IMC 20 Years After:

A Second Look at IMC Definitions

Jerry Kliatchko
University of Asia and the Pacific, Philippines
ABSTRACT: This paper revisits the most commonly used IMC definitions that have been proposed since its in-
ception, and from them be able to identify the hallmarks of integration generally agreed upon by IMC scholars. It
also examines the constructs of the most commonly used definitions and relates those constructs to the four pillars
of IMC. It proposes that Kliatchko's 2008 definition be used as a common reference point to explain the IMC con-
cept. Brief commentaries are made on the IMC pillars in the context of new realities in today's digital marketing
communications landscape.
After twenty years since the initial conceptualization of
integrated marketing communications (IMC) was intro-
duced at the Medill School of Journalism of Northwest-
em University in the late 1980s, definitional issues of
the IMC concept continue to occupy a central place in
academic research. The general lack of agreement on its
definition has given rise partly to critics questioning its
soundness and successful application (Kerr, et al,
2008). Research on IMC over the last two decades also
shows how the understanding of the concept has
evolved from its original conceptualizations, influenced
to a certain extent by the context of the US market at
that time, to the new realities of today's digital econ-
omy. From a view of IMC as coordinating communica-
tion tools at its early stages of development, IMC today
has been viewed as a strategic process (Madhavaram, et
al., 2005). Aside from the disparate voices over defini-
tions, IMC has also been challenged on other equally
pressing issues, such as measurement methodologies,
continued narrow view of IMC to mean "one-sight,
one-sound," tightening economic conditions, showing
evidence of how IMC adoption can work, and so on
(Kitchen and Schultz, 2009).
In spite of the multiple challenges that still remain
to be addressed surrounding the concept, IMC, as a
field of study, has progressed at a steady pace. Un-
doubtedly, there is a lot of ground that needs to be
covered moving forward, including the effort to arrive
at a consensus on a workable definition. In a recent
special issue on IMC by the Journal of Marketing
Communications (April-July 2009), Schultz and Patti
(2009) opine that given the many changes in the mar-
ketplace and communications today, definitional is-
sues have become even more important.
This paper has three objectives. First, it seeks to
take a second look at the most commonly used IMC
definitions thus far and from them articulate the hall-
marks of integration generally cited by IMC scholars.
Second, using my 2008 IMC definition (Kliatchko,
2008) as a framework, it examines the constructs of
the most commonly used definitions and sees whether
those constructs fit certain categorizations in my defi-
nition, referred to as the four pillars of IMC. I posit
that my 2008 definition seems to encompass the cen-
tral ideas articulated in the various definitions exam-
ined and can therefore be used as a common reference
point to explain the IMC concept. Third, I conclude
with brief considerations underpinning the IMC pillars
in the context of new realities in today's marketing
communications landscape.
A REVIEW OE IMC DEEINITIONS
I have decided to adopt the seven definitions chosen
by Kerr, et al. (2008) in their recent paper. I will
briefly examine these definitions in this article, as they
represent the most commonly proposed IMC defini-
tions, according to the authors. These definitions are
presented in Table 1.
All seven definitions reflect what might be consid-
ered hallmarks of the IMC concept and, therefore,
hallmarks of good integration. It is interesting to note
that these hallmarks are also reflected in other IMC
definitions previously studied, in an earlier research
on the conceptualizations of IMC (Kliatchko, 2005).
All seven of these definitions coincide with the fol-
lowing common notions or hallmarks of IMC:
1. Coordination and synergy of marketing commu-
nication disciplines, multiple channels or tools
employed in IMC programs.
2. Consistency and coordination of marketing com-
munication messages across disciplines for maxi-
mum communication impact and effectiveness.
3. Understanding and building profitable relation-
ships with multiple audiences or stakeholders of
a given company and its brands.
4. Evaluation and measurement of IMC programs.
moving from merely measuring communication
effects to behavioral and financial results.
5. Strategic management of marketing communica-
tions planning and the overall business process.
