This article was downloaded by: [University of Guelph]

On: 31 May 2012, At: 23:14

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Marketing
Communications
Publication details, including instructions for authors
and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmc20

Entering the quagmire: examining

the 'meaning' of integrated
marketing communications
Joseph Phelps & Edward Johnson

Available online: 09 Dec 2010

To cite this article: Joseph Phelps & Edward Johnson (1996): Entering the quagmire:
examining the 'meaning' of integrated marketing communications, Journal of Marketing
Communications, 2:3, 159-172

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/135272696346123

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

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

conditions

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

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any
representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The
accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently
verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or
 howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out
of the use of this material.
Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 23:14 31 May 2012
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS 2 159–172 (1996)

Enter ing the quagmir e: examining the

`meaning’ of integr ated mar keting
communications
JOSEPH PHELPS 1 AND EDWARD JOHNSON 2
1
Advertising and Public Relations Department, College of Communication, The University
of Alabama, PO Box 870172, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0172 and 2 College of Journalism and
Mass Communication, The University of Nebraska, 12th Street and Stadium Dr., Lincoln,
Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 23:14 31 May 2012

NE 68500-0130, USA

The lack of a generally accepted de® nition of integrated m arketing com m unications
has greatly im peded the efforts to develop sound m easures of integrated m arketing
com m unication’ s im pact on current m arketing com m unication practices. The study
reported here uses a factor analysis of responses from a national sam p le of
m arketing com m unication practitioners to begin the exploration into the underlying
m eaning of integrated m arketing com m unica tion to practitioners. Identifying the
underlying structure of the m eaning of integrated m arketing com m unications
provides future researchers with a stronger conceptual basis on which to build a
de® nition of integrated m arketing com m unications, which, in turn, provides the
foundation for m easures which will m ore accurately determ ine how integrated
m arketing com m unications is used in practice.
KEYWORDS: Quagmire; `meaning’; integrated marketing communications

INTRODUCTION
There is no generally accepted de® nition of integrated marketing communications (IMC).
Indeed, IMC appears to mean dramatically different things to different people. This lack of
agreement has not stopped marketing communication practitioners or academics from
debating the impact of IMC on today’s marketing communication practices. However, the
lack of a generally accepted de® nition is the predominant barrier to developing sound
measures of IMC. In other words, one cannot measure IMC until one has speci® ed what
IMC is. And, without such measures, it is impossible to determine IMC’s impact on current
marketing communication practices. Given that it is highly unlikely that one IMC de® nition
will become universally accepted in the near future, how can sound measures of IMC emerge
from this quagmire? One approach is to examine and revise critically current measures while
specifying the conceptual de® nitions upon which the particular measures are based. Although
this approach will not immediately lead to a single predominant measure of IMC, it will
improve the measures for the particular IMC de® nitions selected for study at a time when
1352± 7266 1996 Chapman & Hall
 160 PHELPS AND JOHNSON

developing useful measurement devices is a crucial need. A more useful approach, however, is
to work towards developing a better understanding of the underlying meaning of IMC to
marketing communication practitioners. Identifying a better structure of the underlying
meaning of IMC will provide a common foundation for de® ning IMC. This common
conceptual basis can then be used to develop measures that more accurately shed light on
how IMC is used in practice.
In the research reported here, a factor analysis of an existing database (the data from Phelps
et al.’s (1994) survey of a national sample of marketing communications practitioners) is used
to begin the exploration into the underlying structure of the meaning of IMC to
practitioners. Identifying an underlying meaning of IMC provides future researchers with a
stronger conceptual basis on which to build a de® nition of IMC that is more likely to garner
support/agreement among practitioners and academics. However, it must remain clear at this
preliminary stage in the exploration of the meaning of IMC, that the process of examining
Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 23:14 31 May 2012

the meaning may be more instructive than the preliminary factor structure outlined here. In
other words, while the factor structure identi® ed here must be viewed only as a `work in
progress’, the process outlined here provides an approach for improving our understanding of
what IMC means.

