Integrated marketing communication

Integrated marketing communication (IMC) and brand identity as critical components of brand equity strategy: a conceptual framework and research propositions

For practitioners, integrated marketing communication (IMC) has (1) become widely accepted, (2) has pervaded various levels within the firm, and (3) has become an integral part of brand strategy that requires extensive brand development activities within the firm before beginning any external brand communications efforts. Regarding academics, Vargo and Lusch (2004) argued in a recent paper that marketing is evolving toward a dynamic and evolutionary process--one that is based on a service-centered view. In keeping with this evolution, Vargo and Lusch (2004) suggest that (1) IMC should replace diverse, limited-focus promotional tools, and (2) brand management should be used for initiating and maintaining a continuing dialogue with the customers and for enhancing relationships.

Kitchen et al. emphasize that "strategically oriented integrated brand communications can help businesses move forward in the highly competitive world of the 21st century" (2004, p. 28, italics added). For Schultz (1998), brands are central to this integrated marketing communication. Keller (1993) points out that customer-based brand equity emanates from the consumer's familiarity and strong, favorable associations with the brand. For Keller, "marketing communications represent the voice of a brand and the means by which companies can establish a dialogue with consumers concerning their product offerings" (2001, p. 823). That is, marketing communication may provide the means for developing strong, customer-based brand equity (Keller 2003). Furthermore, marketing communications help the firm in eliciting favorable responses from customers (Duncan and Moriarty 1998). Although a number of factors influence customer-based brand equity, including product, price, and distribution, in this paper, we focus on the influence of IMC on brand equity.

Recently, Kitchen et al. (2004) observed that IMC has evolved from being a mere "inside-out" device that brings promotional tools together to being a strategic process associated with brand management. Further, Naik and Raman note that IMC emphasizes "the benefits of harnessing synergy across multiple media to build brand equity of products and services" (2003, p. 375). In this paper, however, by taking the works of several researchers (e.g.,

Duncan and Moriarty 1998; Jap 1999; Reid 2003), we conceptualize interactivity, strategic consistency, and complementarity as synergy constructs. Therefore, noting the intricate relationship between IMC and brand management, this paper aims to explore IMC as an integral part of a firm's overall brand equity strategy.

But what is a brand equity strategy? Hunt notes, "the fundamental thesis of brand equity strategy is that, to achieve competitive advantage and, thereby, superior financial performance, firms should acquire, develop, nurture, and leverage an effectiveness-enhancing portfolio of brands" (forthcoming). Analogously, we define brand equity strategy as a set of processes that include acquiring, developing, nurturing, and leveraging an effectiveness-enhancing,

high-equity brand or portfolio of brands. By high equity, following Keller's (1993) definition of customer-based brand equity, we mean the strong and highly favorable brand associations of customers. Keller (1993) defines brand equity as the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of the brand and suggests brand awareness and brand image as the constructs related to customer-based brand equity.

Keller (2003) notes that the firm's marketing communications contribute to brand equity. That is, effective communication enables the formations of brand awareness and a positive brand image. These then form the brand knowledge structures, which, in turn, trigger the differentiated responses that constitute brand equity. Following Schultz (2004a), we define IMC strategy as a set of processes that include the planning, development, execution, and evaluation of coordinated, measurable, persuasive brand communications programs over time with consumers, customers, prospects, employees, associates, and other targeted, relevant external and internal audiences. Therefore, effective IMC is an integral part of an effective brand equity strategy. Furthermore, effective IMC potentially enhances the effectiveness of the firm's portfolio of 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 importance of brand image, or consumers' perceptions of brand differentiation, to include a focus on brand identity (Aaker 1996; Kapferer 1997; Keller 2003; Upshaw 1995). Though multiple conceptualizations of brand identity exist, this paper uses Aaker's (1996) conceptualization; that is, brand identity is seen as a unique set of brand associations that a brand strategist aspires to create or maintain. Further, we define brand identity strategy as a set of processes that include the coordinated efforts of the brand strategists in (1) developing, evaluating, and maintaining the brand identity/identities, and (2) communicating the brand identity/identities to all individuals and groups (internal and external to the firms) responsible for the firm's marketing communications. This paper proposes that an effective brand identity

strategy informs, guides, and helps to develop, nurture, and implement the firm's overall IMC strategy, which in turn contributes to the firm's brand equity.

