Performances and Measurement of Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC)

of Advertisers in Thailand
*
Dr. Somphol Vantamay

This paper is aimed 1) to examine the relationship between IMC management in organizations of
advertisers in Thailand and their performances, and 2) to find the indicators suitable for measuring the
effectiveness of the overall IMC program. The findings showed that there was a significantly positive relationship
between the IMC management in organizations of advertisers in Thailand and their performances (r = 0.380).
Besides, after exploratory factor analysis (EFA) by principal component analysis method had been used, it
showed that indicators suitable for measuring the effectiveness of the overall IMC program should compose of
five factors: 1) customers’ responses, 2) marketing performances, 3) brand exposures, 4) communication effects,
and 5) channel supports.

Field of Research: Marketing, Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC)

1. INTRODUCTION

Since early last decade, the integrated marketing communications (IMC) concept has been largely
regarded as an important marketing management issue because of the effectiveness of the integration of marketing
communications tools (e.g. advertising, public relations, direct marketing, sales promotion, and personnel selling)
to optimize the communications impact on target consumers (Kotler, 2000; Schultz & Kitchen, 1997).
Additionally, there are several reasons for the growing importance of IMC. These include: 1) a change of
marketing dollars from media advertising to other forms of promotion, particularly consumer-and trade-oriented
sales promotions, 2) a movement away from relying on advertising-focused approaches which emphasize mass
media to lower-cost, more targeted communication tools such as event marketing, sponsorships, direct mail, sales
promotion and the Internet, 3) a shift in marketplace power from manufacturers to retailers, 4) the rapid growth
and development of database marketing, 5) demands for greater accountability from advertising agencies and
changes in the way agencies are compensated, 6) the rapid growth of the Internet, which is changing the nature of
how companies do business and the ways they communicate and interact with consumers, 7) increased efforts to
measure and improve marketing communication return on investment (ROI) by both clients and agencies. (G.
Belch & M. Belch, 2004; Cornelissen, 2000, 2001; Shimp, 2000). As a result, this concept has been
overwhelmingly discussed and accepted among academics and marketing communications practitioners in
Western countries. There are a lot of studies to show the adoption of various marketing managers who implement
IMC in their organizations in the United States, the United Kingdom, South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, and
India (Eagle & Kitchen, 2000; Kallmeyer & Abratt, 2001; Kitchen & Schultz, 1998, 1999; Low, 2000; Reid,
2003, 2005). However, the comprehensive study of IMC practices of advertisers in Thailand is still in the
beginning stage. Consequently, this study seeks to explore and extend the knowledge of IMC by investigating
how the IMC management in organizations affects outcomes, especially in terms of creating and leveraging
market based asset. Additionally, it also seeks to find the indicators that marketing executives can use in
measuring the effectiveness of the overall IMC program. This is because the issue of measurement of the overall
IMC program remains a major question (Kitchen & Schultz, 1998, 1999; Reid, 2003).

*
Dr. Somphol Vantamay, Department of Communication Arts and Information Sciences,
Faculty of Humanities, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand.
E-mail: fhumspv@ku.ac.th, pon_genious@hotmail.com

