Analysis of a marketing campaign for a meat substitute product

Unlocking the Power of Integrated Marketing Communications: How Integrated Is Your IMC Program?

Kevin Lane Keller Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire, USA

The future of advertising and marketing communications will be marked by an increasingly diverse collection of new digital options added to the traditional media and communication options already available to marketers. By taking advantage of the unique strengths of different communication options, and combining them and sequencing them strategically, marketers have the opportunity to drive sales and build brands in ways never before possible. Doing so, however, will require new concepts, new tools, and new thinking. Toward that goal, this article describes seven integrated marketing communications (IMC) choice criteria that marketers can use to judge how effectively and efficiently they have assembled their IMC programs. The article also outlines five priority areas for future research to help further guide the successful design and implementation of IMC programs.

Marketing communications are one of the most difficult but

crucially important components of modern marketing. In

recent years this challenge has been made even more compli-

cated by the explosion of new digital media options. These

options offer new capabilities and hold much promise for mar-

keters but also bring great complexity to managerial decision

making. To highlight just a few of these new capabilities, mar-

keters can choose to do some or all of the following with their

brands: To draw attention to their brands, marketers now can

reach consumers through mass or targeted ads on Facebook or

other social networks; banner or display ads on third-party

websites; and paid or organic search ads. To shape brand pref-

erence, they can send timely e-mails and use their own web-

sites to provide detailed content. To drive short-term sales,

they can offer promotions and other incentives through tweets,

texts, and targeted e-coupons. And to reinforce long-term

brand loyalty, they can form online brand communities

through their own or third-party social media.

With so many different new and traditional communication

options available—and so many different ways to combine those

options—marketers struggle with how to make good marketing

communication decisions. The upside from sound decision mak-

ing, however, is enormous. Success stories abound of brands that

have benefited from creatively designed, soundly executed com-

munication campaigns of all kinds: Got Milk? famously turned

around declining sales of milk with clever TV ads reinforced with

strategically timed and placed radio, out-of-home (OOH), and

point-of-purchase (P-O-P) reminders. More recently, Tough

Mudder benefited from a strictly digital focus via targeted ads on

Facebook.

At the same time, there are scores of examples of misguided

and/or poorly implemented communication programs that fail

badly in the marketplace. A crucial ingredient for many of the

communication success stories is a well-developed integrated

marketing communications (IMC) program. Some of the world’s

most successful brands have benefited from carefully blending

communication options of all types. For example, Nike supports

its brands with award-winning advertising, selected event and ath-

lete sponsorship, extensive public relations (PR), and a highly

interactive digital communication program, among other commu-

nication activities. Unquestionably, one of the most important

topics concerning the future of advertising is how marketers

should design, execute, and evaluate IMC programs.

In recognition of the importance of IMC, the advertising

industry has taken a number of steps over the past three deca-

des to improve its ability to provide the right IMC solutions

for its clients. In the early days, Ogilvy talked about “Ogilvy

Orchestration,” and Young and Rubicam talked about the

“Whole Egg.” Through the years, agencies have acquired spe-

cialized boutique firms to enhance their capabilities in PR,

direct marketing, promotions, and other areas of communica-

tions. Recently, the focus of agency acquisitions has been on

different types of digital communication firms to help their cli-

ents with web design, social media, online tracking, and so

forth. At the same time, internally, agencies have also been

Address correspondence to Kevin Lane Keller, Tuck School of Business, 100 Tuck Hall, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755. E-mail: kevin.keller@dartmouth.edu

Kevin Lane Keller (PhD, Duke University) is the E.B. Osborn Pro- fessor of Marketing, Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth College.

Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at http://www.tandfonline.com/ujoa.

286

Journal of Advertising, 45(3), 286–301

Copyright � 2016, American Academy of Advertising ISSN: 0091-3367 print / 1557-7805 online

DOI: 10.1080/00913367.2016.1204967

evolving their organizational design and processes, introduc-

ing planners, redefining the role of agency personnel,

and taking many other steps to be more client-, consumer-,

and brand-centric. Despite all the progress these agency steps

have made toward the goal of more effective and efficient

IMC programs, marketers still face a fundamental problem, as

demonstrated by the following hypothetical scenario.

Assume that the marketers of a well-known brand have

carefully conducted a series of research activities to gain a

deeper understanding of their target consumer, the market-

place, competition, and so on. Assume too that they have

crafted a thoughtful, imaginative marketing strategy,

uncovering a potentially powerful new brand positioning in

the process. The marketers of the brand use this new strat-

egy to write a tight communications brief that goes to their

full-service communications agency with the mandate to

develop a thoroughly integrated marketing communications

program to help the brand achieve the desired new posi-

tioning. Their longtime agency works diligently and, after

a certain period of time, unveils its proposed IMC program

with a dazzling display of video, color, and graphics in a

tour de force presentation.

Now what? For all the agency’s well-intentioned bravado, how

do the marketers of the brand judge the communication program

as to whether it actually is well integrated and offers the most

effective and efficient solution to their communications

challenge? Although there will always be uncertainty as to the

fate of any marketing activity—and certainly with marketing com-

munications—how do marketers make the right decisions to at

least improve their odds and increase their likelihood of market-

place success?

What marketers need is a set of well-grounded, comprehen-

sive criteria by which any proposed IMC program can be sys-

tematically and thoroughly judged. Marketers need to know

which questions to ask to make sure their agency or agencies

have done their due diligence to truly optimize the design of

their IMC program. Unfortunately, such guidance has been

sadly lacking (Assael 2011; Keller 2009). In fact, too often the

idea of IMC was historically equated with communications

reinforcement, in other words, saying the same thing in differ-

ent ways. Although such triangulation can be valuable, as

many now recognize there is much more to a well-designed

IMC program than just communicating the same message in

different ways.

To provide some clarity and assistance for marketers to help

them judge how integrated their marketing communications pro-

grams are, this article outlines a comprehensive, cohesive set of

seven IMC choice criteria that can be called the “Seven Cs,” given

that all seven criteria begin with the letter C. After providing moti-

vation and context to the communication challenge and some

background on the main theme of the approach, each criterion is

described and illustrated in some detail. After offering a short

summary, the article concludes by highlighting five key priorities

for future IMC research.

UNDERSTANDING THE COMMUNICATIONS CHALLENGE

As noted, the marketing communications environment has

unquestionably changed dramatically. Yet, as will be argued,

many of the conceptual foundations of marketing communica-

tions are still relevant but need to be applied in new or

expanded ways. After describing some of these changes in

today’s communications environment, two broadly robust con-

ceptual models are reviewed that are useful in understanding

how consumers process communications and how they make

decisions.

The New Communications Environment

The past decade has seen technological developments that have

transformed markets and marketing, as both consumers and firms

have new capabilities that were unimaginable even a few short

years ago. Empowered consumers are meeting equally empow-

ered firms as both groups now have access to seemingly limitless

information on just about anything or anyone.

As a result, consumers can choose to become as engaged as

they want with a brand, with their influence ranging from only

posting comments and reviews at one end of a continuum to

actively guiding the nature and direction of brand activities at the

other end. Similarly, firms can choose to become as involved as

they wish with consumers, from hosting their own brand website

at one end of the continuum to actively interacting with consumers

in product and brand development at the other end. Thus, consum-

ers and firms can increasingly communicate, relate, and exchange

anything, anytime, with anyone.

What consumers and firms can do in this new communications

environment, however, does not necessarily equate with what

they should or will do. Answering these more predictive and nor-

mative questions requires, in part, a thorough understanding of the

new communication environment characterized by a broader set

of communication options and objectives, as well as a deep appre-

ciation of the many differences across consumers in the relation-

ships they seek from brands and their propensity to even engage

with a brand. We outline these two areas next.

Communication options and objectives. Many different

marketing communications options exist that can play different

roles and have different objectives in the marketing of a brand

(Batra and Keller 2016). One popular distinction made by many

marketers and academic researchers (e.g., Stephen and Galak

2012) is between communications which appear in paid media

(traditional outlets such as TV, print, and direct mail), owned

media (company-controlled options such as websites, blogs,

mobile apps, and social media), and earned media (virtual or real-

world word of mouth, press coverage, etc.). Given the goal of this

article is to help marketers make better IMC decisions, our focus

here is on paid and owned media, as those are the areas over which

marketers have the most direct control and therefore are responsi-

ble for making the most decisions. In no way does this focus

diminish the importance of earned media to the success of brand

UNLOCKING THE POWER OF INTEGRATED MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS 287

building and sales. On the contrary, earned media considerations

can factor into much of the application of the criteria which are

developed in this article. Our discussion, however, will largely

center on issues and examples related to paid and owned media.

