Marketing communications have historically been measured on a medium-by-medium basis. The new electronic communications systems are in danger of falling into the same trap. Yet consumers seem to use all these communications systems concurrently, simultaneously and one would assume, synergistically. If this is true, what are the challenges in measuring the impact and effect of these integrated communications systems? How should synergy between communications forms be considered and measured? For it is ultimately consumers, not managers, who integrate (marketing) communications. In response to these and other challenges, this article identifies five areas of integrated marketing communications (IMC) measurement worthy of future research. It then goes on to expand on each of the areas, noting some of the foundational work that has already taken place and signalling possible avenues for future research. In conclusion, it considers the theoretical implications of the research agenda and postulates how a broader view of theory could in fact assist scholars in tackling the research challenges as they currently stand.

1. This article was downloaded by: [Faculdade de Ciencias Sociais e Humanas]
On: 19 January 2015, At: 08:38
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Marketing Communications
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmc20
Integrated marketing communications measurement
and evaluation
Michael T. Ewing
a
a
Department of Marketing , Monash University , Melbourne, Australia
Published online: 25 Jun 2009.
To cite this article: Michael T. Ewing (2009) Integrated marketing communications measurement and evaluation, Journal of
Marketing Communications, 15:2-3, 103-117, DOI: 10.1080/13527260902757514
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527260902757514
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

2. Integrated marketing communications measurement and evaluation
Michael T. Ewing*
Department of Marketing, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Marketing communications have historically been measured on a medium-by-medium
basis. The new electronic communications systems are in danger of falling into the
same trap. Yet consumers seem to use all these communications systems concurrently,
simultaneously and one would assume, synergistically. If this is true, what are the
challenges in measuring the impact and effect of these integrated communications
systems? How should synergy between communications forms be considered and
measured? For it is ultimately consumers, not managers, who integrate (marketing)
communications. In response to these and other challenges, this article identifies five
areas of integrated marketing communications (IMC) measurement worthy of future
research. It then goes on to expand on each of the areas, noting some of the
foundational work that has already taken place and signalling possible avenues for
future research. In conclusion, it considers the theoretical implications of the research
agenda and postulates how a broader view of theory could in fact assist scholars in
tackling the research challenges as they currently stand.
Keywords: IMC measurement; challenges; research agenda; theory
Introduction
Measurement has dominated the marketing landscape for the past decade. It consistently
tops the Marketing Science Institute’s list of research priorities and has been the subject of
countless conferences, books, blogs, journal special issues, lectures, articles, dissertations,
podcasts and boardroom debates. Despite the frenetic energy afforded the topic, it would
be fair to say that the marketing communications profession still faces some formidable
challenges. This is not to imply that no progress has been made, but rather, that the road
ahead is long, winding and quite ominous-looking in places. Indeed, IMC measurement in
the twenty-first century is not a journey for the faint-hearted.
However tempting it might be to fixate myopically on so-called ‘hard’ (i.e. behavioural
or financial) measures, there is an inherent danger of the pendulum swinging too far from
one extreme to the other. For example, when Lehmann (1999) extols us to link (marketing)
results not to awareness or attitude but to measures that are relevant to chief financial
officers (such as stock market value, customer value or brand value), I am not convinced
that he is actually suggesting we ignore attitudinal measures altogether. Financial metrics
alone are no silver bullet. Inasmuch as self-reported propensity to recommend is a
powerful predictor of firms’ future fiscal fortunes, surely share of mind or share of heart is
as important as share of market or share of customer? Past criticisms of marketing being
too much of a ‘black box’ activity were often well justified. In many instances, the only
measures ever used were distinctly ‘soft’ and seldom related to any tangible business
ISSN 1352-7266 print/ISSN 1466-4445 online
q 2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13527260902757514
http://www.informaworld.com
*Email: michael.ewing@buseco.monash.edu.au
Journal of Marketing Communications
Vol. 15, Nos. 2–3, April–July 2009, 103–117
Downloadedby[FaculdadedeCienciasSociaiseHumanas]at08:3819January2015

3. outcomes. A key challenge going forward will be to avoid false dichotomies and to
integrate both ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ measures, both attitudinal and behavioural measures, both
short- and long-term effects (or cumulative vs immediate): separating cause from effect,
and being able to distil both singular and combined (or integrated) marketing
communications effects. In other words, it is not either or, it is all (of the aforementioned).
Worldwide marketing communications expenditure continues to increase, but is it yet
an investment worthy of balance sheet status? In response to this question, a student once
said to me, when marketing communications works it is an investment, when it fails it is an
expense. I think there is some truth in this off-handed retort. I also think I can guess how
shareholders in Apple or Harley-Davidson view marketing communications. Effective
IMC is potentially critical to organisational performance because it has the ability to
provide competitive advantage (Eagle and Kitchen 2000). It therefore stands to reason that
every effort should be made to better demonstrate IMC’s contribution to organisational
performance (Wang 1994), despite the fact that the extant literature on IMC has, for the
most part, failed to demonstrate this link (Baker and Mitchell 2000; Cornelissen 2000;
Low 2000). This is arguably the biggest obstacle hindering IMC’s broader acceptance
among both pragmatic practitioners and sceptical scholars.
Marketing communications results have historically been measured on a medium-by-
medium basis: one measure for advertising, another for publicity, still another for sales
promotion and so on. The new electronic communication systems are in danger of falling
into the same trap, one measure for web, another for ‘word-of-mouse’, another for mobile
and so on. Yet, consumers seem to use all these communication systems concurrently,
simultaneously and one would assume, synergistically. Indeed, the latest Marketing
Science Institute research priorities encourage scholars to examine not only new media per
se, but also how ‘old’ media and new media are interacting. So, what exactly are the
challenges in measuring the impact and effect of these integrated systems? How should
synergy between communication forms be considered and measured? In response to these
and other challenges, the remainder of this article is set out as follows: first, I identify five
cognate areas in need of well-designed future research. This is not to discount the many
other areas worthy of scholarly attention. However, I am aware of some promising
groundwork having already taken place in these five areas, and I therefore feel that they
can be realistically and systematically tackled in the short-to-medium term. The article
then goes on to expand on each of the five areas, detailing some of the foundational work
that has already taken place and signalling possible avenues for future research.
In conclusion, I ponder the theoretical implications of the research agenda and postulate
how a broader view of theory could in fact assist us in empirically tackling the research
challenges as they currently stand.
Towards an agenda for future research into IMC measurement and evaluation
To reiterate a point already made, this agenda is not exhaustive nor are the topics mutually
exclusive. While it is certainly ambitious, it is also not unrealistic. For the most part, a
promising foundation has already been laid and thus the path forward has been at least
partially paved. In no particular order, the five areas include:
(1) Better understanding of how consumers process marketing stimuli (singularly at
first, but ultimately, in concert) – drawing on insights from neural science.
(2) Better understanding of how (integrated) marketing communications stimuli
interact with one another. In other words, what (if any) mixed media synergies can
be realised and how?
104 M.T. Ewing
Downloadedby[FaculdadedeCienciasSociaiseHumanas]at08:3819January2015