BACKGROUND
IMC advocates (e.g. Rapp and Collins, 1988, 1990; Roman, 1988; Stevenson, 1989; Schultz
et al., 1992) perceive IMC as a phenomenon in which the walls between the major marketing
communication disciplines, namely sales promotion, public relations, direct response
advertising and `brand’ or `image’ advertising are collapsing, resulting in a fundamental
restructuring of the rules of marketing and advertising communication. As evidence of this
`phenomenon’, IMC advocates point to increased marketer demands for (1) multidisciplinary
campaigns (Clancy, 1990; Reilly, 1991), (2) advertising strategies that accomplish commu-
nication and behavioural objectives concurrently (Bowman, 1987; Kobs, 1988; Peltier et al.,
1992) and (3) creative executions that simultaneously generate awareness, promote market
positions, encourage immediate behavioural responses and build consumer databases that can
be used to foster long-term customer relationships (Rapp and Collins, 1990; Nelson, 1991).
The examination of and the debate surrounding these claims garners a great deal of
attention in the marketing and academic communities. While the advocates argue that IMC is
fundamentally changing the practice of marketing communications, others (e.g. Rotzoll, 1991;
Cleland, 1995) charge that relatively little has changed. A small number of studies (e.g.
Caywood et al., 1991; Duncan and Everett, 1993; Phelps et al., 1994; Cleland, 1995), have
examined marketers’ acceptance and practice of IMC. However, reported IMC usage varies
widely among the studies. While Caywood et al. (1991) and Phelps et al. (1994) reported that
a majority of the companies surveyed are using an IMC approach, Cleland (1995) and
Duncan and Everett (1993) reported that only a minority of the companies are using IMC.
The large differences in these results call into question the measures used to assess IMC in
these studies. In light of these differences, it seems appropriate to examine the measures used
critically. However, one cannot critically examine the IMC measures used in previous
research without ® rst examining the conceptual de® nitions the researchers selected. Indeed,
one of the reasons that reported usage varies widely from study to study is that the researchers
have used different de® nitions and measures of IMC.
As an emerging ® eld, a lack of clarity in de® nition and boundaries is to be expected.
 THE `MEANING’ OF IMC 161

However, as long as IMC remains an ill-de® ned and ambiguous concept (Stewart, 1995), it
will be dif® cult to develop measures of marketers’ acceptance and usage of IMC. While
forging a general agreement regarding the conceptual de® nition of IMC would ease the
development of measurement devices, it is unlikely that such agreement is close at hand. For
the time being, therefore, researchers must not only continue to struggle with different
conceptualizations of IMC, they also must develop a sound operationalization of whichever
conceptual de® nition they have selected. As the IMC research illustrates, however, the small
but increasing number of usage studies conducted using different IMC de® nitions and
measures, have produced contradictory results and have created even more confusion
regarding whether IMC is restructuring current marketing communications practices or if
relatively little has changed. An understanding of what IMC means to practitioners would be
of tremendous help in developing the common conceptual de® nition which is so critically
needed at this time.
Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 23:14 31 May 2012

The present article unfolds in four stages. First, de® nitions of IMC are presented and the
three conceptualizations of IMC used in the Phelps et al. (1994) study are discussed. Second, a
factor analysis of the data collected by Phelps et al. (1994) (i.e. responses from a national
sample of marketing communications practitioners) is used to begin an exploration of the
underlying structure of the meaning of IMC to practitioners. Third, an assessment of the
usage of each IMC factor at the respondents’ companies is presented. Finally, the implications
of the current study are discussed and suggestions for future research are offered.

DEFINITIONS OF IMC
This discussion of IMC de® nitions is offered to communicate two major points. First, it
illustrates the lack of agreement in de® nition and boundaries in the IMC literature. Second, it
presents the conceptual de® nitions used in the Phelps et al. (1994) study. Understanding these
de® nitions is helpful in understanding the conceptual basis for several of the factors identi® ed
in the factor analysis.
Determining what falls inside and outside the boundaries of a given concept is essential in
developing a de® nition of that concept. Unfortunately, little agreement exists on the
boundaries of IMC. Some (e.g. Stewart, 1995, p. 5), argued that, `IMC, taken to its logical
conclusion, cannot be separated from the way a ® rm de® nes its business and the customers it
elects to serve. What requires coordination, then, is not just the communications function but
the business’. This perspective would include all functional activities within the boundaries of
IMC. According to Stewart (1995), the coordination of various business activities within the
® rm cannot be arti® cially bounded to exclude some functional activities while including
others.
Although coordinating all functional activities makes good business sense, such inclusiveness
also greatly extends the boundaries of IMC. Another perspective of IMC limits the
boundaries to promotional functions. This perspective argues that a distinction should be
drawn between `integrated marketing’ and `integrated marketing communications’. Under this
perspective, integrated marketing refers to the coordination of all the facets of marketing (e.g.
logistics, product development, pricing, distribution and promotion). Integrated marketing
communications refers mainly to the promotion function (e.g. advertising, public relations,
sales promotion and packaging). Although integrated marketing encompasses integrated
marketing communications, the two are seen to be distinct concepts. While this view of
integrated marketing accommodates the perspective that all functional activities of the ® rm
 162 PHELPS AND JOHNSON

