It must be remembered that advertising does not exist in isolation from the other tools of marketing communications.

A significant debate over recent years has been the significance of ensuring the integration of these tools of marketing communications. (Yeshin, 2006) Critically discuss the above statement on the subject of IMC (Integrated Marketing Communications) in relation to advertising strategy and planning in the UK. K0917526

Introduction There has been considerable debate on the subject of Integrated marketing communications (IMC) by both academics & practitioners. Some of the issues that arise on the subject are what is IMC, how does it work, who is responsible for it, how it should be measured and whether the concept is even new in the first place. Unsurprisingly, an agreement is yet to be reached on the aforementioned questions. The objective of this paper is to review the conceptual framework of IMC and analyse its significance. Overview of IMC The initial research on the concept of IMC began in the early 1990s and has attracted increasing widespread attention amongst academics & practitioners. There are many reasons encouraging the growth of IMC and is largely as a result of changes in the external environment. This is due in part to the growing numbers of alternative communication media and promotional tools available to marketers and to the increasing fragmentation of markets (Stewart 1996). Mass media usually focused on the creation of a single message to its audience. However, audiences are shrinking which means in many situations a single audience is no longer economically viable (Fill 2009). Technology is driving the need and demand for integration (Shultz 1996). It is argued the days of selling mass-produced goods to a mass market through mass media are largely over. Advertising as we know it is no longer able to keep up to the task on its own. It will need to learn new ways of increasing customer interaction and working outside the broadcast media (Smith & Taylor 2004). Clients have begun to re-orient their communications away from mass media approaches to increased level of interaction with customers; the structural inadequacies of the marketing communication industry have served to constrain them. IMC has emerged partially as a reaction to this structural inadequacy. This trend away from traditional communication strategies based on mass communication has played a part in the development of IMC (Fill 2009). One of the principle benefits derived from integrated marketing communications is synergy. By bringing together the various facets of the marketing communications in a mutually supportive way enhances the resulting whole (Pickton & Broderick 2005). Discussion One of the main discussions that arise on the subject of IMC is the definition of what Integrated marketing communications is. The concept still lacks a clear and consistent definition and is one of the many reasons why IMC is criticized. Various definitions have stressed IMC as being a process but differ on how the aim is achieved. The early definitions lay emphasis on the operational duty of integrating all marketing communication activities. IMC initially emerged as a new way of seeing marketing communication activities as one, one voice, one look which some say is merely an orchestration of tactical promotional mix elements (Eagle, Kitchen & Bulmer 2007). Gradually, the concept broadened to be more audience-driven and customer focused, instead of the old myopic mind-set of traditional marketing communication approaches. Thorson and Moore (1996) mention one of the first

definitions of IMC came from the American Association of Advertising Agencies in 1989 as being A concept of marketing communications planning that recognizes the added value of a comprehensive plan that evaluates the strategic roles of a variety of communication disciplines generel advertising, direct response, sales promotion, public relations and combines these disciplines to provide clarity, consistency, and maximum communication impact.(Caywood et al., 1991). This definition showed a lack of customer orientation and represented IMC as merely being a simple task of combining elements of the communication mix to deliver a consistent message. Over the past decades many scholars contributed to the definition to explain what IMC is. A recent revised definition was proposed by Kilatcho (2008) as an audience-driven business process of strategically managing stakeholder, content, channels and results of brand communication programs. This definition established IMC as being a business process illustrating it as being an organisational task. Cornelissen and Lock (2000) claims the theoretical concept of IMC is ambiguous and this clear ambiguity has allowed for various interpretations and the loose use of the term has allowed researchers to choose whichever conceptualization best fits their research agendas at any given time. As a result, definitions and measurement scales have been peculiar to individual research studies. In reviewing the literature virtually every article or study on the subject offers us different views and explanations as to what the concept means or rather, more accurately what it means to the author concerned which suggests Cornelissens statement may be slightly realistic. Cornelissen & Lock continue stating unless a widespread belief in constructs is arrived then the theoretical concept of IMC remains on shaky ground. It is often debated on whether the concept of Integrated marketing communications is a new approach or merely a fancy term used to describe a change in operations implemented by a business. Hutton (1996) states integrated marketing communications is not new. It has in fact, been practiced by good marketing communicators for decades, if not centuries. It is mentioned in Copley (2004) Integrated marketing and integrated marketing communications are nothing new, since integration has been around for years with good practitioners. He describes a simplistic view of how IMC works is communication elements working together with a unified message where below-the-line activity supports abovethe-line activity and vice versa. There are numerous claims of IMC practice but these are little more than coordinated promotional mix activities using themed messages (Fill 2009, p257). Cornelissen & Lock (2008) argues the blending of activities, is nothing new and the concept of IMC is merely a management fad. Luck & Moffatt (2009)refer to Spotts et al (1998) arguing IMC was developed as an opportunistic move and a marketplace survival strategy conjured up by advertising agencies in response to an industry shifting towards marketing communication and away from advertising. Hartley & Pickton (1998) also claim that integrated marketing communications is not, in reality, a new concept; rather, it is an old idea which has rarely, if ever, been realized. It was held by Hutton (1996) that the "debate" about whether there should be IMC is largely a false issue, given that few scholars or practitioners would argue for nonintegrated communication but that all elements of marketing communications should work together and that organizations should use all appropriate means of marketing communication at their disposal.

