Performance auditing of integrated marketing communication (IMC) actions and outcomes.

Traditionally, academics and practitioners in the field of marketing have supported the notion that marketing communication plays an important role in building and maintaining stakeholder relationships, and in leveraging these relationships to build brand and customer equity (Ambler et al. 2002;

Duncan and Moriarty 1998; Jones and Blair 1996; Rust et al. 2004). Nevertheless, achieving a positive return on marketing communication investment is becoming harder as the dynamics of markets change. A number of issues that affect how customers respond to marketing offers, and how marketing communication is managed, have been identified (Duncan and Mulhern 2004; Schultz and Schultz 1998; Shimp 1999). These include

* reduced faith in mass marketing as marketing communication channels fragment and consumer brand and media loyalties diminish or dilute;

* increasing reliance on more highly targeted marketing communication methods to reflect a growing "relationship-marketing" orientation in many organizations;

* increased turnover of brand-management personnel and a subsequent loss of learning and knowledge regarding consistent promotional strategy and market experience;

* greater demand placed on marketing communication agencies to become brand custodians or guardians rather than simply transaction-based suppliers of marketing communication services; and

* increased efforts to measure and improve marketing-communication return on investment (ROI), reflecting greater demands by both agencies and clients for accountability and measurement of alternative customer acquisition and relationship activities.

In the drive to provide demonstrable evidence of the effectiveness of their marketing communication programs, managers need to investigate new marketing communication processes and practices. In the literature, an increasing emphasis on integrated marketing communication (IMC) as a paradigm shift provides an opportunity for creating improved brand and communication performance (Duncan and Moriarty 1998; Hartley and Pickton 1999; Kitchen et al. 2004; Nowak and Phelps 1994; Schultz and Schultz 1998).

This present research is exploratory and seeks to provide insight into a range of questions related to understanding how the IMC process might be evaluated in organizations, and whether successful implementation of IMC might result in more favorable brand outcomes. Specifically, the research explores the extent to which the IMC process, as measured by a modified Duncan-Moriarty IMC miniaudit (Duncan and Moriarty 1997), is correlated with brand-related outcomes, which in this study includes items related to sales, customer satisfaction and loyalty, brand awareness, price premiums, and channel support. Second, the research explores how well the normative Duncan-Moriarty IMC miniaudit performs as an empirically generalizable instrument for auditing the strengths and weaknesses of IMC implementation in organizations, and whether it can be extended from a diagnostic tool to one that measures the effect of the IMC process on brand outcomes. Finally, this research seeks to explore the extent to which a range of organizational and market environment characteristics are correlated with the IMC process. Organizational characteristics include level of market orientation, size of organization, organizational type, and size of the marketing communication budget. Market characteristics include competitor, customer, and technological turbulence faced by the organization.

BACKGROUND AND CONCEPTUALIZATION

The Duncan-Moriarty Miniaudit

A number of consistent themes can be drawn from prominent IMC definitions identified in the literature (Duncan and Mulhern 2004; Kliatchko 2005) including

* a sound knowledge of the organization's stakeholders, acquired through two-way interaction with these parties;

* communication tools selected on the bases of the organization's resources, and their favorability to the intended recipient;

* the strategic coordination of various communication tools in a manner consistent with the organization's brand positioning, and which maximizes their synergistic effect so as to build strong brands and stakeholder relationships;

* the use of appropriate, timely, and data-driven evaluation and planning to determine the effectiveness of this process; and

* strong interfunctional and interorganizational relationships with those responsible for implementing marketing communication campaigns.

IMC is therefore seen as a planning process that evaluates the strategic and synergistic role of a variety of communication disciplines and considers how best to integrate them across the firm (Zahay et al. 2004). Furthermore, IMC plays a strategic role in managing the intangible side of business by assisting in crafting relationships with customers and other stakeholders to create positive perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors toward brands (Duncan and Moriarty 1997; Keller 2001).