must be coordinated, the less inclusive perspective of integrated marketing communications

offered here will likely speed IMC de® nition and measure development and more easily allow
researchers to examine changes in the traditional marketing communications elements.
However, even when the boundaries of IMC have been more tightly restricted to the
promotional activities, various IMC de® nitions have developed. In perhaps the ® rst attempt to
measure the implementation of IMC, Caywood et al. (1991) used the following de® nition
developed by the American Association of Advertising Agencies:
A concept of marketing communications planning that recognizes the added value of a
comprehensive plan that evaluates the strategic role of a variety of communications disciplines,
e.g., general advertising, direct response, sales promotion and public relations ± and combines
these disciplines to provide clarity, consistency and maximum communications impact.

While a number of others have offered IMC de® nitions (e.g. Schultz et al., 1992; Duncan,
Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 23:14 31 May 2012

1994; see also K. Reinhard, Speech to the Advertising Federation of Australia, Sydney, 5
April 1990), the remaining portion of this section will be used to describe three broad
conceptualizations outlined by Nowak and Phelps (1994). These three conceptualizations,
`one-voice’, `integrated communications’ and `coordinated marketing communication
campaigns’ are important to our discussion for two resasons: (1) Nowak and Phelps (1994)
stated that these conceptualizations were adapted mainly from the practitioner-based literature
and it is the underlying meaning of IMC to marketing communication practitioners that is
the focus of the current study and (2) these de® nitions provide the conceptual basis for several
of the factors identi® ed in the factor analysis.

One-voice
Characterized as `seamless’ marketing communication, this view suggests that `integration’
involves maintaining a clear and consistent image, position, message and/or theme across all
marketing communications disciplines or tools. A common strategy or `singular identity’ is
decided upon at the outset of a campaign and that strategy uni® es consumer sales promotion,
direct response advertising, brand/image advertising and even public relations efforts (Reilly,
1991). According to Synder (1991, p. 32), full integration is achieved when all disciplines are
involved in creating a `single positioning concept for the brand that drives all
communications’ (versus just being asked to coordinate creative executions). Under this
perspective, the guiding image, position, message or theme matters more than disciplinary
boundaries.

Integrated com m unications

This conceptualization is micro-oriented in that it revolves around the notion that marketing
communications materials, particularly advertisements, should simultaneously establish or
develop an image and directly in¯ uence consumer behaviour (Kobs, 1988; Roman, 1988;
Nelson, 1991; Peltier et al., 1992). In essence, this view emanates from the belief that brand/
image advertising, consumer sales promotion, direct response advertising and public relations
are not mutually exclusive disciplines and that incorporating elements of each into
communication materials `may jointly maximize their unique strengths, while minimizing
 THE `MEANING’ OF IMC 163

their weaknesses’ (Peltier et al., 1992, p. 41). This perspective, for instance, would mandate
advertisements that strive to include or retain the artistry and ¯ air of brand/image advertising
while simultaneously including the response devices (e.g. phone numbers, mail-in forms,
explicit offers, purchase incentives or premiums) traditionally found only in consumer sales
promotions or direct response advertising (see Peltier et al. (1992) for a detailed review).

Coordinated m arketing com m unication cam paigns

The third conceptualization associates `integrated’ with `coordinated’. Under this view, IMC
means coordinating marketing communications disciplines or instituting steps that result in
better coordination between functions and/or agencies (Schultz et al., 1992). Unlike the one-
voice perspective, the various disciplines are not necessarily working under a single, unifying
Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 23:14 31 May 2012

brand positioning. In fact, multiple positionings based on multiple target audiences are more
typically the norm (Rapp and Collins, 1990). The emphasis is thus on producing `holistic’
campaigns that draw upon brand/image advertising, consumer sales promotions and direct
response advertising in order to do `whatever is necessary to identify, contact, activate, and
cultivate individual consumers and increase market share’ (Rapp and Collins, 1990, p. 41).
Marketing communications are therefore `integrated’ to the extent they create a `synergism’
that, at the campaign level, develops awareness, images or beliefs while bolstering behavioural
responses beyond those that would be attained with a traditional one-discipline, one-message
campaign (Roman, 1988).

FACTOR ANALYSIS: EXPLORING THE MEANING OF IMC

Before describing the factor analysis, a brief review of the data collection procedure is
necessary. As with any factor analysis, the results are highly in¯ uenced by the sampling frame
of respondents as well as the measures used (Osgood et al., 1957). Therefore, it is important
to understand how and from whom the information was obtained before discussing the
results.