To provide a more refined perspective of those communication

options directly available to marketers, Table 1 groups a number

of paid and owned media communication options into eight com-

munication platforms, with illustrative examples of each.

At the same time, it is also important to recognize there are

a number of different roles or objectives that any one of these

communication options may be asked to achieve, depending

on the brand situation, characteristics of the target market, and

so on. Table 2 displays a representative taxonomy of eight key

communication objectives. These communication objectives

are relevant to brands at different stages of development, as

well as for consumers with different levels of understanding

and affinity toward a brand, and so on.

Consumer heterogeneity. In describing the new communi-

cation environment, one mistake frequently made by many mar-

keters and pundits is failing to recognize that empowered does not

necessarily imply enlightened or engaged. In other words, just

because consumers have an opportunity to engage with a brand

does not mean they also have the motivation and ability to do so.

Moreover, too often digital branding guidelines and principles are

stated in terms of “the consumer” as if so much homogeneity

existed in the marketplace that consumers could be treated as one

group (e.g., “Consumers are in charge now. They are no longer

passive but active, and they want a two-way conversation”).

The reality is, as much past research has shown, only some of

the consumers want to get involved with only some of their brands

and, even then, only some of the time. Clearly, a much more

nuanced view of consumers is necessary to more completely

understand branding in a digital world. Central to that view is a

realization that customers can be highly heterogeneous in how

they think, feel, and act toward brands. For those consumers will-

ing and able to engage with a brand, marketers can leverage digital

communications to forge stronger brand ties. For example, mar-

keters can uncover individual consumers’ likes and dislikes and

their unmet needs and wants to provide them with a more custom-

ized and tailored brand experience. As appealing as such efforts in

personalization might sound, however, they may also make it

harder to create a strong brand community with shared brand

beliefs and attitudes across consumers. Regardless, the fact also

remains that many consumers will not necessarily want to engage

with the brand.

In other words, there are fundamental differences in how con-

sumers relate to brands and thus how firms can choose to commu-

nicate and develop relationships with consumers. A helpful

schematic to understand consumer heterogeneity in this regard is

the brand engagement pyramid (see Figure 1). The brand engage-

ment pyramid is a way to portray the level of engagement that cus-

tomers have with a brand. At the top of the pyramid are those

customers who want to be highly engaged with the brand: They

talk about it, tweet about it, visit its website, reads its e-mails, and

TABLE 1

Eight Major Marketing Communication Platforms

Platform Components

Advertising � Print and broadcast ads

� Packaging, outer � Packaging inserts � Cinema � Brochures and booklets

� Posters and leaflets

� Directories � Reprints of ads � Billboards � Display signs � Point-of-purchase displays

� DVDs

Sales promotion � Contests, games, sweepstakes,

lotteries

� Premiums and gifts � Sampling � Fairs and trade shows

� Exhibits � Demonstrations

� Coupons � Rebates � Low-interest

financing

� Trade-in allowances

� Continuity programs

� Tie-ins Events and

experiences

� Sports � Entertainment festivals

� Arts

� Causes � Factory tours � Company museums

� Street activities Public relations and

publicity

� Press kits � Speeches � Seminars � Annual reports � Charitable donations

� Publications � Community relations

� Lobbying � Identity media � Company magazine

Online and social

media marketing

� Websites � E-mail � Search ads � Display ads

� Company blogs � Third-party chatrooms,

forums, and blogs

� Facebook and Twitter messages,

YouTube

channels and

videos

Mobile marketing � Text messages � Online marketing

� Social media marketing

� Apps

(Continued on next page)

288 K. L. KELLER

so on. At the larger bottom or base of the pyramid, however, are

those customers who want to do nothing more with the brand than

purchase and consume it; that’s all—in other words, just “choose

it and use it.” Unfortunately, too many marketers and marketing

pundits overemphasize marketing to customers at the top of the

pyramid at the expense of the often large group of customers at

the base. The key for marketers is to ensure that they understand,

literally, the shape and dynamics of their brand engagement pyra-

mid. How many are at the top? How many are at the base? What

is the flow of influence across levels of the pyramid? Does any

flow trickle down? The answers to these questions will have pro-

found implications as to the role of paid, owned, and earned media

in the development of an IMC program.

Conceptual Foundations

With this new communications environment and those two

broad sets of communication options and communication

objectives in mind, to be able to assemble the optimal IMC

programs, marketers and their agencies must first have a clear

understanding of how all of these different types of marketing

communications work, as well as how consumers and their

customers make buying decisions in the marketplace. After

reviewing some prior communications research, we next high-

light some basic conceptual foundations with each.

Some prior IMC research. Although prior research has not

provided explicit guidance on how to answer the specific question

of how integrated a marketing communications program is, it has

provided many valuable perspectives and insights (for a compre-

hensive review, see Schultz, Patti, and Kitchen 2011). A few nota-

ble recent contributions are highlighted here.

Kliatchko (2008) offers a comprehensive historical review

of the IMC concept and critique of the IMC definition and four

pillars. Kitchen et al. (2004) provide valuable conceptual con-

text as to the progress that has been made organizationally

with IMC. Taylor (2005) offers another historical review and

agenda from the perspective of international advertising

research. Reid (2005) provides return on investment (ROI)

evidence as to the IMC process and brand outcomes. Lee and

Park (2007) consider important measurement issues and pro-

pose a scale. Similarly, Ratnatunga and Ewing (2005) consider

the asset value of IMC and the brand capability value it cre-

ates. Zahay et al. (2004) assess how to integrate transactional

and relational data. This research, and those of many others,

has passionately illuminated much about IMC, even if not

addressing the fundamental question of how to judge how well

a communications program is integrated.

Understanding how consumers process communications.

A number of concepts and theories have been proposed to

explain how different communication options work with con-

sumers. These frameworks address all kinds of distinctions in

processing, such as conscious versus unconscious processing,

rational versus emotional processing, and so on. These various

approaches have different pros and cons in terms of their abil-

ity to understand communication effects and guide communi-

cation planning. For our purposes, a processing model is

needed that has both the breadth to usefully explain all eight

communication platforms and the depth to provide insight into

different factors affecting communication success or failure

for communication options within each platform.

One useful type of model in that regard is an information

processing model of communication effectiveness. Informa-

tion processing models of marketing communications focus on

the mental resources and mind-sets a consumer brings to the

reception and processing of a communication for a brand, as

well as the outcomes those communications can produce in

terms of consumer knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors toward

a brand. They can be applied to a wide variety of

TABLE 1

Eight Major Marketing Communication Platforms (Continued)

Platform Components

Direct and database

marketing

� Catalogs � Mailings � Telemarketing

� Electronic shopping

� TV shopping � Fax

Personal selling � Sales presentations � Sales meetings � Incentive programs

� Samples � Fairs and trade shows

TABLE 2

Some Key Communication Objectives

Objectives

1 Create awareness and salience

2 Convey detailed information

3 Create imagery and personality

4 Build trust

5 Elicit emotions

6 Inspire action

7 Instill loyalty

8 Connect people

FIG. 1. Brand engagement pyramid.

UNLOCKING THE POWER OF INTEGRATED MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS 289

communication options and can capture many different styles

of consumer processing. There are many excellent, detailed

summaries of such models (Batra and Ray 1986; MacInnis and

Jaworski 1989; MacInnis, Moorman, and Jaworski 1991;

Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann 1983), so only the essential

ingredients of an information processing model are highlighted

here.

Information processing models of communication effec-

tiveness begin by considering antecedent factors related to

characteristics of the consumer and the content of the commu-

nication itself, as well as the surrounding context of message

reception and how those factors, in turn, influence consumers’

motivation, ability, and opportunity to process a communica-

tion. In other words, three key questions are asked: (1) How

much do consumers want to process a communication? (2) Do

they also have the right kinds of knowledge to be able to pro-

cess it? (3) Will they even have a chance to do so, or are there

factors preventing or inhibiting what they can do?

The actual processing of a communication is characterized

in terms of intensity and direction of processing, in other

words, what aspects of the communication draw attention and

how many thoughts, feelings, judgments, and other effects are

evoked by those aspects. The nature of the processing of the

communication, in turn, determines the changes in brand

knowledge and mental structures that result. These processing

outcomes are critical, as they influence subsequent actions by

consumers and how they process later communications, evalu-

ate brands, make product or service choices, and so on.