While all IMC definitions proposed since its in-
ception possess the hallmarks enumerated above to a
greater or lesser extent, the latter definitions that
have emerged since 2000s onwards seem to reflect
the progress and growth, both in depth and breadth,
of the concept. At least two hallmarks seem to have
grown in importance since 2000s or at least have be-
come more explicit in the articulations of the deflni-
tions proposed. These hallmarks are: (a) the
centrality on multiple audiences or stakeholders that
IMC programs are directed to; and (b) the drive for
measurability and profitability.
Table 1: Definitions of IMC
Autbor
American
Association of
Advertising
Agencies
Schultz
Keegan et al.
Kotler et al.
Duncan
Schultz &
Schultz
Kliatchko
Date
1989
1991
1992
1999
2002
2004
2005
Definition
A concept of marketing communications planning that recognizes the added value
in a program that integrates a variety of strategic disciplinese.g., general adver-
tising, direct response, sales promotion and public relationsand combines these
disciplines to provide clarity, consistency, and maximum impact.
The process of managing all sources of information about a product/service to
which a customer or prospect is exposed, which behaviorally moves the customer
towards a sale and maintains customer loyalty.
The strategic coordination of all messages and media used by an organization to
collectively influence its perceived brand value.
IMC is the concept under which a company carefully integrates and coordinates its
many communication channels to deliver a clear, consistent and compelling mes-
sage about the organization and its products.
A cross-functional process for creating and nourishing profitable relationships with
customers and other stakeholders by strategically controlling or influencing all
messages sent to these groups and encouraging data-driven purposeful dialogue
with them.
IMC is a strategic business process used to plan, develop, execute and evaluate co-
ordinated, measurable, persuasive brand communication programs over time with
consumers, customers, prospects, and other targeted, relevant extemal and intemal
audiences.
IMC is a concept and process of strategically managing audience-focused, channel-
centered and results-driven brand communication programs over time.
Source: Kerr et al (2008) article
8 Intemational Journal of Integrated Marketing Communications
KLIATCHKO 2008 IMC DEFINITION
In 2005, 1 introduced my first definition of IMC (Kli-
atchko, 2005). After a few years, as a result of further
research on the topic, I proposed a revised version
(Kliatchko, 2008). The main difference between the
first and the second definition is the addition of one,
among the original three, of what I call the pillars of
IMC. The 2005 definition identified three pillars: con-
sumer-focused, channel-centered, and results-driven.
In 2008, I revised the pillars as follows: stakeholders,
content, channels, and results. My 2008 definition
states: IMC is an audience-driven business process of
strategically managing stakeholders, content, chan-
nels, and results of brand communication programs.
What follows is a brief description of each pillar.
The term Stakeholders refers to the multiple markets
or relevant publics of a firm and, more particularly, the
various markets their products and services are directed
to. This includes both internal and external publics. A
deep understanding of consumerstheir needs, values,
motivations, and more importantly, their behavior in
the marketplaceis a crucial and vital step in under-
taking an IMC program. The management of data-
bases on audiences is an important tool in creating
meaningful engagements with the firm's multiple mar-
kets. Content is the IMC pillar that creates meaningful
connections with a brand's target audience through
persuasive, relevant, creative, and respectful mes-
sages, from whatever source. In this era of co-creation
of content between the firm and its audiences, the dy-
namics of content delivery and feedback becomes a
two-way rather than a linear process, with both parties
now able to exchange content in real-time, with the
use of digital technology. Channels in IMC have an
expanded notion that includes all possible points of
contact between the firm (and its brands) and its rele-
vant audiencese.g., traditional advertising through
tri-media, word-of-mouth, brand activation programs,
digital formats, and even other ways that were not
considered as marketing communications channels in
the past, such as billing statements, courtesy of sales
staff, and so on. The key drivers that guide selection
of media channels to invest in for any given brand are:
(a) relevance of certain channels to a given target au-
dience, (b) preferred contact points of the target audi-
ence over the marketer's, and (c) the context with
which a particular contact point is experienced by the
target audience. Results, the fourth IMC pillar, refers
to the need for measurement and evaluation of IMC
programs that goes beyond employing what may be
referred to as soft measurement tools that evaluate
communication effects, rather than measuring the im-
pact of IMC programs to business results in terms of
financial contribution. Undoubtedly, measuring mar-
keting communications effectiveness has long been a
debatable issue and continues to be a subject of ongo-
ing research by both academics and practitioners in
the field.