One of the critical issues identified in a recent white paper on IMC is the importance of advancing the body of knowledge through empirical research designed to assess IMC process in organizations, and of relating this to brand- and customer-related performance (Duncan and Mulhern 2004; Kitchen et al. 2004; Swain 2004). In seeking to forward this aim, this research adopts a modified version of the Duncan-Moriarty IMC miniaudit (Duncan and Moriarty 1997) to explore the IMC process and its possible link to brand outcomes (see Appendix for main IMC process and brand outcome items). Further underpinning this approach is Phelps and Johnson's suggestion (1996) that different representations of IMC need to be evaluated and assessed for their broader empirical generalizability.

The Duncan-Moriarty IMC miniaudit is a diagnostic tool designed to help managers assess areas of integration strength and weakness. As Duncan (2005) states, the audit is about the evaluation of IMC relationship-building practices; in examining organizational structure and the extent of understanding of marketing communication objectives and strategies, it measures the extent to which company-created brand messages are strategically consistent. Presented initially in Duncan and Moriarty's 1997 book titled Driving Brand Value, the miniaudit is subsequently elaborated on through the presentation of a communication-based model for managing relationships (Duncan and Moriarty 1998).

Duncan and Moriarty are not alone in devising approaches to assessing IMC. Phelps and Johnson (1996) identified a five-dimensional structure for IMC orientation and this was revised and employed by Ewing, De Bussy, and Caruana (2000) using only four of the factors. More recently, other authors have examined different approaches to IMC. For example, Cornelissen, Lock, and Gardner (2001) focus on a narrower interpretation of integration and discuss the psychosocial benefits of increased integration, while Low (2000) employs only a few items to measure IMC and proposes these be part of a larger measurement instrument.

The basis for the Duncan-Moriarty IMC miniaudit is the premise that there are 10 brand relationship drivers; these are divided into three categories. The first category relates to creating and nourishing relationships, focusing on all stakeholders rather than just customers. Many authors have put forward a view that IMC is about building relationships (Beard 1996; Duncan and Moriarty 1998; Hutton 1996; Schultz, Cole, and Bailey 2004), adopting a relational approach, and building a bond between people with shared values, common objectives, mutual commitment, and mutual trust. According to Zahay et al. (2004), firms engaged in relationship-marketing activities designed to facilitate relational exchanges tend to view customers as valuable assets, and adopt strategies to facilitate the strength of such relationships. In a broader sense, Duncan and Moriarty (1998) suggest that everything organizations do and say sends a message, and that these messages are received by a broad array of stakeholders. In many instances, these stakeholders have multiple associations with the organization and receive a variety of messages; these messages should be consistent. This relational focus has been facilitated in part through advances in new media and computer technologies that enable more active listening (Zahay et al. 2004).

The second category of brand relationship drivers relates to process dimensions and includes achieving strategic consistency, purposeful interactivity, mission marketing, and zero-based planning. Duncan and Moriarty (1998) suggest that a process and system should be in place to facilitate purposeful dialogue with stakeholders and to ensure that messages being received by these stakeholders are strategically consistent and support the identity and reputation of the brand. By endeavoring to influence these dimensions of communication by reducing and, at best, eliminating conflicting messages, organizations can improve the opportunity to establish clear brand positioning, to make their brand more distinct, and to cement profitable long-term relationships with stakeholders. Underpinning the ability to be strategically consistent is a planning process that enables effective determination of the communication-mix elements that can deliver messages in an effective way (Kliatchko 2005). Furthermore, the championing of the mission statement of the organization internally and externally assists in calibrating expectations regarding interaction with stakeholders and promotes consistency in both the thought and behavior of employees.

The final category relates to organizational drivers, including cross-functional management, core competencies, data-driven marketing, and working with an integrated agency. It has been argued that an organization cannot be integrated externally without being integrated internally and that integration presents a great challenge to the implementation of IMC (Duncan and Mulhern 2004). Providing some similarity with Narver and Slater's (1990) market orientation concept of interfunctional coordination, this category of drivers considers the importance of cross-functional cohesion, managerial competence in utilizing all available marketing communication tools, internal marketing to optimize employee productivity and creativity, and the unbiased commitment of resources across synergistic teams (Duncan and Moriarty 1998). Internal marketing is also identified as a necessary process for facilitating cross-functional integration (Cornelissen 2000; Duncan and Moriarty 1997).