To better understand the marketplace implications of the

consumer information processing of marketing communica-

tions, it is helpful also to have a model of the process by which

consumers make their buying decisions, which we turn to next.

Understanding how consumers make buying decisions.

Traditional depictions of the consumer buying-decision pro-

cess—for example, as with the classic Engel, Blackwell, and

Kollat model—viewed consumer buying as a sequential series

of five stages, such as (1) need awareness and problem recogni-

tion, (2) information search, (3) evaluation of alternatives, (4)

purchase, and (5) postpurchase evaluation. Although the basic

structure of these classic “hierarchy of effects models” still has

some merit, they are not always as applicable in today’s world

where consumers make snap buying decisions and collect virtu-

ally any type of information anytime and anywhere.

The consumer-decision journey today needs to allow for

more detailed steps and the more complex, nonlinear paths to

purchase that consumers might follow. The steps in such an

extended model are displayed in Table 3.

Each of these steps is probabilistic, and a successful con-

sumer-decision journey for a brand can be derailed by failure

at any stage, for example, lack of awareness or appreciation of

the brand or an unpleasant product experience at trial. Across

brands and for any one brand, consumers may backtrack, skip

steps, or implicitly or explicitly choose to reject the brand.

The dynamics involved in such consumer-decision journeys

thus involve multiple stages and the potential to move forward

or backward across stages or drop out of the decision process

for a brand altogether.

Mixing and Matching Communication Options

Knowing how consumers process communications and how

consumers make decisions provides essential input into com-

munication planning. In a basic sense, developing the optimal

IMC program requires choosing the best set of communication

options and strategically managing the relationships between

the chosen options (Batra and Keller 2016; Naik 2007; Duncan

and Mulhern 2004).

The overriding theme to our discussion is that in assem-

bling an IMC program to build brand equity, marketers should

“mix and match” communication options—that is, choose a

variety of different communication options which may share

some common meaning and content but which may also offer

different, complementary advantages or be designed with

other communication options in mind (Naik, Raman, and

Winer 2005). By properly mixing and matching communica-

tion options, collectively the “whole may be greater than the

sum of the parts,” as follows.

Mix. In developing the optimal IMC program, marketers

should essentially be “media neutral” and evaluate all commu-

nication options on the basis of effectiveness (e.g., How many

desired effects does a communication create and what commu-

nication objectives does it help the brand achieve?) and effi-

ciency (e.g., At what cost are those outcomes created and

objectives achieved?). Marketers ultimately care only about

achieving their communication objectives and moving con-

sumers along in their decision journey. Any means of commu-

nications that will effectively and efficiently facilitate those

goals should therefore be considered.

TABLE 3

Potential Stages in an Expanded Consumer-Decision Journey

Stage Description of Stage

1 Recognizes a need or want for a product or service

2 Knows about the brand

3 Actively considers the brand

4 Searches and learns more about the brand

5 Evaluates the brand and forms favorable attitudes

6 Arrives at a positive value judgment and willingness to

pay for the brand

7 Develops concrete plans to try the brand

8 Consumes the brand

9 Is satisfied with the brand experience

10 Becomes loyal repeat buyer of the brand

11 Is engaged and interacts with the brand

12 Advocates for the brand actively

290 K. L. KELLER

For example, whether a consumer has strong, favorable,

and unique brand associations for Mountain Dew to “intense,”

“active,” or “high energy” because of a TV ad that shows

young people who “Do the Dew” to fuel their interests or pas-

sions, or because Mountain Dew sponsors its own action sports

Dew Tour events, the impact in terms of Moutain Dew’s brand

equity should be identical unless the associations created are

materially different in some way. On that basis, marketers

should consider all possible communication options in terms

of effectiveness and efficiency to achieve communication

objectives.

In many cases, however, different communication options are

likely to create inherently different effects. For example, research

has shown that “direct experience” communications (e.g., event-

created ones) can create potentially stronger associations than can

mass-mediated communications (e.g., through TV ads) (Smith

and Swinyard 1983). TV advertising, on the other hand, may be

better able to show certain product features or express brand-cre-

ated emotions. Similarly, social media may be stronger at eliciting

brand engagement than TV advertising, but TV ads may be

designed more easily to create broader brand awareness across tar-

get market consumers. Mixing thus involves choosing multiple

communication options on the basis of their different capabilities

and likely communication effects on sales and brand equity.

Table 4 shows an illustrative summary of some possible distin-

guishing characteristics of the eight major communication

platforms.

Match. By virtue of using multiple communication options,

the opportunity for “interaction effects” exist beyond the direct

“main effects” derived from each individual communication

option. Any one communication option can have a number of dif-

ferent relationships with any other communication options which

are also being used; it can reinforce the meaning conveyed by

other communication options, complement that meaning, or

enhance their communication effects in various ways. Matching

thus requires strategically choosing and designing communication

options with other communication options in mind.

Consider Mountain Dew again. Its marketers might choose to

both run TV ads and sponsor active sports events to reinforce their

“high-energy” message. But then they might take an attention-get-

ting scene from the TV ad and place it in youth-oriented maga-

zines and online banner ads to drive people to their website to

learn more about the brand. They could also maintain a strong

social media presence to engage their loyal buyers independent of

their “high-energy” message and TV ads; and they might even

engage in extensive PR activities to convert skeptics concerned

about health and product ingredients.

Many different firms are embracing this broad-based approach

to developing their communications program. When Ocean Spray

decided to reintroduce the cranberry as the “surprisingly versatile

little fruit that supplies modern-day benefits,” they used many dif-

ferent facets of marketing communications to reach consumers in

a variety of settings. The “Straight from the Bog” campaign

focused on two key brand benefits: that Ocean Spray products

tasted good and were good for you. PR played a crucial role. Mini-

ature bogs were brought to Manhattan and featured on an NBC

Today morning segment, and a “Bogs across America Tour”

brought the experience to Los Angeles and Chicago. Television

and print advertising featured two growers (depicted by actors)

standing waist-deep in a bog and talking, often humorously, about

what they did. The campaign also included a website, in-store dis-

plays, and events for consumers and for members of the growers’

cooperative itself.

The reality of modern marketing communications is that

there is an enormous and diverse variety of touchpoints

and communication options to help marketers create mem-

orable, enjoyable, and persuasive experiences with consum-

ers. One potentially insightful metaphor for IMC is

painting. Marketers are trying, in effect, to “paint a

picture” of their brands in the minds and hearts of consum-

ers. In doing so, they want the richest, most vivid, and

TABLE 4

Some Defining Characteristics of Eight Major

Communication Platforms

Platform Defining Characteristics

Advertising � Pervasive � Amplified expressiveness � Control

Sales promotion � Ability to be attention getting � Incentive � Invitation

Events and experiences � Relevant � Engaging � Implicit

Public relations and

publicity

� High credibility � Ability to find hard-to-reach

buyers

� Dramatization Online and social media � Rich

marketing � Interactive � Up to date

Mobile marketing � Timely � Influential � Pervasive

Direct and database � Personal marketing � Proactive

� Complementary Personal selling � Customized

� Relationship oriented � Results oriented

UNLOCKING THE POWER OF INTEGRATED MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS 291

most beautiful painting to represent their brand. Accord-

ingly, they would not use only one color or one paintbrush

but rather an entire palette of colors and a wide range of

brushes. Similarly, marketers mix and match to skillfully

combine and blend a broad range of marketing communi-

cations. We turn next to how that can be done.

TABLE 5

Definitions and a Representative Set of Questions to Evaluate the IMC Choice Criteria

Criteria Definition Representative Questions

Coverage Proportion of the target market reached by each

communication option, as well as how much

overlap exists among communication options.

� How many target market consumers are reached by the communication options?

� How much overlap exists among communication options across target market consumers?

Cost The financial efficiency associated with the

communication options and program.

� How much is the total financial cost of communication options?

� What is the relevant cost per thousand and other efficiency metrics?

� Are there any relevant nonfinancial costs? Contribution The inherent ability of a communication option to

create the desired communication effects and

achieve the desired communication objectives,

independent of prior or subsequent exposure to

any other communication options for the brand.

� What are the likely effects of the communication options and how they will impact communication

objectives?

� What is the likely impact of the communication options on sales?

