integrated marketing communication (imc) and brand identity ...

INTEGRATED MARKETING COMMUNICATION (IMC) AND BRANDIDENTITY AS CRITICAL COMPONENTS OF BRAND EQUITY STRATEGY

A Conceptual Framework and Research Propositions

Sreedhar Madhavaram, Vishag Badrinarayanan, and Robert E. McDonald

ABSTRACT: This paper presents integrated marketing communication (IMC) and brand identity as critical componentsot the firm's brand equity strategy. Specifically, the authors provide a brand equity strategy schematic that details (1) therole of IMC in creating and maintaining brand equity, and (2) the role of brand identity in informing, guiding, andhelping to develop, nurture, and implement the firm's overall IMC strategy. The authors also present a conceptual frameworkwith testable research propositions toward IMC theory development. Finally, a discussion of implications for academicsand practitioners is provided, and opportunities for future qualitative and quantitative research are suggested.

Forpracritioners, integrated marketing communication (IMC)has (I) become widely accepted, (2) has pervaded various lev-els within the firm, and (3) has become an integral part ofbrand strategy that requires extensive brand development ac-tivities within the firm betore beginning any external brandcommunications efforts. Regarding academics, Vargo andLusch (2004) argued in a recent paper that marketing is evolv-ing toward a dynamic and evolutionary process—one that isbased on a service-centered view. In keeping with this evolu-tion, Vargo and Lusch (2004) suggest that (1) IMC shouldreplace diverse, limited-focus promotional tools, and (2) brandmanagement should be used for initiating and maintaining acontinuing dialogue with the customers and for enhancingrelationships.

Kitchen et al. emphasize that "strategically oriented inte-grated /?rarid communications can help businesses move for-ward in the highly competitive world of the 21st century"(2004, p. 28, italics added). For Schultz (1998), brands arecentral to this integrated marketing communication. Keller(199.3) points out that customer-based brand equity emanatesfrom the consumer's familiarity and strong, favorable associa-tions with the brand. For Keller, "marketing communications

Sreedhar Madhavaram (Ph.D., Texas Tech University) is an assis-tant professor of marketing, Department of Marketing, Nance Col-lege of Busine.ss Administration, Cleveland State University.

Vishag Dadrinarayanan (M.B.A., Institute for Technology andManagement, India) is an assistant professor of marketing. Depart-ment of Marketing, McCoy College of Business Administration,Texas Srate University-San Marcos.

Robert E. McDonald (Ph.D., University of Connecticut) is an as-sistant professor. Department of Marketing, Rawls College of Busi-ness Administration, Texas Tech University.

represent the voice of a brand and the means by which com-panies can establish a dialogue with consumers concerningtheir product offerings" (2001, p. 823). That is, marketingcommunication may provide the means for developing strong,customer-based brand equity (Keller 2003). Furthermore,marketing communications help the firm in eliciting favor-able responses from customers (Duncan and Moriarty 1998).Although a number of factors influence customer-based brandequity, including product, price, and distribution, in this pa-per, we focus on the influence of IMC on brand equity.

Recently, Kitchen et al. (2004) observed that IMC hasevolved from being a mere "inside-out" device that bringspromotional tools together to being a strategic process asso-ciated with brand management. Further, Naik and Ramannote that IMC emphasizes "the benefits of harnessing syn-ergy across multiple media to build brand equity of productsand services" (2003, p- 375). In this paper, however, by tak-ing the works of several researchers (e.g., Duncan and Moriarty1998; Jap 1999; Reid 2003), we conceptualize interactivity,strategic consistency, and complementarity as synergy con-structs. Therefore, noting the intricate relationship betweenIMC and brand management, this paper aims to explore IMCas an integral part of a firm's overall brand equity strategy.

But what is a brand equity strategy? Hunt notes, the fun-damental thesis of brand equity strategy is that, to achievecompetitive advantage and, thereby, superior financial perfor-mance, firms should acquire, develop, nurture, and leverage aneffectiveness-enhancing portfolio of brands' (forthcoming).Analogously, we define brand equity strategy as a set of pro-cesses that include acquiring, developing, nurturing, and le-veraging an effectiveness-enhancing, high-equity brand orportfolio of brands. By high equity, following Keller's (1993)definition of customer-based brand equity, we mean the strongand highly favorable brand associations of customers. Keller

Jotinial af Adveriiiing, vol. 3'1, ni>. 4 (Winter 2{IO5), pp. 69-80.© 2005 American Atademy of Advenisinji, All tights reserved.

ISSN 0091-3367 / 2005 »9.5O * 0.00.

70 The Journal of Advertising

(1993) defines brand equity as the differential effect of brandknowledge on consumer response to the marketing of chebrand and suggests brand awareness and brand image as theconstructs related to customer-based brand equity.

Keller (2003) notes char the firm s marketing communica-tions contribute to brand equity. That is, effective communi-cation enables the formations of brand awareness and a positivebrand image. These then form the brand knowledge struc-tures, which, in turn, trigger the differentiated responses thatconstitute brand equity. Following Schultz (2004a), we de-fine IMC strategy as a set of processes that include the plan-ning, development, execution, and evaluation of coordinated,measurable, persuasive brand communications programs overtime with consumers, customers, prospects, employees, asso-ciates, and other targeted, relevant external and internal au-diences. Therefore, effective IMC is an integral pare of aneffective brand equity strategy. Furthermore, effective IMCpotentially enhances the effectiveness of the firm's portfolioof brands, and hence, could positively influence brand equity.

Recently, a shift was observed in the branding literature(de Chernatony 1999) from a singular focus on the impor-tance of brand image, or consumers' perceptions of brand dif-ferentiation, to include a focus on btand identity (Aaker 1996;Kapferer 1997; Keller 2003; Upshaw 1995). Though mul-tiple conceptualizations of brand identity exist, this paper usesAaker's (1996) conceptualization; that is, brand identity isseen as a unique set of brand associations that a brand strate-gist aspires to create or maintain. Further, we define brandidentity strategy as a set of processes that include the coordi-nated efforts of the brand strategists in (1) developing, evalu-ating, and maintaining the brand Identity/idendties, and (2)communicating the brand identity/identities to all individu-als and groups (internal and external to the firms) responsiblefor the firm's marketing communications. This paper pro-poses that an effective brand identity strategy informs, guides,and helps to develop, nurture, and implement the firm's overallIMC strategy, which In turn contributes to the firms brandequity.