Description of survey sam ple and m easures used

As stated earlier the current study is an analysis of an existing database (i.e. Phelps et al.,
1994). That study attempted to measure the extent to which IMC was being implemented in
current marketing communications practices. To examine this, a survey was designed and sent
to executives at 178 randomly selected, publicly traded corporations. One hundred and one
responses were received, for a 56.7% response rate. The survey instrument was a 33-item,
self-administered mail questionnaire. To avoid confusion or biased responses, the respondents
were not given a de® nition as such of IMC. According to Duncan and Everett (1993), if
respondents are directly asked `Does your company use integrated marketing communica-
tions?’ the ® ndings would have little validity since each person would be responding from his
or her own de® nition of IMC.
Instead, statements regarding communication practices were given and practitioners were
asked to agree or disagree with each statement depending on how well the statement
described the communication practices of their company. With the exception of one
 164 PHELPS AND JOHNSON

multiple-choice question, the responses were scored on a Likert-type seven-point scale,

ranging from 3 being `strongly agree’ to -3 being `strongly disagree’.
Twenty statements and one multiple-choice question were related to IMC. All the
statements that accompany the Likert scales are shown in Table 1. The multiple-choice
question, which allowed the respondents to select the type of target audience(s) to which
their company communicates is shown in Table 2.
For the purposes of the present study the decision to allow the practitioners to respond to

TABLE 1. Likert-scale questions

Q1 One message. Our company’s advertising sales promotions all present the same
clear and consistent message to our target audience(s)
Q2 Common strategy. From the outset of a new campaign, our company selects a
common strategy that uniŽ es our advertising, public relations and sales promotion
Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 23:14 31 May 2012

Q03 PR behaviour and image. Our public relations in uences both consumer purchases
and perception of our company
Q04 Advertisement behaviour and image. Our advertising in uences both consumer
purchases and perception of our company
Q05a Common goals. Our advertising, public relations and sales promotions each has its
own independent goals
Q06 Sales goal. Increasing sales is an extremely important goal of our marketing
communication messages
Q07 Awareness goal. Improving customer awareness of our products or services is an
extremely important goal of our marketing communication message
Q08 Cost cutting. Cutting the costs of our advertising, public relations and sales
promotions is an extremely important goal in our marketing communication
programme
Q09 Target audiences. Each of our target audiences for marketing messages is narrow,
speciŽ c and well-deŽ ned
Q10 Direct response. Direct response marketing is an important part of our company
Q11 Databases. The use of databases with information about customer proŽ les is a
vital part of our company’s marketing communication programme
Q12 Direct mail. Direct mail is a vital part of our company’s marketing communication
programme
Q13 800 numbers. The use of `800’ phone numbers is a vital part of our company’s
marketing communication programme
Q14 Divided PR. The people on our public relations staff who deal with marketing are
different from those who deal with corporate public relations
Q15 Entry responsibility. Our company gives its entry-level workers important
decision-making responsibilities
Q16 More PR responsibility. Public relations is being given increased priority in our
company
Q17 More advertisement responsibility. Advertising is being given increased priority in
our company
Q18 More promotion responsibility. Sales promotion is being given increased priority
in our company
Q19 Personal selling. Personal selling is being given increased priority in our company
Q20 Changed policy. In terms of the above 19 statements, our company’s policies have
changed very little over the past 5 years
a
Indicates reverse scoring for scale.
 THE `MEANING’ OF IMC 165

TABLE 2. Responses to Q21: `Which statement below best describes the

target audience or audiences your company wants to reach with its marketing
communication?’
Percentage
Statements (n 98)
One broad audience 5.1
One narrowly deŽ ned audience 2.0
Several general audiences 37.8
Several narrowly deŽ ned audiences 49.0
Other 6.1
Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 23:14 31 May 2012

IMC-related questions without imposing a de® nition is essential if one is to use the responses
as a guide to what IMC means. This `meaning’ of course will emphasise the common
underlying structure or, in other words, the similarities between the different views of what
IMC is to practitioners.