Over the last two decades, marketing researchers, to varying degrees, have focused on and studied IMC, brand equity, and brand identity. While the three streams of research do cross-reference each other, no research study has explicitly conceptualized any specific relationships among the three concepts. This paper argues that IMC strategy is essential to the firm's strategic brand management and that it strengthens the interface between the firm's brand identity strategy and its customer-based brand equity, that is, brand awareness and brand image. Specifically, this paper argues that IMC strategy and brand identity strategy are critical components of the firm's overall brand equity strategy. The firm's brand identity strategy forms the basis for the firm's overall IMC strategy and, hence, contributes to the firm's brand equity.

Specifically, we propose a conceptual model of brand equity in which the aspirational brand identity guides IMC in an effort to develop and maintain customer-based brand equity. The essence of this brand equity strategy is that by clearly and consistently communicating the brand identity to other brand stewards, the brand strategist can ensure a more synergistic and effective IMC. This, in turn, leads to stronger customer-based brand equity. An ideal outcome of such a strategy would be a consumer-held brand image that is congruent with the strategist's intended brand identity.

EVOLUTION OF IMC

In the past decade, IMC as a research area has generated a lot of debate, led to intellectual discourse, and overall, has contributed to the evolution of IMC as a strategic tool that can help firms to be more effective in realizing their brand communication goals. Given (1) the explosive growth of new electronic media (Bezjian-Avery, Calder, and Iacobucci 1998), (2) the numerous and diverse means of communication and communication options (Keller 2001), (3) the speed, span, and reach of electronic communication, which is driving firms to adopt a global perspective (Kitchen and Schultz 2003), and (4) the rapidly changing advertising environment (Gould 2004), IMC theory and practice has grown and evolved. This section provides a brief overview of the evolution of IMC (as shown in Table 1) in terms of (1) its conceptual development, (2) its strategic role in brand equity, and (3) its importance as a major communications development.

Conceptual Development

IMC has a come a long way from being conceptualized as the coordination of communication tools for a brand (Krugman et al. 1994) to a more strategic conceptualization (Duncan 2002;

Percy, Rossiter, and Elliott 2001; Schultz 2004a). As Carlson, Grove, and Dorsch (2003) note, the initial conceptualizations of IMC were somewhat blurred and led to the adoption of different approaches to creating messages. Even after a decade of research in the IMC area, differences still exist among researchers as to the conceptualization of IMC. For example, Cornelissen and Lock (2000) claimed IMC to be a "management fashion" rather than a theoretical concept. In reply, Schultz and Kitchen (2000) argued that IMC is an emerging paradigm whose progression as a concept and discipline is entirely appropriate and in accordance with scientific theory. Recently, Gould (2004) noted that though IMC remains a controversial theoretical concept, it could be a powerful theoretical tool when viewed from a poststructural paradigmatic perspective on theory. Therefore, it can be inferred from the preceding discussion that IMC as a theoretical concept is on the right path in terms of attracting and generating an informed, intellectual discourse from various concerned researchers.

Strategic Role of IMC in Brand Equity

Kitchen et al. (2004) point out that IMC is no longer just a communication process, but a process associated with management and brands. Furthermore, for Kitchen et al. (2004), IMC involves managing marketing communications in a holistic manner to achieve strategic objectives. The findings of McArthur and Griffin (1997) that the responsibility for marketing communications is clearly becoming an internal, upper management affair suggests that IMC is evolving to be strategically oriented rather than tactically oriented.

Importance of IMC

Does integrating all marketing communications actually matter? Why is IMC being hailed as a major communications development of the 21st century? A few recent studies (e.g., Carlson, Grove, and Dorsch 2003; Naik and Raman 2003; Reid 2003) suggest and provide support for the idea that IMC provides various benefits for firms. Naik and Raman (2003) indicate that IMC helps firms in building the brand equity of their products and services through synergy. Similarly, Reid (2003) provides support for his contention that integration of marketing communications is related positively to a firm's brand-related performance. In the services context, Carlson, Gove, and Dorsch (2003) indicate that successful IMC can generate desirable customer responses. Therefore, we contend that IMC potentially can make firms more efficient and/or effective in communicating with their intended target markets, and in turn, can help firms in achieving superior financial performance through higher brand equity. In the next section, we present and discuss IMC strategy and brand identity strategy as critical components of the firm's overall