A closer look at the seven definitions examined in
this article shows that the various elements in these
definitions in fact reflect any one of the four pillars I
introduced, some phrased in an overt way, while oth-
ers more implied than apparent in their articulations.
Although IMC has always claimed to be consumer or
audience-centric, it is surprising to note that there are
no explicit references made on this in the earlier defi-
nitions of the concept (i.e. some of those definitions
proposed in the 1990s). Table 2 presents parts of the
various definitions examined here and to which IMC
pillar they might be classified under. In addition to the
pillars, all seven definitions also seem to make refer-
ence to the fact that IMC entails a strategic manage-
ment process.
As Table 2 also shows, all seven definitions contain
elements in the articulation of their definitions that
refer to either stakeholders, content, channels, results,
or the need for a strategic management of all these el-
ements of the IMC process. This strengthens the posi-
tion of recommending the use of my 2008 definition
as a framework for defining IMC because each pillar
encapsulates similar ideas in the other definitions that
encompass the major tenets of the concept.
A question, however, arises whether these defini-
tions still hold, given the drastic changes that have and
continue to occur in the marketplace over the last
decade. For instance, the very first definition given by
the American Association of Advertising Agencies in
1989, the most widely used definition to date, was ar-
ticulated in a time when the Internet explosion had not
yet happened and should, therefore, be, in my opinion,
no longer used. That definition now appears to be out-
dated and has certainly outlived its time and no longer
reflects the realities of the marketplace today. More-
over, does it still make much sense to define IMC and
the function of integration solely from the point of
view of the organization or company as some of the
definitions imply? Is it still possible to "strategically
control or influence all messages" as one other defini-
tion suggests, in an era where consumers not only
consume, but co-create content as well? Is there a
need to re-think these conceptualizations given the
ever-rapid changes in today's increasingly digital en-
Fall 2009 9
Table 2: IMC Pillars and Definitional Elements
Pillars/
Definitions
Stakeholders
Content
Channels
Results
Managing a
strategic
process
1989
X
"Provide
clarity.
consistency
& impact"
"variety of
strategic
disciplines"
"provide
clarity.
consistency
& commu-
nication
impact"
"marketing
communi-
cations
planning"
1991
"to which a
customer is
exposed"
"Information
about a
product/
service"
"managing
sources of
information"
"moves the
customer
towards a
sale"
"process of
managing"
1992
X
"Coordination
of all
messages"
"coordina-
tion of . . .
media used"
"influence
its perceived
brand value"
"strategic
commun-
ication"
1999
X
"To deliver
a clear.
consistent &
compelling
message"
"coordinates
its many
communicati
on channels"
"deliver
a clear.
consistent.
compelling
message"
"company
carefully
integrates
and
coordinates"
2002
"creating &
nourishing
profitable
relationships
with custom-
ers & other
stakeholders
"controlling
or influ-
encing all
messages"
"data-driven
purposeful
dialogue"
"profitable
relationships"
"cross-
functional
process"
2004
"consumers.
customers.
prospects &
other targeted
relevant
external &
internal
audiences"
"persuasive
brand commu-
nication
programs"
"brand
communica-
tion programs"
"measurable.
persuasive
brand commu-
nication
programs"
"strategic
business
process"
2005
"Audience-
focused
X
"channel-
centered"
"results-
driven"
"concept and
process of
sU^ategically
managing"
vironment? Are these definitions still relevant and
meaningful? These are but a few questions con-
fronting us as we move forward in building the IMC
theory base. Advancements in infonnation technology
in the late 1980s and early 1990s were an important
driving force that gave birth to integrated marketing
communications. Further evolution in technology,
therefore, will only mean strengthening the need for
integration even more, not decreasing the need for it.
EOUR IMC PILLARS IN THE
DIGITAL LANDSCAPE
I opine that my 2008 IMC definition, with its four
pillarsstakeholders, content, channels, resultsis
still a valid definition of the concept even in this in-
creasingly changing digital context. This new environ-
ment, however, gives rise to a few questions and
points of clarification as regards each pillar of IMC.
The following section briefly discusses each pillar in
this context.