Factor analysis
Factor analysis is a technique that reveals relationships between groups of scales much as a
simple correlation coef® cient shows the relationship between two variables. Generally, the
results of factor analysis are presented in rotated factor matrix. This matrix groups scales in
terms of their loadings onto different factors. These loadings are related to correlation
coef® cients and are presented as an amount that may range from 1.00 to 1.00. The rotation
causes the loading for each scale to load most heavily onto one factor.
The fact that scales load heavily onto one factor indicates a relationship between the scales.
Scales that have the strongest such relationships load onto the ® rst factor. Scales that have the
second strongest relationship load onto the second factor and so on, until there are as many
factors as there are scales examined. In other words, factor analysis suggests which items `go
together’. Assuming that this analysis indicates what is related to what in the minds of the
respondents, these relationships provide evidence of the underlying factors that make up the
meaning of a given concept. The use of factor analysis to explore the underlying structure of
the meaning of a concept is not a new approach. Osgood et al. (1957) in their work, The
Measurement of Meaning, used factor analysis of semantic differential scales to examine whether
there were standard factors of meaningful judgements. They said, `It {factor analysis} is a
necessary step in the development of ef® cient instruments for measuring the meaning variable
in human behavior’ (Osgood et al., 1957, p. 76).
After examining the individual scales (Q1± Q21), a factor analysis was completed. From this
factor analysis, ® ve factors were selected for the varimax rotation. Although there is no
de® nitive rule for deciding how many factors to examine, a common technique is to examine
a scree chart that diagrams the eigenvalues for each factor. The scree chart shows the amount
of overall variance accounted for by each factor. Typically a plateau in the curved chart
becomes the cut-off point. This plateau was evident after the ® fth factor.
The results of the ® ve-factor rotation are shown in Table 3. These factors were examined
 166 PHELPS AND JOHNSON

in terms of their heaviest loaded scales. This was de® ned by loadings of |0.60| or greater.
Two exceptions were made to the 0.60 criterion. Scale Q16 had a loading of 0.59 and was
included. Scale Q4, with a loading of 0.56 was also included (see Table 3).

THE FACTORS: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The factors to be discussed provide the ® rst attempt to identify the underlying meaning of
IMC. Although this approach provides unique insights into what IMC means to a sample of
practitioners, we emphasize the exploratory nature of the current study. Future research,
though, can build from this juncture. As with any factor analysis, one’s con® dence in the
validity of the factor structure increases as this structure persistently reappears in replications of
the analysis (Osgood et al., 1957). However, if researchers are to identify a persistent factor
Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 23:14 31 May 2012

structure that can be used as the conceptual foundation for de® ning and measuring IMC, a
® rst step must be taken.

TABLE 3. Rotated factor matrix

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5
Eigenvalues 2.55 2.27 1.99 1.91 1.89
Proportions of variance 0.12 0.11 0.09 0.09 0.09
Cronbach’s alphas 0.81 0.74 0.44 0.65 0.67
Factor 1. Direct marketing
Q12 Direct mail 0.81 – – – –
Q11 Databases 0.80 – – – –
Q10 Direct response 0.77 – – – –
Q13 800 numbers 0.68 – – – –
Factor 2. One-voice
Q2 Common strategy – 0.73 – – –
Q1 One message – 0.70 – – –
Q3 PR behaviour and image – 0.69 – – –
Q4 Advertisement behaviour and image – 0.56 – – –
Factor 3. Coordinated marketing
communication campaigns
Q5 Common goals – – 0.69 – –
Q21 Several narrow audiences – – 0.68 – –
Q9 Target audiences – – 0.62 – –
Factor 4. Increased responsibilities
Q17 More advertisement responsibility – – – 0.84 –
Q18 More promotion responsibility – – – 0.62 –
Q16 More PR responsibility – – – 0.59 –
Factor 5. Response goals
Q6 Sales goal – – – – 0.75
Q7 Awareness goal – – – – 0.71
For clarity, loadings less than |0.60| are deleted, except for scales Q4 and Q16.
 THE `MEANING’ OF IMC 167

Direct m arketing
It is certainly noteworthy that across all the randomly selected companies included in the
study, the ® rst factor represents direct marketing. Here direct mail (Q12), customer databases
(Q11), direct response promotions (Q10) and 800 phone numbers (Q13) load most heavily
(see Table 3). Obviously, direct marketing is an important element in today’s marketing
communications efforts. Because direct marketing is effective in reaching speci® c target
audiences it is not surprising how extensively direct marketing permeates American business.
According to Nowak and Phelps (1994), growing numbers of marketers, sceptical about the
often ambiguous results of mass media advertising, are placing greater emphasis on direct
response advertising. The increasing use of direct marketing techniques by `general’ marketers
is closely connected with the increasing interest in IMC. Related to this point is the
importance of consumer databases to implementing IMC. Duncan (1995) stated that databases
are essential for companies to customize their messages and begin to move towards more
Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 23:14 31 May 2012

purposeful two-way communication. Without the database, the interactivity component of

IMC is lost (Duncan, 1995). Most of the conceptual de® nitions of IMC include direct
marketing elements. These elements must not be overlooked in the development of IMC
measures.

