The examination of integrated campaigns to create one brand voice, to dispel confusion in the consumer’s mind, has been debated amongst academics and practitioners alike. This paper will go some way to evaluating the concept of IMC and in particular from a strategy and planning perspective.

1. A critical discussion of the concept of Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC) from an
advertising strategy and planning perspective.
Today’s marketing world is considered to be the age of ‘hyper-competition’ with the advent of the vast
landscape of businesses that have saturated the markets. Consumers are having to make more choices
with which brand they pick and therefore businesses need to cut through the noise to make sure
customers purchase their products. The examination of integrated campaigns to create one brand voice, to
dispel confusion in the consumer’s mind, has been debated amongst academics and practitioners alike.
This paper will go some way to evaluating the concept of IMC and in particular from a strategy and
planning perspective.
What is IMC?
Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC) was first defined by Shultz, Tannenbaum and Lauterborn
(1993) as a “concept of marketing communications planning that recognises the added value of
comprehensive plan that evaluates the strategies role of a variety of communication disciplines (such as
advertising, direct response, sales promotion, etc.) and combines them to provide clarity.” (Fill,2013)
The exploration of IMC has spurned an academic and practitioner desire to delve deeper into the issues
surrounding it. Kliatchko (2008) elaborated and questioned the earlier defined Shultz et al as he moved to
identify that IMC was essential to manage stakeholders through an audience-driven approach.
Kliatchko derived that the process of IMC must centre around the audience (customer) and with advent of
technological rises this goes someway to explaining now the power shift from brands to the consumer.
Consumer insight and customer journey tracking mechanisms have enabled this shift as the business
become ‘outside in orientated’. Kitchen et al (2008) place onus on the consumer as they state “panning
that starts with receivers not senders”.
These three defining pioneers, as such, painted a picture and model that comes to the aide of the
marketing industry in a turn where advertisers increasingly demand more return for their investment.
Duncan and Moriarty (1997) added to the definition to make it clearer for marketers by placing onus on
the ‘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
purposeful dialogue’.
Keller (2001) Involves the development, implementation, and evaluation of marketing communication
programs using multiple communication options where the design and execution of any communication
option reflects the nature and content of other communication options that also make up the
communication program.
The implementation of IMC is argued to be one of the biggest drawbacks due to the amount of roadblocks
and difficulties a marketer must overcome. The ramifications of IMC can be felt across an organisation and
its board levels. At the top, within the corporate pillars of an organisation, it is regarded that this is where
IMC is felt the most (Holm, 2006). However, the largest argument here is that this can grow far beyond
marketing at this board level as it has the capabilities to establish brand values and a cohesive strategy for
a brand moving forward.

2. UK Agencies View
Kitchen et al (2004) discovered, through their examination, that 80% of advertising and PR consultants in
the UK had worked on IMC campaigns for their clients. Kitchen et al noted that practitioners regarded IMC
as a tactic rather than a strategic tool to implement and not “a way to organise the business or firm” as
academics may argue.
There is evidence that pushes beyond Kitchen et al (2004) studies and work on the subject of IMC. Through
essays published, in Campaign Magazine (3rd
December 2010), we are given a snapshot of qualitative
research into how ten London based agencies view IMC. It was noted that only three of the ten agencies
paint IMC as the alignment of corporate goals. One London based agency notes that IMC is “about moving
marketing out of a department and into the fabric of an organisation”. A key take away from the agency
insights is that there is a large body of focus towards ‘interactivity’ and ‘integration with consumers’.
IMC is argued that it is largely an internal strategic tool that looks to enhance and the brand from within.
London based agencies don’t fully acknowledge this viewpoint. As the agencies see their role as being far
more pivotal than the IMC model predicts. They reject the idea of internal brand builders as they believe
that they are “a diverse network of creative and strategic minds and craft skills, dedicated to producing the
most powerful brand ideas”.
What are the benefits of IMC?
Although there are perceived downfalls and difficulties in implementing an IMC communications plan.
Unintegrated databases cause many problems within an organisation as they don’t allow for a single
picture of customer to be understood. IMC is also argued that it gives the ever wanted single customer
experience. The protection of the customer aides to brand building and ultimately bottom line sales. This is
done through encouraging customers and non-customers to collaborate and create a better system with
the brand.
Client-lead ownership of the campaign for the business allows for the brand value and image to not waiver
from their vision. Kitchen and Schultz (1999) looked to understand the agency relationship with IMC and
their clients. They discovered that “Agencies, no matter how skilled or capable, simply can’t integrate a
client’s marketing communication program unless the client leads the way”. Gould, Lerman and Grein
(1999) state that IMC “should originate with client generalists who see the big picture” and those that
understand their “overall marketing strategies”. (Swain, 2004)
Iddiols (2000) sees the benefits of IMC being a larger player in the eye of the consumer. He identifies that
integration represents a coherent approach as it is both a value driver, proposition driver and mnemonic
driver. By implementing an integrated approach at the strategic level he argues it “provides short-cuts to
understand what the brand stands for. It adds depth and amplification to a particular message or set of
brand values. It demonstrates professionalism on the part of the brand owner”. Iddiols develops his two
method approach by elaborating that values creates a consistent set of messages to create the strongest
approach. The proposition he argues is vitally important as it establishes a brands identity. Lastly, he uses
the mnemonic approach deployment means that brands can have an identity through gaining the
consumer consciousness.
IMC from the perspective of planning and strategy
The IPA (Institute of Practitioners in Advertising) believe that when a client is briefing an agency it is the
agency job to produce “one idea that works across disciplines”. However, it is dually noted that this
“creates tensions between disciplines when one agency takes the lead role”. The IPA notes that there are