BRAND EQUITY STRATEGY

Building and properly managing brand equity is a priority for many firms (Keller 2003). Keller (1993) points out that building brand equity requires (1) internal brand identity efforts, and then, (2) integration of brand identities into the firm's overall marketing programs, such as product, price, advertising, promotion, and distribution decisions. Furthermore, Keller (1993) suggests that the strength of the firm's brand equity from communications depends on how well the brand identities are integrated into the supporting marketing programs. In addition, Keller (2003) calls for effective strategies for integrating marketing communications in building and maintaining brand equity. Although all marketing programs, such as product, price, advertising, promotion, and distribution, can potentially create and maintain brand equity, in this paper, we focus on the role of the firm's marketing communication efforts in a brand equity strategy. Specifically, as shown in our brand equity schematic (see Figure 1), we propose brand identity strategy and IMC strategy as critical components of the overall brand equity strategy. [FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

How does IMC contribute to a firm's brand equity? Schultz, Tannenbaum, and Lauterborn (1993) conceptualize the effects of integrated marketing communication in terms of"contacts." According to Schultz, Tannenbaum, and Lauterborn (1993), a contact is any

information-bearing experience that a customer or prospect has with the brand, including word of mouth and the experience of using the product. All of these contacts with customers can potentially influence the firm's brand equity. As Keller (2001) notes, customers or prospects can also have contact with the brand through marketer-controlled communication, including (1) media advertising, (2) direct response and interactive advertising, (3) place advertising, (4) point-of-purchase advertising, (5) trade promotions, (6) consumer promotions, (7) event marketing and sponsorship, (8) publicity and public relations, and (9) personal selling. There is ample evidence in the literature that suggests that various marketing communications influence brand equity, including advertising (Aaker and Biel 1993; Cobb-Walgren, Ruble, and Donthu 1995), sponsorship (Cornwell, Roy, and Steinard 2001), and various alternative communication options (Joachimsthaler and Aaker 1997). Hence, in this paper, following (1) Keller, who notes that one important purpose of all marketing communications is to contribute to brand equity, and (2) Schultz, Tannenbaum, and Lauterborn's (1993) notion of marketing communications through "contacts," we argue that firms can use IMC to achieve high brand equity through marketer-controlled brand contacts.

We now introduce the concepts of brand identity contacts and brand equity contacts. Brand identity contacts are all message-carrying interactions concerning the brand between the

brand strategists and the brand stewards. Brand stewards are all internal and external entities (individuals and groups) that have responsibility for communicating the brand to customers, prospects, and publics (de Chernatony 1999). Brand stewards can include advertising and public relations agencies, direct marketers, and salespeople. Brand equity contacts are all marketer-sponsored interactions concerning the brand between brand stewards and customers, prospects, and publics that are intended to create or maintain strong and highly favorable associations.

As shown in Figure 1, we propose that firms that are better able to influence their IMC through their brand identity contacts will be better able to influence their brand equity through their brand equity contacts. Internal brand identity efforts are the first step toward firms building their brand equity (Keller 2003). We argue that there are two interfaces that fall within the purview of the firm's overall brand equity strategy: (1) the interface between the firm's IMC strategy and brand equity, and (2) the interface between the firm's brand identity strategy and IMC strategy. Furthermore, we propose that while the former interface can be influenced through brand equity contacts, the latter interface can be influenced through brand identity contacts. Also, the firm's overall brand equity strategy is influenced by the feedback loop from the firm's customer-based brand equity to the firm's brand identity strategy, external environment, competitors' brands, and changing customer needs and preferences

The traditional communication process (Lasswell 1948), which depicts the flow of messages from senders to receivers via elements such as encoding, media, and decoding, has undergone noticeable changes and has evolved into a more interactive and dynamic process (Kotler 2003). However, the traditional framework is still followed as a guideline for understanding and describing the brand communication process. Under the emerging interaction-focused view of brand communications, there is an extensive focus on brand contacts. It is now widely accepted that (1) although communication is but one of the drivers of brand equity, it is nonetheless a crucial one, (2) brand communication is transmitted through a combination of vehicles rather than broadcast advertising alone, (3) brand communication can be meticulously planned or unplanned, and (4) some important brand (equity and/or identity) contacts are not controllable by the brand strategist (Duncan and Moriarty 1998; Schultz 2003).