Over the last two decades, marketing researchers, to vary-ing degrees, have focused on and studied IMC, brand equity,and brand identity. While the three streams of research docross-reference each other, no research study has explicitlyconceptualized any specific relationships among the threeconcepts. This paper argues that IMC strategy is essential tothe firm's strategic brand management and that it strength-ens the interface between the firm's brand identity strategyand its customer-based brand equity, that is, brand awarenessand brand image. Specifically, this paper argues that IMC strat-egy and brand identity strategy are critical components of thefirm's overall brand equity strategy. The firm's brand identitystrategy forms the basis for the firm's overall IMC strategyand, hence, contributes to the firm's brand equity.

Specifically, we propose a conceptual model of brand eq-uity in which the aspirational brand identity guides IMC inan effort to develop and maintain customer-based brand eq-uity. The essence of this brand equity strategy is that by clearlyand consistently communicating the brand identity to otherbrand stewards, the brand strategist can ensure a more syner-gistic and effective IMC. This, in turn, leads to stronger cus-tomer-based brand equity. An ideal outcome of such a strategywould be a consumer-held brand image that is congruent with

the strategist's intended brand identity.I ' . I

EVOLUTION OF IMC

In the past decade, IMC as a research area has generated a lotof debate, led to intellectual discourse, and overall, has con-tributed to the evolution of IMC as a strategic tool that canhelp firms to be more effective in realizing their brand com-munication goals. Given (1) the explosive growth of new elec-tronic media (Bezjian-Avery, Calder, and Iacobucci 1998), (2)the numerous and diverse means of communication and com-munication options (Keller 2001), (3) the speed, span, andreach of electronic communication, which is driving firms toadopt a global perspective (Kitchen and Schultz 2003), and(4) the rapidly changing advertising environment (Gould2004), IMC theory and practice has grown and evolved. Thissection provides a brief overview of the evolution of IMC (asshown in Table 1) in terms of (1) its conceptual development,(2) its strategic role in brand equity, and (3) its importance asa major communications development.

Conceptual Development - '

IMC has a come a long way from being conceptualized as thecoordination of communication tools for a brand (Krugman etal. 1994) to a more strategic conceptualization (Duncan 2002;Percy, Rossiter, and Elliott 2001; Schultz 2004a). As Carlson,Grove, and Dorsch (2003) note, the initial conceptuali-zations of IMC were somewhat blurred and led to the adop-tion of different approaches to creating messages. Even after adecade of research in the IMC area, differences still exist amongresearchers as to the conceptualization of IMC. For example,Cornelissen and Lock (2000) claimed IMC to be a "manage-ment fashion" rather than a theoretical concept. In reply,Schultz and Kitchen (2000) argued that IMC is an emerg-ing paradigm whose progression as a concept and disciplineis entirely appropriate and in accordance with scientifictheory. Recently, Gould (2004) noted that though IMC re-mains a controversial theoretical concept, it could be a pow-erful theoretical tool when viewed from a poststructuralparadigmatic perspective on theory. Therefore, it can be in-ferred from the preceding discussion that IMC as a theoreti-cal concept is on the right path in terms of attracting and

Winter 2005 71

TABLE IThe Evolution of Integrated Marketing Communications

IMC has evolved from . . .

Tactical orientation

Local

Emerging development

"Inside-out"

Managerial fashion

Emerging paradigm

Representing an emic-etic gap

"What is it?"

Most basic notion of coordinatingall corporate communications

Just a communication process

T o . . .

Strategic orientation

Global

Major communication development

"Outside-in" customer-oriented

New management paradigm

Representing a paradigm shift

Representing a poststructural set ofpractices and discourses

"How can we do it?"

A multistage model incorporating afocus on all contacts with consumers

One associated with managementand brands

Schultz (2004a). McArthur and Griffin(1997). Duncan (2002)

Kitchen and Schultz (2003)

Kitchen and Schultz (2003)

Kitchen and Schultz (2003)

Schultz and Kitchen (1997, 2000)

Gould (2004)

Gould (2004)

Schultz and Kitchen (1997)

Swain (2004)

Kttchen et al. (2004)

generating an informed, intellectual discourse from variousconcerned researchers.

Strategic Role of IMC in Brand Equity

Kitchen et al. (2004) point out that IMC is no longer just acommunication process, but a process associated with man-agement and brands. Furthermore, for Kitchen et al. (2004),IMC involves managing marketing communications in a ho-listic manner to achieve strategic objectives. The fmdings ofMcArthur and Griffm (1997) that the responsibility for mar-keting communications is clearly becoming an internal, up-per management affair suggests that IMC is evolving to bestrategically oriented rather rhan tactically oriented.

Importance of IMC

Does integrating all marketing communications actually mat-ter? Why is IMC being hailed as a major communications de-velopment of the 21st century? A few recent studies (e.g.,Carlson, Grove, and Dorsch 2003; Naik and Raman 2003; Reid2003) suggest and provide support for the idea that IMC pro-vides various benefits for firms. Naik and Raman (2003) in-dicate that IMC helps firms in building the brand equity oftheir products and services through synergy. Similarly, Reid(2003) provides support for his contention that integrationof marketing communications is related positively to a firm'sbrand-related performance, In the services context, Carlson,Gove, and Dorsch (2003) indicate that successful IMC cangenerate desirable customer responses. Therefore, we con-tend that IMC potentially can make firms more efficient

and/or effective in communicating with their intended tar-get markets, and in turn, can help firms in achieving superiorfinancial performance through higher brand equity. In thenext section, we present and discuss IMC strategy and brandidentity strategy as critical components of the firm's overallbrand equity strategy.