4. (3) Better insights into how and why technology has empowered consumers and how
this asymmetry impacts on marketing communications planning and evaluation.
Specifically, we urgently need to understand the antecedents and consequences of
consumer-to-consumer communication, consumer-generated content, m- and
u-commerce and brand co-creation: and how this shift in communication power
and purpose fits into current/future IMC frameworks.
(4) Better understanding of the relationships between IMC stimuli and marketing
capabilities. In other words, it is not enough knowing what the Intel brand is worth
or some of the drivers of that brand value: but Intel (for example) ideally needs to
know what it can achieve (or not achieve) in the future based on its brand strength
today – and then it actually needs to achieve that potential. Or expressed
differently, Marcom budgeting and financial evaluation needs to shift from being
ex post to ex ante, because binoculars are potentially more useful to astute
managers than rear-view mirrors.
(5) Finally, better understanding of when, why and how to implement IMC. Assuming
that IMC is a good strategy, who should do it, when and how exactly?
In sum, the above cannot occur in an atheoretical or haphazard manner. I therefore
conclude with a discussion of the theoretical and methodological challenges that will need
to be overcome if real progress is to be made in these exigent but exciting endeavours.
Better understanding of how consumers process marketing communications stimuli
How exactly does advertising work? While the jury is still out on some levels, we certainly
know far more today than we did 10 or even five years ago. Vakratsas and Ambler’s (1999)
excellent meta-analysis and the recognition of Ehrenberg’s ‘weak theory’ (Ehrenberg
1974, 1997) in the USA (Tellis 2006) signal significant progress, particularly for
understanding how advertising works in more mature economies with experienced, media-
savvy consumers. That said, we have probably now learned close to as much as we are
going to from content-analyses, self-report measures/surveys and experiments with
undergraduates (the favourite tools of the university advertising researcher). If there is to
be a ‘Kuhnian-like’ breakthrough or dare I say, a ‘paradigm-shift’, it is likely to come via
the field of neuroscience, through the use of neuro-imaging technology to examine how
the brain processes advertising (Lee, Broderick, and Chamberlain 2007). This
methodological shift reflects the ongoing shift from rationality to affect. The gifted
practitioner Erik du Plessis (1995) was one of the first to recognise the potential in this
regard, albeit his early (award-winning) conference paper would not have been widely
read, his book (du Plessis 2005), published a decade later, has reached a far wider
international audience. There have also been a few recent articles in both the Journal of
Advertising Research and the International Journal of Advertising on this topic, and an
entire IJA special issue was published in 2008 (Vol. 27, no. 3).
Early empirical progress in this domain has been promising. Ambler has identified
three pathways for the transferral of advertising into long-term memory: advertising that
requires pure memory; memory in conjunction with emotion; and memory, emotion and
cognition (Ambler and Burne 1999; Ambler 2000; Ambler, Ioannides, and Rose 2000).
Parts of this approach, using standard neuropsychological testing methods (beta blockers
such as Propranolol), have been tested to understand how emotion affects recognition and
free-recall from long term memory (Ambler and Burne 1999). Emotionally based
advertisements are better recalled than cognitively based advertisements after a single
Journal of Marketing Communications 105
Downloadedby[FaculdadedeCienciasSociaiseHumanas]at08:3819January2015

5. presentation, and comparisons of brain activity during cognitive and emotional
advertisements showed differences in both area, and strength, of brain activation for
each type of advertising (Ambler et al. 2000). Additionally, Ambler’s work on brain
activity while making purchasing decisions shows familiarity is a good predictor of
purchasing choice (and speed of choice) in a simulated shopping environment where
participants make ‘virtual’ shopping choices (Ambler et al. 2004).
Brain imaging has also examined the encoding process from short- to long-term
memory. Rossiter and Silberstein’s (2001) examination of television advertisement
encoding found that left hemisphere response times were responsible for correct
recognition of previously presented advertisements (giving support to Ambler’s findings
for the activation of semantic regions in the left hemisphere when consumers compare
presented products to previously viewed advertisements).
The above studies indicate the involvement of neural components in processing
advertising and brands, yet further empirical work is needed to provide a cohesive and
systematic understanding of these processes (Plassmann et al. 2007). The potential for
expanding present knowledge about advertising processes is apparent, yet such
investigations must proceed ethically with due care. The Lancet Neurology (2004) has
already highlighted issues that future researchers need to consider when using
neuroscience to study advertising. Others highlight the need for careful, comprehensive
and responsible communication of research findings in this area, to avoid engendering
panic in the broader community about the use of neuroscience in advertising (Fins 2002;
Plassmann et al. 2007). While all of the neuroscience research thus far has focused on
advertising, the approach can, and should be, expanded to other more interactive media
such as the Internet, virtual worlds and computer games.
If neuroscience can provide the tools, perhaps psychology can provide a new
paradigmatic lens for this work. Bagozzi, Gopinath, and Nyer (1999) and du Plessis (2005)
note that the extant marketing (let alone economic) literature has grossly understated the
role and importance of emotions in consumer behaviour. I would even go so far as to
suggest that most of our more widely accepted marketing research methodologies suffer
from an overly cognitive bias and, as a consequence, we have become quite adept at
soliciting post-rationalised consumer responses. Customer satisfaction and intention to
purchase are classic examples of (over-researched) cognitive measures with negligible
predictive validity. If we are truly to raise the knowledge bar we need to begin tapping into
higher order emotions such as love, hate, joy, empathy, compassion, fear and integrating
these emotions with our understanding of communications effects. It is no longer sufficient
to think we know what consumers think they think about advertising.
Better understanding of how (integrated) marketing stimuli interact with one
another (i.e. mixed media synergy)
Marketing communications planning and results have historically been measured on a
medium-by-medium basis. One measure for advertising, another for publicity, still another
for sales promotion and so on, even though we know that ‘one plus one (can potentially)
equal three’. This dictum is often used to explain the concept of synergy to the uninitiated.
It also, to my mind, gets to the very core of IMC’s implied promise. Beyond the rhetoric,
for IMC to have street credibility and genuine commercial impact, it needs to make
business sense. For this to happen, a strategically selected combination of promotional
tools/media should ideally (and demonstrably) deliver a greater return (both in terms of
attitudinal and behavioural impact and in terms of return on investment (ROI)) than any
106 M.T. Ewing
Downloadedby[FaculdadedeCienciasSociaiseHumanas]at08:3819January2015