Integrated marketing communication has been advanced as a strategic business process that could contribute to building brand value (Schultz 2004a). Although systematic research on several strategic and tactical aspects of IMC is gaining momentum, it is widely accepted that effective communication is critical in enabling the formation of brand awareness and brand image, that is, brand equity. Brand equity has been identified as a valuable source of

competitive advantage for many organizations (Aaker 1991; Bharadwaj, Varadarajan, and Fahy 1993; Keller 1998). Given the importance of brand equity, it is not surprising that many organizations devote considerable amounts of resources to developing strategies that will 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 glue that enables the connection between the firm's efforts and customers' favorable responses

As Schultz (2004b) notes, brand equity is not merely built through independent forms of communication (such as advertising or public relations), but is generated by managing brand equity contacts via IMC. IMC, with synergy among the various communications vehicles as its fundamental concept, could potentially create the greatest persuasion effect in consumers' encounters with brand contacts (Chang and Thorson 2004). Indeed, based on their empirical study, Naik and Raman (2003) conclude that by adopting an IMC perspective, marketers harness synergy across multiple communication vehicles to build brand equity across products and services.

Brand Identity Strategy and IMC

Creating and maintaining a brand identity is regarded as the first step toward building strong brands (Aaker 1996; Keller 2003). Almost a decade ago, Shocker, Srivastava, and Ruekert (1994) claimed that research on the development and importance of brand identity is required to retain the significance of scholarly brand management research to the practice of marketing. Although brand identity helps in establishing a relationship between the brand and the customer by generating a value proposition involving functional, emotional, or self-expressive benefits (Aaker 1996), it is extremely difficult for brand image to match perfectly with brand identity due to the complex nature of the communications system. According to Aaker's (1996) conceptualization, brand image is one of the inputs and should be an integral part of strategic brand analysis wherein the brand strategists carefully analyze their own existing brand image and competitors' brand images to help them determine their own brand identity. This is represented by the feedback loop from brand equity to brand identity strategy shown in Figure 1. The feedback loop refers to the influence of the firm's own brand equity and the environment in terms of competitors' brand equity and changing consumer preferences and needs

De Chernatony (1999) discusses the next stage after the organization creates a brand identity. He contends that the organization should consider the suitability of the intended positioning against the brand's identity. That is, after the organization develops a unified brand, it should consider the ways in which the identity is to be communicated to all brand stewards (employees and agents) responsible for marketing communication with customers, prospects,

and publics. As per de Chernatony (1999), there is a potential for conflicting messages as different communication options have different points of contact with different message receivers. We prescribe that brand identity should influence IMC in creating and maintaining synergistic and effective messages. We define an effective brand identity strategy as one that informs, guides, and helps develop, nurture, and implement the firm's overall IMC strategy through various brand identity contacts. In the next section, we provide and discuss a conceptual framework that details how brand identity contacts and brand equity contacts can potentially influence the firm's brand equity. In doing so, we argue that the firm's brand identity strategy and IMC strategy are essential in maintaining effective brand identity contacts and brand equity contacts that, in turn, contribute to brand equity.

A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND RESEARCH PROPOSITIONS

In the preceding section, we provided a schematic of brand equity strategy that (1) incorporates brand identity strategy and IMC strategy as critical components; (2) details the two interfaces between IMC strategy and brand equity and brand identity strategy and IMC strategy using the concept of brand equity contacts and brand identity contacts, respectively; and (3) discusses the need for the feedback loop from brand equity to brand identity strategy and the need for incorporating analysis of the market environment, brand equities of competitors, and changing customer needs and preferences. But is this schematic useful? Can the schematic be operationalized? We answer in the affirmative for both questions, and respond to calls of various researchers with reference to measurement issues.

Based on our brand equity strategy schematic, we present a conceptual framework and empirically testable research propositions. This conceptual framework is based on two foundational theses: (1) Effective management of brand equity contacts leads to high brand equity, and (2) effective management of brand identity contacts leads to highly integrated marketing communication. Drawing from IMC research, brand equity research, and brand identity research, we propose specific relationships among brand identity factors, IMC factors, and brand equity. Specifically, we argue that (1) brand identity contacts can be effectively managed through brand identity factors, including a brand identity-oriented culture, top management support, and an internal market orientation; and (2) brand equity contacts can be better managed through brand equity contact factors such as IMC synergy and IMC effectiveness (see Figure 2).

