 0–1 Dummy 1a –.07

Marketing communications effort

Annual budget 5 point 1d .20** .18 2.586*

Budget change 5 point 1e –.01

Market orientation

Customer orientation 7 point 8f .46** .26 3.077**

Competitor orientation 7 point 4f .35**

Interfunctional coordination 7 point 7f .38** .21 2.443*

Environmental conditions

Customer turbulence 7 point 3f .17*

Competitive turbulence 7 point 5f

.27** .14 2.163* Technological turbulence 7 point 5f .08

Market opportunity 7 point 2f .17*

Note: Regression model: R2 = .42; adjusted R2 = .40; F = 19.45.**

a Each classification coded separately using dummy variable.

b As with Low (2000), each anchored with 1 = less than $10 million, 6 = greater than $1 billion.

c Each anchored with 1 = less than 1 year, 5 = more than 9 years.

d Each anchored with 1 = less than $100,000, 5 = more than $24 million.

e Each anchored with 1 = decrease, 5 = increase of 30% or more.

f Likert scale (summed scale/number of items in scale), anchored with 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree.

** p ≤ .05.

** p ≤ .01.


9/15

Winter 2005 49

tionships and the financial returns from such relationships,

through to upstream impacts on market position and financial

position, then top management can be encouraged to facilitate

the introduction of IMC as a core process in the organization.

As Duncan and Moriarty (1998) suggest, IMC is a strate-

gic process for better managing the brand messages that cre-

ate, maintain, and grow customer relationships and brands.

This research found that the five normative constructs in theDuncan and Moriarty IMC miniaudit could be collapsed into

three. The three constructs used here to measure the IMC

process have some important implications for managers, in-

cluding the need to ensure that the voice of the customer is

heard in the brand-communication planning process (interacti-

vity); that brand communication planning draws its focus from

the mission and values of the organization (mission market-

ing); that the planning process itself involves key individuals

from other functions and external agencies; that it is champi-

oned by individuals with the appropriate skills and capabili-

ties in brand communications; and that it is based on a clear

understanding of customer contact points and a brand SWOT(strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis (cross-

functional strategic planning). It is also imperative that de-

sired IMC outcomes are well understood and that key

customer and brand metrics are built into the brand com-

munication process and the implementation of brand com-

munication programs.

It might be argued that the constructs identified in this

research represent three critical aspects of the IMC process.

First, the interactivity construct relates to data inputs into

IMC planning, while the mission marketing construct pro-

vides the cultural foundation for accepting IMC. Finally, the

cross-functional strategic planning construct relates to physi-

cally orchestrating the brand-communication planning pro-

cess to achieve strategic consistency. Inherent in this is the

need to build, maintain, and leverage strong customer rela-

tionships to build strong brands.

Achieving excellent interactivity requires an organization

to have the capacity to track brand outcomes and customer

behavior, and to have this information available as an input

into brand communication planning. In achieving interactivity,

a major focus should be on developing mechanisms that enable

purposeful and strategically useful dialogue between the orga-

nization and its consumers and stakeholders, and on maintain-

ing a database or information system that enables this

information to be analyzed, retrieved, and utilized in a timely

fashion (Duncan and Moriarty 1997; Duncan and Moriarty

1998; Keller 2001).

Having a mission that is integrated into the organization’s

marketing effort enables the organization to build and rein-

force a positive value-based culture that resonates with a range

of different stakeholders. Mission marketing should commu-

nicate the company’s purpose for being, existing as the foun-

dation from which organizational goals related to the creation

and maintenance of value for stakeholders can be collectively

achieved (Duncan and Moriarty 1997). From the perspective

of enabling the IMC process, a well-integrated mission pro-

vides a foundation for supporting, legitimizing, and facilitat-

ing marketing communication activities, empowers individuals

charged with the responsibility for bringing about improved

integration in brand communication planning, and facilitatesthe implementation of business processes and human resource

strategies that support brand communication. Through mis-

sion marketing, a market-back philosophy can be installed

into the organization’s culture, facilitating the IMC process

by generating and channeling employee motivation and com-

mitment (Stewart 1996).

