Communication and Integrated Marketing Communication
Steyn (2004) argues that corporate communication and public relations are theoretically the
same. However, the expression corporate communication is preferred as public relations has a negative
connotation to some. Following the definition of public relations by The World Assembly of Public
Relations Associations, public relations is “the art and social science of analyzing trends, predicting their
consequences, counseling organizational leaders and implementing planned programs of action which
will serve both the organizations and the public interest” (PRII 2008). Long and Hazelton (1987) define
public relations as being “a communication function of management through which organizations adept
to, alter, or maintain their environment to achieving organizational goals” (3). Corporate communication
strategy falls under the level of functional strategy, as it demonstrates the contribution to organizations’
effectiveness. However, being able to formulate a proper corporate communication strategy depends on
whether marketing practitioners are familiar with and understand firms’ business and societal issues
companies face. Enterprise, corporate, and business unit strategies are determined at a senior
management level, while functional strategies are not. The challenge when formulating corporate
communication strategies is to connect it to what already is stated in the top agenda (Steyn 2004). A
clear corporate communication strategy give firms focus and direction to their communication and
relationship building with strategic stakeholders. The communication strategy should outline what
should be communicated and not how it should be communicated. There should be the thinking and
logic behind marketing practitioners’ actions, which should be formulated in a communication plan in
order for firms to put strategy into action (Steyn 2004). When developing the corporate communication
strategy, one start within the context of organizations’ internal environment, but the purpose is to make
an assessment of the external environment. Strategic decisions are taken in regard to the identification
and management of communication with firms’ strategic stakeholders. These decisions can produce a
profile of which stakeholders firms will give reasonable emphasis (Steyn 2004). With that knowledge
gained, firms have to formulate the communication strategy; what should be communicated to
“capitalize on the opportunity presented by the key strategic issue” (180), and finally develop a strategic
communication and action plan to meet the communication goals.
Firms to take important decisions regarding what issues to address as service firms cannot attend
to all issues. Also, all stakeholders do not care equally about specific issues (Anderson and Narus 1991;
Dwyer and Tanner 2009; Steyn 2004). Therefore, the communication strategy gives firms a strategic
approach to proactively identify and prioritize issues and stakeholders, in order for firms to integrate the
stakeholders into a “corporate community” (Steyn 2004). It is also described as a problem solver in
unstructured situations, as the strategy gives firms a guide to selecting the right problem to solve in
changing situations. Steyn summarizes it as being “a mechanism that leads the function towards
effectiveness (doing the right things) rather than towards efficiency (doing things right)” (179).
Firms’ only method to spread their message is through different means of communication. Firms
develop their communication mix to inform, persuade, and remind existing as well as non-existing
customers (Hoffman et al. 2009). For this, one has to go back to the basic definition of communication,
and the most famous and widely used definition of communication (Danaher and Rossiter 2011) was
presented by Lasswell (1948).
