11.10.29_imc e brand identity for brand equity

8/11/2019 11.10.29_imc e Brand Identity for Brand Equity

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/111029imc-e-brand-identity-for-brand-equity 1/13

INTEGRATED MARKETING COMMUNICATION (IMC) AND BRAND

IDE NT ITY AS CRITICAL COMPONEN TS OF BRA ND EQ UITY 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 components

ot the firm's brand equity strategy. Specifically, the authors provide a brand equity strategy schematic that details (1) the

role of IMC in creating and maintaining brand equity, and (2) the role of brand identity in informing, guiding, and

helping

to

develop, nurture, and im plement the firm's overall

IM

strategy.

The

authors

also

present

a

conceptual framework

with testable research propositions toward IMC theory development. Finally, a discussion of implications for academics

and 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 of

brand strategy that requires extensive brand development ac-

tivities within the firm betore beginning any external brand

communications efforts . Regarding academics, Vargo and

Lusch (2004) argued in a recent paper that m arke ting is evolv-

ing toward a dynamic and evolutionary process—one that is

based on a service-centered view. In keeping with this evolu-

tion, Vargo and Lusch (2004) suggest that (1) IMC should

replace diverse, limited-focus pro motion al 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 inte -

grated

?rarid

communic tions can help businesses move for-

ward 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

(199.3) points out th at customer-based brand equity emanates

from the consumer's familiarity and strong, favorable associa-

tions with the brand. For Keller, ma rketing c omm unications

Sree dha r Ma dhav aram (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 and

Management, 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 concernin

their product offerings (2 0 0 1 , p. 823). That is , marketin

communication may provide the means for developing strong

customer-based brand equity (Keller 2003). Furthermor

marketing communications help the firm in eliciting favo

able responses from customers (Duncan and Moriarty 1998

Altho ugh a numb er of factors influence customer-based bran

equity, 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 ha

evolved from being a mere inside-out device that bring

promotional tools together to being a strategic process asso

ciated with brand management. Further, Naik and Rama

note that IMC emphasizes the benefits of harnessing syn

ergy across multiple media to build brand equity of produc

and services

(2003,

p- 375 ). In this paper, however, by ta

ing th e works of several researchers (e.g., Dun can and Mo riart

1998; Jap 1999; Reid 20 03), we conceptualize interactivit

strategic consistency, and complementarity as synergy con

structs. Therefore, noting the intricate relationship betwee

IMC and brand management, this paper aims to explore IM

as an integral part of a firm's overall brand equity strategy.

But what is a brand equity strategy? H un t notes, the fun

damental thesis of brand equity strategy is that, to achiev

competitive advantage and, thereby, superior financial perfo

mance, firms should acquire, develop, nurture, and leverage a

effectiveness-enhancing portfolio of bra nd s' (forthco min g

Analogously, we define br nd equity str tegy as a set of pr

cesses that include acquiring, developing, nurturing, and l

veraging an effectiveness-enhancing, high-equity brand o

portfolio of brands. By high equity, following Keller's (19 93

definition of customer-based brand equity, we mean the stron

and highly favorable brand associations of customers. Kell

Jotinial f

Adveriiiing

vol. 3'1, ni>. 4 (Winter 2{IO5), pp. 6

© 2005 American Atademy of Advenisinji, All tights reserv

ISSN 0091-3367 / 2005 »9.5O * 0.



7 0 The Journal of dv ertising

(19 93) defines brand equity as the differential effect of brand

knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of che

brand and suggests brand awareness and brand image as the

constructs related to customer-based brand equity.

Keller (2003) notes char the firm s ma rketing com mun ica-

tions contribute to brand equity. Tha t is, effective com mu ni-

cation enables th e formations of brand awareness and a positive

brand image. These then form the brand knowledge struc-

tures, which, in turn , trig ger the differentiated responses that

constitute brand equity. Following Schultz (2004a), we de-

fine

IM C str tegy

as a set of processes that include the plan-

ning, development, execution, and evaluation of coordinated,

measurable, persuasive brand communications programs over

time with consumers, customers, prospects, employees, asso-

ciates, and other targeted, relevant external and internal au-

diences. Therefore, effective IMC is an integral pare 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 brand ing literatu re

(de Chernatony 1999) from a singular focus on the impor-

tance of brand image , or consumers' perceptions of brand dif-

ferentiatio n, to include a focus on btan d identity (Aaker 1996;

Kapferer 1997; Keller

2003 ;

Upshaw 1995). Though mul-

tiple 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 strate-

gist spires to create or maintain. Further, we define brand

identity str tegy 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)

com mu nicatin g the brand identity/ide ntities to all individu-

als and groups (internal and external to the firms) responsible

for the firm's marketing communications. This paper pro-

poses that an effective brand identity strategy informs, guides,

and helps to develop, nurture , and imp leme nt the firm's overall

IMC strategy, which In turn contributes to the firms brand

equity.