6. one of those tools used in isolation. All things being equal, and assuming some sound
media and strategic planning, the whole (integrated) campaign should be greater than the
sum of the individual parts. This is not to say that IMC is about saving money. It is
however potentially about making marketing expenditure work harder – which could even
entail spending a little more to make a lot more (i.e. reaping efficiencies). Moreover, the
relationship is probably not linear, but the returns should tend towards exponential. By
way of simple example, if $1m spent on advertising alone delivers x return, then $0.5m
spent on advertising, in combination with $0.3m spent on direct marketing and $0.2m
spent on PR might deliver 1.2x. But a $1.5m IMC budget ($0.8m on advertising; $0.4m on
direct, $0.3m on digital marketing and $0.1m on PR) might potentially deliver a 3x return.
Well – that’s the idea anyway. It is indeed an intuitively appealing notion, but does it have
empirical support? The first point worth making is to lament the sheer paucity of published
empirical work in this area. Ewing, du Plessis, and Foster (2001) have demonstrated a
significant cinema advertising/TV advertising synergy. In other words, using both media
in combination is considerably more effective than using either in isolation. Naik and
Raman (2003) have demonstrated a TV/print synergy, and concluded that this synergy can
be further maximised by spending more money on the ‘weaker’ medium. Similarly,
du Plessis (2005) has independently verified the TV/print synergy. In fact, for 17 target
campaigns he reports TV advertising recall among Sunday newspaper readers to be double
that of non-readers. So, from these three studies we can formulate two tentative empirical
generalisations: (1) a cinema/TV synergy exists; and (2) a print (newspaper)/TV synergy
exists. This provides a promising foundation, but we need considerably more published
and verifiable evidence. Not only do we need more ‘EmpGens’ on paired media synergies
(as above), but also on additional (i.e. more than two) media and also, on the interaction
effects among multiple, mixed media. This will no doubt require highly complex, and
indeed expensive (full and partial) factorial experimental designs (see Almquist and
Wyner 2001).
Internet-enabled mobile devices hold the short-term key to major breakthroughs in this
regard. They provide the ability to link empirically and independently print media with
advertising with search engines (e.g. Yellow Pages) with actual purchases: i.e. to link
individual media consumption with actual search and purchase behaviour. This previously
unheralded tracking and matching ability potentially elevates IMC measurement research
to a new level.
Better insights into the effects of technology-enabled consumer empowerment
I tend to think of Marcom’s evolution in terms of four periods or eras: (1) pre-WWII (i.e.
pre-Madison avenue/full-service agencies; pre-mass communication); (2) 1950 to 1990
(advertising/mass marketing’s ‘hey day’, primary focus on customer acquisition); (3) 1990
through to the early 2000s (shift in focus from one-to-many communications to one-to-
one, direct marketing renaissance, growing emphasis on customer retention in addition to
customer acquisition, relational databases, media fragmentation/proliferation, emergence
of interactive Internet technologies); and (4) the present (.2005) era, which could perhaps
be labelled ‘post Web 2.0 marketing’ for the time being (i.e. emergence of interactive
mobile technologies, online social networks, virtual worlds). IMC is very much a product
of the third era. The obvious question today relates to (re)defining the role, scope and
applicability (if any) of IMC in a post-Web 2.0 world. In the third era, firms (and their
Marcom agencies) still had a fair amount of power (albeit less than in the second era), but
they still attempted to control (or so they thought) brand meaning and the many (one-way)
Journal of Marketing Communications 107
Downloadedby[FaculdadedeCienciasSociaiseHumanas]at08:3819January2015

7. communications with consumers. By the latter stages of the twentieth century, Internet
technologies had empowered consumers on all levels. In this twenty-first century there is
every likelihood that consumers will have all the power: a complete role reversal from the
pre-1990s mass media era. Specifically, let us briefly consider five enablers-facilitators-
manifestations of consumer empowerment, namely: (1) mobile devices and potentially
ubiquitous wireless networks; (2) ‘viral’ (peer-to-peer, customer-to-customer) marketing;
(3) consumer-generated content (e.g. YouTube); (4) virtual worlds (e.g. Second Life); and
(5) co-created brand meaning (if effect, the sum total of (1) through (4) above).
Mobile technologies
Third and fourth generation integrated mobile devices represented a significant leap ahead of
desk-bound broadband Internet PCs or even subscription/digital TV. Not only will many
consumers have all the power and connectivity of powerful desktops quite literally in the
palm of their hands, but they will be able to communicate with friends and firms in real time
(at their leisure), play games, watch movies or live sport, search for products and services
and then actually order, buy and pay for those products or services – all with the same,
uniquely identifiable handheld device. Moreover, technological enhancements coupled with
ever more stringent data privacy legislation will empower consumers to filter out, screen and
indeed block unsolicited marketing communication – heralding the long-awaited coming of
age of permission-based marketing. This represents about as different a media landscape to
the pre-1990 (and even pre-2000) era as one could possibly imagine. Yet, most IMC writing
pre-dates this new communications landscape and we therefore appear to yet again be facing
John Philip Jones’ worst scholarly nightmare whereby the theoretical horse is trailing well
behind the commercial cart. In a rare exception to the well-worn path of academe following
industry, Watson et al. (2002) provide an insightful and at times even chilling glimpse into a
world wherein consumers’ limited capacity to process information (bounded rationality),
coupled with their desire/need to attenuate some information provide the contextual
backdrop for the use of ubiquitous networks to support personalised and uninterrupted
communications and transactions between a firm and its various stakeholders to provide a
level of value over, above and beyond traditional e- or even m-commerce. This entails all
consumer durable devices being networked, intelligence and information being widely
dispersed and readily accessible, as well as being customised to a person, device, context,
location, time and role. Moreover, they contend that all information will be synchronised in
real time, transparent to owner and always available. Needless to say, this brave new world
makes a mockery of the oft-cited cliche´ ‘information is power’. But where does it leave IMC
practitioners and scholars? Recent studies have suggested that no other form of commercial
communication shares the same essential elements with the mobile form, making it truly
unique and deserving of more rigorous research (Ta¨htinen and Salo 2008). I am not
convinced ‘we’ fully appreciate the full marketing ramifications of a mobile, permanently
connected, wireless world yet.
‘Viral’ marketing
The term ‘viral marketing’ appears to have first been coined by venture capitalist Steve
Jurvetson in 1996 to describe the marketing strategy of free e-mail service Hotmail (Kaikati
and Kaikati 2004). Terms such as ‘word-of-web’, ‘word-of-mouse’, ‘customer-to-customer’
(C2C) or‘peer-to-peer’ (P2P) communication and ‘buzz marketing’are now commonplace in
contemporary marketing parlance. Viral marketing broadly describes any strategy that
108 M.T. Ewing
Downloadedby[FaculdadedeCienciasSociaiseHumanas]at08:3819January2015