BRAND EQUITY STRATEGY

Building and properly managing brand equity is a priorityfor many firms (Keller 2003). Keller (1993) points out thatbuilding brand equity requires (1) internal brand identity ef-forts, and then, (2) integration of brand identities into thefirms overall marketing programs, such as product, price,advertising, promotion, and distribution decisions. Further-more, Keller (1993) suggests that the strength of the firm'sbrand equity from communications depends on how wellthe brand identities are integrated into the supporting mar-keting programs. In addition, Keller (2003) calls for effec-tive strategies for integrating marketing communicationsin building and maintaining brand equity. Although allmarketing programs, such as product, price, advertising,promotion, and distribution, can potentially create andmaintain brand equity, in this paper, we focus on the role ofthe firm s marketing communication efforts in a brand eq-uity strategy. Specifically, as shown in our brand equity sche-matic (see Figure 1), we propose brand identity strategy andIMC strategy as critical components of the overall brandequity strategy.

How does IMC contribute to a firm's brand equity? Schultz,Tannenbaum, and Lauterborn (1993) conceptualize the effects

7 2 The Journal of Advertising

FIGURE IBrand -Equity Strategy: A Schematic

1

1

Brandidentitystrategy

i

Brandidentityinterface

Brind ^identitycontacts

IMCstrategy

i

Brandequityinterface

BIrandequitycontacts

-

BrandEquity 1

Environment, competitors' brands, and changing customer needs and preferences

Source: Madhavaram (2004).

of integrated marketing communication in terms of "contacts."According to Schultz, Tannenbaum, and Liuiterborn (1993),a contact is any information-bearing experience that a cus-tomer or prospect has with the brand, including word of mouthand the experience of using the product. Ail of these contactswith customers can potentially influence che firm's brand eq-uity. As Keller (2001) notes, customers or prospects can alsohave contact with the brand through marketer-controlled com-munication, including (1) media advertising, (2) direct re-sponse and interactive advertising, (3) place advertising, (4)point-of-purchase advertising, (5) trade promotions, (6) con-sumer promotions. (7) event marketing and sponsorship, (8)publicity and public relations, and (9) personal selling. Thereis ample evidence in the literature that suggests that variousmarketing communications influence brand equity, includ-ing advertising (Aaker and Biel 1993; Cobb-Walgren, Ruble,and Donthu 1995), sponsorship (Cornwell, Roy, and Steinard2001), and various alternative communication options(Joachimsthaler and Aaker 1997). Hence, in this paper, fol-lowing (1) Keller, who notes chat one important purpose of allmarketing communications is co contribute to brand equity,and (2) Schultz, Tannenbaum, and Lauterbom's (1993) notionof marketing communications through "contacts," we argue

that firms can use IMC to achieve high brand equity throughmarketer-controlled brand contacts.

We now introduce the concepts of brand identity concaccsand brand equity contacts. Braiui identity contacts are all mes-sage-carrying interactions concerning the brand between thebrand stracegiscs and che brand stewards. Brand stewards areall internal and external entities (individuals and groups) thathave responsibility for communicating che brand to custom-ers, prospects, and publics (de Chernacony 1999). Brand stew-ards can include advertising and public relations agencies,direct marketers, and salespeople. Brand equity contacts are allmarketer-sponsored interactions concerning the brand betweenbrand stewards and customers, prospects, and publics thatare intended to create or maintain strong and highly favor-able associations.

As shown in Figure 1, we propose that firms that are bet-ter able to influence their IMC through their brand idencitycontacts will be better able co influence their brand equitythrough their brand equity contacts. Internal brand iden-tity efforts are the first seep toward firms building theirbrand equity (Keller 2003). We argue that there are cwointerfaces that fall within the purview of the firm's overallbrand equity strategy; (1) the interface between the firm's

Winter 2005 73

IMC strategy and brand equity, and (2) the interface betweenthe firm's brand identity strategy and IMC strategy. Further-more, we propose that while the former interface can be influ-enced through brand equity contacts, the latter interface canbe influenced through brand identity contacts. Also, thefirm s overall brand equity strategy is influenced by thefeedback loop from the firm's customer-based brand eq-uity to the firm's brand identity strategy, external envi-ronment, competitors" brands, and changing customerneeds and preferences.

IMC and Brand Equity

The traditional communication process (Lasswell 1948), whichdepicts the flow of messages from senders to receivers via ele-ments such as encoding, media, and decoding, has undergonenoticeable changes and has evolved into a more interactiveand dynamic process (Kotler 2003). However, the traditionalframework is still followed as a guideline for understandingand describing the brand communication process. Under theemerging interaction-focused view of brand communications,there is an extensive focus on brand contacts. It is now widelyaccepted that (1) although communication is but one of thedrivers of brand equity, it is nonetheless a crucial one, (2)brand communication is transmitted through a combinationof vehicles rather than broadcast advertising alone, (3) brandcommunication can be meticulously planned or unplanned,and (4) some important brand (equity and/or identity) con-tacts are not controllable by the brand strategist (Duncan andMoriarty 1998; Schultz 2003).

Integrated marketing communication has been advancedas a strategic business process that could contribute to build-ing brand value (Schultz 2004a). Although systematic researchon several strategic and tactical aspects of IMC is gainingmomentum, it is widely accepted that effective communica-tion is critical in enabling the formation of brand awarenessand brand image, that is, brand equity. Brand equity has beenidentified as a valuable source of competitive advantage formany organizations (Aaker 1991; Bharadwaj, Varadarajan, andFahy 1993; Keller 1998). Given the importance of brand eq-uity, it is not surprising that many organizations devote con-siderable amounts of resources to developing strategies thatwill allow them to build and/or maintain strong brands(Schultz and Barnes 1999). For Duncan and Moriarty (1998)and Duncan (2002), marketing communications is the gluethat enables the connection between the firm's efforts andcustomers' favorable responses. .