Brand Equity

Keller conceptualizes brand equity as "the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of the brand" (1993, p. 2). Furthermore, Keller (1) proposes brand

knowledge as central to the definition of brand equity and contends that high levels of brand knowledge increase the probability of brand choice, and (2) defines brand knowledge in terms of brand awareness and image. Following Rossiter and Percy (1987), Keller conceptualizes brand awareness as the strength of the brand trace in memory that is reflected by the consumer's ability to identify the brand under different conditions. Next, Keller defines brand image as "perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand associations held in consumer memory" (1993, p. 3). There are ways of measuring brand equity besides customer-based brand equity, however. For example, there are (1) financial measures of brand equity based on stock prices (Simon and Sullivan 1993) and potential value (Mahajan, Rao, and Srivastava 1994), and (2) measures involving consumer behavior, such as purchase (Kamakura and Russell 1993). For the purposes of this paper, however, we propose measuring brand equity in terms of brand knowledge perceptions, for two reasons: (1) If the firm has a portfolio of brands, measuring brand equity based on stock prices becomes problematic, and (2) consumer perceptions are precursors to behavioral manifestations of brand equity (Cobb-Walgren, Ruble, and Donthu 1995).

Brand Equity Contact Factors

We propose that the brand equity contacts can be effectively managed through integration of marketing communications. Therefore, factors associated with the successful integration of marketing communications such as IMC synergy and IMC effectiveness will be valuable in managing the brand equity contacts and, hence, are related positively to brand equity.

IMC Synergy

Synergy is a phenomenon whereby the combined effect of multiple activities exceeds the sum of their individual effects (Belch and Belch 1998). Naik and Raman (2003) (1) note that the combined impact of multiple communication activities can be much greater than the sum total of their individual effects, and (2) use modeling to furnish empirical evidence of synergy between television and print advertising. Reid (2003) makes a similar claim, arguing that through IMC, firms can attain synergy among all of their marketing communications, which, in turn, leads to enhanced performance. Following the works of Duncan and Moriarty (1998), Eagle and Kitchen (2000), and Hines (1999), Reid notes that synergy ensures that the use of multiple communication tools is mutually 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 consistency, and complementarity as synergy constructs. For Duncan and Moriarty (1998), interactivity refers to the processes that link customers to the company and its brands, and strategic

consistency refers to the coordination of all messages in the promotion of brands. In addition, we contend that complementarity of marketing communications, which refers to the reinforcing effects of individual communication efforts, helps in achieving communication goals that are beyond the individual communication options. Therefore, we offer the following propositions linking IMC synergy with brand equity:

P1a: Positive interactivity is related positively to brand awareness.

P1b: Positive interactivity is related positively to brand image.

P2a: Strategic consistency is related positively to brand awareness.

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 activities should potentially make IMC more effective. Adapting the business performance measures used by Jaworski and Kohli (1993) and Narver and Slater (1990), we propose that IMC effectiveness can be measured as the perception of firms as to the effectiveness of their IMC efforts compared with their competitors' IMC efforts. For example, the key informants from the firms can provide the assessment of IMC effectiveness when compared with competitors' IMC programs. Hence, as harnessing synergy through IMC builds brand equity of products and services (Naik and Raman 2003), effective IMC leads to higher brand equity. Naik and Raman (2003) demonstrate a link between IMC synergy and sales. We posit that an increase in

customer-based brand equity is a mediating factor 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.

P5b: IMC effectiveness is related positively to brand image.

Brand Identity Factors

The identity of the brand--the brand concept from the brand strategist's perspective--is the foundation of a good brand-building program (Joachimsthaler and Aaker 1997). Furthermore,

the brand identity helps the brand achieve high equity. Therefore, this paper proposes that a well-conceived and well-communicated brand identity contributes to building brand equity by positively influencing the IMC processes. That is, it proposes that by effectively managing brand identity contacts (those between the brand strategist and the brand stewards) through (1) a brand identity-oriented culture, (2) top management support, and (3) an internal market orientation, firms can effectively inform and integrate their marketing communications.

Brand Identity-Oriented Culture

Reid (2003) suggests that IMC synergy and IMC effectiveness are

Reid (2003) suggests that IMC synergy and IMC effectiveness are based on cultural and managerial factors. Recently, Urde (1999) introduced the concept of brand orientation that is centered on brand identity. For Urde, "brand orientation is an approach in which the processes of the organization revolve around the creation, development, and protection of brand identity in an ongoing interaction with target customers with the aim of achieving lasting competitive advantages in the form of brands" (1999, pp. 117-118; emphasis added). Throughout his paper, Urde draws parallels between his concepts of brand orientation and market orientation. Therefore, drawing on similarities between Urde'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 the profitable creation and maintenance of brand identity/identities, and (2) provides norms for behavior regarding the organizational development of and responsiveness to brand identity-related information. We argue that firms with a brand identity-oriented culture will be better at integrating their marketing communications. Therefore:

P6a: Brand identity-oriented culture is related positively to positive interactivity.