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 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 strength-

ens the interface between the firm's brand identity strategy

and its customer-based b rand equity, tha t is, brand awareness

and brand image. Specifically, this paper argues that IMC strat-

egy and brand id entity strategy are critical comp onents 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 eq

uity in which the aspirational brand identity guides IMC i

an effort to develop and maintain customer-based brand eq

uity. Th e essence of this brand eq uity stra tegy is tha t by clearl

and consistently communicating the brand identity to othe

brand stewards, the brand strategist can ensure a more syne

gistic and effective IMC. This, in turn, leads to stronger cu

tomer-based b rand equity. An ideal outcom e of such a strateg

would be a consumer-held brand image tha t is congrue nt wit

the strategist's intended brand identity.

' . I

E V O L U T I O N O F I M C

In the past decade, IMC as a research area has generated a lo

of debate, led to intellectual discourse, and overall, has con

tributed to the evolution of IMC as a strategic tool that ca

help firms to be more effective in realizing their brand com

mun ication goals. Given (1) the explosive growth of new elec

tronic media (Bezjian-Avery, Calder, and Iacobucci 1998), (2

the numerou s and diverse means of com mu nication and com

munication options (Keller 2001), (3) the speed, span, an

reach of electronic communication, which is driving firms t

adopt a global perspective (Kitchen and Schultz 2003), an

(4) the rapidly changing advertis ing environment (Goul

2004),

IMC theory and practice has grown and evolved. Th

section provides a brief overview of the evolution of IMC (a

shown in Table 1) in terms of 1) its conceptual developmen

(2) its strategic role in brand equity, and (3) its importance a

a major communications development.

C o n c e p t u a l D e v e l o p m e n t - '

IMC has a come a long way from being conceptualized as th

coordination of communication tools for a brand (Krugman e

al .

1994) to a more strategic conceptualization (Duncan 200

Percy, Rossiter, and E lliott 2 00 1; Schultz 2004a ). As Carlson

Grove, and Dorsch (2003) note , the in i t ia l conceptual i

zations of IMC were somewhat blurred and led to the adop

tion of different ap proaches to creating messages. Even after

decade of research in th e IM C area, differences still exist am on

researchers as to the conceptualization of IMC. For example

Cornelissen and Lock (2000 ) claimed IMC to be a man age

me nt fashion rather than a theoretica l concept. In reply

Schultz and K itchen (200 0) argued that IMC is an eme rg

ing paradigm whose progression as a concept and disciplin

is entirely app ropria te and in accordance with scientif

theory. 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 poststructura

paradigmatic perspective on theory. Therefore, it can be in

ferred from the preceding discussion that IMC as a theoret

cal concept is on the right path in terms of attracting an



Winter 2 5

TABLE I

The 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 coordinating

all corporate communications

Just a communication process

T o . . .

Strategic orientation

Global

Major communicat ion development

Ou tside-in customer-oriented

New management paradigm

Representing a paradigm shift

Representing a poststructural set of

practices and discourses

How can we do i t?

A mult istage model incorporating a

focus on all contacts with consumers

One associated with management

and brands

Schultz (2004a). Mc Ar thu r and Griff in

(1997). Duncan (2002)

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 various

concerned researchers.

St ra teg ic

Role

of

IMC in rand

Eq u i ty

Kitchen et al. (2004) point out that IMC is no longer just a

com mun ication 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 of

McArthur and Griffm (1997) that the responsibility for mar-

keting com mu nication s is clearly becoming an internal, up-

per management affair suggests that IMC is evolving to be

strategically oriented rather rhan tactically oriented.

I m p o r t a n c e o f I M C

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 ;

Reid

2003) suggest and provide support for the idea that IMC pro -

vides various benefits for firms. N aik and Ram an (20 03) in-

dicate 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 con-

tend that IMC potentially can make firms more efficient

and/or effective in communicating with their intended ta

get markets, and in turn, can help firms in achieving superio

financial performance through higher brand equity. In th

next section, we present and discuss IMC strategy and bran

identity strategy as critical components of the firm's overa

brand equity strategy.

B R A N D E Q U I T Y S T R A T EG Y

Building and properly managing brand equity is a priorit

for many firms (Keller 2003). Keller (1993) points out tha

building brand equity requires (1) internal brand identity e

forts, and then, (2) integration of brand identities into th

firms overall marketing programs, such as product, pr ic

advertising, promotion, and distr ibution decisions. Furthe

more, Keller (1993) suggests that the strength of the firm

brand equity from communications depends on how we

the brand identit ies are integrated into the supporting ma

keting programs. In addition, Keller (2003) calls for effec

tive strategies for integratin g m arketing com mu nication

in building and maintaining brand equity. Although a

market ing programs, such as p roduct , p r ice , adver t i s ing

promot ion , and d is t r ibu t ion , can poten t ia l ly crea te an

maintain brand equity, in this paper, we focus on the role o

the f irm s marketing communication efforts in a brand eq

uity strategy. Specifically, as shown in our bran d eq uity sche

ma tic (see Figure 1), we propose brand id entity s trategy a n

IMC strategy as cr i t ical components of the overall bran

equity strategy.