8. encourages individuals to propagate a message, thus creating the potential for exponential
growth in the message’s exposure and influence. Kaikati and Kaikati (2004) view it as, ‘word
of mouth via a digital platform . . . spreading the message via “word of mouse” and ensuring
that the receivers have the interest to pass along the message to their acquaintances’ (p. 9).
Viral approaches have numerous advantages over more traditional mass media. For example,
there is a natural selection process embedded in the way the message is propagated. This
reduces redundancy in the sense that communication is more targeted. Other advantages
include speedofdiffusionanda reducedlikelihoodforthe messagetobealteredbysenders(in
otherwords,ahighdegreeofmessageintegrity).And,ifthemessagehasanembeddedcall-to-
action, then the conversion rate (i.e. behavioural response) is potentially more quantifiable
than in other forms of mass communication. Viral communication also affords the marketer a
greater degree of creative licence through a message delivery medium that is more intimate
and personalised, thereby increasing the likelihood of reaching ‘hard-to-get’ audience
members.
Conventional wisdom holds that the viral marketing process is both random and
unmanageable. Australian researchers have been challenging this received wisdom in this
regard for the past five years (Stewart et al. 2004; Bampo et al. 2008). They have attempted to
deconstruct the viral process and investigate the formation of the activated digital network as
distinct from the underlying social network. Specifically, they have identified alternative
social network models to understand the mediating effects of the social structures of these
models on viral marketing campaign performance. They have also analysed an actual viral
marketing campaign and used the empirical data to develop and validate a computer
simulation model for viral marketing. They then conducted a number of simulation
experiments to predict the spread of a viral message within different types of social network
structures under different assumptions and scenarios. Their findings confirm that the social
structure of digital networks plays a critical role in the spread of a viral message. Managers
seeking to optimise campaign performance should give consideration to these findings before
designing and implementing viral marketing campaigns. They also demonstrate how a
simulationmodelcanbeusedtoquantifythe impactofcampaignmanagementinputsandhow
such organisational learning can support managerial decision making (Bampo et al. 2008).
In sum (and in contrast with much of the received wisdom), this work appears to
suggest that unlike word-of-mouth, ‘word-of-mouse’ (including future mobile derivations)
can in fact be measured, and therefore potentially managed.
Consumer-generated advertising
Berthon, Pitt, and Campbell (2008) recently published an engaging article that richly
describes the phenomenon whereby consumers are now generating, rather than merely
consuming, promotional advertising and then details the consequences of this trend for
marketers. Promotional advertising was traditionally generated by, or on behalf of, the firm
and then broadcast to relatively passive consumers. With the rise of digital media, the
Internet and inexpensive media software, considerable creative and distributive power has
been handed to the consumer; liberated from the exclusive control of the firm, ads now
express myriad different voices. Some ads are subversive, others laudatory, but the fact
remains that thefirmisnolonger inexclusivecontrolofthemessage. Using anumberof high
profile cases, their paper explores the motivations that drive consumers to create their own
ads and then develops a typology of the ads created. The paper then goes on to develop a
model for the various strategic stances that a firm can adopt in response to this phenomenon,
so that managers can anticipate and thus deal more effectively with some of the extreme
Journal of Marketing Communications 109
Downloadedby[FaculdadedeCienciasSociaiseHumanas]at08:3819January2015

9. consequences of liberated advertising. Needless to say, these recommended strategies will
need to be verified empirically. Indeed the brewing tug of war between so-called amateur
and professional content providers is far from over. Schau’s work on consumers’ identities
and the communication of those identities through associations with brands (Schau and
Gilly 2003) demonstrates the ‘consumer agency’ (Schau and Muniz 2002) that is emerging
and strengthening in cyberspace. Schau’s further work demonstrates the ‘vigilante’ style of
consumer-created communications,whereconsumersarenolonger‘co-creating’,butsolely
creating brand communications (Muniz and Schau 2007). Professional content companies
are aggressively acquiring user-generated sites (News Corp owns MySpace, AOL owns
Bebo and the New York Times owns About.com and Blogrunner). However, Wharton
experts such as Fader, Werbach, Waldfogel, and Turow see the amateur vs professional
showdown as a false dichotomy and suggest that the focus should shift to understanding
future business models in this space (Knowledge@Wharton 2008). At present, it is still
unclear what content consumers will be willing to pay for, regardless of how good it is.
Empowered consumers generating and sharing their own promotional advertising certainly
does not fit into any current model of IMC that I am aware of and thus raises a raft of research
questions – some of which will hopefully be addressed in a forthcoming Marketing Science
special issue (Fader and Winer 2009) on user-generated content.
Virtual worlds
Virtual worlds are becoming increasingly sophisticated, enabling organisations and
individuals to ‘step into the Internet’. A virtual world is a computer-based simulated
environment where individuals assume an identity as an avatar (Jarvenpaa et al. 2008).
Virtual worlds are common in multiplayer online games, virtual environments (such as
Second Life) and role-playing games (such as Lineage). Due to increasing broadband
Internet access, virtual worlds are rapidly emerging as an alternative means to the real world
for communicating, collaborating and organising economic activity (Swaminathan 2007).
In Second Life for example, dozens of companies conduct business and over 6.5 million
members are participating in this virtual landscape (Swaminathan 2007). Virtual worlds
have risen so quickly that there has been limited time to examine impacts on the workplace.
A critical questionfor organisations and investors burned bythe dotcom era is ‘are we seeing
a new Internet revolution or is this simply another bubble of irrational exuberance?’
Fundamental research questionsinclude: what new business models and strategies are likely
to thrive in virtual worlds (or not)? Do virtual worlds represent a disruptive innovation for
organisations, or just an additional channel to support electronic commerce and
communication? What products and services translate effectively to virtual worlds? What
are the implications for image, branding and advertising, especially in the areas of product
and concept development and testing in virtual worlds? What are the dynamics underlying
consumer behaviour and consumer acceptance in virtual worlds? How do organisational
boundaries blurthrough customer integration and collaboration in virtual worlds? How/why
do communities develop in virtual worlds and what are their dynamics? Where could we see
convergence between real and virtual worlds? I look forward to the MIS Quarterly special
issue on virtual worlds to be guest edited by Jarvenpaa, Leidner, Teigland, and Wasko.
Co-created brand meaning
What are the implications of the above for brand/marketing managers? Brands are created
primarily through various forms of communication, which can include any vehicle,
strategy or technique that helps transfer meaning from one person to another or from a
110 M.T. Ewing
Downloadedby[FaculdadedeCienciasSociaiseHumanas]at08:3819January2015