One of the arguments raised by advocates of IMC is that the concept is still in its developmental stage. Kitchen, Kim and Shultz (2008) argue IMC is still in academic and professional development and change is never easy. Shultz & Patti (2009) state there is a maturity pattern in the evolution of IMC which is similar to that of other marketing management frameworks. Kitchen & Shultz (1998) indicates IMC is a new approach to marketing communications planning, which is driven by advancement in technology and is still an emerging discipline. He described it like a transition between the old historical product-driven outbound marketing systems versus the new information-driven interactive consumer focused marketplaces. Yet, In spite of the continuing theoretical confusion, a large numbers of agencies and marketing organizations continue to deploy integrated marketing communication programs (Kitchen, Kim and Shultz 2008). In their study Kitchen & Shultz (1998) found 100% of respondents agreed that companies should be integrated in terms of communication, it is a well-accepted concept and area of interest to agencies. In the same study he also found client budgets devoted to IMC programs was 42% and agencies are spending 25% more of their time on integrated programs. Kitchen & Shultz (1998) argues from this perspective IMC is not a management fad. In a later study by Kitchen, Kim and Shultz (2008) tested agencies in three different countries that have implemented IMC and contend such evidence is further proof that IMC is not merely a management fashion. Eagle, Kitchen & Bulmer (2008) concluded in their research that IMC has evolved rapidly in the UK and in New Zealand ad agencies, clients want it and advertising agencies are delivering it. Respondents indicate that IMC is seen as much more than merely coordinating advertising and public relations. Another controversial aspect regarding the topic of IMC is how it is implemented. Many of the studies and literature seem to describe the theory on how agencies were doing it, and how all departments and external agencies must work together in order to make integration happen. However, the idea does not seem to have a structural methodology as to how it should be implemented. Duncan (1993) described the theory of an IMC program is that it has one basic communications strategy for each major target audience. This strategy is then used as the basis for executing each communications function (advertising, PR, sales promotion, etc) throughout a variety of communications channels. Cornelissen and Lock (2000) notes much work on IMC is rather prescriptive and does not take into account how marketing communications is actually managed across companies. Therefore, caution should be taken in generalizing the results. It is said that IMC a broad theoretical concept which manifests in a variety of ways both in terms of how it is studied by academics and how it is applied by managers and therefore it must be applied on a case by case basis (Gould 2000). A significant challenge facing both academics and practitioners of IMC is measurement. Amid almost all reviewed literature the absence of measurement or evaluation of outcomes has been emphasised (see Kitchen 1998, Eagle, Kitchen and Bulmer 2007; Kim & Shultz 2008). There is yet an agreed method or approach on how the measure IMC activities. However, there have been attempts by some authors and have proposed approaches as to measuring the effectiveness.