Ho w does IMC contrib ute to a firm's brand equ ity? Schult

Tannenbaum, and Lauterborn (1993) conceptualize the effec



7 2 The Journal of Advertising

FIGURE I

Brand -Equity Strategy: A Schematic

1

1

Brand

identity

strategy

i

Brand

identity

interface

Brind ^

identity

contacts

IMC

strategy

i

Brand

equity

interface

BIrand

equity

contacts

-

Brand

Equity

1

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

Source

Madhavaram (2004).

of integrated marke ting comm unication 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 mo uth

and the experience of using the product. Ail of these contacts

with customers can potentially influence che firm's brand eq-

uity. As Keller (2001) notes, customers or prospects can also

have contact with the brand thro ugh m arketer-controlled com -

municat ion, including (1) media advert ising, (2) direct re-

sponse and interactive advertising, (3) place advertising, (4)

point-of-purchase advert ising, (5) t rade prom otions, (6) con-

sumer 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 communicat ions influence brand equity, includ-

ing advert ising (Aaker and Biel 199 3; Cobb -Walgren , Ru ble ,

and Do nth u 1995), sponso rship (Cornwell, Roy, and Steinard

2001) , a nd va r i ous a l t e rna t i ve c ommuni c a t i on op t i ons

(Joachimsthaler and Aaker 1997). Hence, in this paper, fol-

lowing (1) Keller, who notes chat one important purpose of all

ma rketing co mm unications is co contrib ute to brand equity,

and (2) Schultz, Tannenbaum, and Lauterbom's (1993) notion

of marketing commun icat ions through contacts, we argue

that fi rms can use IM C to achieve high br and equ ity thro ugh

marketer-control led brand contacts.

We now introduce the concepts of brand identity concacc

and brand equity contacts.

Braiui identity

contacts are all me

sage-carrying interactions concerning the brand between th

brand stracegiscs and che brand stewards. Brand stewards ar

all internal and external entities (individuals and groups) tha

have responsibi l i ty for communicat ing che brand to custom

ers,

prospects, and publics (de Chernacony 1999). Brand stew

ards can include advert ising and public re la t ions agencies

direct marketers, and salespeople.

Brand

eq uity contacts are

marketer-sponsored interactions concerning the brand between

brand stewards and customers, prospects, and publics tha

are intended to create or maintain strong and highly favor

able associations.

As shown in Figure 1, we propose that fi rms th at are bet

ter able to influence their IMC through their brand idencity

contacts will be better able co influence their brand equity

through their brand equity contacts. Internal brand iden

tity efforts are the first seep toward firms building thei

brand equity (Keller 2003). We argue that there are cwo

interfaces that fa l l within the purview of the firm's overal

brand equity stra tegy; (1) the interface between the firm'



Winter 2 5

7

IMC strategy and brand equity, and (2) the interface between

the 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 can

be influenced through brand identity contacts . Also, the

firm s overall bran d equ ity st rateg y is influenced by the

feedback loop from the firm's customer-based brand eq-

uity to the firm's brand identity strategy, external envi-

ronm en t , com pet i to r s b rands , and chang ing cus tom er

needs and preferences.

IMC and Bra nd Equ i ty

The traditional communication process (Lasswell 1948), which

depicts the flow of messages from senders to receivers via ele-

ments 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) con-

tacts are not controllable by the brand stra tegist (Duncan and

Moriarty 1998; Schultz 2003).

Integrated marketing communication has been advanced

as a strategic business process that could contribute to build-

ing brand value (Schultz 2004a). Although systematic research

on several strategic and tactical aspects of IMC is gaining

momentum, it is widely accepted that effective communica-

tion 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 eq-

uity, it is not surprising that many organizations devote con-

siderable 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

custo mer s' favorable responses. .

As Schultz (20()4b) notes, brand e quity is not merely b uilt

through independent forms of communication (such as ad-

vertising or public relations), but is generated by managing

brand equity contacts via IMC. IMC, with synergy among

the various com mu nica tions vehicles as its fundam ental con-

cept, could potentially create the greatest persuasion effec

in consumers encou nters with brand contacts (Chan g an

Thorson 2004). Indeed, based on their empirical s tudy, Na i

and Raman (2003) conclude that by adopting an IMC per

spective, marketers harness synergy across multiple com

munication vehicles to build brand equity across product

and services.

rand Iden tity Strategy and IMC

Creating and maintaining a brand identity is regarded as th

first step toward building strong brands (Aaker 1996; Kelle

2003). Almost a decade ago. Shocker, Srivastava, and Rueke

(1994) claimed that research on the development and impor

tance of brand identity is required to retain the significanc

of scholarly brand management research to the practice o

market ing.