10. product to a customer (Schultz and Barnes 1999). Early conceptualisation of ‘successful’
brand management revolved around operationalising a selected brand meaning and
reinforcing that meaning over time (Gardner and Levy 1955). This view stems from the
belief that a consumer’s learning process is facilitated when all communications
surrounding a brand, whether controlled by a sponsor or not, deliver a clear and consistent
message regarding a brand’s identity and meaning (Urde 1994). From this perspective,
brand management can be viewed as the process of creating, co-ordinating and monitoring
interactions that occur between an organisation and its customers (Schultz and Barnes
1999), such that there is consistency between the organisation’s vision and customers’
beliefs about a brand.
However, in today’s so-called ‘post-modern era’, it has become increasingly evident
that brand meaning is not controlled by managers alone, but is instead co-created through
ongoing interactions among brand users (Cova and Cova 1997). Consumers engage in a
dialogue with not only the organisation but also other consumers and brand users to co-
create mutually beneficial and loyalty-sustaining meaning. However, the process of brand
meaning co-creation does entail some risks (Holt 2002; Thompson, Rindfleisch, and Arsel
2006). Communicative or rich environments such as the Internet accentuate the
complexity of brand meanings and emphasise the co-invention of brand interpretations
(de Chernatony 2001). Thus, increasing connectivity makes it more important to
understand the associations and meanings ascribed to a brand by consumers (Jevons,
Gabbott, and de Chernatony 2005).
Consumers also derive different meanings from what a sponsor may have intended.
Further, different consumers construct multiple meanings depending on their personal
background, social variables, context of consumption and frames of reference (Mick and
Buhl 1992; Ritson and Elliott 1999; Kates and Goh 2003). In response, marketers have
begun to acknowledge and appreciate the benefits of organisations and customers
co-creating value (Vargo and Lusch 2004). Consumers today have become active
participants in the co-creation of brand meaning. They do not simply record the world, but
create it, ‘mixing in cultural and individual expectations as they construct their personal
narratives’ (Escalas 2004, 169). One might even view consumers as equity partners in the
brand (Blackston 2000).
Better understanding of the relationship between marketing/IMC stimuli and
marketing capability
Tim Ambler (Ambler et al. 2002) argues that a ‘broad holistic view’ is important when
evaluating how marketing activities create value for a firm. Indeed, the inability of
marketers to demonstrate how expenditure in marketing adds to shareholder value is seen
as an undermining of marketers (Rust et al. 2004). By examining the brand, customer and
capability dimensions of the firm’s intangible assets, the firm can ascertain where the
greatest amount of growth can occur, and where the greatest amount of resources should
be expended (Ambler et al. 2002).
Capabilities are sometimes referred to as the distinction between ‘knowing’ and
‘knowledge’ (Ryle 1949; Polanyi 1967); or as Schoen (1983) states: ‘our knowing is in our
action’ (p. 49). What is relevant in Schoen’s observation is the essential role of human
agency in knowledgeable performance (Orlikowski 2002). At the core of the approach is
the theoretical question: ‘Should the valuation of assets be based on what one has or what
one can do?’ If the answer is the latter, then IMC activities would be seen as what an
organisation does to enhance its brand equity, and ultimately its economic value. At this
Journal of Marketing Communications 111
Downloadedby[FaculdadedeCienciasSociaiseHumanas]at08:3819January2015

11. point it is important to contrast brand equity, brand capability and brand capability value.
Brand equity is the asset (i.e. ‘what one has’), brand capability is what can be achieved (or
‘what one can do’) when tangible and intangible assets are combined in a contextual
situation. Brand capability value (BCV) is the economic value of the capability.
Ratnatunga and Ewing (2005) demonstrate how BCVs can be derived for budgeting and
valuation purposes using a multivariate model incorporating all of the IMC variables that
are the preconditions required for brand capability enhancement. They then extend this
framework by developing a more robust multivariate model and apply it within a blue chip
multinational (Ratnatunga and Ewing 2009). In sum, the BCV measure offers a pragmatic
approach to enhancing intangible capability assets within an organisation by utilising the
Expense Leveraged Value Indexes (ELVI) to calculate the values of these assets. Most
brand measurement systems are either survey-based or largely based on ex-post historical
values. Their refined model (Ratnatunga and Ewing 2009) incorporates specified brand
strength variables (as antecedents) for brand strength capability enhancement and thereby
provides an approach for obtaining BCVs that can be applied for budgeting and valuation
purposes. The model is still very much a work-in-progress, but hopefully the underlying
theoretical and methodological rigour will provide a basis for organisation-specific
refinement and application. Their approach attempts to provide a structure for managers to
calculate the value of their brands in order to invest successfully in the appropriate brand-
building endeavours. By applying a method that integrates the intangible and tangible
components of a brand, managers have a more realistic tool to apply to the valuation of
their brands. Additionally, the incorporation of multivariate analysis provides a more
robust model for managers to calculate, and justify, their brand budgeting needs and
expenditure. This functionality of the model allows managers to present clearer, and
statistically supported, arguments to their organisation when justifying brand budget
expenditures and facilitates the calculation of targeted, and more accurate, future
investments in the organisation’s brands.
Better understanding of why, how and when to implement and measure IMC
Cornell economist Maureen O’Hara (1999) once commented that we know how the stock
market works in practice, but not in theory. Sadly, I am not convinced we can say the same
about IMC. Integration is an intuitively appealing concept that is still not universally well
understood nor implemented. In fact, I am constantly amazed at how few marketing
communications practitioners are even aware of the acronym. Of course, this could also
mean that some are doing ‘it’, without consciously realising what exactly ‘it’ is that they
are doing. IMC has always been an intuitively easy concept to both understand and teach.
In other words, we have a fairly good idea of how it could work in theory, but not
necessarily in practice. Schultz and Kitchen (2000) see IMC as being in the ‘pre-paradigm’
period. As such, the concept needs further examination and further querying. For example,
who is currently adopting IMC? Is Jones’ (1999) assertion that IMC will be most widely
adopted by those organisations that face the greatest dislocations unless they are able to
change correct? How have IMC programmes developed? Has IMC evolution to date
simply been traditional mass media advertising changing, adjusting and refining as a result
of new technology – or is there substantially more to it than that? Is IMC just a hollow
management fad (Cornelissen and Lock 2000) or does it have substance and credibility as
both a management philosophy and practice? How have firms restructured to support IMC?
Do matrix approaches work in practice? How have Marcom agencies responded? Is the
one-stop-shop the way of the future, or do specialists still have a role to play?
112 M.T. Ewing
Downloadedby[FaculdadedeCienciasSociaiseHumanas]at08:3819January2015