The involvement of top management in IMC has been identified as an important aspect in driving the process. Managers should be willing to change policies that inhibit the implementation of IMC (Duncan and Mulhern 2004; Phelps, Harris, and Johnson 1996; Smith 1996). Their involvement in IMC planning should assist in cross-functional integration and in overcoming "turf wars" and "departmental silos," which are two factors seen as significant barriers to successfully implementing the IMC process (Duncan and Everett 1993; Eagle and Kitchen 1999). In summary, IMC is a strategic process for better managing the brand messages that create, maintain, and grow customer relationships and brands (Duncan 2005; Duncan and Moriarty 1997; Duncan and Moriarty 1998). The Duncan-Moriarty IMC miniaudit and the five normative constructs that underpin it are a useful approach to evaluating the IMC process and assessing brand-related performance.

IMC Performance and Brand-Related Performance

There is agreement in the literature that a likely correlation exists between the IMC process and customer, brand, and business performance (Duncan and Mulhern 2004). To date, however, there have been few empirical attempts at supporting such relationships (Cornelissen 2001; Cornelissen, Lock, and Gardner 2001; Low 2000; Schultz, Cole, and Bailey 2004; Zahay et al. 2004). Previous studies in the United States have found some initial evidence to support the IMC--brand outcome relationship (e.g., Low 2000), but the author notes that significant unexplained variances mean that further conceptual development of the definition of IMC, and of the measurement instrument designed to capture the IMC--brand outcome relationship, are required. More recently, Zahay et al. (2004), and Schultz, Cole, and Bailey (2004), have started to examine a range of customer relationship and brand metrics and their relationship to the IMC process, and have begun to provide further insight into IMC outcomes.

In discussing IMC and the outcomes of its implementation, one must make a distinction between outcomes of IMC in terms of the customer and brand metrics employed (Keller 1993), and IMC in terms of how well the integration process is implemented and the psychosocial benefits of the process, including a reduction in internal conflict and increased responsiveness to stakeholder needs (Cornelissen, Lock, and Gardner 2001). A review of the various definitions of IMC suggest that one might expect organizations with a well-implemented IMC process to have a greater capacity to achieve their stated direct and indirect campaign objectives (see Duncan and Mulhern 2004; Kliatchko 2005). These objectives might include increased brand awareness, increased positive brand attitude and brand preference, higher brand action intention, and purchase facilitation (Swain 2004; Rossiter and Bellman 2005). From a customer relationship perspective, a range of metrics might exist, including return on customer touch point (Schultz, Cole, and Bailey 2004), customer profitability, lifetime customer value, recency and referral indices, churn rates, rate of customer migration, and share of customer (Duncan and Moriarty 1997; Duncan and Mulhern 2004).

In a broader sense, market-based outcomes from IMC could be linked into the brand value chain concept (Ambler et al. 2002; Rust et al. 2004), which identifies a chain of marketing investments and their possible impact on customer mindset, market performance, and shareholder value. Parameters affecting the chain include such issues as brand clarity, distinctiveness, consistency, and relevance, and also external factors such as competitive reaction, channel support, and customer size and profile (Ambler et al. 2002). In summary, the issue of outcomes of IMC is one that requires significantly more research and refinement (Duncan and Mulhern 2004).

Organizational and Market Influences on IMC

There is an assumption that firms implementing IMC have in place a customer-centric notion; systems for linking the organization to the market and customer; and processes, systems, and mental models that link various functional areas of the organization (Duncan and Moriarty 1998; Stewart 1996; Zahay et al. 2004). These themes are consistent with the market orientation literature (Gray et al. 1998). Helfert, Ritter, and Achim (2002) identify three main approaches to viewing market orientation, including a behavioral perspective (Kohli and Jaworski 1990), where market orientation is focused on organization-wide market intelligence generation, dissemination, and response; a cultural perspective (Narver and Slater 1990), where market orientation is reflected through the values and attitudes of the organization in providing superior customer value; and a systems perspective (Becker and Homburg 1999), where market orientation is conceptualized in terms of different systems underpinning the organization (e.g., organization, information, planning, controlling, and human resources).