P6b: 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 effective brand identity should have understanding and buy-in throughout the firm. Furthermore, they observe that many U.S. companies (1) do not have a single, shared vision of their brand's identity, and (2) allow the brand to drift, driven by the often-changing tactical communication objectives of product or market managers. Also, many times, the identity of the brand gets lost along the way to the

customer. But how should the firm ensure that all brand stewards responsible for marketing communications understand the brand identity? We argue that there should be top management support for ensuring the effective management of all possible brand identity contacts.

Schultz and Kitchen (1997) surveyed agencies and found that in the opinion of the agencies, marketers or firms should take the responsibility for integrating various marketing communication efforts. That is, many agencies seem to believe that, given client support and commitment to the integration process, they can create effective marketing communication programs. Schultz (1998) notes brands to be central to integrated marketing communication. Further, Joachimsthaler and Aaker (1997) recommend that one person or team inside the firm should be responsible for the brand. In addition, they claim that the challenge is to create a strong, clear, rich identity and to ensure that the implementation groups (the brand stewards), whether inside or outside the company, understand that identity. As obtaining support from senior management is often essential in strategy implementation (Whitney and Smith 1983), we contend that as a part of implementing the brand identity strategy, the support of top management can ensure that everyone responsible for marketing communications understands the firm's brand identity and, thus, can successfully integrate its marketing communications.

P7a: Top management support is related positively to positive interactivity.

P7b: Top management support is related positively to strategic consistency.

P7c: Top management support is related positively to complementarity.

P7d: Top management support is related positively to IMC effectiveness.

Internal Market Orientation

Among other things, relationship-marketing theory highlights the importance of personal interactions for employees within the firm. That is, as Duncan and Moriarty (1998) note, in order for firms to integrate their external marketing communication, they should first achieve that integration internally. Hack et al. (1998) note that IMC requires, as a precursor, a high degree of interpersonal and cross-functional communication within the organization, across business units. Also, firms often use external agencies/firms for their marketing communications purposes. That is, many employees who are responsible for marketing communications may not be employees of the marketing firm. Gummeson (2002) labels all such employees as "part-time marketers." In order for the firm to implement a successful brand identity strategy, full-time and part-time marketers of the firm need to supply each other with all

the required information so they can agree on specific identities for individual brands. Employees can be influenced most effectively through the concept of internal marketing, and hence can be motivated to be customer conscious by applying marketing-like approaches and activities internally (Gronroos 1982). That is, the success of an external marketing program such as marketing communications is dependent on internal market orientation (Piercy 1995). Recently, Lings (2004) proposed that (1) internal market orientation has a positive relationship with internal aspects of firm performance, and (2) internal aspects of firm performance have positive 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 orientation is related positively to IMC effectiveness.

DISCUSSION

Consistent with recent developments in the understanding and 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 rather than as a tactical activity; (3) places in the hands of the brand strategist the responsibility for the development and coordination of the IMC program through its brand identity strategy; and (4) incorporates feedback from customers, prospects, and competitors into the brand identity strategy. The focus on brand identity enables the marketing firm to accurately and consistently communicate this identity, through brand identity contacts, to those brand stewards responsible for developing and implementing the IMC strategy. A fundamental thesis of this work is that these brand identity contacts will lead to a more synergistic and effective IMC program. The second fundamental thesis is that such an IMC program will lead to stronger brand equity through brand equity contacts.

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

Our brand equity schematic and conceptual framework have many implications for practitioners. The successful application of the proposed framework begins with a "fully defined and operationalized" brand identity. Therefore, firms should focus on efforts that define and develop brand identity. Next, the brand managers and employees of the firm should concentrate on communicating that brand identity to every individual responsible for the firm's marketing communications efforts. After the brand managers clarify their aspirations for the brand, and are able to clearly and accurately communicate these aspirations to the brand stewards, the IMC program should commence. Whether internal or external to the marketing firm, if the brand stewards have a clear and accurate understanding of the brand identity, they are better able to develop a comprehensive, strategic IMC program that more clearly and accurately communicates that brand identity. Finally, feedback from customers, prospects, and publics regarding the brand awareness and image, along with feedback from other entities in the environment, including competitors, will enable the brand owner to adjust its brand image strategy, and/or its IMC strategy. Therefore, the firm should pay particular attention to brand-related market information from the environment.