1
 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

A variety of definitions have emerged surrounding the concept and understanding of what IMC means.
One of the most widely accepted definitions was defined by the American Association of Advertising Agencies
(AAAA) : IMC is a concept of marketing communications planning that recognizes the added value of a
comprehensive plan that evaluates the strategic roles of a variety of communication disciplines (for example,
general advertising, direct response, sales promotion, and public relations…) and combines these disciplines to
provide clarity, consistency and maximum communications impact (G. Belch & M. Belch, 2004). Additionally,
Schultz (1993, 1996) defined that IMC is the process of developing and implementing various forms of
perspective communications programs with customers and prospects over time. The goal of IMC is to influence or
directly affect the behavior of the selected communications audience. IMC will consider all sources of brand or
company contacts which customer or prospect has with the product or service as potential delivery channels for
future messages. Further, IMC makes use of all forms of communication which are relevant to the customer and
prospect, and to which they might be receptive. In sum, the IMC process starts with the customer or prospect and
then works back to determine and define the forms and methods which persuasive communications programs
should be developed. Another definition of IMC was defined by Duncan (2002) who stated simply that IMC is a
process for managing the customer relationships that drive brand value. More specifically, it is a cross-functional
process for creating and nourishing profitable relationships with customers and other stakeholders by strategically
controlling or influencing all messages sent to these groups and encouraging data-driven, purposeful dialogue
with them. From this definition, IMC should be composed of five major elements: cross-functional process,
creating and nourishing stakeholder relationships, profitable customer relationships, strategically controlling or
influencing all messages, and encouraging purposeful dialogue. Although IMC has a variety of definitions, it has
a commonly basic principle. That is, IMC is the marketing communication planning process by using any forms
of communication tools and contact points to create long-term relationships with stakeholders for maximizing
communications impact effectively. However, the definition of IMC by the AAAA was adopted for this research,
not only because it was utilized by the AAAA but also because it was largely used in previous studies (Kallmeyer
& Abratt, 2001; Kitchen & Schultz, 1998, 1999; Schultz & Kitchen, 1997).
The issue of IMC-performance relationships has been considered as an important issue by both academics
and practitioners in marketing and advertising for a long time. However, there have been few empirical studies to
examine such relationships (Cornelissen, 2000, 2001; Low, 2000). More recently, Reid (2002, 2003, 2005) and
Reid, Johnson, Ratcliffe, Skrip, & Wilson (2001) have started to examine the IMC-performance relationships and
have begun to provide further insights into IMC outcomes. There is agreement in these literatures that a likely
correlation exists between the IMC management in organizations and marketing performances (brand, customer,
and sales performances). That is, a higher degree of integration in marketing communication management in
organizations can results in better marketing performances. In measuring the IMC management in previous
studies (Reid, 2002, 2003, 2005; Reid, et al., 2001), the IMC mini-audit created by Duncan and Moriarty (1997)
was adopted. This audit views integration in the management of marketing communications across five
constructs: 1) organizational infrastructure – items relating to strength of cross-functional relationships in the
organization that affects the management of brands, 2) interactivity – items relating to the process that link
customers to the company and its brands, 3) mission marketing – items relating to having a mission statement that
directs values creation through brand and products and delivery of value to stakeholders, 4) strategic consistency –
items related to the coordination of all messages and market mix elements in the promotion of brands, and 5)
planning and evaluation – items relating to the strategic consideration of all key target audiences in brand
promotion. This audit is based on the premise that integrated marketing is a cross-functional process for the
management of profitable brand relationships. It further recognizes the strategic requirement for building strong
relationships between customers and companies, and the requirement for companies to adopt a learning
perspective in order to achieve strategic consistency and improve brand equity. In this framework, marketing
communications is the glue that enables the connection between the company’s efforts and customers’ response
(Duncan & Moriarty, 1997). Besides, this audit is a diagnostic tool designed to help managers assess areas of
integration strength and weakness effectively. Therefore, the Duncan-Moriarty IMC mini-audit is adopted in
measuring the IMC implementation in this research. Additionally, for measuring performances, three basic
dimensions were largely employed in previous studies (Gray, Matear, Boshoff, & Matheson, 1998; Reid, 2002,
2003, 2005; Reid, et al., 2001). These three dimensions include : 1) sales-related performance – evaluation of
market share growth, sale growth, overall profitability, and sales income, 2) brand strength-related performance –