The IMC process is likely to be stronger, or at least more readily recognized for its importance, in those organizations that have adopted a market orientation (Zahay et al. 2004). In general, it is suggested that employees in market-oriented organizations understand the importance of integrating marketing communication messages, as well as their individual roles in the integration process and in managing customer relationships. Furthermore, higher levels of market orientation are complementary to the collaborative decision-making process required in implementing IMC (Cornelissen 2001).

IMC has also been associated with the size and type of organization (Low 2000). It is suggested that the size of the company may account for variation in an organization's ability to implement IMC (Cornelissen, Lock, and Garner 2001; Low 2000; Nowak and Phelps 1994). Smaller organizations with less complex brand hierarchies may be less likely to undertake diverse marketing communication programs, less likely to have adopted rigid departmental formalization, and thus may be more likely to be integrated or to have adopted processes that are consistent with IMC (Cornelissen, Lock, and Gardner 2001; Low 2000; Nowak and Phelps 1994). Low (2000) further suggests that service companies are likely to be more integrated than product-oriented companies, based on the premise that service companies have greater direct access to consumers. The close interaction between the organization and the consumer is said to assist IMC via the gathering of consumer information and the tracking of behavioral responses.

Hostile market environments characterized by intense competition and a lack of exploitable opportunities, and dynamic environments characterized by rapid technological advancements and rapidly changing consumer preferences, are considered to have a significant influence on business performance (Covin and Slevin 1989; Gray et al. 1998; Jaworski and Kohli 1993; Low 2000; Rust et al. 2004; Slater and Narver 1994). The desire to be competitive in such environmental conditions may provide the impetus for organizations to implement IMC to facilitate strategic coordination of brand messages and to effect brand strategy.

METHOD

Measures

Where appropriate, this study used existing scales to capture the data on the IMC process, brand outcomes, market environment, and market orientation (see the Appendix for IMC and brand outcome items). A modified version of the Duncan-Moriarty IMC miniaudit (Duncan and Moriarty 1997) was used to capture information on IMC process. After evaluating the questionnaire with a small convenience sample of managers and academics, the phrasing of the 20 items was modified to improve managers' understanding of concepts. IMC items were measured on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 7 = to a great extent).

Market orientation was measured using a validated 19-item scale employed by Conduit and Mavondo (2001) in their study on internal customer orientation and its relationship with market orientation (1 = not at all, 7 = to a great extent). The external market environment scales were drawn from the research undertaken by Gray et al. (1998) and included questions on customer, competitor, and technological turbulence (associated with Jaworski and Kohli 1993), as well as market opportunity (based on work by Porter 1985). These were also measured using a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Similarly, the performance measures were drawn from the research by Gray et al. (1998) and were modified for use in a brand outcomes context. The nine items included four perceptual items related to relative sales and profitability, four items related to relative customer brand equity, and one item related to relative channel support for the brand. All perceptual-based items were measured using a seven-point Likert scale (1 = much less, 7 = much mote). Other items in the questionnaire sought information on respondent characteristics, company characteristics, and brand position and objectives, as well as on the size of the marketing communication budget.

Sample

The data for this research were gathered using a self-administered questionnaire. A sample of one thousand companies was drawn from a commercially available Dun and Bradstreet listing of Australian companies and was based on the Australian Standard Industrial Classifications system. To promote sufficient variation in organization type and organization size, the sample was comprised of 250 each of small service and consumer goods organizations and 250 each of large consumer goods and services organizations. Examples of services organizations targeted by the survey included legal services, management consultants, architects, and engineering firms. Consumer goods organizations included food and electronics manufacturers. The questionnaires were subsequently mailed to managers responsible for managing brand communication. If recipients believed they were poorly targeted, they were requested to pass the questionnaire on to the most appropriate person in the organization. In targeting smaller-sized organizations, it was found that specifically titled brand-management positions often did not exist, with this role being performed instead by marketing managers, marketing directors, or company directors.