With reference to academics, the conceptual framework and research propositions that are presented in this paper answer the call for research on (1) the role of IMC in brand equity, (2) the relationship and interaction between IMC and brand management, and (3) more theoretical work in the domain of IMC research. By integrating the works of various researchers, this paper provides a theoretical foundation in the form of a conceptual framework. It should be noted, however, that what we present here is a conceptual framework and not the conceptual framework. We expect this paper to generate a more intellectually stimulating and informed debate that contributes to IMC research. Toward the goal of developing a high-quality IMC research program, we look forward to critiques, extensions, and rivals to our proposed conceptual framework.

The testable research propositions that we have developed from our conceptual framework and the works of various researchers provide evidence that we are on the right path toward developing IMC theory. Again, we hope that in addition to our future research in this area, IMC as a field of research can attract 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 research propositions offer multiple avenues and opportunities for future IMC research. Various qualitative and quantitative studies would be appropriate for this endeavor. With reference to qualitative research, case studies

could follow the brand equity strategy of a single brand, or a portfolio of brands, through brand identity development and IMC strategy through to brand equity. Such studies may provide a rich understanding of the brand equity strategy process. In addition, depth interviews of brand managers, marketing communication managers, and employees of agencies responsible for marketing communications could provide further insights into enriching the conceptual framework and the research propositions. Focus group discussions among select groups of customers exposed to the firm's proposed communication options could provide additional inputs for better integrating the marketing communications.

With reference to quantitative studies, the proposed conceptual framework can be empirically tested. Methods such as survey research could potentially offer more generalizable results. Published scales are available for several of the constructs in the proposed framework. Scales for the remaining constructs can be developed using items adapted from other scales or created anew. Using surveys, researchers could study the brand owner or the IMC agency. Future research could test our conceptual framework in parts--that is, (1) brand identity factors leading to brand equity factors, and (2) brand equity factors leading to brand equity. A more sophisticated study might involve dyadic, or even triadic, research, studying the brand owner, brand stewards, and customers.

Future research could also investigate other brand identity factors that might lead to synergistic and effective IMC pro grams, as well as other characteristics of the IMC program that might lead to higher brand equity. Other research might focus on the measurement of brand equity, especially as it relates to brand identity. Specifically, measures of brand

image-brand identity congruence should be developed. Also, researchers could look into organization structures and cultures that are conducive to developing effective brand identity strategy and IMC strategy. In conclusion, we present our paper as (1) a foundation for further theory development, (2) a starting point for more relevant and rigorous research, and (3) a small but significant contribution with potential implications for academics and practitioners. REFERENCES

Aaker, David A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity, New York: Free Press.

-- (1996), Building Strong Brands, New York: Free Press.

--, and Alexander L. Bid (1993), Brand Equity and Advertising: Advertising's Role in Building Strong Brands, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Belch, George E., and Michael A. Belch (1998), Advertising and Promotion, Boston:

McGraw-Hill.

Bezjian-Avery, Alexa, Bobby Calder, and Dawn Iacobucci (1998), "New Media Interactive Advertising Vs. Traditional Advertising," Journal of Advertising Research, 38 (July/August),

23-32.

Bharadwaj, Sundar G., Rajan Varadarajan, and John Fahy (1993), "Sustainable Competitive Advantage in Service Industries: A Conceptual Model and Research," Journal of Marketing, 57 (October), 83-99.

Carlson, Les, Stephen J. Grove, and Michael J. Dorsch (2003), "Services Advertising and Integrated Marketing Communications: An Empirical Examination," Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 25 (Fall), 68-82.

Chang, Yuhmiin, and Esther Thorson (2004), "Television and Web Advertising Synergies," Journal of Advertising, 33 (Summer), 75-84.

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

Cornelissen, Joep P., and Andrew P. Lock (2000), "Theoretical Concept or Management Fashion? Examining the Significance 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 of Sponsorship on Brand Equity,"Journal of Advertising, 30 (2),

41-52.

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

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

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

Eagle, Lynne C., and Philip J. Kitchen (2000), "IMC, Brand Communications, and Corporate Cultures: Client/Advertising Agency Co-ordination and Cohesion," European Journal of Marketing, 34 (5/6), 667-686.

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

Gronroos, Christian (1982), Strategic Management and Marketing in the Service Sector, Helsingfors: Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration.

Gummeson, Evert (2002), "Relationship Marketing and a New Economy: It's Time for Deprogramming," Journal of Services Marketing, 16 (7), 585-589.