12. We urgently need more descriptive, prescriptive and explanatory research into IMC
implementation. More research is needed to delineate firm-specific aspects relating to
IMC. What are the best practices? Exactly who is doing what, why and how well? What
are the commonly agreed upon critical success factors and barriers to successful
implementation? Is IMC amenable to balanced scorecard-type frameworks?
While it is all very well to measure the success of IMC through achievement at the
consumer end, the value of examining the ‘process’ by which IMC is created and managed
within the firm is often marginalised. Pickton and Broderick (2005) highlight some of the
more relevant process areas in IMC, which, if not attended to, can become a barrier to the
successful execution of IMC within a firm. There are a raft of these process ‘dimensions’,
including promotional marketing mix integration, creative integration, intra- and inter-
organisational integration, information and database systems, integration of communi-
cations targeted towards internal and external audiences, integration of corporate and
‘unitised’ communications and geographical integration (Pickton and Broderick 2005).
Theory-building implications
For all of the above to take place, we will need a stronger theoretical base for IMC – and
that implies more, better and bolder empirical research. One of the reasons why IMC could
still lack theoretical credibility in certain quarters is because of the marketing discipline’s
traditionally narrow view of theory: that is, both to explain and predict a phenomenon (e.g.
Hunt 2002). In principle, I subscribe to and indeed aspire to the ‘explain and predict’ goal,
and I am equally sympathetic towards continued application of the scientific method in
marketing. However, on a practical and pragmatic level, I see the ‘explain and predict’
definition as the apex of a theory-building hierarchy and thereby also acknowledge other
forms of contributions to theory – especially in an applied profession like marketing.
Indeed, I suspect that narrow Huntian view underpins Pitt et al.’s (2005) ‘disappointing’
findings that most articles in the three major advertising journals are not ‘theory-driven’.
A taxonomy recently proposed by Gregor (2006) distinguishes between five interrelated
types of theory: (1) theory for analysing; (2) theory for explaining; (3) theory for
predicting; (4) theory for explaining and predicting; and (5) theory for design and action.
Indeed, IMC can benefit from all five types rather than aspiring only to type (4).
The distinguishing attribute of theories for design and action is that they focus on ‘how
to do something’ (i.e. create brand associations in the consumer’s memory) and give
explicit prescriptions (e.g. methods, techniques, principles of form and function) for
constructing an artefact (i.e. a campaign). What constitutes a contribution to knowledge
with theory of this type, you might ask? Some criteria include utility to a community of
users (agencies, clients), the novelty of the artefact and the persuasiveness of claims that it
is effective. Models and methods can be evaluated for completeness, simplicity,
consistency, ease of use and the quality of results obtained through use of the method
(Gregor 2006).
On the methodological front, Lehmann’s (1999) suggestions largely support the
argument I have put forward above and I will therefore rehearse them rather than attempt
to reinvent the wheel. Specifically, he calls for good not perfect studies, more meta-
analytic work, decreased emphasis on statistical proof and more emphasis on beta
co-efficients, elasticities and Bayesian updating. In addition to calling for method
pluralism, he also challenges qualitative researchers to demonstrate rather than argue for
contribution, to focus on points of view rather than point of view and on testable
propositions rather than thick descriptions. I for one have been more impressed by some of
Journal of Marketing Communications 113
Downloadedby[FaculdadedeCienciasSociaiseHumanas]at08:3819January2015