Audience-Driven Business Process:
Strategic Management
The digital revolution we are going through is making
business processes more consumer-centric than ever be-
fore. As we continue to move away from "disconnectiv-
ity" between individuals to connectivity among digital
communities, new business models need to arise to
confront these changing realities. If in the recent past.
10 International Journal of Integrated Marketing Communications
IMC programs were meant to create, build, and
strengthen relationships between the organizations with
its brands and its multiple audiences (consumers in-
cluded), today we take that phenomenon a step further
and provide opportunities for greater audience or cus-
tomer engagement and involvement. In this era of col-
laborative content generation and creation, and
user-generated content, strategic management of the in-
tegration process is no longer just a function of IMC
managers in organizations but more likely a shared task
with audiences. This shared task should therefore be
better referred to as strategic "co-management" or "col-
laborative management" of the integration process.
Stakeholders
The younger generation of audiences or consumers
today and in the future, best described by the futurist
Gerd Leonhard (www.mediafuturist.com) as the digital
natives, are redefining the rules of communications.
Perhaps one of the greatest changes among consumers
today in relation to marketing communications is the
fact that they are no longer mere recipients of mes-
sages or media content but can in fact control, create,
influence, recreate, alter, and engage in shaping them
across platforms and communication channels. Since
audiences have clearly been empowered to control the
kind of messages or content they want to receive
where, when, and how they want itthe function of
'integrator' has cleariy shifted (although it may be
argued that this has been the case even before, except
that now it has become more evident) from it being
the sole task of the IMC manager in organizations or
in collaboration with its advertising or communication
agencies, to the consumers themselves. It is beyond
doubt that in the digital age, the consumer is at the
helm of the integration process.
With greater collaboration, engagement, and in-
volvement of audiences in the exchange of information
and media content, as well as ease of accessibility, there
is also greater need to observe higher ethical and moral
standards in this exchange and collaborative process. In
a recent article (Kliatchko, 2009), I proposed that IMC
take on or promote the personalist perspective of con-
sumers versus an individualist view, in planning and
implementing IMC programs and strategy formulation.
The personalist view promotes respect for the dignity of
the human person, where the consumer is not seen
merely as an object for profit at all costs and using
whatever means, but viewed as a person worthy of re-
spect, and desires not merely purely mundane pursuits
but more importantly, one who is oriented towards
more transcendent goals.
Content
This pillar is perhaps one ofthe most affected tenets of
integration in the digital age. As I have eariier posited,
the unprecedented scale of developments in technology
has given audiences control over marketing communi-
cations content that has never been experienced in the
past. This participatory and collaborative culture made
evident by social networks (e.g., Facebook and twit-
ter), wikipedia, YouTube, and so on, implies that there
exists a plethora of more uncontrolled rather than con-
trolled media and marketing communications content
available to audiences, and thus making the task of inte-
grafing messages more complex than it already is. This
problem or opportunity, depending on how one looks at
it, is further compounded by the fact that much of digi-
tal content today is free, available real-time, can be eas-
ily shared with others, and is control-free. In this sense,
audiences have at their disposal, ubiquitous content,
available for them, anytime, anywhere.
This control-free environment where audiences are
exposed to a superfluity and profusion of media content
emphasizes even more their direct hand in creating
meaning from all these messages (Finne & Gronroos,
2009). This process of meaning-creation or making
sense of all the information they receive, and the conse-
quent attitudinal and behavioral effect those messages
create in them, is in fact the process of integration that
audiences go through. And as I had already pointed out
earlier, this kind of integration by the consumer is far
more important today rather than the integration efforts
of the marketer, that is now, more than ever, a crucial
ingredient in planning IMC programs.
Channels
Together with content, understanding the dynamics
impacting the IMC pillar of marketing communication
channels in the era of digital connectivity and its im-
plications for media planning in the future presents
new challenges and will become an increasingly oner-
ous task (Mulhem, 2009).