1
evaluation of comparative brand awareness, ability to command premium prices, and level of favorable channel
support, 3) customer satisfaction-related performance – comparative customer satisfaction and level of customer
brand loyalty. These themes are also consistent with the market orientation literature (Gray et al., 1998). In
addition, Reid (2002, 2003, 2005) found that there was a positive association between these various performance
measures and IMC management as measured through the Duncan-Moriarty IMC mini-audit. As a result, these
three dimensions are adopted in measuring the marketing performances in this research.
The issue of evaluation of the IMC program remains a major area of IMC studies (Kitchen & Schultz,
1998, 1999; Reid, 2003). There are two basic approaches to measuring the effectiveness of the IMC program.
One approach is to merely take on the measurement of each of the promotional tools used in a campaign, trying to
measure the effectiveness of each communication tool. For example, advertising can be measured by recall,
recognition, awareness and attitude, and behavior-based measures (Semenik, 2002). Sales promotion can be
measured by using four communication frameworks: 1) the ability to gain the consumer’s attention, 2) the ability
to relate the messages in an easy-to-follow, straightforward manner that can be clearly interpreted, 3) the
persuasive capability, and 4) the ability to produce a favorable impact in purchase behavior (Gadener & Trivedi,
1998). Direct marketing and e-commerce can be measured by an inquiry or a response directly through a Web
site, reply cards, orders, or toll-free phone number (Kitchen & Pelsmacker, 2004). The success of point-of-
purchase materials may be measured on the basis of sales effects. Public relations or corporate advertising may be
measured by changes in awareness or attitude. Additionally, salespeople can be evaluated by sales, profit margins,
orders, or even customer satisfaction ratings (Semenik, 2002). The other approach is to take on the measurement
of the overall IMC program. This approach has the limitations of measurement methodologies and there has still
been a key question: what indicators are suitable for measuring the overall IMC program? However, based on
reviewing relevant literatures on the measurement of the effectiveness of each communication tool (Gadener &
Trivedi, 1998; Kitchen & Pelsmacker, 2004; Semenik, 2002), the researcher found that indicators suitable for
measuring the overall IMC program should be drawn from both marketing-based perspectives and
communications-based perspectives. Therefore, 18 indicators based on reviewing literatures on both marketing-
based perspectives and communications-based perspectives were found and adopted in this research to ask the
respondents how these indicators are suitable for measuring the overall IMC program. They include: 1) sales
growth, 2) market share growth, 3) profitability, 4) sales income, 5) price premiums, 6) brand awareness, 7)
channel cooperation), 8) customers satisfaction, 9) brand loyalty (Gray et al., 1998), 10) brand knowledge, 11)
brand attitude), 12) brand preference, 13) purchase intention (Barry, 1987; Colley, 1961; Lavidge & Steiner,
1961; Vaughn, 1980), 14) mass media exposure, 15) contact points exposure, 16) personal contacts (Semenik,
2002), 17) brand referral, and 18) brand extension (Hutton, 1997).

3. METHODOLOGY

The data for this research were gathered using a self-administered, mailed questionnaire. The sample was
marketing executives responsible for marketing communications or brand communications of their organizations.
The 343 marketing companies (advertisers) were randomly drawn from a commercially available listing of
advertisers in Thailand listed in a business source book (Advertising 2006: Advertising agency, production house,
media, and marketing). A package composed of a cover letter, a questionnaire, and a postage-paid envelope was
sent to marketing executives responsible for marketing communications or brand communications of their
organizations at each company. Three weeks later, a follow-up letter was sent to companies not returning the
questionnaires yet. Finally, the researcher made phone calls to the rest after waiting for two weeks. By the cut-off
date, 124 usable questionnaires were finally returned, a response rate of 36.2 percent. The non-respondents may
be caused by an organizational policy of nonparticipation in this type of research. The issue of non-response is
one that needs to be addressed in further research. However, the respondents reflected an interesting cross-section
of advertisers including consumer product companies, business-to-business companies, services, retailing /
wholesaling companies, or even governmental organizations.
Demographic profiles compose of questions including sex, age, education, position, years in position,
years at company, number of employees, and type of business. They were measured by using multiple choices.
For questions on IMC management in organizations, the IMC mini-audit by Duncan and Moriarty (1997) was
used in this study because this audit views integration in the management of marketing communications across the
important five constructs: 1) organizational infrastructure, 2) interactivity, 3) mission marketing, 4) strategic
consistency, and 5) planning and evaluation. Besides, it was often used in previous IMC studies as well (Reid,