� What is the likely impact of the communication options on brand equity?

Commonality The extent to which a communication option is

designed to create communication effects and

achieve communication objectives that are also

the focus of other communication options.

� How much overlap in meaning exists among communication options?

� How much overlap in creative strategy exists among communication options?

Complementarity The extent to which a communication option

addresses communication effects and objectives

not addressed by other communication options.

� How much of the consumer-decision journey is covered by the communication options?

� How many of the communication objectives are covered by the communication options?

� How much of the desired positioning of the brand is covered by the communication options?

Cross-effects The extent to which communication options are

designed to explicitly work together such that

interaction or synergy occurs and enhanced

communication effects emerge as the result of

exposure by consumers to both options.

� How many synergies exist among communication options?

� How does the coordination of the meaning of communication options appropriately leverage

brand knowledge at different stages of the

consumer-decision journey?

� How does the coordination of the creative strategies of communication options improve the attention to

and processing of communication options?

Conformability The extent to which communication works across

target market consumers regardless of their

communications history or other characteristics.

� How well do the communication options work across consumers with different communication histories?

� How well do the communication options work across different types of target market consumers?

292 K. L. KELLER

DEVELOPING THE OPTIMAL IMC PROGRAM

In assessing the collective impact of an IMC program, the mar-

keter’s overriding goal is thus to create the most effective and effi-

cient communication program possible to maximize short-term

sales and long-term brand equity by mixing and matching commu-

nication options (Keller 2007; Madhavaram, Badrinarayanan, and

McDonald 2005; Reid, Luxton, and Mavondo 2005). Toward that

goal, Table 5 provides definitions of seven relevant IMC choice

criteria. Before reviewing each of the IMC choice criteria in detail,

we first provide a brief overview of how they fit in and relate to

one another.

The first two criteria, coverage and cost, are fundamental mar-

keting criteria related to the efficiency of an IMC program in terms

of reaching as many members of the target audience as possible at

the lowest possible cost. The other five criteria focus more on

communication effectiveness and the ability of the communica-

tion program to achieve the desired communication objectives to

drive sales and/or improve brand equity. The third criterion, con-

tribution, is concerned with the singular qualities of communica-

tions and how they work in isolation.

The remaining four criteria deal with different ways that com-

munication options can potentially relate to one another. Com-

monality is when a communication option is designed to create

communication effects and achieve communication objectives

that are also the focus of other communication options. Comple-

mentarity, on the other hand, is when a communication option

addresses communication effects and objectives not addressed by

other communication options. Cross-effects are when communica-

tion options are designed to explicitly work together such that

interaction or synergy occurs and enhanced communication

effects emerge as the result of exposure by consumers to both

communication options. The seventh and final criterion, conform-

ability, occurs when a communication option works well even if

consumers have not been exposed to a communication option

designed to enhance its effects or even if consumers were not even

originally intended to see, hear, or experience it.

We next define and highlight some key considerations for

each of the seven IMC choice criteria.

Coverage

Coverage captures the proportion of the target market

reached by each communication option, as well as how

much overlap exists among communication options. In

other words, to what extent do different communication

options reach the designated target market, and the same

or different consumers making up that market? If there is

little audience overlap, communication effectiveness is

largely driven by contribution and complementarity. With

little audience overlap, the communications program is

really not integrated; it is more a case of multiple market-

ing communications. Communication program effects

would be very much an additive process, and program

effectiveness would depend on whether the right

communications were being sent to the right audience

members and having the right effects, independent of any-

thing else.

If overlap exists with an audience, however, many more

considerations come into play. Then, the relationship of the

overlapping communication options becomes critical in terms

of commonality, complementarity, and cross-effects. The

sequencing of communications becomes critical too, and the

conformability of any communication option to the particular

spot(s) in the sequences where it is seen.

Understanding the breadth and depth of coverage is thus

critical to assessing the likely success of a proposed IMC pro-

gram. How many people are reached with communications for

the brand, how often, and in how many different ways?

Cost

Marketers must evaluate marketing communications on all of

the other six criteria against their cost to arrive at the most effec-

tive and most efficient communications program. Quantitative

analysis is essential here in terms of estimating the various

response functions and elasticities that may characterize different

communication options employed by marketers. All kinds of tech-

niques can be employed as part of this analysis, for example, from

experimental A-B comparisons with test-control panels or markets

with different levels of communication to detailed multivariate

modeling of large databases.

Importantly, the growth of big data allows market researchers

to gain access to many potentially useful new data resources never

before available. To properly estimate the response functions to

the exposure levels of the different options of an integrated mar-

keting communication program, however, market researchers

must adopt a fully dynamic, longitudinal view of when and how

cross-effects occur across different media and the temporal

sequences (downstream effects) involved (Smith, Gopalakrishna,

and Chatterjee 2006; Wiesel, Pauwels, and Arts 2011).

Although response elasticities will depend on many particulars

of the communications, consumers, and setting involved, some

useful benchmarks have emerged through the years. For example,

a review of academic research found that advertising elasticities

were estimated to be higher for new (0.3) than for established

products (0.1) (Allenby and Hanssens 2005; see also Van Heerde

et al. 2013; and Sethuraman, Tellis, and Briesch 2011).

Contribution

Contribution is the inherent ability of a communication option

to create the desired response and communication effects from

consumers and achieve the desired communication objectives in

the absence of any prior or subsequent exposure to any other com-

munication option. In other words, contribution describes the

“main effects” of a marketing communication option in terms of

how it affects consumers’ processing of a communication and the

outcomes which result.

UNLOCKING THE POWER OF INTEGRATED MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS 293

As noted, marketing communications can play many differ-

ent roles, like building awareness, enhancing image, eliciting

responses, and inducing sales, and the contribution of any mar-

keting communication option will depend on how well it plays

the particular role(s) it has been assigned. Much academic

research has focused on providing insights into the perfor-

mance of individual types of communications, as summarized

in textbooks on communication topics such as advertising and

promotions (Belch and Belch 2015; O’Guinn et al. 2015),

database marketing (Blattberg, Kim, and Neslin 2008), social

media (Moe and Schweidel 2014), and personal selling (Man-

ning, Ahearne, and Reece 2015).

Contribution needs to consider a number of different factors.

The content of the communication option and the context in which

it is seen, heard, or experienced, for example, are both critically

important. The information processing model of communication

effectiveness, described previously, can be helpful in identifying

and interpreting the relevant motivation, ability, and opportunity

factors that affect how consumers process any proposed commu-

nication option. Similarly, the taxonomy of different types of com-

munication objectives provides additional benchmarks to assess

communication effects that may emerge at different stages of the

consumer-decision journey. To assess the contribution of any

communication option, it is important to understand the totality of

communication effects it creates and all the progress and accom-

plishments it achieves against the different communication

objectives.

Commonality

Regardless of which individual communication options mar-

keters might consider on the basis of their likely ability to contrib-

ute, they will also want to consider how to coordinate the entire

marketing communication program such that some communica-

tion options share content and create similar effects. Commonality

is the extent to which information conveyed by different commu-

nication options shares meaning or elicits similar effects across

communication options. Although we outline a number of other

important IMC choice criteria, commonality clearly plays an espe-

cially important role in virtually any well-designed IMC program

(Moriarty, Mitchell, and Wells 2015).

There are many reasons to focus different communication

options on the most important and differentiating benefits of a

brand. In general, information that is consistent in meaning is

more easily learned and recalled than unrelated information—

though the unexpectedness of inconsistent information some-

times can lead to more elaborate processing and stronger asso-

ciations than consistent information. Nevertheless, with

inconsistent associations and a diffuse brand image, consum-

ers may overlook some associations or, because they are con-

fused about the meaning of the brand, form less strong and/or

less favorable new associations.

Therefore, in the long run, marketers often need to design dif-

ferent communication options and coordinate their message

appeals so that they work effectively together to reinforce impor-

tant, differentiating brand benefits and forge a consistent and cohe-

sive brand image. Commonality and consistency can also be

advantageous in the nonmessage creative content or executional

information of a communication (McGrath 2005). Ensuring a cre-

ative device or visual theme is reinforced across comunication

options can attract attention and help consumers process and store

information about a brand correctly in memory.