The past two decades have seen a shift from mass
media channels to one-to-one communication models
and now to convergent media or what may be called
as convergent channels. Media convergence breaks all
traditional modes of neatly classifying types of media
as radio, television, print or film, or marketing com-
munication tools, such as advertising, public relations,
or below-the-line communications. Today, the Intemet
Fall 2009 11
has made it possible for audiences to engage in a con-
vergent media experience where all these types of
media channels converge in one medium or gadget,
whether it is one's laptop or mobile phone unit. Mo-
bile communications companies have become a major
force in providing not only telephone services and
messaging capabilities but are fast becoming content
providers themselves. Moreover, other realities, such
as easy access to any information, mobility, and media
multi-tasking across multiple channels, need to be
taken into account in rethinking implications for
media planning processes moving forward.
Results
Among the IMC pillars, measuring results of IMC pro-
grams is perhaps the most complex, with many unset-
tled issues surrounding it, even if much has been done
in advancing effective measurements of marketing pro-
grams in general, and IMC programs in particular. Nev-
ertheless, the new technological developments in
today's consumer-empowered digital landscape bring
about new challenges for measuring results of IMC pro-
grams (Ewing, 2009). For instance, the fact that the dig-
ital-enabled marketplace provides a considerable
amount of free content and therefore, is unable to mon-
etize certain services, impacts measurement in some
ways. However, as more and more marketing cam-
paigns utilize the Internet as a component of their over-
all marketing communication programs, measurement,
and analysis of these programs can be better evaluated
with the aid of available tools such as web analytics that
can track off-site and on-site behaviors of target audi-
ences. The endeavor to arrive at best practices for IMC
measurement involves designing metrics that link with
financial performance of the firm and evaluating out-
comes more than outputs, with the goal of improving
results and profitability overtime.
CONCLUSION
The last twenty years since the beginning of IMC has
witnessed important milestones in the effort to build a
theory base for the field, particulariy through the ef-
forts of some academics to establish a workable defi-
nition of the concept. While some of the earlier
definitions may no longer be applicable to the chang-
ing realities of the 21st century, some of the latter con-
tributions seem to be more attuned to today's digital
landscape. I opine that my 2008 IMC definition may
be considered a viable reference point for understand-
ing the concept even as advancements in information
technology will continue to make progress, since its
articulation is neither too broad nor too specific but
sufficiently adequate to be applicable to today's new
realties in the marketplace.
REEERENCES
Ewing, M. (2009) Integrated marketing communications
measurement and evaluation. Journal of Marketing
Communications, 15(2-3), pp. 103-117.
Finne, A. & Grnroos, C. (2009) Rethinking marketing
communication: From integrated marketing communica-
tion to relationship communication. Journal of Market-
ing Communications, 15(2-3), pp. 179-195.
Kerr, G., Schultz, D., Patti, C, & Kim, I. (2008) An inside-
out approach to integrated marketing communication:
An international analysis. International Journal of Ad-
vertising, 21(4), pp. 511-548.
Kitchen, P.J. & Schultz, D.E. (2009) IMC: New
horizon/false dawn for a marketplace in turmoil? Jour-
nal of Marketing Communications, 15(2-3), pp.
197-204.
Kliatchko, J. (2005) Towards a new definition of integrated
marketing communications (IMC). International Jour-
nal of Advertising, 24(1), pp. 7-34.
Kliatchko, J. (2008) Revisiting the IMC construct: A re-
vised definition and four pillars. International Journal of
Advertising, 27(1), pp. 133-160.
Kliatchko, J. (2009) The primacy of the consumer in IMC:
Espousing a personalist view of the consumer and ethi-
cal implications. Journal of Marketing Communications,
15(2-3), pp. 157-177.
Madhavaram, S., Badrinarayanan, V. & McDonald, R.
(2005) Integrated marketing communication (IMC) and
brand identity as critical components of brand equity
strategy. Journal of Advertising, 34(4), pp. 69-80.
Mulhern, F. (2009) Integrated marketing communications:
From media channels to digital connectivity. Journal of
Marketing Communications, 15(2-3), pp. 85-101.
Schultz, D.E., & Patti, C. (2009) The Evolution of IMC:
IMC in a customer-driven marketplace. Journal of Mar-
keting Communications, 15(2-3), pp. 75-84.
JERRY KLIATCHKO is Dean, School of Communica-
tion and Vice President, Corporate Communications,
University of Asia and the Pacific, Philippines
12 International Journal of Integrated Marketing Communications
Copyright of International Journal of Integrated Marketing Communications is the property of Racom
Communications 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.