2
2002, 2003, 2005). A five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) was used in this part. For
the part of performances, the researcher used the self-reported performance measurement from the research by
Reid (2005). It composes of three dimensions: 1) sales-related performances, 2) brand-related performances, and
3) customer-related performances. The researcher asked the respondents to rate the satisfaction in these
performances. All items were measured using a five-point Likert scale (1 = much less, 5 = much more). For the
last part, after reviewing relevant literatures on measuring the effectiveness of marketing communications, the
researcher found that indicators suitable for measuring the overall IMC program should be drawn from both
marketing-based perspectives and communications-based perspectives. Therefore, 18 indicators were found and
adopted in this part. They include sales growth, market share growth, profitability, sales income, price premiums,
brand awareness, channel cooperation, customers satisfaction, brand loyalty (Gray et al., 1998), brand knowledge,
brand attitude, brand preference, purchase intention (Barry, 1987; Colley, 1961; Lavidge & Steiner, 1961;
Vaughn, 1980), mass media exposure, contact points exposure, personal contacts (Semenik, 2002), brand referral,
and brand extension (Hutton, 1997). The researcher asked the respondents to rate the suitability of these indicators
for measuring the overall IMC program. All of them were also measured using a five-point Likert scale (1 =
strongly unsuitable, 5 = strongly suitable). Before mailing the questionnaire to respondents, the researcher
evaluated the questionnaire with a small convenience sample of 30 marketing managers to check the
understanding in all questions. Furthermore, the reliability analysis by Cronbach alpha tests was conducted to
evaluate the internal consistency of summed scales questions. The analysis found that Cronbach alpha of all
summed scales questions was over 0.80 (IMC management in organizations = 0.87, performances = 0.88, and
indicators suitable for measuring the effectiveness of the overall IMC program = 0.88). These alpha levels were
considered as an adequate indication of internal consistency of the data (Cooper & Schindler, 2001). For data
analysis, percent, frequency, Pearson’s product moment correlation coefficient, and exploratory factor analysis
were used in statistical analysis at the 0.05 level of significance.

4. RESEARCH FINDINGS

4.1 Demographic profiles

Demographic data are presented in Table 1. Among the 124 samples who answered the questionnaire, 72
(58.1%) were male. Thirty-eight respondents (30.6%) were aged between 36 and 40 years. Most of them (70.2%)
held masters degree while about forty-eight percent of them (59) were marketing managers/ directors. A majority
of respondents (66.1 %) had also held their current position for ten years or more and worked for consumer
products companies (50.8%) aged ten years or more (90.4%). About forty-two percent of them (52) worked for
the companies which have between 100 and 399 employees.

4.2 IMC-performance relationships

The results of a correlation between IMC management in organizations and performances are shown in
Table 2. The findings show that there is a significantly positive correlation between IMC management in
organizations and all performances (r = 0.380). Additionally, when considering in each dimension, the researcher
found that 1) sale-related performance appears to be related to organizational infrastructure (r = 0.180), mission
marketing (r = 0.400), strategic consistency (r = 0.214), and planning and evaluation (r = 0.250), 2) brand
advantage performance appears to be related to organizational infrastructure (r = 0.279), mission marketing (r =
0.349), strategic consistency (r = 0.443), and planning and evaluation (r = 0.265), and 3) customer satisfaction
performance appears to be related to all dimensions of IMC management in organizations: organizational
infrastructure (r = 0.251), interactivity (r = 0.227), mission marketing (r = 0.293), strategic consistency (r =
0.421), and planning and evaluation (r = 0.237).

