The integration of marketing communications 413
alike, the fact that no clear proposal, method or
acceptable disposition of measurement and
evaluation has been offered and/or found
widespread acceptance weakens conceptual
application in a global sense.The barriers to integration
Despite the undeniable advantages afforded by
integration, an examination of the market situa-
tion suggests that relatively few companies
have yet reached the stage of fully integrating
their communications campaigns.
Various studies (Mitchell, 1996; Yeshin,
1996; Schultz and Kitchen, 1997; Kitchen and
Schultz, 1999) have described the progressive
adoption of the philosophy of IMC across many
major and sophisticated client companies.
Nonetheless, many barriers continue to exist.
These studies indicate that, whilst much
has been written on the topic, the subject
remains largely misunderstood by many of
those responsible for its implementation. This is
clearly seen by the diversity of ‘definitions’
provided for IMC by the respondents:
Co-ordinating all of the tools of promotion to
ensure a consistent message.
Rolling out a single creative theme across all
executions.
Using a single agency to deliver all
requirements.Clearly, there is considerable confusion as to the
nature of IMC, with some respondents regarding
it as a process, others perceiving it as a facility for
‘one-stop’ shopping, whilst for others it was a
means whereby cohesion might be achieved
between creative executions and strategies, even
if provided by a multiplicity of suppliers.
Several factors can be identified as present-
ing barriers to the integration process, both of
an internal and an external nature.
Internally, the lack of management under-
standing of the benefits of IMC, the short-term
outlook adopted towards much of the planning
process, the inherent nature of the ‘political’
battles between departments battling for
supremacy, the fear of departmental budget
reductions with the consequence of staff reduc-
tions, together with the turnover of staff and
the fear of losing expertise in specialist areas,
were all identified as contributing to the gen-
eral lack of adoption of IMC within companies.
Externally, issues such as agency egos, the
agencies’ fears of losing control, the lack of
expertise in the individual areas of communica-
tions, the concern over reductions in the scale of
the communications budget, and the problems
of the system of remuneration were further
restrictions of the progress of integration.
Structurally, few companies are in a posi-
tion to ensure integration. Often, various
functions compete with each other for the
responsibility of briefing and implementation
of the tools of marketing communications.
These include the brand manager, the market-
ing manager, the marketing director, in a few
instances, a communications director, together
with a variety of ‘specialist’ heads of depart-
ments covering public relations, sales promo-
tion, and so on. Often, these individuals
represent ‘vested’ interests and are protective of
their own sectors to the preclusion of an
integrated approach. Most importantly, few
companies have truly recognized the issue of
responsibility for the custodianship of the
brand and the negative implications of divisive
communications messages.... In practice, the situation is even worse.
Company structures perpetuate this division,
giving each ‘speciality’ a different owner, based
on technical skills required to execute, rather
than conceptual skills required to plan.
(Lannon, 1994)
Undeniably, there are significant problems for
the client in terms of commissioning and
managing several different agencies, especially
in the context of the reduction in the size of
marketing departments. The temptation of the
integrated one-shop concept is overwhelmingly