3. four models for IMC to work effectively across campaigns.
The Client-Led Model. This model is where the client does the strategic thinking themselves and conducts
all internal research to get to their strategic idea. The client in this situation must fully grasp and
understand their product and markets.
The Lead Agency Model. This where a client uses an AOR (agency of record) or similar format to be
responsible for creating the communication strategy for the campaign. After this planning and strategy is in
place the other agencies would follow suit.
The All Agency Model. Utilising creative and strategic expertise across an agency roster to cherry pick or
‘Pick n Mix’ the types of capabilities they require for the output.
The One-Stop-Shop Model: This model is harnessed through an overarching agency network, such as WPP
or Publicis, that have acquired multiple disciplined agencies into their umbrella. (Pringle, 2011).
David Magliano, Director of Commercial and Marketing at England 2018, notes that picking the right model
“is about assembling the best in class talent you have available to be in the room at the same time, each
area of expertise having respect for one another and all members of the client and agency being
completely open and honest” (Pringle, 2011).
With a structured and regimental brief, the creative output can be quickly and easily defined with little
room for ambiguity or lack of reasoning. With efficiency levels of communications constantly under the
microscope an IMC brief is able to create creative that is “the product of a brief” (Griffiths, 2002).
It is noted that at the deliverance of an integrated brief the assigned specialists from different disciplines
respond in one of three ways. Thematic thinking is the first way where several sub-briefs are created and
devised per the discipline to work towards the overarching campaign brief. This thematic approach is
argued that it gives a large realm of autonomy to each discipline to create the work they believe will cut
through. The second approach is Visual Linking and this where there is a centralised art direction that is
given to the campaign and adhered to. This is a top line idea that is pioneered through advertising. It is
argued that although the campaign looks integrated, and in unison across touch points, these may “lack
the selling power” as well as being merely “window-dressers”. The last way a brief can be assembled is
through association of the varying disciplines. The analogy of a dog on a leash is used to describe this one.
You give the dog a retractable 3m leash so it thinks it is free. But, when you need to reign the dog in you
can with ease. This approach is the point where disciplines are encouraged to create linkages and given full
autonomy but must fit the brief. (Griffiths, 2002).
The downfall of IMC
Implementation and executional elements of IMC are increasingly difficult to overcome for firms and
businesses that wish to model the IMC structure. The organizational structure is one of the remits for the
argument against IMC as it is widely argued that the ‘dysfunctional client of agency structures have caused
implementation problems (Shultz and Kitchen. 1997; Kitchen and Schultz, 1998; Eagle et al., 1999; Kitchen
and Bulmer, 2007). The argument here is that the current leadership and centralized nature of agencies
and client businesses mean that the control of a brand or work is determined by a small team of decision
makers. This pyramid approach to marketing and decision making in IMC provides a barrier to entry with
the need for validation at each step minimising the output of work.
Kitchen and Shultz (1999) study outline eight key barriers to implementation of IMC across agencies and
clients. They noted that IMC requires internal staff to be more generalist across their job spectrum.
Integrated agencies do not have the talent available to carry out and deliver the MARCOMS objectives as
they can be centralised or lack of working relationship. They found that both internal and external