13. the qualitative work reported in MIS Quarterly, Academy of Management Review and
Administrative Sciences Quarterly than I have been with (some) articles published in some
marketing journals. For example, Sarker and Lee’s (2003) longitudinal positive case study
method for examining enterprise resource planning (ERP) implementation could easily be
adapted to an IMC context. This is the kind of qualitative explanatory (type 2) research
IMC needs more of. Along with more prescriptive research (type 5), a better foundation
will be built for ‘explain and predict’ studies (i.e. type 4 research).
Conclusions
The future of measurement in IMC looks to be rife with avenues and opportunities for
academics and practitioners to assess how best to communicate with customers in the new
era of consumer-empowered, technology-enabled marketing. Measurement in marketing
has almost exhausted the traditional forms of assessing consumer characteristics and
consumer qualities. New methodologies will need to be harnessed. While this paper has
presented five areas for consideration in the challenges that lie ahead for integrated
marketing communications, this list does not purport to be comprehensive or exhaustive.
To stay contemporary with the changing marketing environment, measures of IMC will
need to embrace emerging technologies, and comprehend the emerging consumer-driven
uses of those technologies, in order to provide meaningful assessments. Additionally, this
will require increasingly more sophisticated understandings of the links between market
capabilities and marketing/IMC stimuli.
All these emerging areas are challenges for marketing, and the measurement of IMC, but
there are immediate research strategies to hand and researchers who are developing
applicable models and methodologies to undertake further research in these areas. In
practical terms, this translates to developing rigorous theoretical underpinnings to IMC,
and, in doing so, engaging in strong and insightful empirical research. Consideration should
also be given to utilising tools from other disciplines, such as neuroscience, to provide the
data that cannot be accessed through traditional marketing measurement strategies.
Using the previous knowledge gathered from the more traditional forms of marketing
measurement as a strong basis for future research, academics and practitioners can more
than adequately adapt to the emerging era of marketing. The myriad opportunities for the
development of measurement in marketing, and in IMC in particular, will ensure that
future research in this area will be both interesting and provocative.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Tim Ambler, Leyland Pitt, Erik du Plessis and two anonymous reviewers for
their useful comments on an earlier draft. I also thank my research assistant, Lydia Windisch, for her
help with this manuscript. Despite this generous support, any mistakes or misrepresentations are
mine alone.
Notes on contributor
Michael T. Ewing is Professor and Head of the Department of Marketing in the Faculty of Business
& Economics, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. He has published more than 80 articles in
refereed journals, such as Information Systems Research, the Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, the Journal of Advertising Research, the Journal of Advertising, the Journal of Business
Research, Business Horizons, Industrial Marketing Management, the European Journal of
Marketing and the Journal of Small Business Management. He serves on the editorial boards of the
Journal of Service Research, the Journal of Business Research, the International Journal of
114 M.T. Ewing
Downloadedby[FaculdadedeCienciasSociaiseHumanas]at08:3819January2015

14. Advertising and Industrial Marketing Management and is a member of the Board of Governors of the
Academy of Marketing Science.
References
Almquist, E., and G. Wyner. 2001. Boost your marketing ROI with experimental design. Harvard
Business Review 79, no. 9: 135–41.
Ambler, T. 2000. Persuasion, pride and prejudice: How ads work. International Journal of
Advertising. 19, no. 3: 299–315.
Ambler, T., C.B. Bhattacharya, J. Edell, K.L. Keller, K.N. Lemon, and V. Mittal. 2002. Relating
brand and customer perspectives on marketing management. Journal of Service Research 5,
no. 1: 13–25.
Ambler, T., S. Braeutigam, J. Stins, S. Rose, and S. Swithenby. 2004. Salience and choice: Neural
correlates of shopping decisions. Psychology & Marketing 21, no. 4: 247–61.
Ambler, T., and T. Burne. 1999. The impact of affect on memory of advertising. Journal of
Advertising Research 35, no. 2: 25–34.
Ambler, T., A. Ioannides, and S. Rose. 2000. Brands on the brain: Neuro-images of advertising.
Business Strategy Review 11, no. 3: 17–30.
Bagozzi, R.P., M. Gopinath, and P.U. Nyer. 1999. The role of emotions in marketing. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 27, no. 2: 184–206.
Baker, S. and H. Mitchell. 2000. Integrated marketing communication: Implications for managers.
European Society for Opinion and Marketing Research November: 239–41.
Bampo, M., M. Ewing, D. Mather, D. Stewart, and M. Wallace. 2008. The effects of the social
structure of digital networks on viral marketing performance. Information Systems Research 19,
no. 3: 273–90.
Berthon, P.R., L.F. Pitt, and C. Campbell. 2008. Ad lib: When customers create the ad. California
Management Review (Summer) 50, no. 4: 6–30.
Blackston, M. 2000. Observations: Building brand equity by managing the brand’s relationships.
Journal of Advertising Research 40, no. 6: 101–5.
Cornelissen, J. 2000. ‘Integration’ in communication management: Conceptual and methodological
consideration. Journal of Marketing Management 16, no. 6: 597–606.
Cornelissen, J.P., and A.R. Lock. 2000. Theoretical concept or management fashion? Examining the
significance of IMC. Journal of Advertising Research 40, no. 5: 7–15.
Cova, B., and V. Cova. 1997. The tribalization of society and its impact on the conduct of marketing.
European Journal of Marketing 36, nos. 5–6: 595–620.
de Chernatony, L. 2001. Succeeding with brands on the Internet. Journal of Brand Management 8,
no. 3: 178–86.
du Plessis, E. 1995. How advertising is processed – from the perspective of artificial intelligence.
Paper presented at the 17th South African Marketing Research Association convention,
September 3–6, in Swaziland.
du Plessis, E. 2005. The advertised mind: Ground-breaking insights into how our brains respond to
advertising. London: Kogan Page.
Eagle, L., and P. Kitchen. 2000. Building brands or bolstering egos? A comparative review of the
impact and measurement of advertising on brand equity. Journal of Marketing Communications
6: 91–106.
Ehrenberg, A. 1974. Repetitive advertising and the consumer. Journal of Advertising Research 14:
25–34.
Ehrenberg, A. 1997. In search of holy grails: Two comments. Journal of Advertising Research 37,
no. 1: 9–12.
Escalas, J.E. 2004. Narrative processing: Building consumer connections to brands. Journal of
Consumer Psychology 14, nos. 1–2: 168–80.
Ewing, M.T., E. du Plessis, and C. Foster. 2001. Cinema advertising reconsidered. Journal of
Advertising Research 41, no. 1: 78–85.
Fader, P.S., and R.S. Winer. 2009. Marketing science call for papers. Marketing Science special
issue: User-generate content (UCG). Forthcoming.
Fins, J.J. 2002. The ethical limits of neuroscience. The Lancet Neurology 1: 213.
Gardner, B.B., and S.J. Levy. 1955. The product and the brand. Harvard Business Review 33,
March–April: 33–9.
Journal of Marketing Communications 115
Downloadedby[FaculdadedeCienciasSociaiseHumanas]at08:3819January2015