3
 TABLE 1 : Profile of Respondents
Sex Frequency Percent Position Frequency Percent
Male 72 58.1 Marketing Manager / Director 59 47.6
Female 52 41.9 Brand Manager / Director 18 14.5
Total 124 100 % Marketing Communications
Manager / Director 23 18.5
Advertising Manager / Director 10 8.1
Sales Manager / Director 10 8.1
Others 4 3.2
Total 124 100 %
Age (years old) Frequency Percent Education Frequency Percent
25-30 15 12.1 Lower than bachelor’s degrees 2 1.6
31-35 23 18.5 Bachelor’s degrees 35 28.2
36-40 38 30.6 Masters degrees 87 70.2
41-45 28 22.6 Total 124 100 %
More than 45 20 16.2
Total 124 100 %
Years in position Frequency Percent Number of employees Frequency Percent
< 1 year 2 1.6 1 - 99 13 10.5
1-3 years 10 8.1 100 – 399 52 41.9
4-6 years 16 12.9 400 – 699 15 12.1
7-9 years 14 11.3 700 – 999 12 9.7
10 years or more 82 66.1 1,000 or more 32 25.8
Total 124 100 % Total 124 100 %
Years at company Frequency Percent Type of business Frequency Percent
< 7 years 6 4.8 Consumer Products Company 63 50.8
7-9 years 6 4.8 Business to Business Company 17 13.7
10 years or more 112 90.4 Service Company 24 19.4
Total 124 100 % Retailing / Wholesaling Company 14 11.3
Governmental Organization 6 4.8
Total 124 100 %

TABLE 2 : IMC-performance relationships

Performances Sales-related Brand Customer

Performance Advantage Satisfaction
Performance Performance
IMC Management r p r p r p
Organizational Infrastructure 0.180 .045* 0.279 .047* 0.251 .005*
Interactivity 0.136 .133 0.112 .216 0.227 .011*
Mission Marketing 0.400 .000** 0.349 .000** 0.293 .001**
Strategic Consistency 0.214 .017* 0.443 .000** 0.421 .000**
Planning and Evaluation 0.250 .005** 0.265 .003** 0.237 .008**
The correlation coefficient (r) between IMC management and all Performances = 0.380, p =.000**
* at the 0.05 significance level, ** at the 0.01 significance level

4.3 Indicators for measuring the effectiveness of the overall IMC program
To find indicators suitable for measuring the effectiveness of the overall IMC program, 18 indicators
based on reviewing literatures on both marketing-based perspectives and communications-based perspectives
were adopted to ask the respondents to rate the suitability for measuring the overall IMC program. They include:
1) sales growth, 2) market share growth, 3) profitability, 4) sales income, 5) price premiums, 6) brand awareness,
7) channel cooperation, 8) customers satisfaction, 9) brand loyalty, 10) brand knowledge, 11) brand attitude, 12)
brand preference, 13) purchase intention, 14)mass media exposure, 15) contact points exposure, 16) personal

4
contacts, 17) brand referral, and 18) brand extension. For analysis of data, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) by
principal component analysis method was used to group variables by communalities. The results of this analysis
are presented in Table 3. The results found that the indicators suitable for measuring the effectiveness of the
overall IMC program compose of 18 indicators, which can be grouped into 5 factors: Customers’ Responses,
Marketing Performances, Brand Exposures, Communication Effects, and Channel Supports. Factor 1,
“Customers’ Responses”, composes of 5 indicators: brand loyalty, customer satisfaction, brand referral, brand
preference, and brand extension. This factor can explain the variances most at the rate of 19.05 %. Factor 2,
“Marketing Performances”, compose of 5 indicators: sales growth, market share growth, profitability, sales
income, and ability to command premium price. This factor can explain the variances at the rate of 16.81%. Factor
3, “Brand Exposures”, composes of 3 indicators: personal contacts, contact points exposure, and mass media
exposure. This factor can explain the variances at the rate of 14.88%. Factor 4, “Communication Effects”,
composes of 4 indicators: brand Knowledge, brand awareness, brand attitude, and purchase intention. This factor
can explain the variances at the rate of 14.08%. Lastly, factor 5, “Channel Supports”, composes of 1 indicator:
level of channel cooperation. This factor can explain the variances at the rate of 6.84%.