Some communication situations seem more conducive to

commonality than others. For example, the more abstract the

association to be created or reinforced by marketing communi-

cations, the more likely it would seem that it could be effec-

tively reinforced in different ways across heterogeneous

communication options (Heckler and Childers 1992; Houston,

Childers, and Heckler 1987; Srull and Wyer 1989). For exam-

ple, if marketers would like their brand to be seen as

“contemporary,” which is a fairly abstract attribute, then there

may be a number of different communication options, espe-

cially digitally, to make the brand seem modern and relevant.

On the other hand, if the desired association for the brand is a

concrete attribute, for example, “rich chocolate taste,” then it

may be difficult to convey it in communication options that do

not permit explicit product statements, such as would be the

case with sponsorship or perhaps even PR.

Complementarity

There are a number of reasons why different communica-

tion options in an IMC program might emphasize different

associations and communication effects. Most importantly,

brands are rarely singular entities. Although commonality can

reinforce a key benefit association or elicit similar effects for a

brand, to effectively communicate the full brand positioning it

is often necessary for the communications program to convey

multiple messages and create multiple effects. Moreover, dif-

ferent consumers at different stages of the consumer journey

may also require different messages and effects. As many

advertisers and other communication specialists have learned,

however, often the hard way, there is only so much that can be

said or conveyed in any one communication. In fact, less is

often more, especially when it comes to mass media.

For these and many other reasons, marketers usually need

to employ different marketing communication options in dif-

ferent ways to achieve their overall communication objectives.

Complementarity describes the extent to which different asso-

ciations and effects are emphasized across communication

options. The reality is that in many circumstances, consumers

consider multiple factors and multiple brands in making their

choices. Strong brands thus have to be richer and more com-

plex than just “one big idea.” Marketers must convey informa-

tion, elicit emotions, and create other effects to impact

decision making for different types of consumers at different

stages of their decision journey or day-to-day living. The ideal

IMC program would ensure some communication options

294 K. L. KELLER

would be chosen that are mutually compensatory and reinforc-

ing to create the desired consumer knowledge structures as

reflected by brand positioning. Complementarity is critical to

developing a rich, cohesive brand image.

Marketers can most effectively establish different brand associ-

ations by capitalizing on those marketing communication options

best suited to eliciting a particular consumer response or establish-

ing a particular type of brand association. For example, some

media, like sampling and other forms of sales promotion, are gen-

erally better at generating product trial than engendering long-

term loyalty. Social media and blogs, communities, and social net-

works may be especially adept at cultivating loyalty. Sponsorship

of a cause may improve perceptions of a brand’s trust and credibil-

ity, but TV and print advertising may be needed to communicate

its performance advantages, and so on.

Cross-Effects

Different types of communications used in tandem can be

made even more powerful when they create synergistic cross-

effects through proper coordination and sequencing. The basic

idea behind cross-effects is to strategically boost communica-

tion effects with consumers as a result of exposure to one com-

munication option that, in addition to any direct effect, also

creates enhanced communication effects for different commu-

nication options after their subsequent exposure. Importantly,

these enhanced communication effects would be greater, in

some sense, than the additive effects of the two options if they

had been optimized completely independent of each other. In

other words, the coordinated communication options create

main effects and interaction effects such that “1 C 1 D 3”—or perhaps even more.

Cross effects are thus effects that would not have necessar-

ily resulted—or at least not as efficiently—without the explicit

design and coordinated planning of two or more communica-

tion options. Although all kinds of cross-effects have been

demonstrated in the literature, cross-effects generally take two

basic forms. Meaning-based cross-effects attempt to coordi-

nate the content of communication options so that the brand

knowledge or communication effect created or emphasized by

one communication option increases the likelihood that

another communication option achieves its communication

objectives as consumers move along their decision journey.

Execution-based cross-effects attempt to coordinate the crea-

tive strategy of communication options to ensure executional

consistency such that greater attention or processing results

with subsequent communication exposure.

In other words, meaning-based cross-effects attempt to estab-

lish certain brand associations in memory beneficial to the subse-

quent processing of a different communication option, whereas

execution-based cross-effects attempt to establish certain non-

brand-related, creative strategy associations in memory to facili-

tate the subsequent processing of a different communication

option, as follows.

Meaning-based cross-effects. As an example of meaning-

based cross-effects, trial-generating promotions and online

solicitations have been shown to be more effective when com-

bined with persuasive advertising (Neslin 2002). Similarly, the

awareness and attitudes created by advertising campaigns

have been shown to improve the success of more direct sales

pitches. Increasingly, digital interactions will play an impor-

tant role in creating or benefiting from cross-effects. For exam-

ple, advertising can convey the positioning of a brand and

improve the response resulting from subsequent consumer

exposure to online display advertising or search-engine mar-

keting that sends a stronger call to action (Chang and Thorson

2004; Pfeiffer and Zinnbauer 2010).

Execution-based cross-effects. Execution-based cross-

effects depend on the level of creative consistency across com-

munication options. Coordinated executional information can

serve as a retrieval cue in memory to other prior-established

communication effects (Keller 1987, 1991). In other words, if

a symbol is established in one communication option, like a

feather in a TV ad for a deodorant to convey mildness and soft-

ness, then marketers can use it in other online or offline com-

munications to help trigger the knowledge, thoughts, feelings,

and images stored in memory from exposure to those other

previous communications.

For example, print and radio reinforcement of TV ads is when

the video and audio components of a TV ad serve as the basis for

print and radio ads, respectively. Print and radio reinforcement

can be an effective means to leverage existing communication

effects from TV ad exposure and more strongly link them to the

brand (Edell and Keller 1989, 1999). Moreover, cueing a TV ad

with an explicitly linked radio or print ad can create similar or

even enhanced processing outcomes that can substitute for addi-

tional TV ad exposures. Although these cross-effects have been

demonstrated with TV versus radio and print, the concept would

seem to be apply equally well to billboards, banner ads, and other

digital communications.

Conformability

Finally, even if communication options are designed to cre-

ate cross-effects with one another, it may be the case that less

than perfect targeting and overlap exists in the exposure to the

communication options involved. With any IMC program,

consumers will encounter communications in different orders

or sequences, if at all. For whatever reason, certain target con-

sumers may not be exposed to one of the other intended com-

munication options or be exposed to a communication option

not expressly intended for them.

Thus, any particular message will be new to some consum-

ers but not to others, and may be preceded or followed for any

one consumer by a completely different set of communications

from the brand. Conformability refers to communication ver-

satility and the extent to which a marketing communication

option is robust and effective for different target market

UNLOCKING THE POWER OF INTEGRATED MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS 295

consumers with different sequences of communication expo-

sure. How well does the communication conform to the differ-

ent characteristics and communication needs and histories of

different target market consumers?

Specifically, there are two types of conformability: communi-

cation conformability and consumer conformability. The reality of

any IMC program is that when target market consumers are

exposed to a particular marketing communication, some consum-

ers will have already been exposed to other marketing communi-

cations for the brand, and others will not. Those target market

consumers may also differ in terms of what stage they are on in

their decision journey or other brand-related characteristics. We

consider a marketing communication option conformable or ver-

satile when it achieves its desired communication effects and

objectives across target market consumers regardless of the partic-

ular nature of the consumers involved and their past and future

communication sequences, as described next.

Communication Conformability. The ability of a marketing

communication to work at two levels—effectively communicat-

ing to consumers who have or have not seen and will or will not

see other communications for the brand—is critically important

for communication conformability. Not surprisingly, some prior

research has already demonstrated that media effects can vary

depending on the sequence or order in which they are seen; for

example, Kim, Yoon, and Lee (2010) experimentally showed that

the interactive effects of advertising with positive or negative pub-

licity varied depending on which was seen first.

Communication conformability is especially important when

an IMC program is designed with coordinated communication

options and cross-effects in mind. Consider the Edell and Keller

(1989, 1999) studies, which showed how visually linked print ads

and aurally linked radio ads could reinforce TV ads. As it turned

out, the studies also showed that when the linked print and radio

ads were seen or heard prior to the accompanying TV ad, they

actually functioned as teasers and increased consumer motivation

to process the more complete TV ad consisting of both audio and

video components.

Another crucial question of communications conformability,

however, is how these print and radio ads would have worked for

those consumers who did not have any prior or subsequent expo-

sure to the coordinated TV ad. How well would the radio and print

ads create communication effects and achieve communication

objectives as compared to nonlinked radio and print ads that might

have been created independently of the TV ad?

