The Role of IMC and its theory
Is it a bird? is it a plane? Is it a business theory or a marketing theory? A management practice? A philosophy or a concept? A traditional linear marketing process (Kliatchko, 2008) or a cross-functional departmental process that requires management and board ‘buy-in’ (Duncan & Moriarty 1998)? Moreover, in this era of rapidly developing communications (Internet, mobile phones, digital communications and rapidly changing society, (demise of the family unit, the prosumer) is it now a necessity? The theory of IMC has been dissected, bissected, post-mortemed and analysed, yet consensus on what it is (in theory) and how it should be applied (in practice) has become somewhat of the holy grail to academics. But perhaps not to those in practice, which I will discuss later through my case study.
Therefore, ironically, for a paradigm or pre-paradigm (Kitchen & Schultz, 2000) that promulgates ‘once voice’ and a ‘consistent approach in communication, IMC fails to practice what it preaches, with many voices and opinions creating ‘IMC theory noise’, the very noise its integrated application claims to penetrate and conquer; the very noise which us Generation 'Y' marketeers must contend with every day. Therefore I will attempt to filter this noise and come to some conclusions. In this paper I will speak of the positives and negatives in assuming an IMC mindset from the theory as well analysing the barriers impeding its full adoption in practice and then why various levels of integration are apparent within the market.
The definition debate has been well documented and is used in the academic papers as one of the impediments towards widespread adoption of IMC. Although consensus is achieved somewhat with K ...