One-voice
The second factor to emerge, one-voice, suggests that practitioners view one dimension of
IMC as the development of a clear and consistent image, position, message and/or theme
across all marketing communication disciplines. This is illustrated by the responses that load
most heavily on this factor. The scales, using one clear and consistent message (Q1), a
common strategy across communication disciplines (Q2) and developing goals to concurrently
in¯ uence consumer perceptions and behaviour with public relations (Q3) and advertising
(Q4), clearly relate to the one-voice conceptualization presented earlier.
Although for some practitioners the notion of one voice may totally represent what IMC
means to them, it is shown here to be simply one aspect of the meaning of IMC. Therefore,
it is suggested that this factor should be included as a part of any emerging de® nition of IMC
and that items designed to assess this factor be included when developing IMC measures.

Coordinated m arketing com m unication cam paigns

The third factor to emerge is coordinated marketing communication campaigns. Unlike the
one-voice factor, with coordinated marketing communication campaigns the various
disciplines are not necessarily working under a single, unifying brand positioning (Nowak
and Phelps, 1994). In fact, multiple positionings based on multiple target audiences are more
typically the norm (Rapp and Collins, 1990). Coordinated marketing communication
campaigns also includes instituting steps that result in better coordination among the
communication functions (Schultz et al., 1992).
The three scales loading onto this factor indicate that respondents working at ® rms with
several narrow (Q21), speci® c and well-de® ned (Q9) audiences, are instituting common goals
for the various communication areas (Q5) as the basis for developing communication
campaigns. The actions of these respondents and their ® rms indicate that this factor illustrates
 168 PHELPS AND JOHNSON

another aspect of how IMC is being implemented and therefore, what it means, at least in
part, to these practitioners.
It must be noted, however, that the reliability (alpha 0.44) between the items loading on
this factor is a concern. Perhaps a replication of this study, augmented with other related
scales, would produce more stable results. For example, future research could include items
which assess the amount of interaction among participants from the various communication
disciplines during the planning and implementation stages of communication campaigns.

Increased responsibilities
Increased responsibilities is the fourth factor to emerge. The anecdotes of protecting ® efdoms
and building empires are familiar to people in business, the academy and other large
Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 23:14 31 May 2012

organizations. Although no theoretical reasoning is offered to suggest that these three scales
(Q16± Q18) should load onto one factor, they were included in the original questionnaire to
examine whether the increase in responsibility of one area of marketing communications
coincides with a decrease in other areas. If this were true, then the fears that fuel
departmentalization and work against developing an interdepartmental IMC approach to
solving marketing communication problems would be well founded.
To the contrary, the positive loadings of all three scales suggests that an increase of
responsibility in one communication department coincides with a similar increase in the
others (see factor 4 in Table 3). At least in the companies responding, one area does not gain
responsibility at the expense of the others.

Response goals
The last factor identi® ed deals with response goals. Increasing sales (Q6) and increasing
awareness (Q7) are viewed as extremely important goals of the marketing communication
messages by the respondents of this survey. Having these response goals load onto the same
factor is not surprising. IMC advocates, however, stress that ® rms are now more likely to try
to accomplish these goals with creative executions that simultaneously generate awareness,
promote market positions and encourage immediate behavioural responses (Rapp and Collins,
1990; Nelson, 1991). In advertising messages, for example, there is a merging of general
image advertising with direct response advertising (Nowak and Phelps, 1994). Thus, while the
goals loading onto this factor are obviously not big news to marketers, the means of obtaining
these goals arguably relate very well to the implementation of an IMC approach and therefore
are assumed to form another aspect of the meaning of IMC.

IMC usage ® gures

The factor loadings alone provide no evidence as to whether or not the ® rms responding to
the survey use a given dimension of IMC. The statements used in the previously mentioned
survey were developed to assess the use of IMC in the respondents’ businesses. To assess
usage in the current study, mean scores were calculated for scales that load together most
heavily onto each of the factors. Such mean scores are valuable for further statistical
 THE `MEANING’ OF IMC 169

techniques, such as analysis of variance, but by themselves these means have less meaning to
the lay observers. Therefore, frequencies are presented as a more meaningful summary statistic
in this situation.
Likert scales ± ranging from 3 for strongly agree to 3 for strongly disagree ± were used in
the survey. Therefore, the responses may be categorized as agreeing to some extent that an
IMC factor is utilized in the communication practices of their company by their positive
mean score for a factor or as disagreeing by negative scores. The frequencies of positive and
negative scores of all the respondents can then be compared as an indicator of the extent to
which each IMC factor is being implemented.
Thus, a mean score was computed for the scales found in the present study to represent
each factor. Such scores were found for each respondent in terms of each factor. The results
are presented in Table 4 in terms of the frequencies of those who disagree (means < 1), who
are neutral (means 1 , 1) and who agree (means > 1) that a given factor is being
Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 23:14 31 May 2012