Consumer Conformability. Besides this communication

conformability, we can also judge a communication option in

terms of broader consumer conformability, that is, how well it

informs or persuades target market consumers who vary on

dimensions other than their communication history. A communi-

cation option may be designed with target market consumers at a

certain stage in their decision journey or level of brand knowledge

in mind. Yet it may also reach other target market consumers with-

out those other same characteristics. What kinds of communica-

tion effects can it successfully engender with those consumers?

In general, the more diverse target market consumers are,

the more there will be a need to assemble different communi-

cation options in the IMC program with different objectives in

mind to ensure necessary complementarity. There are times,

however, where budget considerations may preclude an exten-

sive IMC program, and marketers may have to focus on just a

few communication options to try to accomplish multiple

objectives with multiple consumers. In such cases, there would

seem to be two main ways of trying to achieve consumer con-

formability and effective communications:

1. Multiple information provision strategy. Provide different

information within a communication option to appeal to

the needs of different types of consumers. An important

issue here is how information designed to appeal to one tar-

get market of consumers will be processed by other con-

sumers and target markets. As noted previously, less is

often more, and issues of information overload, confusion,

and annoyance may come into play if communications

become burdened with a great deal of detail.

2. Broad information provision strategy. Provide information

that is rich or ambiguous enough to work regardless of prior

consumer knowledge. The important issue here is how

potent or persuasive marketers can make that information.

If they attempt to appeal to the lowest common denomina-

tor, the information may lack precision and sufficient detail

to have meaningful impact on any consumers. Target mar-

ket consumers with disparate backgrounds will have to find

information in the communication sufficiently relevant to

satisfy their goals, given their product or brand knowledge

or communications history.

Both options clearly have drawbacks but, if skillfully

employed, may reap dividends. Note that digital strategies can

offer much communications flexibility, which can enhance

consumer conformability. For example, a website can cater to

consumers who know a great deal about the brand and want to

engage deeply through a dedicated blog or community page,

as well as to consumers who know little about the brand and

are there to learn just the basics. As another example, commu-

nications directed at primarily creating brand awareness and

salience, like sponsorship, may have greater consumer con-

formability by virtue of their simplicity.

USING THE IMC CHOICE CRITERIA

The choice criteria can provide some greatly needed guidance

for IMC. Satisfying the seven criteria increases the likelihood that

the IMC program is sufficiently comprehensive, cohesive, and

impactful. The IMC choice criteria should be kept in mind and

applied throughout the entire development process of the IMC

program to guide the selection, design, and implementation of the

different communication options involved. Two key steps in

applying those choice criteria to IMC programs are evaluating

296 K. L. KELLER

communication options and programs and establishing priorities

and trade-offs among the IMC choice criteria, as discussed next.

Evaluating Communication Options and Programs

Different communication options have different strengths and

weaknesses and raise different issues. We can judge marketing

communication options, or the IMC program as a whole, accord-

ing to the response and communication effects they can create and

thus how they rate on the IMC choice criteria.

In part by applying the information processing model of

communication effects, Batra and Keller (2016) provide a

detailed analysis of possible processing outcomes from differ-

ent communication platforms or options and their relative

strength or value at different stages of the consumer-decision

journey. These and other sources noted here and elsewhere

can provide input into the contribution criteria assessment of

communication options as well as for other criteria too.

There are two main ways to apply the IMC choice criteria:

The bottom-up approach evaluates each individual communi-

cation option making up the IMC program; the top-down

approach evaluates the proposed IMC program as a whole and

considers how well the IMC program collectively satisfies the

IMC choice criteria. The top-down approach is ultimately

what marketers care about, as it addresses the fundamental

question of what communication program to put forth. With

its focus on individual communication options, however, the

bottom-up approach can offer valuable insights to inform the

top-down approach and is a natural first step in the process.

To guide the bottom-up application of the IMC choice crite-

ria, Table 5 also contains a comprehensive set of questions

that can be asked of the IMC program as a whole, as well as

adapted to evaluate any communication option making up a

proposed IMC program. These questions could also easily be

put into a scorecard-type format. Regardless as to whether it is

done qualitatively or quantitatively, the total IMC program

and each communication option in the proposed IMC program

could be judged according to these criteria.

With a bottom-up application, marketers can begin by con-

sidering the first three criteria and how any individual commu-

nication option under consideration facilitates coverage, cost,

and contribution by itself. They then can consider the possible

upside—or even downside—to coordinating a communication

with other communication options, especially in terms of

achieving otherwise difficult-to-achieve objectives.

Establishing Priorities and Trade-Offs

The IMC program a marketer adopts, after profiling the var-

ious options according to the IMC choice criteria, will depend

in part on how he or she ranks the choice criteria. For example,

if the brand has a limited communication budget, contribution

may be more important, as fewer options are available to

employ. If the brand has a bigger budget, however, then

commonality, complementarity, and cross-effects can receive

greater priority.

Because the IMC choice criteria themselves are related, the

marketer must also make trade-offs. The objectives of the mar-

keting communication program, and whether they are short

run or long run, will set priorities, along with a host of factors

beyond the scope of this article. To provide a sense of some of

the issues involved, however, we briefly identify and discuss

five possible trade-offs and relationships with the IMC choice

criteria that can impact how IMC programs may be designed.

� Commonality and conformability will often be positively related. Communication options vary in their breadth and

depth of audience coverage, as well as in terms of common-

ality and conformability, according to the number of modal-

ities they employ: the more modalities available with a

communication option, the greater its potential commonal-

ity and conformability. � Commonality and complementarity will often be inversely related. The more that different communication options

emphasize the same brand attribute or benefit, all else being

equal, the less they can effectively emphasize other attrib-

utes and benefits. For brands in early stages of brand devel-

opment, it may be important to be more singularly focused

and emphasize a particularly desirable (to consumers) and

differentiating (from competitors) brand benefit. As the

brand becomes more established, a richer brand image may

be desired, and complementarity can play a bigger role with

a more diverse set of brand communications. � Conformability and complementarity will also often be inversely related. The more that a communication program

can design communications to appeal to many different

types or groups of consumers, the less necessary it will be

that multiple communications will have to be created that

reflect the differences in consumers and appeals to a particu-

lar group. These differences may involve cultural or racial

groups (e.g., African American or Hispanic segments) or

differences more directly related to the brand itself (e.g.,

brand loyals versus brand switchers). � Contribution, complementarity, and cost do not share an obvious relationship. There are not necessarily any

inherent differences across communication platforms for

contribution and complementarity, because any commu-

nication option, if properly designed, can play a critical

and unique role in achieving those communication objec-

tives. Similarly, all marketing communications can

appear expensive, although some differences in cost per

thousand can prevail. � Commonality and conformability do not share an obvious relationship. As noted previously, it may be possible to

develop a sufficiently abstract message, like “Brand X is

contemporary,” to effectively reinforce the brand across

multiple communication options including advertising, digi-

tal, sponsorship, and promotions.

UNLOCKING THE POWER OF INTEGRATED MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS 297

CONCLUSION

Summary

Today’s new communications environment has vastly

expanded the capabilities of both consumers and firms. In particu-

lar, the emergence of a wide array of different types of digital com-

munication options has dramatically improved marketers’

communication capabilities. In addition to advertising, promotion,

and other traditional forms of marketing communications, market-

ers can now employ websites with detailed brand and product

information and reviews and recommendations, send e-mails and

text messages, place banner and rich media ads, and engage in

paid search, among the many new digital communication options.

Unleashing the potential power of these new and traditional com-

munication options to drive sales in the short run and grow brand

equity in the long run—given consumers’ own new capabilities—

will become one of the most important advertising and marketing

priorities for virtually all firms in the coming years.

IMC programs have been an important part of the market-

ing landscape for a long time. Although they have been the

subject of productive research attention through the years,

much still remains to be learned about their design and deliv-

ery, especially with the availability of so many new digital

communication options. To be able to effectively manage the

marketing communications function in this modern communi-

cation environment, marketers must first understand how con-

sumers make brand and product decisions and the different

effects that various communications might have on consumers.

Based on this understanding, marketers must then choose and

design a set of communication options in an IMC program that

collectively will have the greatest likelihood of achieving the

communication goals for the brand.

With this management imperative in mind, some concep-

tual guidance was offered to help marketers assess the effec-

tiveness and efficiency of IMC programs and address a

fundamental question: How well integrated is your marketing

communications program? In a broad sense, it was argued that

marketers must mix and match communication options so the

whole is greater than the sum of the parts. After defining some

conceptual foundations as to how consumers process commu-

nications and how they go about making decisions, seven cri-

teria were outlined as being critical to a successful IMC

program.