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

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

Hunt, Shelby D. (forthcoming), "On Reforming Marketing: For Marketing Systems and Brand Equity Strategy," in Does Marketing Need Reform? Jagdish Sheth and Raj Sisodia, eds., Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Jap, Sandy D. (1999), 'Pie-Expansion' Efforts: Collaboration Processes in Buyer-Supplier Relationships, "Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (November), 461-475.

Jaworski, Bernard J., and Ajay K. Kohli (1993), "Market Orientation: Antecedents and Consequences," Journal of Marketing, 57 (January), 53-70.

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

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

Kapferer, Jean-Noel (1997), Strategic Brand Management: Creating and Sustaining Brand Equity Long Term, London: Kogan Page.

Keller, Kevin Lane (1993), "Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity," Journal of Marketing, 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 Marketing Communication Programs," Journal of Marketing Management, 17 (September), 819-847.

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

Kitchen, Philip J., Joanne Brignell, Tao Li, and Graham Spickett Jones (2004), "The Emergence of IMC: A Theoretical Perspective," Journal of Advertising Research, 44 (March), 19-30.

--, and Don E. Schultz (2003), "Integrated Corporate and Product Brand Communication," Advances in Competitiveness 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 Arnold M. Barban (1994), Advertising: Its Role in Modern Marketing, 8th ed., Fort Worth, TX: Dryden.

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

Lings, Ian N. (2004), "Internal Market Orientation Construct and Consequences," Journal of Business 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 Brand Equity in Acquisition Decisions, "Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11 (3), 221-235.

McArthur, David N., and Tom Griffin (1997), "A Marketing Management View of Integrated Marketing Communications," Journal of Advertising Research, 37 (September/October),

19-26.

Naik, Prasad A., and Kalyan Raman (2003), "Understanding the Impact of Synergy in Multimedia Communications," Journal of Marketing Research, 40 (November), 375-388. Narver, John C., and Stanley F. Slater (1990), "The Effect of a Market Orientation on Business Profitability," Journal of Marketing, 54 (October), 20-35.

Percy, Larry, John R. Rossiter, and Richard Elliott (2001), "What It Takes for Successful Advertising and Promotion," in Strategic Advertising Management, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 35-48.

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

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

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

Schultz, Don E. (1998), "Branding: The Basis for Marketing Integration," Marketing News, 32 (24), 8.

-- (2003), "The New Brand Wagon," Marketing Management, 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 Communication Campaigns, Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Business Books.

--, and Philip J. Kitchen (1997), "Integrated Communications in U.S. Advertising Agencies: An Exploratory Study," Journal of Advertising Research, 37 (5), 7-18.

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

---, Stanley I. Tannenbaum, and Robert F. Lauterborn (1993), Integrated Marketing Communications, Chicago: NTC Business Books.

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

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

Slater, Stanley F., and John C. Narver (1995), "Market Orientation and the Learning Organization, "Journal of Marketing, 59 (July), 63-74.

Swain, William N. (2004), "Perceptions of IMC After a Decade of Development: Who's at the Wheel, and How Can We Measure Success?" Journal of Advertising Research, 44 (March), 46-65.

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

Urde, Mats (1999), "Brand Orientation: A Mindset for Building Brands into Strategic Resources," Journal of Marketing Management, 15 (January/April), 117-133.

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

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

Sreedhar Madhavaram, Vishag Badrinarayanan, and Robert E. McDonald

Sreedhar Madhavaram (Ph.D., Texas Tech University) is an assistant professor of marketing, Department of Marketing, Nance College of Business Administration, Cleveland State University.

Vishag Badrinarayanan (M.B.A., Institute for Technology and Management, India) is an assistant professor of marketing, Department of Marketing, McCoy College of Business Administration, Texas State University-San Marcos.

Robert E. McDonald (Ph.D., University of Connecticut) is an assistant professor, Department of Marketing, Rawls College of Business Administration, Texas Tech University.

TABLE 1

The Evolution of Integrated Marketing Communications

IMC has evolved from ... To ...

Tactical orientation Strategic orientation

Local Global

Emerging development Major communication development "Inside-out" "Outside-in" customer-oriented Managerial fashion New management paradigm Emerging paradigm Representing a paradigm shift Representing an emic-etic gap Representing a poststructural set of practices and discourses "What is it?" "How can we do it?"

Most basic notion of coordinating A multistage model incorporating a all corporate communications focus on all contacts with

consumers

Just a communication process One associated with management and brands