TABLE 3 : Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) among variables for measuring

the effectiveness of the overall IMC program

Factor 1 : Customers’ Responses

Variables Factor Loading
Brand Loyalty .822
Customer Satisfaction .821
Brand Referral .717
Brand Preference .650
Brand Extension .621
Eigen Value = 3.420, Percent of Variance = 19.05 %
Factor 2 : Marketing Performances
Variables Factor Loading
Sales Growth .825
Market Share Growth .796
Profitability .748
Sales Income .734
Ability to Command Premium Price .493
Eigen Value = 3.026, Percent of Variance = 16.81%
Factor 3 : Brand Exposures
Variables Factor Loading
Personal Contacts .895
Contact Points Exposure .857
Mass Media Exposure .767
Eigen Value = 2.679, Percent of Variance = 14.88 %
Factor 4 : Communication Effects
Variables Factor Loading
Brand Knowledge .826
Brand Awareness .752
Brand Attitude .691
Purchase Intention .499
Eigen Value = 2.535, Percent of Variance = 14.08 %
Factor 5 : Channel Supports
Variables Factor Loading
Level of Channel Cooperation .844
Eigen Value = 1.231, Percent of Variance = 6.84 %
Note : Ratings on 5- point scale with “1= strongly unsuitable” to “5 = strongly suitable”

5
 5. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

This study is aimed 1) to examine the relationship between IMC management in organizations of
advertisers and their performances, and 2) to find the indicators suitable for measuring the effectiveness of the
overall IMC program. The results showed that there was a significantly positive correlation of IMC management
in organizations with performances. When considered in each dimension, the findings show that 1) sale-related
performance appears to be related to organizational infrastructure, mission marketing, strategic consistency, and
planning and evaluation, 2) brand advantage performance appears to be related to organizational infrastructure,
mission marketing, strategic consistency, and planning and evaluation, and 3) customer satisfaction performance
appears to be related to all dimensions of IMC management in organizations: organizational infrastructure,
interactivity, mission marketing, strategic consistency, and planning and evaluation. These results are consistent
with previous studies (Dewhirst & Davis, 2005; Reid, 2002, 2003, 2005; and Reid et al., 2001) to show
correlations between IMC management in organizations and performances. Therefore, this evidence can suggest
that IMC implementation in organizations of advertisers in Thailand should be recognized by all managers who
are responsible for marketing communications or brand communications and they should seek to implement the
IMC process as a way of improving their performances. Developing IMC in organizations should be addressed
across five aspects: 1) organizational infrastructure – by strengthening of cross-functional relationships in the
organization, 2) interactivity – by boosting the process that link customers to the company and its brands, 3)
mission marketing – by having a mission statement that directs values creation through brand and products and
delivery of value to all stakeholders, 4) strategic consistency – by increasing the coordination of all messages and
market mix elements in the promotion of brands, and 5) planning and evaluation – by emphasizing the strategic
consideration of all key target audiences in brand promotion. As Reid (2005) suggests, if implementing IMC can
be demonstrated to have benefits for organizations, then top management can be encouraged to facilitate IMC as a
core strategy in organizations. Because of IMC concept’s the strong effectiveness, it should be used in various
types of organizations, not only clients companies but also advertising agencies, other communications agencies,
or even governmental organizations. However, from the results of correlations, it unexpectedly showed that the
dimension of interactivity doesn’t have a correlation with sale-related performance and brand advantage
performance at the 0.05 significance level. It has a correlation with customer satisfaction performance only. This
may be because most companies still use the interactive systems that haven’t had enough efficiency yet. They
often either use consumer database in the past or use the uninteresting one-to-one media (Dewhirst & Davis,
2005). As a result, it can’t increase sale-related performance and brand advantage performance significantly. This
point should be more addressed by both advertiser companies and communication agencies. Lastly, the Duncan
and Moriarty IMC mini-audit used in this study is considered as a strongly useful audit of internal performance on
a range of items related to the IMC process in organizations. This audit not only examines the level of integration
of IMC in organizations, it identifies process gaps and barriers, inadequacies in properly handling purposeful
dialogue, and the unrealized potential of merchandising the corporate mission (Duncan, 2002).
The indicators suitable for measuring the effectiveness of the overall IMC program compose of 18
indicators, which can be grouped into 5 factors: Customers’ Responses, Marketing Performances, Brand
Exposures, Communication Effects, and Channel Supports. These results are consistent with reviewing the
previous studies (Barry, 1987; Colley, 1961; Duncan & Everett, 1993; Duncan & Moriarty, 1997; Eagle &
Kitchen, 2000; Hutton, 1997; Kallmeyer & Abratt, 2001; Kitchen & Schultz, 1998, 1999; Lavidge & Steiner,
1961; Reid, 2002, 2003, 2005; Semenik, 2002; Vaughn, 1980). Based on reviewing these previous studies, the
researcher believed that these indicators are strongly suitable for measuring the overall IMC program because they
are drawn from both marketing-based perspectives and communications-based perspectives. Consequently, the
researcher recommends that these indicators should be widely used by managers who are responsible for
marketing communications or brand communications of their organizations. In practices, advertisers (clients) and
agencies can apply these 18 indicators to measure the effectiveness of the overall IMC program and to find the
weaknesses and the strengths of IMC implementation efficiently. These indicators cover the predictive
measurements of marketing-based and communications-based effectiveness. Furthermore, they are also based on
behavioral dimensions (cognition, affection, and conation) and the hierarchy of communication effects (Lavidge
& Steiner, 1961). However, these five factors, 18 indicators, presented in this research for measuring the
effectiveness of the overall IMC program are still in the beginning stage. They should be further developed,
refined, and validated by researchers. Therefore, confirmatory factor analysis to check construct validity and