Following an initial mailing of the questionnaire, a follow-up letter was sent to encourage response. The questionnaire was also placed on the marketing department Web site and made available for managers to download and complete if they had initially discarded the original copy. Twenty-seven responses were received after the follow-up mailing. After adjusting for returns-to-sender, the total sample was reduced to 904 companies. A total of 169 fully completed usable responses were received for an effective response rate of 18.7%.

A caution must be sounded because the characteristics of nonrespondents were not examined due to university ethics requirements of completely de-identified data. In four cases, however, organizations indicated that they would not respond due to a policy of nonparticipation in this type of research. In all four cases, the organizations were larger consumer goods marketers. The issue of nonresponse is one that needs to be addressed in further research. Apart from incentives to improve response, nonresponse can be reduced through design creativity and the use of mixed designs that may include triangulation of survey data and case study (Dwyer 1980). If researchers are unable to evaluate nonresponse due to privacy issues, a final strategy is to examine late responders as those holding potentially similar characteristics to nonresponders. Final respondent characteristics are reported in Table 1.

Analysis Procedures

Analysis of data followed a process of, first, assessing discriminant validity for both the modified Duncan-Moriarty IMC miniaudit and the brand outcome measures. Path analysis (AMOS v5) was then employed to test the relationship between the IMC process and brand outcomes. Following this, organizational and market-related variables were correlated and then regressed against an aggregate IMC score to examine possible drivers of the IMC process by organizations in this sample (Low 2000).

To assess construct validity, the internal reliabilities of each of the existing normative constructs from the Duncan-Moriarty IMC miniaudit were examined using Cronbach's a (Churchill 1979). This resulted in the removal of five items (see the Appendix for all items, deleted items, and Cronbach's [alpha]). The remaining items were then subjected to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Three CFA models were tested to examine the nature of these relationships. In the first model, a highly significant correlation existed between the constructs of "strategic consistency" and "planning and evaluation," and these were subsequently combined. The second CFA model resulted in similarly strong relationships between "infrastructure" and the combined "strategic consistency" and "planning and evaluation" items, and, again, these were combined to form a single construct ("cross-functional strategic planning"). The underlying structure of the brand outcome measures was not known and they were subjected to exploratory factor analysis resulting in three factors (principal components with varimax rotation, 67% of variance explained). The three factors were then subjected to CFA to assess the strength of the underlying relationships and the discriminant validity of the final factor structures. The level of aggregation in the analysis is a factor that needs to be addressed in further research.

Table 2 presents the final result for internal consistency of the modified IMC audit and brand outcome measures to be employed in the path analysis, along with the square root of average variance extracted and correlations. The average variance extracted in the remaining constructs was always greater than .50, which is indicative of convergent validity (Sarkar, Cavusgil, and Aulakh 2001). Also, the overall model provided evidence of discriminant validity in that the variance shared between any two constructs was less than the average variance extracted by the constructs. In total, these statistics indicate that the properties of the final IMC model are sufficient to enable the analysis of the IMC process and brand outcomes relationship to proceed.

RESULTS

Path Analysis

Path analysis has been used by other researchers for decomposing effects into direct and indirect (causal) effects and for eliminating noncausal (spurious effects). Thus, path analysis often makes available results that are not readily identifiable using ordinary regression analysis. Estimating the goodness-of-fit for the model is the first step in model testing (see Figure 1). In this study, the [chi square] test was not significant, suggesting that the estimated model was a good fit with the observed data. Additional goodness-of-fit measures are presented in Figure 1. Estimation of path significance for the proposed association between IMC process and brand outcomes was the second step in the analysis. A significant relationship was found with the model, explaining 16% of the variance in brand outcomes ([gamma] = .40, t = 2.606, p [less than or equal to] .05). Overall, these results lend some initial support to the notion that IMC is an important strategic business process and that it may indeed have significant brand outcome implications. The results also highlight the complex and multidimensional nature of the IMC process.

Other Correlates of IMC Performance

As in Low's (2000) analysis, a stepwise multiple regression analysis is used to examine the effects of a set of organizational and market variables that may be associated with the degree to which processes consistent with IMC exist in an organization. Table 3 shows the results of this analysis. Of the 23 independent variables entered into a correlation analysis, 12 were identified as having a significant relationship with the aggregate IMC dependent variable, and were subsequently entered into a regression analysis.