The seven IMC choice criteria are coverage, cost, contribu-

tion, commonality, complementarity, cross-effects, and con-

formability. These “Seven Cs” choice criteria take into

account many different aspects of a communication program,

for example, how communication options work in isolation, as

well as how they work in tandem and interact with one another

to create heightened communication effects. The criteria also

consider which consumers are reached by different communi-

cation options and in what order they receive communications,

as well as the costs involved. The seven IMC choice criteria

force marketers to consider how integrated their IMC

programs really are in a very concrete way and from many dif-

ferent angles.

Future Research Priorities

Given the pressing management imperative with IMC and

the rapidly changing communications landscape that market-

ers face, we conclude our analysis by considering some future

research priorities. To help marketers optimally design and

evaluate IMC programs, a number of areas greatly need addi-

tional research. In this concluding section, we highlight five

key areas. In doing so, we relate these research priorities, in

part, back to the seven IMC choice criteria to show how these

criteria can be sharpened.

Develop more precise models of communications targeting.

To successfully launch IMC programs, marketers need a keen

understanding of how consumers today seek information, con-

sume media, make product and brand decisions, and, more gener-

ally, live their lives. Research is needed that helps marketers gain

insights to formulate richer depictions of the consumer-decision

journey. Research is especially needed to help marketers develop

much more precise and timely targeting with communications.

The challenge is to ensure that marketers have all the tools neces-

sary to ensure that the right consumers see, hear, or experience

the right communications in the right way and at the right time

and place.

A more refined model of the consumer-decision journey

can help provide a more nuanced view of how different mar-

keting communication options might impact different stages

of the consumer-decision process. Media planners need to

develop richer profiles of the target audience reached in this

regard. In particular, with increasingly sensitive second-by-

second media-usage data, marketers now have the capability

to develop more microlevel, dynamic segmentation and target-

ing to reach different consumers at different stages.

Although digital communications allows for more precise

targeting behaviorally, it is also important to understand and

incorporate consumers’ propensity to engage with brands and

communications. As noted, although consumers may have the

opportunity to engage more with brands online, the reality is

only some consumers will want to get involved with only

some of their brands, and even then only some of the time. At

a macro-level, research is needed as to how marketers can

assess the “shape” of their brand engagement pyramid and the

flows of information and equity among and between consum-

ers within it. At a more micro-level, there is a need for

research to help marketers better identify consumer propensity

to engage with a brand. Research is also needed to help mar-

keters design IMC program that can take into account the

diversity of different brand-related characteristics and ensure

communication conformability across consumers.

More broadly, actually deciding on which customers to tar-

get—and where, when, and how— requires new thinking and

298 K. L. KELLER

models. Traditional benefit and needs-based segmentation

schemes have much inherent appeal, but future segmentation

plans will need to be much more multidimensional to develop

communication programs that are relevant, motivating, and

timely across individual consumers.

Insights into better targeting with consumers in these differ-

ent ways can inform all seven IMC choice criteria. In particu-

lar, better targeting makes it easier to understand which

communications are likely to reach which consumers and in

which order or sequence, which is especially useful in terms of

understanding coverage, cost, and conformability.

Refine guidelines for specific communication options.

An enormous body of research has studied all facets of mar-

keting communications through the years. These research

streams can be expected to continue to uncover valuable new

insights. The digital area especially is receiving a tremendous

amount of research attention as marketers seek a better

understanding of how options such as social media, search,

and website reviews work. The mobile area is also seeing

concerted research to see how it differs—or not—from what

we already have learned about digital and online communica-

tion options.

In terms of designing and implementing more effective and

efficient IMC programs, it would be especially helpful for

future research to profile and contrast the relative strengths

and weaknesses of different communication platforms and

options in depth. More refined insights into and guidelines for

specific communication options will provide valuable input

into how marketers can satisfy the contribution and comple-

mentarity IMC criteria and assemble different communication

programs to maximize their main effects.

To help structure such comparisons, it may be helpful to use

taxonomies such as the eight possible communication objec-

tives or the different stages in the consumer-decision journey.

A more detailed version of Table 4 that outlines defining char-

acteristics of the eight major communication platforms—and

individual communication options within those—may be very

useful in that regard.

Finally, much brand building occurs through earned media too,

and understanding how marketer-controlled communications can

complement, reinforce, or initiate consumer-controlled and other

noncommercial forms of communication is critical. Even more

broadly, any brand contact can change consumer knowledge for a

brand and drive its sales and equity. Developing taxonomies in all

these areas to provide structure and insight could be extremely

beneficial for marketers.

Refine guidelines for coordinating communication options.

The real “magic” behind IMC programs is the interactions or

synergistic effects that can potentially be created through the

skillful assembly of different communication options. These

enhanced effects ensure that IMC programs are truly integrated

and not just programs using multiple marketing communication

options and whose cumulative effects are nothing more than

additive.

More detailed insights and guidelines will be particularly help-

ful to help marketers know how they can create both meaning

cross-effects and execution cross-effects. Specifically, coordina-

tion of communication options involves a number of issues about

both the content and timing of different communication options.

Of particular importance is the interplay among digital communi-

cation options as well as between digital and traditional communi-

cation options. Research must provide more detailed insights into

how these cross-effects emerge. The consumer information proc-

essing and consumer-decision-journey models may be helpful

here too in terms of understanding what kind of information needs

to be conveyed at different stages.

A number of important questions can be raised about how mar-

keters can benefit from different types of cross-effects in their

IMC programs. Are there are risks to coordinating creative strate-

gies and executional information across communication options?

Can coordinated creative put too much emphasis on creative ele-

ments and distract from the intended message and communication

effects? How does coordinated creative work online where crea-

tive expression may be limited with certain communication

options (e.g., search)?

Develop more quantitative communication models for attri-

bution and ROI analysis. Understanding how to assess ROI

of any marketing activity has, not surprisingly, been a research

priority for marketers for decades, especially in terms of

expenditures on advertising and other marketing communica-

tions. Developing models that help marketers and marketing

researchers better account for the short-term and long-term

effects of any communication option on sales and brand equity

is critical. A more complete understanding of ROI and the

attribution of certain brand states to communications will

facilitate the application of the cost criterion but will also

affect many of the other criteria.

The big data era offers much promise toward this improved

understanding as new data sources emerge to provide a much

more detailed account of all facets of consumer behavior and

brand performance, especially online. The real challenge,

however, will be to ensure that the right data sources are

uncovered and used and the right models are employed to

reflect how communications work (or not) with consumers

today.

Any well-grounded IMC attribution or ROI analysis must

use multiple dependent variables, capturing consumer needs

and communication objectives at different stages of the con-

sumer-decision journey. These analyses must also take a longi-

tudinal perspective and capture interaction effects, differential

carryover and decay rates, lags and delays, and so on. Future

research will need to both develop both state-of-the-art models

that can be used by marketing researchers to estimate ROI, as

well as benchmarks of likely effects that can guide managerial

decision making in the absence of any primary data collection

and analysis.

Refine existing criteria and identify new criteria for improving

IMC programs. The IMC choice criteria cover seven key

UNLOCKING THE POWER OF INTEGRATED MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS 299

characteristics of IMC programs. These characteristics themselves

are very rich and have many facets. Additional research could fur-

ther develop and refine these criteria and facets to provide even

deeper understanding. The actual implementation of the existing

criteria could also be improved by providing a more detailed play-

book as to how the different criteria could be applied for different

types of brands in different settings.

The IMC choice criteria focus on consumer considerations

external to the firm in the marketplace. Another important way to

improve the design and implementation of IMC programs is to

develop a similar set of comprehensive criteria to guide internal

efforts within the firm. What kinds of organizational structures

and processes improve the likelihood of successful IMC pro-

grams? How should firms work with agencies and other partners

in the design and implementation of IMC programs?

Last and importantly, the focus on this article was

largely on paid and owned media. As noted, incorporating

earned media and all possible brand contacts into brand

communication programs is also a top research priority.

Detailed models of brand equity and the consumer-decision

journey will be critical to understand the many ways that

brands can be built or destroyed by factors inside or out-

side the control of marketers.