Although brand identity helps in establishing a relation

ship between the brand and the customer by generating

value proposition involving functional, emotional, or sel

expressive benefits (Aaker 1996), it is extremely difficult fo

brand image to match perfectly with brand identity due t

the complex nature of the communications system. Accord

ing to Aaker s (1996) conceptualization, brand image is on

of the in puts and should be an integral pa rt of strategic bran

analysis wherein the brand strategists carefully analyze thei

own existing brand image and competitors' brand images t

help 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 t

the influence of the firm's own brand e quity and the environ

ment in terms of competitors ' brand equity and changin

consumer preferences and needs.

De Chernatony (1999) discusses the next stage after th

organization creates a brand identity. He contends that th

organization should consider the suitability of the intende

positioning against the brand's identity. That is, after the or

ganization develops a unified brand, it should consider th

ways in which the identity is to be comm unicated to all bran

stewards (employees and agents) responsible for marketin

communication with customers, prospects, and publics. A

per de Chernatony (1999 ), there is a potentia l for conflictin

messages as different communication options have differen

points of contact with different message receivers. We pre

scribe that brand identity should influence IMC in creatin

and maintaining synergistic and effective messages. We de

fine an effective brand identity strategy as one that inform

guides, and helps develop, nurture, and implement the firm'

overall 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 an

brand equity contacts can potentially influence the firm



74 The Journal of dvertising

brand equity. In doing so, we argue that the firm's brand

identity strategy and IMC strategy are essential in main-

taining effective brand identity contacts and brand equity

contacts that, in turn, contribute to brand equity.

A C O N C E P T U A L F R A M E W O R K

A N D R E S E AR C H P R O P O S I T I O N S

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 th e concept of brand

equity 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 incorporating

analysis of the market environment, brand equities of com-

petitors, and changing customer needs and preferences. But

is this schematic useful? Can the schem atic be operation alized?

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 concep tual framework and empiric ally testable research

propt)sitions. This con ceptual framework is based on two foun-

dational theses: (I) Effective management of brand equity

contacts leads to high brand equity, and (2) effective manage-

men[ of brand identity contacts leads to highly integrated

marketing communication. Drawing from IMC research,

brand equity research, and brand identity research, we pro-

pose 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, includin g a brand iden tity-o rient ed cul ture,

top management support, and an internal market orientation;

and (2) brand equity contacts can be better managed through

brand equity contact fectors such as IMC synergy and IMC

effectiveness (see Figure 2).

Brand Equ i ty

Keller concep tualizes brand equi ty as the differential effect

of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing

of the brand

( 19 9 3 ,

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 knowl-

edge in terms of brand awareness and image. Following

Rossiter 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 under

different conditions. Next, Keller defines brand image as

perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand associ

tions held in consumer memory

( 1 9 9 3 ,

p. 3). There a

ways of measuring brand equity besides customer-base

brand equity, however. For example, there are (1) financia

measures of brand equity based on stock prices (Simon an

Sullivan 1993) and poten tial value (Mah ajan, Rao, an

Srivastava 1994), and (2) measures involving consumer be

havior, such as purchase (Kamakura and Russell 1993). Fo

the purposes of this paper, however, we propose measurin

brand equity in terms of brand knowledge perceptions, fo

two 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 behaviora

manifestations of brand equity (Cobb-Walgren, Ruble, an

Donthu 1995) .

Brand Equ i ty Con tac t F ac to r s

We propose chat the brand equity contacts can be effectivel

managed through integration of marketing comm unications

Therefore, factors associated with the successful integratio

of marketing communications such as IMC synergy and IMC

effectiveness will be valuable in managing the brand equit

contacts and, hence, are related positively to brand equity.

IMC Synergy

Synergy is a phenomenon whereby the combined effect o

m ulti ple activitie s exceeds the sum of their in dividua l effect

(Belch and Belch 1998). Naik and Raman (2003) (1) not

that 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 empirica

evidence 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), Eagl

and Kitchen (2000), and Hines (1999). Reid notes that syn

ergy ensures char the use of multiple communication tools i

mutually reinforcing. Therefore, following Belch and Belc

(199 8). Dunc an and Moriarty (1998), Eagle and Kitchen

(2000), Hines (1999), Jap (199 9), Naik and Ram an (2003 )

and Reid (2003 ), we conceptualize interactivity, strategic con

sistency, and complementarity as synergy constructs . Fo

Duncan and Moriarty (1998),

interactivity

refers to che pro

cesses thac link customers to che company and its brands, and

str tegic consistency refers to the coordination of all message

the promotion of brands . In addi t ion , we contend cha

complement rity of marketing communications, which ref

to che reinforcing effects of individ ual c om mu nica tion ef

forts, helps in achieving communication goals chac are be



Winter 2 5

FIGURE 2

A Conceptual Fram ework

Brand identity contact factors

Brand equity contact factors

Brand

ident i ty-

oriented

culture

Top

management

support

Internal

market

orientation

IMC synergy

Constructs

•

Interactivity

•

Interactivity consistency

• Complementary

IMC

etTectiveness

Brand equity

• A wareness

•

Image

uurct Madhavaram (2004) .