As Schultz (20()4b) notes, brand equity is not merely builtthrough independent forms of communication (such as ad-vertising or public relations), but is generated by managingbrand equity contacts via IMC. IMC, with synergy amongthe various communications vehicles as its fundamental con-

cept, could potentially create the greatest persuasion effectin consumers" encounters with brand contacts (Chang andThorson 2004). Indeed, based on their empirical study, Naikand Raman (2003) conclude that by adopting an IMC per-spective, marketers harness synergy across multiple com-munication vehicles to build brand equity across productsand services.

Brand Identity Strategy and IMC

Creating and maintaining a brand identity is regarded as thefirst step toward building strong brands (Aaker 1996; Keller2003). Almost a decade ago. Shocker, Srivastava, and Ruekert(1994) claimed that research on the development and impor-tance of brand identity is required to retain the significanceof scholarly brand management research to the practice ofmarketing.

Although brand identity helps in establishing a relation-ship between the brand and the customer by generating avalue proposition involving functional, emotional, or self-expressive benefits (Aaker 1996), it is extremely difficult forbrand image to match perfectly with brand identity due tothe complex nature of the communications system. Accord-ing to Aaker"s (1996) conceptualization, brand image is oneof the inputs and should be an integral part of strategic brandanalysis wherein the brand strategists carefully analyze theirown existing brand image and competitors' brand images tohelp them determine their own brand identity. This is repre-sented by the feedback loop from brand equity to brand iden-tity strategy shown in Figure 1. The feedback loop refers tothe influence of the firm's own brand equity and the environ-ment in terms of competitors' brand equity and changingconsumer preferences and needs.

De Chernatony (1999) discusses the next stage after theorganization creates a brand identity. He contends that theorganization should consider the suitability of the intendedpositioning against the brand's identity. That is, after the or-ganization develops a unified brand, it should consider theways in which the identity is to be communicated to all brandstewards (employees and agents) responsible for marketingcommunication with customers, prospects, and publics. Asper de Chernatony (1999), there is a potential for conflictingmessages as different communication options have differentpoints of contact with different message receivers. We pre-scribe that brand identity should influence IMC in creatingand maintaining synergistic and effective messages. We de-fine an effective brand identity strategy as one that informs,guides, and helps develop, nurture, and implement the firm'soverall IMC strategy through various brand identity con-tacts. In the next section, we provide and discuss a concep-tual framework that details how brand identity contacts andbrand equity contacts can potentially influence the firm's

74 The Journal of Advertising

brand equity. In doing so, we argue that the firm's brandidentity strategy and IMC strategy are essential in main-taining effective brand identity contacts and brand equitycontacts that, in turn, contribute to brand equity.

A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKAND RESEARCH PROPOSITIONS

In the preceding section, we provided a schematic of brandequity strategy that (1) incorporates brand identity strategyand IMC strategy as critical components; (2) details the twointerfaces between IMC strategy and brand equity and brandidentity strategy and IMC strategy using the concept of brandequity contacts and brand identity contacts, respectively; and(3) discusses the need for the feedback loop from brand eq-uity to brand identity strategy and rhe need for incorporatinganalysis of the market environment, brand equities of com-petitors, and changing customer needs and preferences. Butis this schematic useful? Can the schematic be operationalized?We answer in the affirmative for both questions, and respondto calls of various researchers with reference to measurement

issues.Based on our brand equity strategy schematic, we present

a conceptual framework and empirically testable researchpropt)sitions. This conceptual framework is based on two foun-dational theses: (I) Effective management of brand equitycontacts leads to high brand equity, and (2) effective manage-men[ of brand identity contacts leads to highly integratedmarketing communication. Drawing from IMC research,brand equity research, and brand identity research, we pro-pose specific relationships among brand identity factors, IMCfactors, and brand equity. Specifically, we argue that (1) brandidentity contacts can be effectively managed through brandidentity factors, including a brand identity-oriented culture,top management support, and an internal market orientation;and (2) brand equity contacts can be better managed throughbrand equity contact fectors such as IMC synergy and IMCeffectiveness (see Figure 2).

Brand Equity

Keller conceptualizes brand equity as "the differential effectof brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketingof the brand" (1993, p. 2). Furthermore, Keller (1) proposesbrand knowledge as central to the definition of brand equityand contends that high levels of brand knowledge increasethe probability of brand choice, and (2) defines brand knowl-edge in terms of brand awareness and image. FollowingRossiter and Percy (1987), Keller conceptualizes brand aware-ness as the strength of the brand trace in memory that is re-flected by the consumers ability to identify the brand underdifferent conditions. Next, Keller defines brand image as

"perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand associa-tions held in consumer memory" (1993, p. 3). There areways of measuring brand equity besides customer-basedbrand equity, however. For example, there are (1) financialmeasures of brand equity based on stock prices (Simon andSullivan 1993) and potential value (Mahajan, Rao, andSrivastava 1994), and (2) measures involving consumer be-havior, such as purchase (Kamakura and Russell 1993). Forthe purposes of this paper, however, we propose measuringbrand equity in terms of brand knowledge perceptions, fortwo reasons: (1) If the firm has a portfolio of brands, measur-ing brand equity based on stock prices becomes problematic,and (2) consumer perceptions are precursors to behavioralmanifestations of brand equity (Cobb-Walgren, Ruble, andDonthu 1995).

Brand Equity Contact Factors "

We propose chat the brand equity contacts can be effectivelymanaged through integration of marketing communications.Therefore, factors associated with the successful integrationof marketing communications such as IMC synergy and IMCeffectiveness will be valuable in managing the brand equitycontacts and, hence, are related positively to brand equity.