Cross-functional strategic planning incorporates a range

of activities, including managing people to ensure that “turf

wars” and “departmental silos” do not undo, or unduly com-

plicate, brand communication planning and implementation

(Duncan and Everett 1993; Eagle and Kitchen 1999). This

construct also deals with the need to achieve strategic consis-tency, so that all brand-related communication and marketing

mix elements are consistent with the desired brand positioning

(Duncan and Moriarty 1997). By endeavoring to control con-

flicting messages, organizations are in a better position to de-

velop long-term relationships, and to make their organization’s

brand more distinct. Also under this construct is the need to

ensure that planning and strategy development are based on a

clear understanding of the strengths, weaknesses, opportuni-

ties, and threats facing the brand in the market. Regarding the

evaluation of IMC campaigns, procedures need to be in place to

measure objectively the ongoing effectiveness of campaigns

with consideration being given to achieving appropriate cus-

tomer, brand, and marketing metrics (Duncan and Moriarty

1998; Schultz, Cole, and Bailey 2004; Zahay et al. 2004).

The findings of this research also identify important orga-

nizational characteristics and market environment variables

that are associated with implementation of the IMC process

In contrast to Low (2000), it was identified that IMC was

more likely to exist in larger consumer manufacturing orga-

nizations than in smaller service-based organizations. It may

be that larger organizations have done more to improve their

planning processes, may have more formal mechanisms for

collecting and utilizing customer data, and may have to man-

age and coordinate a number of interfunctional groups and

external agencies. A further finding relates to market orien-

tation and the indication that the level of market orientation

in the organization is positively related to the IMC process

Market orientation is becoming an important issue in IMC

implementation (Zahay et al. 2004), with an assumption that

firms that have a high level of IMC are also likely to have in

place a customer-centric notion, systems for linking the orga-

nization to the market and stakeholders, and processes and


10/15


mental models that link various functional areas of the orga-

nization (Duncan and Moriarty 1998; Slater 1997; Stewart

1996). This result suggests that market orientation might

provide a supportive role in the implementation of the IMC

process by providing a basis for cross-functional integration

and a focus on understanding customers’ needs and wants, for

being responsive in terms of message design and delivery, and

for ensuring overall strategic consistency.Another finding of this research is that competitive turbu-

lence in the market was positively related to the level of IMC

achieved. This is in accordance with Low’s study (2000), which

found that competitive intensity was positively related to IMC.

Similarly, the interpretation is that organizations that com-

pete in markets characterized by intense and turbulent com-

petition may find it beneficial to integrate brand

communication strategically to maximize the effects of com-

munication activities. Furthermore, as organizations develop

expertise in IMC planning and implementation, they are likely

to experience an enhanced ability to compete and respond to

competitors’ marketing efforts (Low 2000).

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

As with any study, there are limitations in the present work

that need to be identified. First, the Duncan and Moriarty

(1997) IMC miniaudit is an audit of internal performance on

a range of items related to the IMC process. In this research,

it has been used to attempt an analysis of the relationship

between the implementation of the IMC process and some

external representation of brand outcomes. As a result, the

results must always be interpreted with caution. Second,

modifications were made to the wording of the original

Duncan and Moriarty (1997) items based on interviews with

managers and academics, and this has an impact on aspects of

construct validity. Consideration should be given to employ-

ing an unmodified set of scales to further assess construct dis-

crimination and stability. The CFA analysis undertaken in

this research does suggest that scope exists to review the rela-

tionship between items in the Duncan-Moriarty IMC

miniaudit and to strengthen the logical structure of the cur-

rent normative constructs. The issue of small sample size and

use of self-reported data also needs to be recognized. The im-

plications of a small sample are felt in terms of potential

nonresponse bias and whether the characteristics of the sample

are representative of the population at large. No such claims

of broad generalizability are made in this research, except to

suggest that the sample includes large and small manufactur-

ing and services organizations. With regard to self-reporting

of data, issues exist around the ability to determine whether

responses are a true reflection of the organization and its per-

formance (Dwyer 1980). Further research is required to vali-

date these results across industry and organizational type and

to more accurately assess the characteristics of nonresponders.

One of the main issues facing IMC researchers is the need

to provide proof to top management that IMC can result in

tangible benefits for the organization (Duncan and Mulhern

2004). The findings reported here contribute to an increased

understanding of the likely relationship between the imple-

mentation of the IMC process and brand outcomes. Although

this was an exploratory research project, it does provide in-sight into further lines of inquiry for IMC researchers, par-

ticularly with regard to the conceptualization and testing of

instruments to evaluate IMC in organizations, and in regard

to employing different methodologies to triangulate the value

of IMC across industries and organizational types.