6
qualitative Delphi approaches are suggested to derive a more validated instrument for measuring the effectiveness
of the overall IMC program.

6. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

For further research, the researcher has some practical recommendations. First, the IMC study with other
participants in IMC process such as advertising agencies, other communication agencies, media organizations,
and collateral services including marketing research companies, package design firms, consultants, or production
houses should be conducted in Thailand. This will provide us a big-picture understanding of IMC implementation
in Thailand. Second, the 18 indicators presented in this research should be further developed, refined, and
validated by researchers. Therefore, confirmatory factor analysis to check construct validity and qualitative Delphi
approaches are suggested to derive a more validated instrument for measuring the effectiveness of the overall IMC
program. Besides, indicators for measuring the effectiveness of the overall IMC program among different types of
businesses should be more considered in the further research because business-to-business companies may need
the IMC measurement that is different from business-to-consumer companies. Third, the issue of IMC ethics of
advertisers and agencies should be more emphasized in the future research because IMC tools can affect norms,
values, and cultures in Thai society strongly. Fourth, survey research alone may not be sufficient to build the
body of IMC knowledge. Researchers should employ a range of other methodologies, including case study, action
research, and in-depth interviews. Case studies of organizations and brands that have successfully implemented
IMC will help us understand real-world application of IMC. The use of action research also provides opportunities
for very powerful insights into the process of implementing IMC and how changes in process affect brand and
customer outcomes (Cooper & Schindler, 2001). In addition, in-depth interviews with top managements in
organizations will better provide the in-depth information. Finally, it will be important to continue to study IMC
in Thailand to find further insights and approaches to implement IMC efficiently. By undertaking this study, we
can counter the rapidly changing marketing communications environment effectively.

7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author wishes to thank the Department of Communication Arts, Faculty of Humanities, Kasetsart
University, Bangkok, Thailand for its financial support on this research.