IMC Synergy

Synergy is a phenomenon whereby the combined effect ofmultiple activities exceeds the sum of their individual effects(Belch and Belch 1998). Naik and Raman (2003) (1) notethat che combined impact of multiple communication activi-ties can be much greater than the sum total of their indi-vidual effects, and (2) use modeling to furnish empiricalevidence of synergy between television and print advertising.Reid (2003) makes a similar claim, arguing that through IMC,firms can atcain synergy among all of their marketing com-munications, which, in turn, leads to enhanced performance.Following the works of Duncan and Moriarty (1998), Eagleand Kitchen (2000), and Hines (1999). Reid notes that syn-ergy ensures char the use of multiple communication tools ismutually reinforcing. Therefore, following Belch and Belch(1998). Duncan and Moriarty (1998), Eagle and Kitchen(2000), Hines (1999), Jap (1999), Naik and Raman (2003),and Reid (2003), we conceptualize interactivity, strategic con-sistency, and complementarity as synergy constructs. ForDuncan and Moriarty (1998), interactivity refers to che pro-cesses thac link customers to che company and its brands, andstrategic consistency refers to the coordination of all messages inthe promotion of brands. In addition, we contend chatcomplementarity of marketing communications, which refersto che reinforcing effects of individual communication ef-forts, helps in achieving communication goals chac are be-

Winter 2005 75

FIGURE 2A Conceptual Framework

Brand identity contact factors Brand equity contact factors

Brandidentity-orientedculture

Topmanagement

support

Internalmarket

orientation

IMC synergyConstructs

• Interactivity• Interactivity consistency• Complementary

IMCetTectiveness

Brand equity

• A wareness• Image

Suurct: Madhavaram (2004).Note: IMC = integrated marketing communitation.

yond the individual communication options. Therefore, we of-fer the following propositions linking IMC synergy with brandequity:

Pla: Positive interactivity is related positively to hrandawareness.

Plb: Positive interactivity is related positively to brand image.

P2a: Strategic consistency is related positively to hrandawareness.

P2b: Strategic consistency is related positively to brand image.

P3a: Complementarity is related positively to brand awareness.

P3b: Complementarity is related positively to brand image.

IMC Effectiveness

Synergy among the various marketing communication activi-ties should potentially make IMC more effective. Adaptingthe business performance measures used by Jaworski and Kohli(1993) and Narver and Slater (1990), we propose that IMCeffectiveness can be measured as the perception of firms as tothe effectiveness of their IMC efforts compared with theircompetitors" IMC efforts. For example, the key informantsfrom the firms can provide the assessment of IMC effective-ness when compared with competitors' IMC programs. Hence,as harnessing synergy through IMC builds brand equity ofproducts and services (Naik and Raman 2003), effective IMCleads to higher brand equity. Naik and Raman (2003) dem-

76 The Journal of Advertising

onstratc a link between IMC synergy and sales. We posit thatan increase in cuscomer-ba.sed brand equity is a mediatingfactor in this relationship.

P4a: Positive interactivity is related positively to IMC

effectiveness.

P4b: Strategic consistency is related positively to IMC

effectiveness.

P4c: Complementarity is related positively to IMC effectiveness.

P5a: IMC effectiveness is related positively to brand awareness.

P3b: IMC effectiveness is related positively to hrand image.

Brand Identity Factors

Tbe identity of the brand—the brand concept from the brandstrategist's perspective—is rhe tbundation of a good brand-building program (Joachimsthaler and Aaker 1997). Further-more, the brand identity helps the brand achieve high equity.Therefore, this paper proposes that a well-conceived and well-communicated brand identity contributes co building brandequicy by positively influencing che IMC processes. That is,ic proposes that by effectively managing brand identity con-tacts (those between che brand strategist and the brand stew-ards) through (1) a brand identity-oriented culture, (2) topmanagement support, and (3) an internal market orientation,firms can effectively inform and integrate their marketingcommunications.

Brand Identity^rhnted Cult$/re

Reid (2003) suggests that IMC synergy and IMC effective-ness are based on cultural and managerial factors. Recently,Urde (1999) introduced the concepc of brand orientationtliat is centered on brand identity. For Urde, "brand orien-tation is an approach in which the processes of che organiza-cion revolve around the creation, development, andprotection of hrand identity in an ongoing interaction withtarget customers with the aim of achieving lasting competi-tive advantages in the form of brands" (1999, pp. 1 17-118;emphasis added). Throughout his paper, Urde draws paral-lels between his concepts of brand orientation and marketorientation. Therefore, drawing on similarities betweenUrde's notion of brand orientation and Slater and Narver's(1995) conceptualization of market orientation as a culture,we conceptualize brand identity orientation as a culture that(1) places high priority on rhe profitable creation and main-tenance ot brand idenriry/identities, and (2) provides normsfor behavior regarding the organizational development ofand responsiveness to brand identity-related information.We argue tbat firms with a brand identity-oriented culture

will be better at integrating their marketing communica-tions. Therefore:

P6a: Brand identity-oriented culture is related posititJely to

positive interactivity.

P6h: Brand identity-oriented culture is related positively to

strategy consistency.

P6c: Brand identity-oriented culture is related positively to

IMC complementarity.

P6d: Brand identity-oriented culture is related positively to

IMC effectiveness.

Top Management Support

For Joachimsthaler and Aaker (1997), a clear and effectivebrand identity should have understanding and buy~in through-out che firm. Furthermore, they observe that many U.S. com-panies (1) do not have a single, shared vision of cheir brand'sidentity, and (2) allow the brand co drift, driven by the often-changing tactical communication objectives of product or mar-ket managers. Also, many times, the identity of the brand getslost along che way to che customer. But how .should che firmensure that all brand stewards responsible for marketing com-munications understand the brand identity? We argue that thereshould be top management support for ensuring the effectivemanagement of all possible brand identity contacts.

Schultz and Kitchen (1997) surveyed agencies and foundchac in the opinion of the agencies, marketers or firms shouldtake the responsibility for integrating various marketing com-munication efforts. That is, many agencies seem to believethat, given client support and commitment to the integra-tion process, chey can create effective marketing communica-tion programs. Schultz (1998) notes brands to be central tointegrated marketing communication. Further, Joachimsthalerand Aaker (1997) recommend that one person or team insidethe firm should be responsible for che brand. In addition, cheyclaim thac the challenge is co create a strong, dear, rich iden-tity and to ensure that the implementation groups (the brandstewards), whether inside or outside the company, understandthac identity. As obtaining support from senior managementis often essential in strategy implementation (Whitney andSmith 1983), we contend that as a pan of implementing thebrand identity strategy, the support of top management canensure chat everyone responsible tor marketing communica-tions understands the firm's brand identity and, thus, can suc-cessfully integrate its marketing communications.