To provide proof, researchers must develop, refine, and vali-

date instruments for evaluating and auditing the IMC pro-

cess and for linking this to customer- and brand-related

outcomes. One approach to establishing a stronger base of

empirical support for IMC is to utilize the basic methodol-

ogy of Gray et al. (1998), who combined a range of different

market orientation scales and used a large multi-industry sampleto derive a more managerially useful and parsimonious set of

scales for measuring marketing orientation. The opportunity

exists for combining the models and scales of a range of authors

(e.g., Cornelissen 2001; Duncan and Moriarty 1997; Ewing,

De Bussy, and Caruana 2000; Low 2000; Phelps and Johnson

1996) and examining relationships to derive a validated set of

scales. Alternative approaches to derivation of such an instru-

ment include both confirmatory factor analysis and qualita-

tive Delphi approaches.

There needs to be further research conducted using both

multi-industry samples and single-industry samples. At the

single-industry level, the goal should be to drill down and

examine how different types of organizations in the industry

employ (or don’t employ) the principles of IMC, and whether

those that do have achieved some form of superior perfor-

mance. This single-industry strategy is designed to remove

potentially confounding interindustry effects on the IMC pro-

cess and associated brand outcomes. A multi-industry approach

is required to provide broader empirical generalizations that

further prove the value of IMC, and to examine various inter-

industry effects of the implementation of the IMC process

and related brand outcomes. These two approaches are not

contradictory; both serve to build a strong body of IMC knowl-

edge and insight.

The concept of IMC outcomes needs to be further devel-

oped and tested. This research employed a limited set of mea-

sures related to brand outcomes and found a significant

association between the IMC process and brand outcomes.

Providing proof to top management of the benefits of IMC

requires acceptance of an appropriate and consistent set of

metrics and measures to underpin such proof. The metrics of

IMC are likely to span customer equity, brand equity, and


11/15

Winter 2005 51

market impact at a strategic level, as well as more intermedi-

ate effects such as return of customer touch point (Schultz,

Cole, and Bailey 2004), affect brand awareness, brand atti-

tude, and purchase propensity (Rossiter and Bellman 2005).

Other important measures to utilize in evaluating IMC out-

comes will also include customer lifetime value and share of

wallet (Duncan and Moriarty 1997). In effect, IMC research-

ers may need to conceptualize a “chain of IMC productivity”(see Rust et al. 2004). The value of this chain is that research-

ers have a clear understanding of IMC outcomes and can be-

gin to build a consistent body of performance-related insights

that are managerially useful. It is important that the design

of instruments to evaluate IMC be consistent with the exter-

nal outcomes one wishes to link to the IMC process.

Survey research alone will not be sufficient to build the

body of IMC knowledge. Researchers must employ a range of

other methodologies, including case study and action research.

Case studies of organizations and brands that have success-

fully implemented IMC are necessary to demonstrate real-

world application, and to build best-practice insights. Theability to point to successful organizations and to be able to

demonstrate quantifiable benefits will provide strong founda-

tions for boardroom acceptance of IMC. The use of action re-

search also provides opportunities for very powerful insights

into the process of implementing IMC and how the change in

process impacts brand and customer outcomes. As a methodol-

ogy, action research adopts a cyclical process of inquiry that

involves diagnosing a problem situation, planning action steps,

and implementing and evaluating outcomes. If IMC research-

ers are able to demonstrate how adoption of the process can be

facilitated in organizations, and that such changes in the pro-

cess can result in tangible benefits for brands and organiza-

tions, then further proof can be provided to top management.

Finally, it will be important to continue to position IMC

within the existing body of marketing concepts that compete

for management attention and, indeed, compete for academic

resources. This research identified a possible relationship be-

tween IMC and market orientation that requires further inves-

tigation into the characteristics of the relationship. More broadly,

IMC researchers need to consider how IMC supports, comple-

ments, or helps implement a host of business practices and ori-

entations, including CRM (customer relationship management)

and relationship marketing. By undertaking this research, we

are in a position to counter the “not new” tag more effectively.