Note:

IMC = i n t egra ted m arket i ng comm uni t a t i on .

yond the individual communication options. Therefore, we of-

fer the following propositions link ing IMC synergy with brand

equity:

Pla: Positive interactivity is related positively to hrand

awareness

Plb: Positive interactivity is related positively to b rand image

P2a: Strategic consistency is related positively to hrand

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

IM C Effectiveness

Synergy among the various marketing co mm unication activ

ties should potentially make IMC more effective. Adaptin

the business performance m easures used by Jaworski and Koh

(1993) and Narver and Slater (1990), we propose that IM

effectiveness can be measured as the perception of firms as t

the effectiveness of their IMC efforts compared with the

competitors IMC efforts. For example, the key inform an

from the firms can provide the assessment of IMC effectiv

ness when compared with competi tors ' IMC programs. Henc

as harnessing synergy through IMC builds brand equity

products and services (Naik and Raman 2003), effective IM

leads to higher brand equity . Naik and Raman (2003) dem



76 The Journal of Advertising

onstratc a link between IMC synergy and sales. We posit that

an increase in cuscomer-ba.sed 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: Com plementarity 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 Iden t i ty F ac to r s

Tbe identity of the brand—the brand concept from the brand

strategist'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, th is paper proposes that a well-conceived and well-

com munica ted brand ide ntity contributes co buildi ng brand

equicy by positively influencing che IMC processes. That is,

ic proposes that by effectively m anag ing b rand ide ntity con-

tacts (those between che brand strategist and the brand stew-

ards) 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

communicat ions .

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 orientation

tliat is centered on brand identity. For Urd e, brand o rien-

tation is an approach in which t he processes of che organiza-

c ion r evo lve a round the c r ea t ion , deve lopmen t , and

protection of hrand identity in an ongoing interaction with

target customers with the aim of achieving lasting competi-

tive advantage s in the form of brand s (19 99 , pp .

1 7 - 1 1 8 ;

emphasis added). Throughout his paper, Urde draws paral-

lels between his concepts of brand orientation and market

or ienta t ion . Therefore , drawing on s imilar i t ies between

Urde's notion of brand orientation and Slater and Narver's

(1995) conceptualization of market orientation as a culture,

we conceptualize brand ide ntity orientation as a culture t hat

(1) places high priority on rhe profitable creation and main-

tenance ot brand idenriry/identities, and (2) provides norms

for behavior regarding the organizational development of

and responsiveness to brand identity-related information.

We argue tbat f irms with a brand identity-oriented culture

will be better at integrating their marketing communic

tions. Therefore:

P6a: B rand identity-oriented culture is related positit ely 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 Joach imsth aler and Aaker (19 97), a clear and effectiv

brand identity should have understanding and buy~in th roug

out che firm. Furthermore, they observe that many U.S. com

panies (1) do not have a single, shared vision of cheir brand

iden tity, and (2) allow th e brand co drift, driven by the ofte

changing tactical comm unication objectives of product or ma

ket managers. Also, many times, the identity of the brand ge

lost along che way to che customer. But how .should che firm

ensure that all brand stewards responsible for marketing com

mun ications understand the brand identity? We argue that the

should be top management support for ensuring the effectiv

management of all possible brand identity contacts.

Schultz and Kitchen (1997) surveyed agencies and foun

chac in the opinion of the agencies, marketers or firms shoul

take the responsibility for integrating various marketing com

mu nication efforts. Th at is, many agencies seem to believ

that, given client support and commitment to the integra

tion process, chey can create effective marketing communic

tion programs. Schultz (1998) notes brands to be central t

integrated marketing communication. Further, Joachimsthal

and Aaker (1997) recommend that one person or team insid

the firm should be responsible for che brand. In addition, che

claim thac the challenge is co create a strong , dea r, rich iden

tity and to ensure that the implementation groups (the bran

stewards), whether inside or outside the company, understan

thac identity. As obtainin g support from senior m anagem en

is often essential in strategy im plem entatio n (W hitne y an

Smith 1983), we contend that as a pa n of implem enting th

brand identity strategy, the support of top management ca

ensure chat everyone responsible tor marketing communic

tions understands the firm's brand iden tity 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

7

P7c: Top manage ment support is related positively to

complementarity

Pld: Top manage ment support is related positively to IMC

effectiveness

Internal Market Orientation

Among other things, relationship-marketing theory high-

lights 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 com-

munication, they should first achieve that integration inter-

nally. Hac ke ta l. (19 98) 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 marketing

communications purposes. That is, many employees who are

responsible for marketing communications may not be em-

ployees of the marketing firm. Gummeson (2002) labels all

such employees as part-t ime marke ters. In order for the firm

to imple me nt 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 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 orientation

has a positive relationship with internal aspects of firm per-

formance, and (2) internal aspects of firm performance have

positive relationships with the external aspects of performance.