P7a: Top management support is related positively to positive

interactivity.

P7h: Top management support is related positively to strategic

consistettcy.

Winter 2005 77

P7c: Top management support is related positively to

complementarity.

Pld: Top management support is related positively to IMC

effectiveness.

Internal Market Orientation

Among other things, relationship-marketing theory high-lights the importance of personal interactions for employeeswithin the firm. That is, as Duncan and Moriarty (1998) note,in order for firms to integrate their external marketing com-munication, they should first achieve that integration inter-nally. Hacketal. (1998) note that IMC requires, as a precursor,a high degree of interpersonal and cross-functional commu-nication within the organization, across business units. Also,firms often use external agencies/firms for their marketingcommunications purposes. That is, many employees who areresponsible for marketing communications may not be em-ployees of the marketing firm. Gummeson (2002) labels allsuch employees as "part-time marketers." In order for the firmto implement a successful brand identity strategy, full-timeand part-time marketers of the firm need to supply each otherwith all the required information so they can agree on specificidentities for individual brands. Employees can be influencedmost effectively through the concept of internal marketing,and hence can be motivated to be customer conscious by ap-plying marketing-like approaches and activities internally(Gronroos 1982). That is, the success of an external market-ing program such as marketing communications is depen-dent on internal market orientation (Piercy 1995). Recently,Lings (2004) proposed that (1) internal market orientationhas a positive relationship with internal aspects of firm per-formance, and (2) internal aspects of firm performance havepositive relationships with the external aspects of performance.Therefore:

P8a: Internal market orientation is related positively to positive

interactivity.

P8b: Internal market orientation is related positively to strategic

consistency.

P8c: Internal market orientation is related positively to

complementarity.

P8d: Internal market mentation is related positively to IMC

effectiveness.

DISCUSSION

Consistent with recent developments in the understandingand application of IMC, the proposed conceptual framework(1) applies IMC as an integral element in a successful brand

equity strategy; (2) treats IMC as a strategic activity ratherthan as a tactical activity; (3) places in the hands of the brandstrategist the responsibility for the development and coordi-nation of the IMC program through its brand identity strat-egy; and (4) incorporates feedback from customers, prospects,and competitors into the brand identity strategy. The focuson brand identity enables the marketing firm to accuratelyand consistently communicate this identity, through brandidentity contacts, to those brand stewards responsible for de-veloping and implementing the IMC strategy. A fundamentalthesis of this work is that these brand identity contacts willlead to a more synergistic and effective IMC program. The sec-ond fundamental thesis is that such an IMC program will leadto stronger brand equity through brand equity contacts.

The testable propositions suggest that certain characteris-tics of the firms will lead to a more synergistic and effectiveIMC program. These characteristics include a brand identity-oriented culture, top management support for the brand iden-tity, and internal market orientation. Furthermore, the moresynergistic (i.e., consistent, interactive, and complementary)and effective the IMC program, the higher the resulting brandequity. As used here, brand equity means strong brand aware-ness and a favorable brand image—a brand image that is con-gruent with the aspirational brand identity.

Our brand equity schematic and conceptual framework havemany implications for practitioners. The successful applica-tion of the proposed framework begins with a "fully defmedand operational zed" brand identity. Therefore, firms shouldfocus on efforts that define and develop brand identity. Next,the brand managers and employees of the firm should con-centrate on communicating that btand identity to every indi-vidual responsible for the firm's marketing communicationsefforts. After the brand managers clarify their aspirations forthe brand, and are able to clearly and accurately communi-cate these aspirations to the brand stewards, the IMC pro-gram should commence. Whether internal or external to themarketing firm, if the brand srewards have a clear and accu-rate understanding of the brand identity, they are better ableto develop a comprehensive, strategic IMC program that moreclearly and accurately communicates that brand identity. Fi-nally, feedback from customers, prospects, and publics regard-ing the brand awareness and image, along with feedback fromother entities in the environment, including competitors, willenable the brand owner to adjust its brand image strategy,and/or its IMC strategy. Therefore, the firm should pay par-ticular attention to brand-related market information fromthe environment.

With reference to academics, the conceptual frameworkand research propositions that are presented in this paper an-swer the call for research on (1) the role of IMC in brand eq-uity, (2) the relationship and interaction between IMC andbrand management, and (3) more theoretical work in the do-

78 The Journal of Advertising

main of IMC research. By integrating the works of variousresearchers, this paper provides a theoretical foundation in[he form of a conceptual framework. It should be noted, how-ever, that what we present here is a conceptual frameworkand not the conceptual framework. We expect this paper togenerate a more intellectually stimulating and informed de-bate that contributes to IMC research. Toward the goal ofdeveloping a high-quality IMC research program, we lookforward to critiques, extensions, and rivals to our proposedconceptual framework.

The testable research propositions that we have developedfrom our conceptual framework and che works of various re-searchers provide evidence thac we are on che right pach co-ward developing IMC theory. Again, we hope that in additionto our future research in this area, IMC as a field of researchcan accracc more scholars to develop a robust IMC theory. Here,we present a few directions for future research.

FUTURE RESEARCH

The proposed conceptual framework and the testable researchpropositions offer multiple avenues and opportunities for fu-ture IMC research. Various qualitative and quantitative scud-ies would be appropriate for chis endeavor. With reference toqualitative research, case studies could follow the brand eq-uity strategy of a single brand, or a portfolio of brands, throughbrand identity development and IMC scracegy chrough cobrand equity. Such studies may provide a rich understandingof the brand equity strategy process. In addition, depth inter-views of brand managers, marketing communication manag-ers, and employees of agencies responsible for marketingcommunications could provide further insights into enrich-ing che conceptual framework and the research propositions.Focus group discussions among select groups of customersexposed to the firm's proposed communication options couldprovide additional inputs for better integrating the market-ing communications.