CONCLUSION

This exploratory study sought to answer four questions related

to understanding how IMC might be evaluated in organizations,

and whether successful implementation of the principles and

processes of IMC might result in positive brand outcomes. Spe-

cifically, this research employed a modified version of the

Duncan-Moriarty IMC miniaudit (1997) as a basis for evaluat-

ing the IMC process in organizations and as a basis for consid-

ering how the IMC process was related to brand outcomes as

measured by sales performance, customer satisfaction, and brand

advantage. Furthermore, the research sought to identify charac-

teristics of organizations and the market environment that

may be correlated with the IMC process. The findings sug-

gested that IMC process had a significant and positive rela-tionship with brand outcomes, and that market orientation

competitive turbulence, and the size and type of the organi-

zation were correlated with the implementation of the IMC

process.

REFERENCES

Ambler, Tim, C. B. Bhattacharya, Julie Edell, Kevin Lane KellerKatherine N. Lemon, and Vikas Mittal (2002), “RelatingBrand and Customer Perspectives on Marketing Manage-ment,” Journal of Service Research, 5 (August), 13–25.

Beard, Fred (1996), “Integrated Marketing Communications: NewRole Expectations and Performance Issues in the Client–AdAgency Relationship?” Journal of Business Research, 37 (3)207–215.

Becker, Jan, and Christian Homburg (1999), “Market-OrientedManagement: A Systems-Based Perspective,” Journal of

Market-Focused Management, 4 (1), 17–41.Churchill, Gilbert A. (1979), “A Paradigm for Developing Bet-

ter Measures of Marketing Constructs,” Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (1), 64–73.

Conduit, Jodie, and Felix Mavondo (2001), “How Critical IsInternal Customer Orientation to Market Orientation?”

Journal of Business Research, 51, 11–24.

Cornelissen, Joep P. (2000), “Integration in CommunicationManagement: Conceptual and Methodological Consider-ations,” Journal of Marketing Management, 16, 597–606.

——— (2001), “Integrated Marketing Communications and theLanguage of Market Development,” International Journal of

Advertising, 20 (4), 483–499.———, and Andrew R. Lock (2000), “Theoretical Concept or

Management Fashion? Examining the Significance of IMC,” Journal of Advertising Research, 40 (5), 7–15.

———, ———, and Hanne Gardner (2001), “The Organiza-tion of External Communication Disciplines: An Integra-tive Framework of Dimensions and Determinants,” Internationa

Journal of Advertising, 20 (1), 67–88.

Covin, Jeffery G., and Dennis P. Slevin (1989), “Strategic Management of Small Firms in Hostile and Benign Environ-ments,” Strategic Management Journal, 10 (1), 75–87.

Duncan, Thomas R. (2005), Principles of Advertising and IMCNew York: McGraw-Hill.

———, and Stephen E. Everett (1993), “Client Perceptions ofIntegrated Marketing Communications,” Journal of Advertising Research, 33 (3), 30–40.

———, and ———, (1997), Driving Brand Value, New YorkMcGraw Hill.


12/15


———, and Sandra Moriarty (1998), “A Communication-BasedMarketing Model for Managing Relationships,” Journal of

Marketing, 62 (2), 1–13.———, and Frank Mulhern, eds. (2004), A White Paper on the

Status, Scope and Future of IMC (from IMC symposium spon-sored by the IMC programs at Northwestern Universityand the University of Denver), New York: McGraw-Hill.

Dwyer, F. Robert (1980), “Response Errors in Survey Research,”

California Management Review, 23, 39–45.Eagle, Lynne, and Philip J. Kitchen (1999), “IMC, Brand Com-

munications, and Corporate Cultures,” European Journal of Marketing, 34 (5), 667–686.

Ewing, Mike T., Nigel De Bussy, and Albert Caruana (2000),“Perceived Agency Politics and Conflicts of Interest as Po-tential Barriers to IMC Orientation,” Journal of Marketing Communications, 6 (2), 107–119.

Gray, Brendan J., Sheelagh Matear, Christo Boshoff, and Philip K.Matheson (1998), “Developing a Better Measure of Market Ori-entation,” European Journal of Marketing, 32 (9/10), 884–903.