The overall stepwise regression model indicates that 6 of the 12 variables are relatively good predictors of the IMC process achieved by respondents ([R.sup.2]= .42, F = 19.45, p [less than or equal to] .01). First, the IMC process in this sample appears to be more prevalent in larger organizations or those with market-leading positions ([beta] = .19, p [less than or equal to] .01) and larger budgets [beta] = .18, p [less than or equal to] .05). Though probably not surprising, it is interesting to note that the implementation of the IMC process is related to having a strong customer orientation ([beta] = .26, p [less than or equal to] .01) and a higher level of interfunctional coordination ([beta] = .21, p [less than or equal to] .05), both of which are dimensions of various market orientation models (Gray et al. 1998). Similarly, facing markets with higher competitor turbulence is also positively associated with the level of IMC achieved ([beta] = .14, p [less than or equal to] .05). It is also interesting to note that the model identified a potential negative association between level of IMC achieved and being a small service organization ([beta] = -.22, p [less than or equal to] .01).

Overall, the results of the regression and path analyses have a number of implications for both managers and IMC researchers. Of particular concern are those implications related to further improvement of the explanatory power of the IMC instrument, as well as those related to organizing for and implementing the IMC process in organizations.

DISCUSSION

The primary objective of this study was to provide an exploratory insight into the relationship between the IMC process and brand outcomes. In pursuing this goal, a modified version of the Duncan-Moriarty IMC miniaudit was adopted and subsequently evaluated for its explanatory power. Brand outcomes in this research were operationalized through a set of nine items that were subsequently reduced to three factors--sales performance, customer satisfaction, and brand advantage. Overall, there was a strong and significant main effect indicating a positive relationship between the IMC process and brand outcomes, suggesting that managers should pay more attention to implementing IMC.

The second objective related to the performance of the IMC instrument in terms of its discriminant and convergent validity, determining whether the normative structure of the IMC miniaudit was robust under this form of analysis. The findings from this data suggested that the five original normative constructs could be collapsed into three: "interactivity" "mission marketing," and a larger, more inclusive construct called "cross-functional strategic planning." The limitations of the data mean that this new structure is exploratory and requires more extensive testing to validate such conclusions. The findings suggest, however, that an opportunity exists to further develop this instrument for use by other IMC researchers.

The third and fourth objectives relate to the influence of other organizational and market factors on the level of IMC achieved. Findings suggest that the market orientation of the organization is positively related to the level of IMC, and second, that characteristics of the organization including size and type, as well as position in the market, may also influence the IMC process. Finally, level of competitive turbulence in the market was also associated with IMC and may provide impetus for implementing the IMC process in organizations.

One of the key findings of a recent white paper on IMC was that there is limited empirical evidence supporting IMC outcomes, which may be constraining the acceptance of IMC in boardrooms and the practice of IMC by organizations (Duncan and Mulhern 2004). This study found that approximately 16% of the variation in brand outcomes as captured by measures of customer satisfaction, brand advantage, and sales performance could be explained by the IMC process of respondents. Although this study is exploratory in nature and has very defined limitations, it nevertheless suggests that the importance of IMC should be recognized, and that managers should seek to implement the IMC process as a way of improving brand-related outcomes. If implementing IMC can be demonstrated to have tangible benefits for organizations, including intermediate effects such as stronger customer relationships and the financial returns from such relationships, through to upstream impacts on market position and financial position, then top management can be encouraged to facilitate the introduction of IMC as a core process in the organization.

As Duncan and Moriarty (1998) suggest, IMC is a strategic process for better managing the brand messages that create, maintain, and grow customer relationships and brands. This research found that the five normative constructs in the Duncan and Moriarty IMC miniaudit could be collapsed into three. The three constructs used here to measure the IMC process have some important implications for managers, including the need to ensure that the voice of the customer is heard in the brand-communication planning process (interactivity); that brand communication planning draws its focus from the mission and values of the organization (mission marketing); that the planning process itself involves key individuals from other functions and external agencies; that it is championed by individuals with the appropriate skills and capabilities in brand communications; and that it is based on a clear understanding of customer contact points and a brand SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis (cross-functional strategic planning). It is also imperative that desired IMC outcomes are well understood and that key customer and brand metrics are built into the brand communication process and the implementation of brand communication programs.