REFERENCES Allenby, Greg, and Dominique Hanssens (2005), Advertising Response (Spe-

cial Report No. 05–2005). Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

Assael, Henry (2011), “From Silos to Synergy: A Fifty-Year Review of Cross-

Media Research Shows Synergy Has Yet to Achieve Its Full Potential,”

Journal of Advertising Research, 51 (1), 42–48.

Batra, Rajeev, and Michael L. Ray (1986), “Situational Effects of Advertising

Repetition: The Moderating Influence of Motivation, Ability, and Opportu-

nity to Respond,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (4), 432–45.

———, and Kevin Lane Keller (2016), “Integrating Marketing Communica-

tions: New Findings, New Lessons and New Ideas,” Journal of Marketing,

in press.

Belch, George E., and Michael A. Belch (2015), Advertising and Promotions:

An Integrated Marketing Communications Perspective, 10th Ed., New

York: McGraw-Hill.

Blattberg, R. C., Byung-Do Kim, and Scott A. Neslin (2008), Database Mar-

keting: Theory and Practice, New York: Springer Press.

Chang, Yuhmiin, and Esther Thorson (2004), “Television and Web Advertis-

ing Synergies,” Journal of Advertising, 33 (2), 75–84.

Duncan, Tom, and Frank, Mulhern, eds. (2004), “A White Paper on the Status,

Scope, and Future of IMC,” Denver, CO: Daniels College of Business at

the University of Denver, March.

Edell, Julie A., and Kevin Lane Keller (1989), “The Information Processing of

Coordinated Media Campaigns,” Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (2),

149–63.

———, and ——— (1999), Analyzing Media Interactions: The Effects of

Coordinated Print-TV Advertising Campaigns (Report No. 99–120),

Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

Heckler, Susan E., and Terry L. Childers (1992), “The Role of Expectancy and

Relevancy in Memory for Verbal and Visual Information: What Is Incon-

gruency?,” Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (4), 475–92.

Houston, Michael J., Terry L. Childers, and Susan E. Heckler (1987),

“Picture–Word Consistency and the Elaborative Processing of

Advertisements,” Journal of Marketing Research, 24 (4), 359–69.

Keller, Kevin Lane (1987), “Memory Factors in Advertising: The Effect of

Advertising Retrieval Cues on Brand Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer

Research, 14 (3), 316–33.

——— (1991), “Cue Compatibility and Framing in Advertising,” Journal of

Marketing Research, 28 (1), 42–57.

——— (2007), “Advertising and Brand Equity,” in The Sage Handbook of

Advertising, Gerard J. Tellis and Tim Ambler, eds., Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage, 54–70.

——— (2009), “Building Strong Brands in a Modern Marketing Communica-

tions Environment,” Journal of Marketing Communications, 15 (2–3),

139–55.

Kim, Jooyoung, Hye Jin Yoon, and Sun Young Lee (2010), “Integrating

Advertising and Publicity,” Journal of Advertising, 39 (1), 97–114.

Kitchen, Philip J., Joanne Brignell, Tao Li, and Graham Spickett Jones (2004),

“The Emergence of IMC: A Theoretical Perspective,” Journal of Advertis-

ing Research, 44 (1), 19–30.

Kliatchko, Jerry (2008), “Revisiting the IMC Construct: A Revised Definition

and Four Pillars,” International Journal of Advertising, 27 (1), 133–60.

Lee, Dong Hwan, and Chan Wook Park (2007), “Conceptualization and Mea-

surement of Multidimensionality of Integrated Marketing

Communications,” Journal of Advertising Research, 47 (3), 222–36.

MacInnis, Deborah, and Bernard J. Jaworski (1989), “Information Processing

from Advertisements: Toward an Integrative Framework,” Journal of Mar-

keting, 53 (4), 1–23.

———, Christine Moorman, and Bernard J. Jaworski (1991), “Enhancing and

Measuring Consumers’ Motivation, Opportunity, and Ability to Process

Brand Information from Ads,” Journal of Marketing, 55 (4), 32–53.

Madhavaram, Sreedhar, Vishag Badrinarayanan, and Robert E. McDonald

(2005), “Integrated Marketing Communication (IMC) and Brand Identity

as Critical Components of Brand Equity Strategy,” Journal of Advertising,

34 (4), 69–80.

Manning, Gerald L., Michael Ahearne, and Barry L. Reece (2015), Selling

Today: Partnering to Create Value, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

McGrath, John M. (2005), “A Pilot Study Testing Aspects of the Integrated

Marketing Communications Concept,” Journal of Marketing Communica-

tions, 11 (3), 191–214.

Moe, Wendy W., and David A. Schweidel (2014), Social Media Intelligence,

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Moriarty, Sandra, Nancy D. Mitchell, and William D. Wells (2015), Advertis-

ing and IMC: Principles and Practice, 10th ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Naik, Prasad A. (2007), “Integrated Marketing Communications: Provenance,

Practice, and Principles,” in The Sage Handbook of Advertising, Gerard J.

Tellis and Tim Ambler, eds., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 32–53.

———, Kalyan Raman, and Russ Winer (2005), “Planning Marketing-Mix

Strategies in the Presence of Interactions,” Marketing Science, 24 (10),

25–34.

Neslin, Scott (2002), Sales Promotion, MSI Relevant Knowledge Series,

Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

O’Guinn, Thomas, Chris Allen, Richard J. Seminik, and Angeline Close

(2015), Advertising and Integrated Brand Promotion, 7th ed., Stamford,

CT: Cengage Learning.

Petty, Richard E., John T. Cacioppo, and David Schumann (1983),

“Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The

Moderating Role of Involvement,” Journal of Consumer Research, 10

(2), 135–46.

Pfeiffer, Markus, and Markus Zinnbauer (2010), “Can Old Media Enhance

New Media?,” Journal of Advertising Research, 50 (1), 42–49.

Ratnatunga, Janek, and Michael T. Ewing (2005), “The Brand Capability

Value of Integrated Marketing Communication,” Journal of Advertising,

34 (4), 25–40.

Reid, Mike (2005), “Performance Auditing of Integrated Marketing Communi-

cation (IMC) Actions and Outcomes,” Journal of Advertising, 34 (4),

41–54.

300 K. L. KELLER

———, Sandra Luxton, and Felix Mavondo (2005), “The Relationship

between Integrated Marketing Communication, Market Orientation, and

Brand Orientation,” Journal of Advertising, 34 (4), 11–23.

Schultz, Don E., Charles H. Patti, and Philip J. Kitchen, eds. (2011), The Evo-

lution of Integrated Marketing Communications: The Customer-Driven

Marketplace, New York: Taylor & Francis.

Sethuraman, Raj, Gerard J. Tellis, and Richard A. Briesch (2011), “How

Well Does Advertising Work? Generalizations from Meta-Analysis of

Brand Advertising Elasticities,” Journal of Marketing Research, 48

(3), 457–71.

Smith, Robert E., and William R. Swinyard (1983), “Attitude-Behavior Con-

sistency: The Impact of Product Trial versus Advertising,” Journal of Mar-

keting Research, 20 (3), 257–67.

Smith, Timothy M., Srinath Gopalakrishna, and Rubikar Chatterjee (2006), “A

Three-Stage Model of Integrated Marketing Communications at the Mar-

keting-Sales Interface,” Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (4), 546–79.

Srull, Thomas K., and Robert S. Wyer (1989), “Person Memory and

Judgment,” Psychological Review, 96 (1), 58–83.

Stephen, Andrew T., and Jeff Galak (2012), “The Effects of Traditional and

Social Earned Media on Sales: A Study of a Microlending Marketplace,”

Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (5), 624–39.

Taylor, Charles R. (2005), “Moving International Advertising Research

Forward: A New Research Agenda,” Journal of Advertising, 34 (1), 7–16.

Van Heerde, Harald J., Maarten J. Gijsenberg, Marnik G. Dekimpe, and Jan-

Benedict E.M. Steenkamp (2013), “Price and Advertising Effectiveness

over the Business Cycle,” Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (2), 177–93.

Wiesel, Thorsten, Koen Pauwels, and Joep Arts (2011), “Marketing’s Profit

Impact: Quantifying Online and Offline Funnel Progression,” Marketing

Science, 30 (4), 604–11.

Zahay, Debra, James Peltier, Don E. Schultz, and Abbie Griffin (2004), “The

Role of Transactional versus Relational Data in IMC Programs: Bringing

Customer Data Together,” Journal of Advertising Research, 44 (1), 3–18.

UNLOCKING THE POWER OF INTEGRATED MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS 301

Copyright of Journal of Advertising is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.