Therefore:

P8a: Internal marke t orientation is related positively to positive

interactivity

P8b: Internal market orientation is relatedpositively

t

strategic

consistency

P8c: Internal marke t orientation is related positively to

complementarity

P8d: Internal market mentation is related positively to IMC

effectiveness

D I S C U S S I O N

Consistent with recent developments in the understanding

and application of IMC, the proposed conceptual framework

(1) applies IMC as an inte gral ele me nt in a successful brand

equity strategy; (2) treats IMC as a strategic activity rathe

than as a tactical activity; (3) places in the hands of the brand

strategist 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 focu

on brand identity enables the marketing firm to accurately

and consistently communicate this identity, through brand

identity contacts, to those brand stewards responsible for de

veloping and implementing the IMC strategy. A fundamenta

thesis of this work is that these brand identity contacts wil

lead to a more synergistic and effective IMC p rogram . The sec

ond fundamental thesis is that such an IMC program will lead

to 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 effective

IMC program. These characteristics include a brand identity

oriented culture, top management support for the brand iden

tity, and internal market orientation. Furthermore, the more

synergistic (i.e., consistent, interactive, and complementary

and effective the IMC program , the higher th e resulting brand

equity. As used here, brand equity m eans 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 have

many implications for practitioners. The successful applica

tion of the proposed framework b egins with a fully defmed

and oper ation al zed brand identity. Therefore, firms should

focus 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 communication

efforts. After the brand managers clarify their aspirations fo

the 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 the

marketing firm, if the brand srewards have a clear and accu

rate understanding of the brand identity, they are better able

to develop a comprehensive, strategic IMC program that m or

clearly and accurately communicates that brand identity. Fi

nally, feedback from customers, prospects, and publics regard

ing the brand awareness and image, along with feedback from

other entities in the environment, including competitors, wil

enable 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 from

the environment.

With reference to academics, the conceptual framework

and 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 and

brand management, and (3) more theoretical work in the do



78 Th e Journal of Advertising

main of IMC research. By integrating the works of various

researchers, 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 framework

and not the conceptual framework. We expect this paper to

generate a more intellectually stimulating and informed de-

bate 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 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 add ition

to our future research in this area, IMC as a field of research

can accracc more scholars to develop a robust IMC theory. He re,

we present a few directions for future research.

F U T U R E R E S E A R C H

The proposed conceptual framework and the testable research

propositions offer multiple avenues and opportunities for fu-

ture IMC research. Various qualitative and quantitative scud-

ies would be appropriate for chis endeavor. With reference to

qualitative research, case studies could follow the brand eq-

uity strategy of a single bra nd, or a portfolio of bran ds, thro ugh

brand identity development and IMC scracegy chrough co

brand equity. Such studies may provide a rich understanding

of the brand eq uity strategy process. In addition, de pth inter-

views of brand managers, marketing communication manag-

ers, and employees of agencies responsible for marketing

communications could provide further insights into enrich-

ing che 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 market-

ing communications.

Wich reference co quancicacive scudies, the proposed con-

cepcual framework can be empirically cesced. Mechods such

as survey research could potentially offer more generalizable

results. Published scales are available for several of the con-

structs in the proposed framework. Scales for che remaining

constructs can be developed using items adapted from other

scales or created anew. Using surveys, researchers could study

the brand owner or che IMC agency. Future research could

test our conceptual framework in parts— chat is, (1) brand

iden tity factors leading co bran d equ ity factors, and (2) brand

equity factors leading to brand equity. A more sophisticated

study mighc involve dyadic, or even criadic, research, study-

ing the brand owner, brand stewards, and cuscomers.

Future research could also investigate other brand identity

factors thac might lead to synergistic and effective IMC pro-

grams, as well as other characteristics of che IMC program

chat mighc lead to higher brand equity. Other research migh

focus on the measurement of brand equity, especially as

relates to brand identity. Specifically, measures of brand im

age—brand identity congruence should be developed. Als

researchers could look inco organization structures and cu

cures that are conducive to developing efFective brand iden

tity strategy and IMC strategy. In conclusion, we present ou

paper as (1) a foundation for further theory development, (2

a starting point for more relevant and rigorous research, an

(3) a small buc significant co ntribu tion w ith potential im pl

cations for academics and practitioners.

R F R N S

Aaker, David A. (1991)> Managing

Brand Equity,

New York: F

Press.