implemented in their company’s communication practices. For ease of interpretation,

frequencies are shown in percentage form.
The responses indicate high levels of agreement for two of the ® ve factors (i.e. one-voice
and response goals; see Table 4). For the response goals factor, 89% had means scores
indicating their agreement that this factor is used in their company’s current communication
practices. Nine percent of the mean scores were neutral and only 2% were negative toward
the response goals factor. For one-voice, 67% of the mean scores indicated agreement that
this dimension of IMC was being practised at their company.
Although responses were predominately neutral towards the other three factors, Table 4
shows that the level of agreement with each of these factors is noticeably higher than
disagreement. For instance, although 47% of the responses for the increased responsibility
factor were neutral, those agreeing (43%) outnumbered those disagreeing (10%) by over a
four to one margin. For the coordinated marketing communication campaigns (CMCCs in
Table 4) factor, 56.3% of the responses were neutral, while 32.3% agreed and only 11.4%
disagreed. Although the difference between the level of agreement and disagreement is not as
large, the pattern is repeated for the direct marketing factor. For the direct marketing factor,
45.5% of the responses were neutral, while 33.3% agreed and 21.2% disagreed that this
dimension of IMC was being used by their company.

TABLE 4. Frequencies (in percentages) and means of factors

Frequencies (%)

Means < 1 Means 1 , 1 Means > 1

(disagree) (neutral) (agree) Mean SD n
Factor 1. Direct 21.2 45.5 33.3 0.09 1.57 99
marketing
Factor 2. One-voice 3.1 29.9 67.0 1.25 1.17 97
Factor 3. CMCCs 11.4 56.3 32.3 0.24 1.09 96
Factor 4. Increased 10.0 47.0 43.0 0.53 1.22 100
responsibilities
Factor 5. Response goals 2.0 9.0 89.0 2.14 1.15 100
 170 PHELPS AND JOHNSON

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The con¯ icting results evident in IMC usage literature (e.g.) Caywood et al., 1991; Duncan
and Everett, 1993; Phelps et al., 1994; Cleland, 1995) illustrate the dif® culty in developing
sound estimates of IMC’s impact on current marketing communication practices.
Unfortunately, this situation will persist as long as researchers use different de® nitions of
IMC as the foundation for the measures they develop. The key to resolving this situation is
the ability to move IMC research past the current de® nitional quagmire.
This paper presents an approach for developing a better understanding of the underlying
meaning of IMC to marketing communication practitioners. Identifying the factors underlying
the meaning of IMC provides future researchers with a stronger conceptual basis on which to
build a de® nition of IMC that is more apt to garner support among academics and
practitioners. Once future research has developed a better understanding of the underlying
meaning of IMC, measures can be developed which will assess the various dimensions of the
Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 23:14 31 May 2012

IMC concept. These measures will provide more accurate estimates of how IMC is being
implemented.
The research reported here uses factor analysis to begin an exploration into the underlying
structure of the meaning of IMC. The analysis identi® ed the following ® ve factors: direct
marketing, one-voice, coordinated communication marketing campaigns, increased responsi-
bilities and response goals as aspects of what IMC means to marketing communication
practitioners. The items loading onto each of these factors were discussed in an effort to
better explain the `make up’ of each factor. Finally, an analysis of the extent to which each
factor is implemented in the communication practices of the respondents’ companies was
presented as an illustration of how the process of identifying the underlying meaning structure
is useful in developing measures of IMC usage.
The major contribution of this research is its presentation of the process of exploring the
meaning of IMC. Depending on the respondents and questions asked, future research is likely
to identify different factor structures than the one presented here. What is important,
however, is that through replications of these studies, a factor structure will begin to emerge
with a level of consistency. Whatever the make up of that factor structure, it will be the key
to developing a common de® nition of IMC. It will also be the key to developing the sound
measures of IMC so desperately needed.