REFERENCES

Barry, T. E. (1987). The development of the hierarchy of effects: An historical perspective. In J. H. Leigh & C. R.
Martin, Jr. (Eds.), Current issues and Research in Advertising 1987 (pp. 251-295). Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan.
Belch, G. E., & Belch, M. A. (2004). Advertising and promotion: An integrated Marketing communications
perspective (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Colley, R. H. (1961). Defining Advertising Goals for Measured Advertising Results. New York : Association of
National Advertisers.
Cornelissen, J. P., & Lock, A. R. (2000). Theoretical concept or management fashion? Examining the
significance of IMC. Journal of Advertising Research. 40(5), 7-15.
Cornelissen, J. P. (2001). Integrated marketing communications and the language of market development.
International Journal of Advertising, 20(4), 483-499.
Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2001). Business research methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Dewhirst, T., & Davis, B. (2005). Brand strategy and integrated marketing communication (IMC). Journal of
Advertising, 34(4), 81-92.
Duncan, T. (2002). IMC : Using advertising and promotion to build brands. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Duncan, T., & Moriarty, S. (1997). Driving brand value: Using integrated marketing communications to manage
profitable stakeholder relationships. New York: McGraw- Hill.
Duncan, T., & Everett, S. E. (1993). Client perceptions of integrated marketing communications. Journal of
Advertising Research, 33(3), 30-39.
Eagle, L., & Kitchen, P. (2000). IMC, brand communications, corporate cultures. European Journal of Marketing,
34(5), 667-686.

7
Gadener, E., & Trivedi, M. (1998). A communications framework to evaluate sales promotions strategies.
Journal of Advertising Research, 38(3), 67-71.
Gray, B., Matear, S., Boshoff, C., & Matheson, P. (1998). Developing a better measure of market orientation.
European Journal of Marketing, 32(9/10), 884-903.
Hutton, J. G. (1997). A study of brand equity in an organizational-buying context. Journal of Product & Brand
Management, 6(6), 428-437.
Kallmeyer, J., & Abratt, R. (2001). Perceptions of IMC and organizational change among agencies in South
Africa. International Journal of Advertising, 20, 361-380.
Kitchen, P. J., & Pelsmacker, P. D. (2004). Integrated marketing communications : A primer. New York:
Routledge.
Kitchen, P. J., & Schultz, D. E. (1998). IMC – a UK ad’ agency perspective. Journal of Marketing Management,
14, 465-485.
Kitchen, P., & Schultz, D. E. (1999). A multi-country comparison of the drive for IMC. Journal of Advertising
Research, 39(1), 1-17.
Kotler, P. (2000). Marketing management (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lavidge, R. J., & Steiner, G. A. (1961). A model for predictive measurements of advertising effectiveness.
Journal of Marketing, 25(6), 59-62.
Low, G. S. (2000). Correlates of integrated marketing communications. Journal of Advertising Research, 40(3),
27-39.
Reid, M., Johnson, T., Ratcliffe, M., Skrip, K., & Wilson, K. (2001). Integrated marketing communications in the
Australian and New Zealand wine industry. International Journal of Advertising, 20, 239-262.
Reid, M. (2002). Building strong brands through the management of integrated marketing communications.
International Journal of Wine Marketing, 14(3), 37-52.
Reid, M. (2003). IMC-performance relationships : further insight and evidence from the Australian marketplace.
International Journal of Advertising, 22, 227-248.
Reid, M. (2005). Performance auditing of integrated marketing communications (IMC) actions and outcomes.
Journal of Advertising, 34(4), 41-54.
Schultz, D. E. (1993). Integrated marketing communications: Maybe definition is in the point of view.
Marketing News, January 18, 17.
Schultz, D. E. (1996). The inevitability of integrated communications. Journal of Business Research, 37, 139-
146.
Schultz, D. E., & Kitchen, P. (1997). Integrated marketing communications in U.S. advertising agencies: an
exploratory study. Journal of Advertising Research, 37(5), 7-19.
Semenik, R. J. (2002). Promotion and integrated marketing communications. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western
Thomson Learning.
Shimp, T. A. (2000). Advertising & promotion (5th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: The Dryden Press.
Vaughn, R. (1980). How advertising works: A planning model. Journal of Advertising Research, 20(5), 27-33.