15. Gregor, S. 2006. The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly 30, no. 3: 611–42.
Holt, D.B. 2002. Why do brands cause trouble? A dialectical theory of consumer culture and
branding. Journal of Consumer Research 29, June: 70–90.
Hunt, S.D. 2002. Special symposium on Shelby D. Hunt’s ‘A general theory of competition:
Resources, competencies, productivity, and economic growth’, part 3. Journal of Marketing
Management 18, nos. 1–2: 239–47.
Jarvenpaa, S., D. Leidner, R. Teigland, and M. Wasko. 2008. MIS quarterly call for papers. MISQ
special issue: New ventures in virtual worlds. http://www.misq.org/BulletinBoard/
NewVentures.pdf (accessed September 17, 2008).
Jevons, C., M. Gabbott, and L. de Chernatony. 2005. Customer and brand manager perspectives on
brand relationships: A conceptual framework. Journal of Product & Brand Management 14,
no. 5: 300–9.
Jones, J.P. 1999. The advertising business. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kaikati, A.M., and J.G. Kaikati. 2004. Stealth marketing: How to reach consumers surreptitiously.
California Management Review 46, Summer: 6–22.
Kates, S.M., and C. Goh. 2003. Brand morphing. Journal of Advertising 32, no. 1: 59–68.
Knowledge@Wharton. 2008. The experts vs. the amateurs: A tug of war over the future of media. In
Knowledge@Wharton: The Wharton School. http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.
cfm?articleid=1921 (accessed November 15, 2008).
Lee, N., A.J. Broderick, and L. Chamberlain. 2007. What is ‘Neuromarketing’? A discussion and
agenda for future research. International Journal of Psychophysiology 63, no. 2: 199–204.
Lehmann, D.R. 1999. Consumer behavior and y2k. Journal of Marketing 63: 14–18.
Low, G.S. 2000. Correlates of integrated marketing communications. Journal of Advertising
Research 40, no. 3: 27–39.
Mick, D.G., and C. Buhl. 1992. A meaning-based model of advertising experiences. Journal of
Consumer Research 19, no. 3: 317–38.
Muniz, A.M., and H.J. Schau. 2007. Vigilante marketing and consumer-created communications.
Journal of Advertising 36, no. 3: 35–50.
Naik, P.A. and K. Raman. 2003. Understanding the impact of synergy in multimedia
communications. Journal of Marketing Research 40, no. 4: 375–88.
O’Hara, M. 1999. Making market microstructure matter. Financial Management 28, no. 2: 83–90.
Orlikowski, W.J. 2002. Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed
organizing. Organization Science 13, no. 3: 249–73.
Pickton, D., and A. Broderick. 2005. Integrated marketing communications. Essex: Pearson
Education.
Pitt, L.F., P. Berthon, A. Caruana, and J.-P. Berthon. 2005. The state of theory in three premier
advertising journals: A research note. International Journal of Advertising 24, no. 2: 241–9.
Plassmann, H., J. O’Doherty, and A. Rangel. 2007. Orbitofrontal cortex encodes willingness to pay
in everyday economic transactions. Journal of Neuroscience 27: 9984–88.
Polanyi, M. 1967. The tacit dimension. New York: Doubleday.
Ratnatunga, J., and M.T. Ewing. 2005. The brand capability value of integrated marketing
communication. Journal of Advertising 34, no. 4: 25–40.
Ratnatunga, J., and M.T. Ewing. 2009. An ex-ante approach to brand capability valuation. Journal of
Business Research 63, no. 3: 323–31.
Ritson, M., and R. Elliott. 1999. The social uses of advertising: An ethnographic study of adolescent
advertising audiences. Journal of Consumer Research 26, no. 3: 260–77.
Rossiter, J.R. and R.B. Silberstein. 2001. Brain-imaging detection of visual scene encoding in long-
term memory for TV commercials. Journal of Advertising Research 41, no. 2: 13–21.
Rust, R.T., T. Ambler, G.S. Carpenter, V. Kumar, and R.K. Srivastava. 2004. Measuring marketing
productivity: Current knowledge and future directions. Journal of Marketing 68, no. 4: 76–89.
Ryle, G. 1949. The concept of mind. London: Hutcheson.
Sarker, S., and A.S. Lee. 2003. Using a case study to test the role of three key social enablers in ERP
implementation. Information & Management 40, no. 8: 813–29.
Schau, H.J., and M.C. Gilly. 2003. We are what we post? Self-presentation in personal web space.
Journal of Consumer Research 30, no. 3: 385–404.
Schau, H.J., and A.M. Muniz Jr. 2002. Brand communities and personal identities: Negotiations in
cyberspace. Advances in Consumer Research 29, no. 1: 344–9.
Schoen, D. 1983. The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
116 M.T. Ewing
Downloadedby[FaculdadedeCienciasSociaiseHumanas]at08:3819January2015

16. Schultz, D.E., and B.E. Barnes. 1999. Strategic brand communication campaigns. Lincolnwood, IL:
NTC Business Books.
Schultz, D.E., and P.J. Kitchen. 2000. A response to ‘Theoretical concept or management fashion?’
Journal of Advertising Research 40, no. 5: 17–21.
Stewart, D., M. Ewing, and D. Mather. 2004. e-Audience estimation: Modelling the spread of viral
advertising using branching theory. Institute for Operations Research and the Management
Sciences Annual Meeting, October 24–27, Denver, USA.
Swaminathan, K.S. 2007. Virtual worlds, real business? In Outlook. http://www.accenture.com/
Global/Research_and_Insights/Outlook/By_Issue/Y2007/VirtualWorldsRealBusiness.htm
(accessed September 20, 2008).
Ta¨htinen, J., and J. Salo. 2008. Call for papers special issue: Mobile advertising and communication.
International Journal of Internet Marketing and Advertising (IJIMA). http://www.inderscience.
com/browse/callpaper.php?callID=820 (accessed September 30, 2008).
Tellis, G.J. 2006. Effective advertising: Understanding when, how and why advertising works.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
The Lancet Neurology. 2004. Editorial. Volume 3, no. 2.
Thompson, C.J., A. Rindfleisch, and Z. Arsel. 2006. Emotional branding and the strategic value of
the doppelga¨nger brand image. Journal of Marketing 70, no. 1: 50–64.
Urde, M. 1994. Brand orientation – a strategy for survival. Journal of Consumer Marketing 11, no. 3:
18–32.
Vakratsas, D. and T. Ambler. 1999. How advertising works: What do we really know? The Journal
of Marketing 63, no. 1: 26–43.
Vargo, S.L., and R.F. Lusch. 2004. Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of
Marketing 68, no. 1: 1–17.
Wang, P. 1994. Measuring ROI. In Integrated Marketing Communications Symposium, ed. R. Kaatz,
32–44. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Business Books.
Watson, R.T., L.F. Pitt, P. Berthon, and G.M. Zinkhan. 2002. U-commerce: Expanding the universe
of marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 30, no. 4: 333–47.
Journal of Marketing Communications 117
Downloadedby[FaculdadedeCienciasSociaiseHumanas]at08:3819January2015