Lasswell’s definition of communication has been built upon to form marketing theories; firms
have used it to fine tune the communication to their stakeholders. This development has been
inevitable because of the growth and adaptation of new technology and communication media
(cellphones, internet). These new media give firms new channels and tools to reach their target groups
more effectively. However, at the same time customers are drowning in communication and have to
deal with “information overload”, which makes customers harder to reach (Malhotra 1982). The
difficulty for firms, especially those with limited marketing resources, is knowing how to penetrate the
noise to reach customers with their message. The media selectiveness of receivers is a problem in itself,
and puts more emphasis on the importance that senders know in which channel(s) receivers most likely
will be present, open to, and preferably respond to the message being sent (Malhotra 1982; McLuhan
1964). The right channel choice was found to be a challenge for B2B firms. Many firms experienced very
little effect from their marketing campaigns, simply because they put out the message in channels where
they do not reach their potential customers (Danaher and Rossiter 2011). The concept of integrated
marketing communication (IMC) has been developed to better manage the process of “audience-
focused, channel-centered, and results-driven brand communication programs over time” (Kliatchko
2008, 140). The idea of IMC began with a limited view of coordinating marketing communication, and
has evolved through scholarly research to incorporate a larger view with of the strategic process
(Kliatchko 2008). Furthermore, the IMC business process is in contrast to the traditional supply chain
business model focusing on the demand chain (Schultz 2004, in Kliatchko 2008). Using this view of
marketing, firms aim to strategically manage customers’ total experience by understanding, managing,
and delivering on customers’ needs, wants, desires and behavior in the marketplace (Dwyer and Tanner
2009; Kliatchko 2008). Implementing IMC strategy, Kliatchko states, gives firms a customer-oriented
focus. The implementation should involve corporate and operational levels of firms, “focusing on key
strategic and managerial issues” (2008, 143). Nowak, Cameron, and Delorme (1996) describe IMC as a
blend of various communication devices into one single entity. Meaning that firms incorporate the
different communication channels and devices to work together, or connect them. The meaning is that
customers Who Laswell’s communication pillars Says what In which channel To who With what effect
Description The source or sender The message content The medium in which the message is put
through The intended receiver Does the message trigger an action from the intended receiver? 11
should take a step from, e.g. reading an advertisement in a magazine, to visit firms’ websites. To make
this an easy process for customers, the advertisement should include website address, phone numbers,
or even better new QR-codes that gives customers all necessary information to continue, or give them
the opportunity to take advantage of an offer (Grove, Carlson, and Dorsch 2002). The different media
have to be connected and preferably carry the same message. This integration has fueled the popularity
of IMC based on the belief that it reduces media costs by improving media and message delivery
(Duncan and Everet 1993, in Nowak et al. 2002). The incorporation of IMC coerce changes in most parts
of firms’ marketing functions, most often evident in the media and message delivery practice (Wang and
Petrison 1991, in Nowak et al. 2002). One example is to structure firms’ advertising by customer
segments rather than product lines, enabling cross and multimedia packages that tie several channels
together, which helps the firm create better delivery channels to encompass with localized and targeted
messages (Smith 1994, in Nowak et al. 2002; Frank 1993, in Nowak et al. 2002). The development has
also shed new light on previously excluded nontraditional and nonmeasurable message delivery
vehicles, including T-shirts and calendars, to be included in IMC advertising plans (Scissors and Bumba
1996, in Nowak et al. 2002). The media selection and evaluation factors stand for the most profound
change and distinguishing characteristics of the IMC compared to other methods. With more of an
individual level, rather than a market level approach to customer information, databases and behavioral
response measures, make up most of the evaluation factors (Smith 1995, in Nowak et al. 1996).
When measures are taken and firms receive comments, firms have to make adjustments along
the way to improve communication and strengthen relationships. This makes the IMC a dynamic
communication strategy, providing stakeholders with information they are in need of to trigger an
action. Additionally, potential customers demand more information than, for instance, existing
customers placing another order (straight rebuy). This since the new customers have to define their
product or service type needs, develop detailed specifications, search for qualified suppliers, and
evaluate the proposals and potential suppliers. The different information needs stakeholders have put
much emphasis on firms’ methods of communication (Dwyer and Tanner 2009).
If firms can get involved early in the prospective customers’ decision process, their chances
increase significantly (Ghingold and Wilson 1998). Schultz (1996) discusses that the integration is not up
to firms, it is up to customers. Customers will aggregate and integrate senders’ messages in some
fashion, even though firms’ messages that are directed to intended receivers are completely
uncoordinated. Furthermore, customers might; “(1) arrange the messages as the advertiser intended,
(2) ignore the messages and materials, or (3) put them together in ways the advertiser or marketer
newer considered” (Schultz 1996, 139). The question is whether customers will help or hinder marketing
organizations’ distribution of the message. As the integration occurs whether intended by sending firms,
they must be aware that the integration process might be harmful.