Hartley, Bob, and David Pickton (1999), “Integrated Market-ing Communications Requires a New Way of Thinking,”

Journal of Marketing Communications, 5, 97–106.Helfert, Gabriele, Thomas Ritter, and Walter Achim (2002),

“Redefining Market Orientation from a Relationship Per-spective: Theoretical Considerations and Empirical Results,”European Journal of Marketing, 36 (9/10), 1119–1140.

Hutton, James G. (1996), “Integrated Marketing Communica-tions and the Evolution of Marketing Thought,” Journal of Business Research, 37 (3), 155–163.

Jaworski, Bernard, and Ajay K. Kohli (1993), “Market Orienta-tion: Antecedents and Consequences,” Journal of Market-ing, 57, 53–70.

Jones, John Philip, and Margaret H. Blair (1996), “Examining‘Conventional Wisdoms’ About Advertising Effects with

Evidence from Independent Sources,” Journal of Advertising Research, 36 (6), 37–60.

Keller, Kevin Lane (1993), “Conceptualizing, Measuring, Man-aging Customer-Based Brand Equity,” Journal of Market-ing, 57 (1), 1–22.

——— (2001), “Mastering the Marketing Communications Mix:Micro and Macro Perspectives on Integrated Marketing Com-munications,” Journal of Marketing Management, 17, 819–847.

Kitchen, Philip J., Joanne Brignall, Tao Li, and Graham Spickett Jones (2004), “The Emergence of IMC: A Theoretical Per-spective,” Journal of Advertising Research, 44 (1), 19–30.

Kliatchko, Jerry (2005), “Towards a Definition of IntegratedMarketing Communications (IMC),” International Journal

of Advertising Research, 24 (1), 7–34.Kohli, Ajay K., and Bernard J. Jaworski (1990), “Market Orien-

tation: The Construct, Research Propositions, and Mana-gerial Implications,” Journal of Marketing, 54, 1–18.

Low, George S. (2000), “Correlates of Integrated Marketing Com-munications,” Journal of Advertising Research, 40 (3), 27–39.

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 Issues and Research in Advertising, 16 (1), 49–66.

Phelps, Joseph E., Thomas E. Harris, and Edward Johnson (1996),“Exploring Decision-Making Approaches and Responsibil-ity for Developing Marketing Communications Strategy,”

Journal of Business Research, 37 (3), 217–214.———, and Edward Johnson (1996), “Entering the Quagmire:

Examining the ‘Meaning’ of Integrated Communications,” Journal of Marketing Communications, 2, 159–172.

Porter, Michael E. (1985), Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, New York: The Free Press.

Rossiter, John R., and Steven Bellman (2005), Marketing Com-munications: Theory and Applications, Victoria: PearsonPrentice Hall, Australia.

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.

Sarkar, M. B. Raj Echambadi, S. Tamer Cavusgil, and Preet S.Aulakh (2001), “The Influence of Complementarity, Com-patibility, and Relationship Capital on Alliance Perfor-mance,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29 (4),358–373.

Schultz, Don E., Bill Cole, and Scott Bailey (2004), “Implement-ing the ‘Connect the Dots’ Approach to Marketing Com-munications,” International Journal of Advertising, 23 (4),455–477.

———, and Heidi Schultz (1998), “Transitioning MarketingCommunication into the 21st Century,” Journal of Market-ing Communications, 4 (1), 9–26.

Shimp, Terrence A. (1999), Advertising and Promotion: Supplemen-

tal Aspects of Integrated Marketing Communications, 5th ed.,Fort Worth: The Dryden Press.

Slater, Stanley F. (1997), “Developing a Customer Value-BasedTheory of the Firm,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing

Science, 25 (2), 162–176.———, and John C. Narver (1994), “Does Competitive Envi-

ronment Moderate the Market Orientation–PerformanceRelationship,” Journal of Marketing, 58 (1), 46–55.

Smith, Paul (1996), “Benefits and Barriers to Integrated Com-munications,” Admap (February), 19–22.

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 Business Research, 37 (3), 147–153.Swain, William N. (2004), “Perceptions of IMC After a De-

cade of Development: Who’s at the Wheel, and How CanWe Measure Success,” Journal of Advertising Research, 44(1), 46–65.