4. campaign staff have to learn new skills to conform to the brief and this also uncovered that IMC has the
realm to give individuals too much control. The current client organisational structures constrain the
breath available for IMC development and this can be further evidenced through centralization difficulties.
Implementation of integrated campaigns can only fully happen at the strategic process as there “isn’t
enough time or budget to ensure that integration happens consistently all the way through the
implementation”. (Griffiths, 2002). Griffiths notes that the because of the planning of IMC happens at the
board room level that the strategy is created within “client meetings, not with the development team”. He
further criticizes the formulaic way the campaign brief is honed as it derives from the agency away-day,
without further planning, and then is placed upon the account planner to keep the brief on track. Griffiths
believes that IMC briefs are delivered on “tablets of stone” with very little room for adaption.
Marketing is increasingly difficult to measure the return on budget allocation costs and what element of an
integrated campaign has done well and what hasn’t. Shultz and Kitchen (2000) note that “IMC’s
progression as a concept and discipline is entirely appropriate and in accordance with scientific theory”.
This paints the picture the current IMC measurement model is currently one of pay per activity creation.
However, there is a legitimate argument that agency compensation can be changed to rectify this and
unify IMC by holding it to a higher standard. (Swain, 2004)
IMC campaigns don’t have the same realm or sense of freedom that non-integrated approaches have
when creating a campaign. “Through softer measures of business success such as brand awareness, fame,
differentiation or strengthening brand values, it can be seen that integration does not have significant
additive benefits over a non-integrated approach” (Cox et al, 2011). The lack of cut through creative work
and autonomy to fully develop an idea further creates several implications in overall campaign impact.
David Ogilvy (1993) argues that “everything a company does, communicates, then notion of IMC should
realistically embrace every dimension of company activity”. This he argues is a top line internal boar room
planning tool and not one that agencies can fix. Gould et al (1999) clarifies this by stating that the
“responsibility of actually managing IMC as an inter-organized process” lies at the brand/organisation’s
helm.
Kitchen (2005) found that the biggest underlying problem with the implementation of IMC across the
industry is the lack of willingness to invest in marketing resources. Through this lack of investment, it is
argued that IMC is only seen as a tactical element and not a strategic tool.
IMC in 2017 and beyond
IMC is an increasingly important facet of the practice in marketing communications as it can be seen by an
increasing number of companies and agencies looking to achieve deep and better integration. Shultz and
Jones (1999) earlier defined IMC by placing the onus on planning and that it primarily “attempts to co-
ordinate, consolidate and bring together all the communication messages”. However, this thought and
reasoning only talks about IMC from the client-agency perspective and lacks to delve deeper into what this
means for the brand in the eyes of the consumer. With the rise of new technologies, platforms, brands and
ways of communicating it is important that brands now understand who their customer is. An IMC
campaign would have to contain a great deal of autonomous freedom to succeed fully in 2017 and beyond.
Consumers are receptive to messaging all the time throughout their day. But, it is the brands that create
the fame and impact element do consumers remember and share. This fame, under the current IMC
models, is increasingly difficult to attain through a centralized brand voice. “The search for integration
should not be taken to infer creative uniformity”. (Baker and Hart, 2007)

5. References
Baker, M.J. and Hart, S.J. (2007) The marketing book, sixth edition. 6th edn. Oxford: Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Campaign (2011) What’s Next in Integration, www.campaignlive.co.uk
Cox, K., Turner, D., Crowther, J. and Hubbard, T. (2011) Integrated communications: One size doesn’t fit all.
Available at: https://www.warc.com/Content/ContentViewer.aspx?MasterContentRef=4fbd4220-8639-
4249-b496-8f4007bc9c81&q=integrated+communications&CID=A95076&PUB=MKT (Accessed: 14
December 2016).
Duncan, T. & Moriarity, S. E. (1998). A Communication-Based Marketing Model for Managing
Relationships. Journal of Marketing, 62 (2), 1 – 13
Grein, A. F. and Gould, S. J. (1996) Globally integrated marketing communications, Journal of Marketing
Communications, 2(3).
Griffiths, J. (2002) Finding your level in integrated communications. Available at:
https://www.warc.com/Content/ContentViewer.aspx?MasterContentRef=9c828256-7f2d-4da0-b409-
605c727b889d&q=integrated+communications&CID=A72527&PUB=ADMAP (Accessed: 14 December
2016).
Holm, O. (2006). Integrated marketing communication: from tactics to strategy. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal. 11 (1) 23 – 33.
Jeans, R. (1998) Integrating marketing communications, Admap, December.
Kitchen, P. J., Kim, I. & Schultz, D. E. (2008). Integrated Marketing Communications: Practice Leads Theory.
Journal of Advertising Research, 48(4), 531 – 546.
Kitchen, P. J. & Schultz, D. E. (2000). A response to ‘Theoretical concept or management Fashion’. Journal
of Advertising Research, 40 (5), 17 - 21
Kitchen, P. (2005) New paradigm – IMC – under fire, Communications Research, 15(1).
Kitchen, P. J. and Schultz, D. E. (1999) Amulti-country comparison of the drive for IMC, Journal of
Advertising Research
Kitchen, P. J. and Schultz, D. E. (2000) The status of IMC: a 21st century perspective, Admap,
Kliatchko, J. (2008). Revisiting the IMC construct: a revised definition and four pillars. International Journal
of Advertising, 27 (1), 113 – 160
Iddiols, D. (2000) Marketing superglue: client perceptions of IMC, Admap,
‘IMC is dead. Long live IMC’ Academic vs Practitioners’ views (2010) Available at:
https://marketing.conference-services.net/resources/327/2342/pdf/AM2011_0368.pdf (Accessed: 13
December 2016).

6. Pringle, H. (2011) Joint industry guidelines for marketing professionals in working effectively with agencies
2nd edition. Available at: http://www.thegoodpitch.com/wp-
content/uploads/2011/09/BriefinganAgency.pdf (Accessed: 13 December 2016).
Swain, W. (2004) IMC: A topic of Conflict. Available at:
https://www.warc.com/Content/ContentViewer.aspx?MasterContentRef=639c846b-3b77-4d37-
Ogilvy, D. (1993) Ogilvy on Advertising, Prion Books.