Employees perform a crucial role in service firms. They are involved in the service production and
frequently interact with customers (and potential customers) – often, individual employees account for
the majority of the contact with customers. Gummesson (1991) posits that customers’ perceptions and
opportunities for marketing are mostly attributed to the interaction between customers and the
employees they meet – the marketing department and other full-time marketers only marginally
influence customers. The fact that customers’ contact personnel play such an important role in
marketing made Gummesson introduce the concept of the part-time marketer (PTM), illustrating the
importance of the production/delivery process in opinion formation. Gummesson (1991) defines a PTM
as “someone associated with the company (at least in the mind of customers) who can make an
impression on the customer’s judgement of the firm, regardless of the role in which the person is
officially employed” (62). There are built-in challenges to the concept of PTMs. The effectiveness of
PTMs are contingent on individual employees’ tendency toward marketing, selling, or producing.
Marketing oriented employees can be described as having a business approach or philosophy that focus
on identifying and meeting the stated or hidden needs or wants of customers. In contrast, employees
that are production oriented will have a business philosophy in which whatever the firm makes or
supplies is the focus of the management's attention. In between the two is sales orientation – focusing
on promoting sales through marketing (Gummeson 1991). Harker (2004) studies the phenomena of
PTMs from customers’ perspective, thereby excluding the thoughts and perception of PTMs. Harker’s
findings however can be used to study the subject from a PTM perspective. Analyzing his study revealed
characteristics that were found important for PTMs to possess. PTMs should; be comfortable in
communicating; be marketing oriented; possess social skills; spend some time on marketing; conveying
personal competencies; strong relationship-building skills; and clear and precise communication skills.
These skills have been construed and adapted to a PTM perspective (Harker 2004).
Communication Channels Danaher and Rossiter (2011) are the first scholars to research different
channels for marketing channels in the context of what attributes in each channel is important to
senders and receivers. The channels were; TV, radio, magazines, newspapers, catalogs, personally- and
generically addressed direct mail, e-mail, SMS, door-to-door visits, and telemarketing. Remarkably,
websites were not incorporated in Danaher and Rossiter’s study, nor did they discuss why it was not
included. However, compared with other communication channels, websites cannot be projected on
existing- and/or potential customer. Firms can direct receivers through other communication channels
to websites, but receivers still have to actively search for that channel. It was found that, for receivers
within B2B, printed direct mail such as catalogs or brochures and personally addressed letters, were the
most effective communication channels to increase purchasing intentions. Note that the most effective
channels all are personal communication, however with an exception that the mass media channel radio
was found to have a high impact as well.
The second group is made up by the remaining mass media channels; television, magazines and
newspapers. Danaher and Rossiter (2011) argue that digital and telephone channels; phone, e-mail and
SMS; as well as door-to-door sales calls, are ineffective communication channels in B2B. The marketing
channels have different strengths in terms of seriousness and persuasiveness. This affects receivers
willingness to act on an offer that is considered risky. If the same message is sent to receivers through e-
mail and traditional direct-mail offer, the offer is perceived less risky if received through a traditional
direct-mail (Danaher and Rossiter 2011). Thus, both senders and receivers within B2B share the belief
that the offer will be more persuasive for recipients when the recipient is interested in the information
and is involved with the product or service.
In the case when receivers are existing customers to the company, receivers have a higher buying
intention than potential customers. Furthermore, Danaher and Rossiter argue that the purchase
intention is higher if business receivers are frequent users of a media channel, contrasting what was
found for the consumer market. Catalogs was a channel underestimated by senders, but was found to
be liked by receivers. On the other hand, senders did anticipate that receivers would engage with offers
presented through mass media channels. However, receivers found messages significantly less
interesting and engaging if they were received through SMS, e-mail, telemarketing or unaddressed
direct mail. Among the marketing channels overestimated by B2B senders were newspapers and
magazines. Senders believe the persuasiveness of offers put through these marketing channels are
higher than what is said by receivers.