Kitchen, Brignell & Li (2004) cites Senemik (2002) who said one approach is to merely take on the measurement of each of the promotional tools used in a campaign, another approach is to use single-source tracking measures, and the third alternative is to measure media exposures, product (brand) impressions, and personal contacts (p. 29). Semenik (2002) also acknowledged measuring the complex interaction of all the promotional mix elements is very, very complicated and may be beyond the methodological tools available at this time. (p. 545). It is argued by some authors the fact that no clear proposal of measurement or evaluation has been developed weakens conceptual application of IMC (Kitchen & Shultz 1998). Kitchen & Shultz (1998) also suggests If the theoretical base can be developed, which depends to a great extent on definitional agreement, then the issue of measurement should be possible and practical. Although, there are many disagreements on IMC, the major tenets and benefits, has gained academic and practitioner acceptance throughout many parts of the world. Eagle, Kitchen & Bulmer (2008) argue that around the edges (i.e. of PR, of turf battles, of a stages theory of IMC etc.) there will always be healthy disagreement, conjecture, and criticism. Conclusion The arguments presented in this paper show both sides of the controversial topic of IMC which has received widespread attention both positive and negative. In addition to being popular it is recognised by many market leading theorists and practitioners with positive things written about it. Some studies have shown the concept has been widely embraced by many agencies and is being implemented across many different countries. However, there still seems to be unsettled issues, with regards to a consistent definition, implementation and significantly measurement. These obstacles will always mark the perception of IMC as questionable and unconvincing to some. In order to establish the theory these obstacles must to be resolved. To conclude, ensuring the integration of all the tools of marketing communication is extremely significant and in fact essential in advertising strategy and planning in order to achieve a successful brand or campaign. The main values and principles of the concept will tend to be agreed upon by advocates and opponents. However, whether this is to be referred to as IMC or not the inference remains and I believe it will continue to be a subject of debate.

References
Copley, P. (2004) Marketing Communications Management: concepts and theories, cases and practice. London: Routledge. Cornelissen, J. P, & Lock, A.R. (2000) Theoretical Concept or Management Fashion? Examining the significance of IMC, Journal of Advertising Research, 40 (5), pp.7-15. Duncan, T. and Everett, S. (1993) Client Perceptions of Integrated Marketing Communications. Journal of Advertising Research, 33 (3), pp.30-39. Eagle, L. Kitchen, P. & Bulmer, S. (2007) Insights into interpreting integrated marketing communications: A two-nation qualitative comparison, European Journal of Marketing 41(7/8), pp.956 970. Fill, C. (2009) Marketing Communications Interactivity, Communities and Content. 5th Edition. England: Prentice Hall. Hartley, R. & Pickton, D. (1999) Integrated marketing communications requires a new way of thinking, Journal of Marketing Communications, 5(2), pp. 97106. Hutton, J. (1996) Integrated Marketing Communications and Evolution of Marketing Thought, Journal of Business Research, 37(3), pp. 139-146. Kliatchko, J. (2008). Revisiting the IMC construct: a revised definition and four pillars. International Journal of Advertising, 27 (1), pp.113-160. Kitchen, P., Kim, I. and Schultz, D. E. (2008) Integrated Marketing Communications: Practice Leads Theory, Journal of Advertising Research, 48 (4), pp.531-546. Kitchen, P.J, & Schultz, D.E. (1998) IMC - a UK ad' agency perspective, Journal of Marketing Management, 14(5) pp.465-485. Luck, E, and Moffat, J. (2009) IMC: Has Anything Really Changed? A New Perspective on an Old Definition, Journal of Marketing Communications, 15 (5), pp.311-325. Schultz, D. E. (1996) The inevitability of integrated communications, Journal of Business Research, 37(3) pp.139-146. Schultz, D.E, & Patti, C.H. (2009), The Evolution of IMC: IMC in a customer-driven marketplace, Journal of Marketing Communications, 15 (2/3), pp.75-84. Schultz, D.E, & Phillip, J. Kitchen (1997), Integrated Marketing Communications in U.S advertising agencies: An explorative study, Journal of Advertising Research, 37(5), pp.7-18.

Smith, R. P. & Taylor, J. (2004) Marketing Communications: An Integrated Approach. 4th edn. London: Kogan Page Ltd. Stewart, D. (1996) Market-back approach to the design of integrated communications programmes: a change in paradigm and a focus on determinants of Success, Journal of Business Research, 37(3) pp.147-153. Thorson, E, & Moore, J. (1996) Integrated Communication: Synergy of Persuasive Voices. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates inc.