Wich reference co quancicacive scudies, the proposed con-cepcual framework can be empirically cesced. Mechods suchas survey research could potentially offer more generalizableresults. Published scales are available for several of the con-structs in the proposed framework. Scales for che remainingconstructs can be developed using items adapted from otherscales or created anew. Using surveys, researchers could studythe brand owner or che IMC agency. Future research couldtest our conceptual framework in parts—chat is, (1) brandidentity factors leading co brand equity factors, and (2) brandequity factors leading to brand equity. A more sophisticatedstudy mighc involve dyadic, or even criadic, research, study-ing the brand owner, brand stewards, and cuscomers.

Future research could also investigate other brand identityfactors thac might lead to synergistic and effective IMC pro-

grams, as well as other characteristics of che IMC programchat mighc lead to higher brand equity. Other research mightfocus on the measurement of brand equity, especially as itrelates to brand identity. Specifically, measures of brand im-age—brand identity congruence should be developed. Also,researchers could look inco organization structures and cul-cures that are conducive to developing efFective brand iden-tity strategy and IMC strategy. In conclusion, we present ourpaper as (1) a foundation for further theory development, (2)a starting point for more relevant and rigorous research, and(3) a small buc significant contribution with potential impli-cations for academics and practitioners.

REFERENCES

Aaker, David A. (1991)> Managing Brand Equity, New York: FreePress.

(1996), Building Strong Brands, New York: Free Press.. and Alexander L. Biel (1993), Brand Equity and Adver-

tising: Advertising's Role in Building Strong Brands, Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Belch, George E., and Michael A. Belch (1998), Advertising andPromotion. Boscon: McGraw-Hill.

Bezjian-Avery, Alexa, Bobby Calder, and Dawn lacobucci (1998),"New Media Interactive Advertising Vs. Traditional Ad-vert ising,"7o«fn£!?/ of Advertising Research, 38 (July/August),23-32.

Bharadwaj,SundarG., Rajan Varadarajan, and John Fahy (1993),"Sustainable Competitive Advantage in Service Induscries:A Conceptual Model and Research," Jw/rwrf/ of Marketing.57 (October), 83-99.

Carlson, Les, Stephen J. Grove, and Michael J. Dorsch (2003),"Services Advertising and Inccgraced Marketing Commu-nicacions: An Empirical Examination," yrwrrw/ of CurrentIssues and Research in Advertising. 25 (Fall), 68-82.

Chang, Yuhmiin, and Escher Thorson (2004), "Television and"Weh Advertising Synergies," Journal of Advertising, 33 (Sum-mer), 75-84.

Cobb-Walgren, Cathy J., Cynthia A. Ruble, and Naveen Donthu(1995), "Brand Equity, Brand Preference, and Purchase In-tent," Journal of Adverti.mig, 24 (Fall), 25-40.

Cornelissen,Joep P., and Andrew P. Lock (2000), "TheoreticalConcept or Management Fashion.-' Examining the Signifi-cance of IMC Journal of Advertising Research, 40 (5), 7 -15.

Cornwell, T. Bettina, Donald R. Roy, and Edward A. Steinard II(2001), "Exploring Managers' Perceptions of the Impact ofSponsorship on Brand Equity," Journal of Adt>ertising, 30 (2),41-52.

de Chernatony, Leslie (1999), "Brand Management ThroughNarrowing the Gap Between Brand Identity and BrandReputation," Journal of Marketing Mattagemenl, 15 (January/April), 157-179.

Duncan, Thomas R. (2002), IMC: Using Advertising and Promo-tiofi to Build Brands, Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Winter 2005 79

-, and (1998), "A Communication-Based Mar-keting Model for Managing Rtlationships," Journal of Mar-keting, 62 (April), 1-13.

Eagle, Lynne C , and Philip J. Kitchen (2000), "IMC, BrandCommunications, and Corporate Cultures: Client/Adver-tising Agency Co-ordination and Cohesion," Europeanjour-nal of Marketing. 34(5/6), 667-686.

Gould, Stephen J. (2004), "IMC as Theory and as a PostscructuralSet of Practices and Discourses: A Continuously EvolvingParadigm Shift," Journal of Advertising Research. 44 (March),66-70.

Gronroos, Christian (1982), Strategic Management and Marketingin the Service Sector. Helsingfors: Swedish School of Econom-ics and Business Administration.

Gummeson, Evert (2002), "Relationship Marketing and a NewEconomy: It's Time for Deprogramming," yw/rn^/ of Ser-vices Marketing. 16(7), 585-589.

Hack, Becki, Heidi Schultz, Don E. Schultz, Linda Mullinix,Chris Cares, and Alexandria Wornack (1998), "IntegratedMarketing Communication Best-Practice Report," in IMCStudy Report of the American Productivity and Quality Center,Houston: American Productivity and Quality Center.

Hines, R. (1999), "Ins and Outs of Integrated Marketing," Tri-angle Business Journal. 15 (10). 25.

Hunt, Shelby D. (forthcoming), "On Reforming Marketing: ForMarketing Systems and Brand Equity Strategy," in DoesMarketing Need Reform.'' Jagdish Sheth and Raj Sisodia, eds.,Armonk, NY: M.B. Sharpe.

Jap, Sandy D. (1999), 'Pie-Expansion' Efforts: Collaboration Pro-cesses in Buyer-Supplier Relationsbips,"yoj!(rfft?/(?/Al(3r;& /-ing Research. 36 (November), 461^75.

Jaworski, Bernard J., and Ajay K. Kohli (1993), "Market Orien-tation: Antecedents and Consequences," Journal of Market-'«£• 57 (January), 53-70.

Joachimsthaler, Erich, and David A. Aaker (1997), "BuildingBrands Without Mass Media," Harvard Business Review,75 (January/February), 39-50.