(1996),

Building

Strong Brands, New York: Free Pre

and Alexander L. Biel (1993), Brand Equity an d

Adv

tising: Advertising's Role in Building Strong Brands, Hil

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

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

a

Promotion. Boscon: McGraw-Hill.

Bezjian-Avery, Alexa, Bobby Calder, and Dawn lacobucci (199 8

"New Media Interactive Advertising Vs. Traditional A

vert ising,"7o«fn£ ?/ o f Advertising Research, 38 (July/Aug

23- 32 .

Bhara dwaj,S undarG ., Rajan Varadarajan, and Joh n Fahy (1993

"Sustainable Competitive Advantage in Service Induscrie

A Conceptual Model and Research," Jw rwrf

of Marketin

57 (October), 83-99.

Carlson, Les, Stephen J. Grove, and Michael J. Dorsch (2003

"Services Advertising and Inccgraced Marketing Comm

nicacions: An Em pirical E xam ination ," yrwrrw/

of Curr

Issues an d Research in

Advertising.

25 (Fall), 68-82.

Chang, Yuhmiin, and Escher Thorson (2004), "Television an

Weh

Advertising Synergies, Journal of

Advertising 33 (S

mer),

75 -84 .

Cobb-W algren, Cathy J., Cynthia A. Rub le, and Naveen Donth

(1995), "Brand Equity, Brand Preference, and Purchase I

tent, Journal o f Adverti.mig 24 (Fall), 25-40.

Cornelissen,Joep P., and Andrew P. Lock (2000), "Theoretica

Concept or Management Fashion.-' Examining the Signif

cance of IMC Journal of Advertising Research, 40 (5)

15 .

Cornwell, T. Bettina, Donald R. Roy, and Edward A. Steinard

(2001), "Exploring Managers' Perceptions of the Impact o

Sponsorship on Brand Equity, Journal of

Adt>ertising

30

4 1 - 5 2 .

de Chernatony, Leslie (1999), "Brand Management Throug

Narrowing the Gap Between Brand Identity and Bran

Reputation,

Journal

of

Marketing

Mattagemenl

15 (Janu

April),

157-179.

Duncan, Thomas R. (2002),

IMC: Using Advertising and Pro

tiofi to Build Brands, Boston: McGraw-Hill.



Winter 2005

7

-,

and

(1998), A Communication-Based Mar-

keting Model for Managing

R tlationships, Journal of Mar-

keting,

62

(April),

1-13.

Eagle, Lynne

C, and

Philip

J.

Kitchen (2000), "IMC, Brand

Communications, 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 s Theory and as a Postscructural

Set

of

Practices

and

Discourses:

A

Continu ously Evolving

Paradigm Shift, Journal of Advertising Research.

44

(March),

66-70.

Gronroos, Christian (1982), Strategic Management an d Marketing

in the Service Sector. Helsingfors: Swedish School of Econom-

ics and Business Administration.

Gummeson, Evert (2002), "Relationship Marketing and a N ew

Economy: It's Time for Deprogramm ing," yw/rn^/

of Ser-

vices Marketing.

16(7), 58 5-589.

Hack, Becki, Heidi Schultz,

Don E.

Schultz, Linda Mullinix,

Chris Cares, and Alexandria Wornack (1998), "Integrated

Marketing Communication Best-Practice Report," in IM C

Study

Report

of

the American Productivity

an d

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: For

Marketing Systems and Brand Equity Strategy," in

Does

Marketing 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-S upp lier Relationsbips,"yoj (rfft?/(?/Al(3r;&^/-

ing Research. 36 (November) , 4 6 1^ 75 .

Jaworski, Bernard J., and Ajay K. K ohli (1993), "Market Orien-

tation: Antecedents and Con sequences, Journal of Market-

'«£•

57

(January), 53- 70.

Joachimsthaler, Erich, and David A. Aaker (1997), "Building

Brands Without Mass Media," Harvard Business Review,

75 (January/February), 39-50.

Kamaku ra, Wagner A., and Gary J. Russell (1993), "M easuring

Brand Value with Scanner Data," International Journal of

Research in

Marketing.

10 (M arch), 9-22.

Kapferer, Jean-Noel (1997),

Strategic Brand Management: Creat-

ing and Sustaining Brand Equity Long

Term.

London: Kogan

Page.

Keller, Kevin Lane (1993), "Conceptualizing, Measuring, and

Managing 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 Com munications Mix:

Micro

and

Macro Perspectives

on

Integrated M arketing

Com mu nication Progra ms." yo/zrwi / of Marketing Manage-

ment. 17 (September), 81 9-8 47 .

(2003), Strategic Brand Management Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kitchen, Philip J., Joanne Brignell, Tao Li, and Graham Spickett

Jones (2004), "Tbe Emergence of IMC: A Theoretical Pet-

spective,

Journal

o f

Advertising Research. 44 (March), 1 9-3 0.

