英语论文网

alogue
with them. (Duncan, 2002, p. 7)
He then breaks down the major elements
of his definition to help explain its meaning.
The cross-functional process means
. . . IMC is no longer inside-out, but outside-in—that is,
driven by the buyers or potential buyers of goods and
services.
Figure 1 The IMC Process Model (Duncan, 2002). Used here
with permission of the author.
THE EMERGENCE OF IMC
22 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH March 2004
that all departments and outside agencies
must work in unison in planning and
monitoring phases of brand relationships.
By creating and nourishing stakeholder
relationships, new customers are attracted
and then interacted with to find ways to
satisfy their needs and wants. The idea of
profitable customer relationships is important
because not all relationships are of
equal value to the company. Strategically
controlling or influencing all messages refers
to all aspects of the marketing mix.
Encouraging purposeful dialogue identifies
that customers are tired of being talked
at by companies and want the opportunity
to interact.
Apparently, IMC can be defined in a
variety of ways, but each definition suggests
five significant features according to
Shimp (2000):
• The primary goal of IMC is to affect behavior
through directed communication.
• The process should start with the customer
or prospect and then work backward
to the brand communicator.
• IMC should use all forms of communication
and all sources of brand or company
contacts as prospective message
delivery channels.
• The need for synergy is paramount with
coordination helping to achieve a strong
brand image.
• IMC requires that successful marketing
communications needs to build a relationship
between the brand and the
customer.
Indicative of many other marketing activities,
IMC would appear to be defined by
those implementing it. Kaye (1999) argued
that the generally accepted definition ofIMC
is self-limiting because its focus is on external,
nonpersonal communications: advertising,
publicity, database, and direct
marketing and, now, interactive media.
There are so many different definitions and
ideas of what IMC is about and what it entails,
right through to its implementation.
It is possible that perceptions of IMC are
tainted by what people believe to be the
true definition. Kitchen and Schultz (1999),
for example, recognized the importance of
highlighting various reactions to the IMC
definition, with an obvious need to generate
greater salience from a conceptual and
operational perspective. The Schultz (1993a)
definition of IMC was supported by most
respondents, but not tremendously, although
all respondents agreed that companies
should be integrated in terms of
communication.
The value of formal definitions of IMC
has been continually underlined by academic
authors (Duncan, 2002; Fill, 2002;
Kitchen, 1999; Schultz, Tannenbaum, and
Lauterborn, 1994), but little has been done
to resolve the fact that the theoretical concept
of IMC remains vague and uncertain
(Kitchen, 1999; Kitchen and Schultz, 1997,
1998, 2000). It was argued by Cornelissen
and Lock (2000, p. 9), for example, that:
On the basis of the observation that
IMC as a theory is quite shallow
through its lack of d