Zahay, Debra, James Peltier, Don E. Schultz, and Abbie Griffin(2004), “The Role of Transactional Versus Relational Datain IMC Programs: Bringing Customer Data Together,” Jour-nal of Advertising Research, 44 (1), 3–18.


13/15

Winter 2005 53

APPENDIX

The tables below provide the integrated marketing communication (IMC) and performance items used in the research. All itemsreported here are measured on seven-point Likert scales. The Cronbach’s α is reported for each of the constructs, including the finalCronbach’s α for the new “cross-functional strategic planning” construct derived from the CFA (combined “organizational infrastruc-ture,” “strategic consistency,” and “planning and evaluation”). = item deleted; √ = item retained.

IMC performance constructs and items

(based on Duncan and Moriarty 1997) Items retained Cronbach’sα

Interactivity1. Your brand’s media plan is a strategic balance between

mass media and one-to-one media. .66202. Special programs are in place to facilitate customer inquiries

and complaints about your brand. √ 3. In your databases, you capture customer inquiries, complaints,

compliments, and sales behavior related to your brand. √ 4. Your customer databases are easily accessible (internally)

and user-friendly.

Mission marketing

5. Your company’s mission statement is a key consideration in the

communications planning for your brand. √ .87366. Your mission statement is promoted among customers and other

key stakeholders of your brand (e.g., employees, shareholders). √ 7. Your brand’s social sponsorship contributions are concentrated in

one specific area or program (e.g., sport, music, art, etc.).

Organizational infrastructure8. In your company, the process of managing the brand’s reputation

is the responsibility of all departments and employees. .57439. The people managing the communications program for your

brand have a good understanding of the strengths and weaknessesof all major marketing communications tools, such as direct response,PR, sales promotion, advertising, and packaging. √

10. Your company does a good job of internal marketing, informing allareas of the organization about your brand’s objectives and marketingprograms. √

11. Your major communication agencies (e.g., advertising agency) have(at least) monthly contact with each other regarding your brand. √

Strategic consistency

12. You regularly review your marketing plan to ensure relevanceand consistency of your brand messages and strategic brand positioning. √ .7509

13. Your major promotional theme for the brand is conceptuallybroad enough to allow for different subcampaigns aimed at all keystakeholder groups. √

14. You carefully coordinate the messages being sent by all of your

operations, such as pricing, distribution, product performance,and service operations, to ensure consistency of brand positioning. √

Planning and evaluation15. A SWOT analysis is used to determine the strengths and opportunities

you can leverage, and the weaknesses and threats you need to address,in your brand’s marketing communication planning. √

16. You use a fresh start or zero-based approach in planning your brand’smarketing communication rather than using the last year’s budgetallocations.

.7161 (thecombined αcoefficient forthe finalmeasurementmodel was.8559)


14/15


17. When doing annual marketing communication planning, first priority isgiven to managing the consumer contact(s) with your brand. √

18. You use some type of systematic brand-tracking study to evaluate thestrength of your relationships with customers and other key stakeholdergroups. √

19. Your brand-marketing strategies maximize the unique strengths of thevarious marketing communications tools. √

20. The stated objective of your brand’s marketing communication programis to create and maintain profitable relationships with customers and otherstakeholders by ensuring consistency in all messages sent to these groups. √

Brand-related performance constructs and items Items retained Cronbach’sα

Sales-related performance1. What is your market share compared to your closest competitor? √ .80862. What is your sales growth compared to your closest competitor? √ 3. What is your profitability compared to your closest competitor? √ 4. What is your total sales income compared to your closest competitor? √

Brand advantage5. What is your customers’ level of brand awareness compared with your

closest competitor? √ .58656. What is your ability to command premium prices over similar competing

brands in your principal market? √ 7. What level of channel cooperation do you receive relative to similar

competing brands in your principal market? √

Customer satisfaction8. How satisfied do you think your customers are with your brand

compared to your closest competitor’s customers? √ .70149. How loyal do you think your customers are to your brand compared to

your closest competitor’s customers? √

Notes: CFA = confirmatory factor analysis; SWOT = strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats.

Respondents were asked to focus on their principal brand.

IMC performance constructs and items

(based on Duncan and Moriarty 1997) Items retained Cronbach’sα


15/15

Auditing of IMC Action and Outcomes

Documents

Transcript of Auditing of IMC Action and Outcomes