, and Don E. Schultz (2003), "Integrated Corporate an

Product Brand Communication,' Advances in Competi

ness Research, 11 (1), 66- 86 .

Kotler, Ph ilip (2003),

Marketing Management

Upper Saddle Ri

NJ: Prentice Hall.

Krug man , Dean M.. Leonard N . Reid, S. Watt Dunn, and Arnol

M. Barban (199 4).

Advertising: Its Role in Modern Marke

8tb ed.. Fort Wortb, TX: Dryden.

Lasswell, Harold

D.

(1948),

The

Structure

and

Function

o

Communication in Sociecy," in Th e Communication of Id

L. Bryson, ed.. New York: Harjier, 3 7 -5 1 .

Lings,

Ian N. (2004), "Internal Market Orientation Construc

and Consequences, Journal of Bus ne is Research. 57 (4),

413.

Madhavaram, Sreedhar (2004), "Foundations of IMC Theory,

working paper, Texas Tech University.

Mahajan, Vijay, Vithala R. Rao, and Rajendra K. Srivastav

(1994),

An Approach to Assess the Importance of Brand

Equity

in

Acquisition Decisions, Journal of Produa Inno

tion Management 11 (3), 221 -235 .

McArthur, David

N., and Tom

Griffin (199 7),

A

Marketing

Management View

of

Integrated Ma rketing Com munica

tions,'V»''™^/ of Advertising Research. 37 (September/O

ber), 19-26.

Naik, Prasad A., and Kalyan Raman (20 03), "U nderstandin g

the Impact of Synergy in Multimedia Communications,

Journal of

Marketing

Research.

40 (November), 375-3 88

Narver, John C, and Stanley P. Slater (1990), The Effect of

Market Orientation on Business Profitability," JoarW o

Marketing.

54 (October), 20-35.

Percy, Larry, John R. Rossiter, and Richard Elliott (2001), "Wha

Ir Takes for Successful Adve rtising an d Prom otion,"' in Stra

tegic Advertising

Management.

Oxford: Oxford Univers

Press,

35^8.

Piercy, Nigel F. (1995), "Marketing

and

Strategy Fit Together,

Management Decision,

33 (1), 4 2 — 4 7 .

Reid, Mike (2003), "IMC-Performance Relationship: Furthe

Insight and Evidence from che Australian Marketplace,

International Journal of Advertising. 22(2), 227—248.

Rossiter, John R., and Larry Percy (198 7), Advertising

and Prom

tion Management.

New York: McGraw-Hill.

Schulrz, Don E. (1998), "Branding: The Basis for M arketing In

tegration," Marketing

News.

32 (24), 8.

(2003), "The New Brand Wagon," Marketing Manag

ment. 12 (January/February), 8-9.

(2004a), "IMC Receives More Appropriate Definition,

Marketing

News,

38 (15), 8-9.

(2004b), "A Clean Brand Slate," Marketing Manageme

13 (September/October), 10-11 .

,

and B.

Barnes (1999), Strategic Brand Communica

Campaigns. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Business Books.

,

and

Philip

J.

Kitchen (1997). "Integrated Communi

cations in U.S. Advertising Agencies: An Explorator

Study, Journal of Advertising Re.search. 37 (5), 7-18.

, and (2000), A Response to 'Theoretical Con

cept or Management Fashion?' Journal of Advertising Rese

40(5),

17-21.



so Th e Journal of Advertising

, Stanley I. Tannenbaum, and Robert F. Lauterborn

(1993), Integrated Markeiing Communications. Chicago: NTC

Business Btioks.

Shocker, Allan D., Rajendra K. Srivastava, and Rob ert W Ruekert

(1994), Challenges and Opportunities Facing Brand Man-

agement: An Introduction to the Special hsue, Journal of

Marketing Research. 31 (May), 149-5 8.

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,

59 au ly ) , 63 -74 .

Swain, William N . (2004), Perceptions of

IM

After a Decade of

Development: Who's at the Wheel, and How Can We Measu

Successf Journal o f dvertising Research. 44 (March),

Upshaw, Lynn B. (1995), B uilding Brand Identity: A Strateg

Success

in a

Hostile

Marketplace,

New York: John Wile

Urde, Mats (1999), Brand Orientation: A Mindset for Buildin

Brands into Strategic Resources Journal of Marketing M

agement,

15 (J^ iJ3^ty^Ap' '')' 117—133.

Vargo, Stephen L ., and Rob ert F. Lusch (20 04), Evolving to

New D omina nt Logic for Marketing, Journal of Marketi

68 (January), 1-17.

W hitne y,Jo hn C , and Ruth A. Smith (1983), Effects of Gro u

Cohesiveness on Att itud e Polarization and the Acquisitio

of Knowledge in a Strategic Planning Context, Journal

Marketing Research,

2 0 (May), 167-1 76.

11.10.29_imc e brand identity for brand equity

Documents