Lim itations of the study and sugg estions for future research
The main limitation of this study relates to the use of an the existing database. Although the
original study provided a sampling frame of the desired respondents as well as a variety of
questions useful in assessing different aspects of IMC, the focus of the original study was to
assess the level of IMC implementation present in current marketing communication
practices. Asking respondents to agree or disagree that their ® rm currently performs a speci® c
communication practice is different from asking questions that more directly tap into what
IMC means to these respondents. The ® rst need for future research is to develop data
gathering devices that tap more directly into what IMC means.
Future research must also include a wider variety of questions to test for factors that did
not emerge in the current research. Indeed, one has to look no further than the many
de® nitions of IMC currently available to see that the present research merely scratches the
surface of possibilities. For example, no factor emerged in the present study relating to the
 THE `MEANING’ OF IMC 171

integrated communication form of IMC which has been identi® ed by a number of researchers
and practitioners (Kobs, 1988; Roman, 1988; Nelson, 1991; Peltier et al., 1992; Nowak and
Phelps, 1994). The most likely explanation is that the current study did not include items that
tapped into this dimension. As explained in the section on IMC de® nitions, integrated
communication concerns integration in the execution of promotional messages. Future studies
will need to include questions that can assess the degree to which message executions
integrate elements from the various communication disciplines. Once a number of studies
using a variety of scales have been completed, there will be a need for a review or meta-
analysis to examine whether a common factor structure is emerging from the various studies.
As these suggestions indicate, much work remains to be done if we are to develop a better
understanding of the meaning of IMC. This work is essential, however, if we are to move
forward. The present study is offered as the ® rst step toward this goal.
Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 23:14 31 May 2012

REFERENCES
Bowman, R. (1987) Different disciplines, similar tactics. Marketing and Media Decisions 25, 20± 1.
Caywood, C., Schultz, D. and Wang, P. (1991) Integrated Marketing Communications: A Survey of National
Consumer Goods Advertising. Northwestern University Report, Evanston, IL.
Clancy, K.J. (1990) The coming revolution in advertising. Journal of Advertising Research 30, 47± 52.
Cleland, K. (1995) Few wed marketing, communications. Advertising Age 27 February, 66, 10.
Duncan, T.R. (1994) New sides of IMC. In C. Faure and L. Klein (eds) Marketing Communications
Strategies Today and Tomorrow: Integration, Allocation, and Interactive Technologies. Cambridge, MA:
Marketing Science Institute, pp. 37± 9.
Duncan, T.R. (1995) The concept and process of integrated marketing communication. Integrated
Marketing Communications Research Journal 1(1), 3± 10.
Duncan, T.R. and Everett, S.E. (1993) Client perceptions of integrated marketing communications.
Journal of Advertising Research May/June, 33, 30± 9.
Kobs, J. (1988) Action blends with image building. Advertising Age 9 November, 59, 78.
Nelson, C. (1991) The New Road to Advertising Success. Chicago, IL: Bonus Books.
Nowak, G. and Phelps, J. (1994) The integrated marketing communications’ phenomenon: an
examination of its impact on advertising practices and its implications for advertising research. The
Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising 16(1), 49± 66.
Osgood, C.E., Suci, G.J. and Tannenbaum, P.H. (1957) The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana: University
of Illinois Press.
Peltier, J.W., Mueller, B. and Rosen, R.G. (1992) Direct response versus image advertising. Journal of
Direct Marketing 6(1), 40± 9.
Phelps, J., Plumley, J. and Johnson, E. (1994) Integrated marketing communications: who is doing what?
In K.W. King (ed.) Proceedings of the 1994 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising,
University of Georgia, Athens, GA: pp. 143± 5.
Rapp, S. and Collins, T. (1988) Maximarketing: the New Direction in Advertising, Promotion and Marketing
Strategy. New York: NAL Penguin Books.
Rapp, S. and Collins, T. (1990) The Great Marketing Turnaround: the Age of the Individual and How to
Pro® t from it. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Reilly, J.C. (1991) The role of integrated marketing communications in brand management. The
Advertiser Fall, 1, 32± 5.
Roman, E. (1988) Integrated Direct Marketing: Techniques and Strategies for Success. New York: McGraw-
Hill Book Company.
Rotzoll, K.B. (1991) New advertising is old. Advertising Age 2 September, 62, 16.
Schultz, D.E., Tannenbaum, S. and Lauterborn, R. (1992) Integrated Marketing Communications.
 172 PHELPS AND JOHNSON

Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Business Books.

Stevenson, B. (1989) Critical marketing strategies for the 1990s. Journal of Direct Marketing 3(3), 34± 41.
Stewart, D.W. (1995) The market-back approach to the design of integrated communications programs:
a change in paradigm and a focus on determinants of success. Paper presented at the American
Academy of Advertising, Norfolk, VA.
Synder, M. (1991) Rethinking integrated. Advertising Age 28 October, 62, 32.
Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 23:14 31 May 2012