Furthermore, senders view telemarketing as an effective marketing channel, but it was not
perceived by receivers as convincing and persuasive. Danaher and Rossiter (2011) posit that marketing
communication concerning work emphasized speed and efficiency attributes are associated with the
communication channels of e-mail and cellphone. Traditional mass media and printed direct media will
continue to have a significant influence in a private setting. This as the mediums’ attributes are
characterized by; serenity, relaxation and foremost the feeling of being in control by receivers, which is
highly valued in a private setting. The predicted purchase intention is low in such instance when there is
a divergence between the channels, meaning that there is a disparity between what senders think that
receivers prefer, and what they actually prefer. Therefore, it is important that senders have knowledge
about receivers’ preferences, to generate more effective marketing communication as the message is
sent through channels that carry preferred attributes. Danaher and Rossiter (2011) suggest senders to
adjust the channels choice accordingly if senders are using another communication channel than those
preferred by receivers. This is in line with what both Shannon (1948), and McLuhan (1964) conclude.
According to Danaher and Rossiter (2011) “existing theoretical models of communication effectiveness
apply to communications in general, rather than marketing communications in particular” (33).
Internet has become a tool for user generated communication through social media networks.
Social media have grown to become an important communication channel, not only in a private setting,
but also in B2B. Many companies have had to adapt to this “new” communication channel – some by
own will and other forced by user interactions. It is not a quick adaption made by companies, as
resources, knowledge, and negative views about the usefulness of social media have prevented firms to
use social media (Michaelidou, Siamagka, and Christodoulides 2011). If social media is going to be used
as a marketing tool, it is proposed that firms conduct an evaluation if social media can achieve brand-
related objectives that firms want: a common procedure before using any marketing communication
channel. It is suggested that social media can enhance the relationship between two companies.
However, Michaelidou et al. (2011) conclude that 27 percent of the asked SME firms were actively using
social media. These companies also found social media important for their corporate brand, as it helped
to build and foster relationships.
REFERENCES
Anderson, James C. and James A. Narus (1991), ”Partnering as a Focused Market Strategy,” California
Management Review, 33(3), 95–113.
Carlsson, Göran (2012a), personal communication, August 20, 2012.
Carlsson, Göran (2012b), personal communication, December 5, 2012.
Carlsson, Göran (2012c), personal communication, December 12, 2012.
Danaher, Peter J. and John R. Rossiter (2011), ”Comparing Perceptions of Marketing Communication
Channels,” European Journal of Marketing, 45(1), 6–42.
Dwyer, Robert F. and John F. Tanner (2009), Business Marketing: Connecting Strategy, Relationships, and
Learning, 4th ed. (int’l ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Finne, Åke and Tore Strandvik (2012), ”Invisible Communication: A Challenge to Established Marketing
Communication,” European Business Review, 24(2), 120–33.
Freeman, Susan and Mark Sandwell (2008), ”Professional Service Firms Entering Emerging Markets: The
Role of Network Relationships,” Journal of Services Marketing, 22(3), 198– 212.
Ghingold, Morry and David T. Wilson (1998), ”Buying Center Research and Business Marketing Practice:
Meeting the Challenge of Dynamic Marketing,” Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
13(2), 96–108.
Gilmore, Audrey, David Carson, and Ken Grant (2001), ”SME Marketing in Practice,” Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, 19(1), 6–11.
Grayson, Kent (2007), “Friendship Versus Business in Marketing Relationships,” Journal of Marketing,
71(4), 121–39.
Grove, Stephen J., Les Carlson, Michael J. Dorsch (2002), "Addressing Services’ Intangibility Through
Integrated Marketing Communication: An Exploratory Study,” Journal of Services Marketing,
16(5), 393–411.
Grönroos, Christian (1982), ”An Applied Service Marketing Theory,” European Journal of Marketing,
16(7), 30–41.
Grönroos, Christian (1996), ”Relationship Marketing: Strategic and Tactical Implications,” Management
Decision, 34(3), 5–14.
Grönroos, Christian (1999), ”Internationalization Strategies for Services,” Journal of Services Marketing,
13(4), 290–97.