Kamakura, Wagner A., and Gary J. Russell (1993), "MeasuringBrand Value with Scanner Data," International Journal ofResearch in Marketing. 10 (March), 9-22.

Kapferer, Jean-Noel (1997), Strategic Brand Management: Creat-ing and Sustaining Brand Equity Long Term. London: KoganPage.

Keller, Kevin Lane (1993), "Conceptualizing, Measuring, andManaging Customer-Based Brand Equity," Journal of Mar-keting. 57 (January), 1-22.

(1998), Strategic Brand Management, Upper Saddle River,NJ: Prentice-Hall.

(2001), 'Mastering the Marketing Communications Mix:Micro and Macro Perspectives on Integrated MarketingCommunication Programs." yo/zrwi / of Marketing Manage-ment. 17 (September), 819-847.

(2003), Strategic Brand Management, Upper Saddle River,NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kitchen, Philip J., Joanne Brignell, Tao Li, and Graham SpickettJones (2004), "Tbe Emergence of IMC: A Theoretical Pet-spective," Journal of Advertising Research. 44 (March), 19-30.

, and Don E. Schultz (2003), "Integrated Corporate andProduct Brand Communication,' Advances in Competitive-ness Research, 11 (1), 66-86.

Kotler, Philip (2003), Marketing Management, Upper Saddle River,NJ: Prentice Hall.

Krugman, Dean M.. Leonard N. Reid, S. Watt Dunn, and ArnoldM. Barban (1994). Advertising: Its Role in Modern Marketing.8tb ed.. Fort Wortb, TX: Dryden.

Lasswell, Harold D. (1948), "The Structure and Function ofCommunication in Sociecy," in The Communication of Ideas,L. Bryson, ed.. New York: Harjier, 37-51.

Lings, Ian N. (2004), "Internal Market Orientation Constructand Consequences," Journal of Bus ine.is Research. 57 (4), 405—413.

Madhavaram, Sreedhar (2004), "Foundations of IMC Theory,"working paper, Texas Tech University.

Mahajan, Vijay, Vithala R. Rao, and Rajendra K. Srivastava(1994), "An Approach to Assess the Importance of BrandEquity in Acquisition Decisions," Journal of Produa Innova-tion Management, 11 (3), 221-235.

McArthur, David N., and Tom Griffin (1997), "A MarketingManagement View of Integrated Marketing Communica-tions,'V»''™^/ of Advertising Research. 37 (September/Octo-ber), 19-26.

Naik, Prasad A., and Kalyan Raman (2003), "Understandingthe Impact of Synergy in Multimedia Communications,"

Journal of Marketing Research. 40 (November), 375-388.Narver, John C , and Stanley P. Slater (1990), "The Effect of a

Market Orientation on Business Profitability," JoarW o/Marketing. 54 (October), 20-35.

Percy, Larry, John R. Rossiter, and Richard Elliott (2001), "WhatIr Takes for Successful Advertising and Promotion,"' in Stra-tegic Advertising Management. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 3 5 ^ 8 .

Piercy, Nigel F. (1995), "Marketing and Strategy Fit Together,"Management Decision, 33 (1), 42—47.

Reid, Mike (2003), "IMC-Performance Relationship: FurtherInsight and Evidence from che Australian Marketplace,"International Journal of Advertising. 22(2), 227—248.

Rossiter, John R., and Larry Percy (1987), Advertising and Promo-tion Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Schulrz, Don E. (1998), "Branding: The Basis for Marketing In-tegration," Marketing News. 32 (24), 8.

(2003), "The New Brand Wagon," Marketing Manage-ment. 12 (January/February), 8-9.

(2004a), "IMC Receives More Appropriate Definition,"Marketing News, 38 (15), 8-9.

(2004b), "A Clean Brand Slate," Marketing Management,13 (September/October), 10-11.

, and B. Barnes (1999), Strategic Brand CommunicationCampaigns. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Business Books.

, and Philip J. Kitchen (1997). "Integrated Communi-cations in U.S. Advertising Agencies: An ExploratoryStudy," Journal of Advertising Re.search. 37 (5), 7-18.

, and (2000), "A Response to 'Theoretical Con-cept or Management Fashion?'" Journal of Advertising Research,40(5), 17-21.

so The Journal of Advertising

, Stanley I. Tannenbaum, and Robert F. Lauterborn(1993), Integrated Markeiing Communications. Chicago: NTCBusiness Btioks.

Shocker, Allan D., Rajendra K. Srivastava, and Robert W. Ruekert(1994), "Challenges and Opportunities Facing Brand Man-agement: An Introduction to the Special hsue," Journal ofMarketing Research. 31 (May), 149-58.

Simon, Carol J., and Mary W. Sullivan (1993), "The Measure-ment and Determinants of Brand Equity: A Financial Ap-proach," Marketing Science. 12 (Winter), 28-52.

Slater, Stanley F, and John C. Narver (1995), "Market Orienta-tion and the Learning OTgamzuzion," Journal of Marketing,59auly), 63-74.

Swain, William N. (2004), "Perceptions of IMC After a Decade of

Development: Who's at the Wheel, and How Can We MeasureSuccessf" Journal of Advertising Research. 44 (March), 46-65.

Upshaw, Lynn B. (1995), Building Brand Identity: A Strategy forSuccess in a Hostile Marketplace, New York: John Wiley.

Urde, Mats (1999), "Brand Orientation: A Mindset for BuildingBrands into Strategic Resources" Journal of Marketing Man-agement, 15 (J^"iJ3^ty^Ap'"'')' 117—133.

Vargo, Stephen L., and Robert F. Lusch (2004), "Evolving to aNew Dominant Logic for Marketing," Journal of Marketing,68 (January), 1-17.

Whitney,John C, and Ruth A. Smith (1983), "Effects of GroupCohesiveness on Attitude Polarization and the Acquisitionof Knowledge in a Strategic Planning Context," Journal ofMarketing Research, 20 (May), 167-176.