It might be argued that the constructs identified in this research represent three critical aspects of the IMC process. First, the interactivity construct relates to data inputs into IMC planning, while the mission marketing construct provides the cultural foundation for accepting IMC. Finally, the cross-functional strategic planning construct relates to physically orchestrating the brand-communication planning process to achieve strategic consistency. Inherent in this is the need to build, maintain, and leverage strong customer relationships to build strong brands.

Achieving excellent interactivity requires an organization to have the capacity to track brand outcomes and customer behavior, and to have this information available as an input into brand communication planning. In achieving interactivity, a major focus should be on developing mechanisms that enable purposeful and strategically useful dialogue between the organization and its consumers and stakeholders, and on maintaining a database or information system that enables this information to be analyzed, retrieved, and utilized in a timely fashion (Duncan and Moriarty 1997; Duncan and Moriarty 1998; Keller 2001).

Having a mission that is integrated into the organization's marketing effort enables the organization to build and reinforce a positive value-based culture that resonates with a range of different stakeholders. Mission marketing should communicate the company's purpose for being, existing as the foundation from which organizational goals related to the creation and maintenance of value for stakeholders can be collectively achieved (Duncan and Moriarty 1997). From the perspective of enabling the IMC process, a well-integrated mission provides a foundation for supporting, legitimizing, and facilitating marketing communication activities, empowers individuals charged with the responsibility for bringing about improved integration in brand communication planning, and facilitates the implementation of business processes and human resource strategies that support brand communication. Through mission marketing, a market-back philosophy can be installed into the organization's culture, facilitating the IMC process by generating and channeling employee motivation and commitment (Stewart 1996).

Cross-functional strategic planning incorporates a range of activities, including managing people to ensure that "turf wars" and "departmental silos" do not undo, or unduly complicate, brand communication planning and implementation (Duncan and Everett 1993; Eagle and Kitchen 1999). This construct also deals with the need to achieve strategic consistency, so that all brand-related communication and marketing mix elements are consistent with the desired brand positioning (Duncan and Moriarty 1997). By endeavoring to control conflicting messages, organizations are in a better position to develop long-term relationships, and to make their organization's brand more distinct. Also under this construct is the need to ensure that planning and strategy development are based on a clear understanding of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats facing the brand in the market. Regarding the evaluation of IMC campaigns, procedures need to be in place to measure objectively the ongoing effectiveness of campaigns, with consideration being given to achieving appropriate customer, brand, and marketing metrics (Duncan and Moriarty 1998; Schultz, Cole, and Bailey 2004; Zahay et al. 2004).

The findings of this research also identify important organizational characteristics and market environment variables that are associated with implementation of the IMC process. In contrast to Low (2000), it was identified that IMC was more likely to exist in larger consumer manufacturing organizations than in smaller service-based organizations. It may be that larger organizations have done more to improve their planning processes, may have more formal mechanisms for collecting and utilizing customer data, and may have to manage and coordinate a number of interfunctional groups and external agencies. A further finding relates to market orientation and the indication that the level of market orientation in the organization is positively related to the IMC process. Market orientation is becoming an important issue in IMC implementation (Zahay et al. 2004), with an assumption that firms that have a high level of IMC are also likely to have in place a customer-centric notion, systems for linking the organization to the market and stakeholders, and processes and mental models that link various functional areas of the organization (Duncan and Moriarty 1998; Slater 1997; Stewart 1996). This result suggests that market orientation might provide a supportive role in the implementation of the IMC process by providing a basis for cross-functional integration and a focus on understanding customers' needs and wants, for being responsive in terms of message design and delivery, and for ensuring overall strategic consistency.

Another finding of this research is that competitive turbulence in the market was positively related to the level of IMC achieved. This is in accordance with Low's study (2000), which found that competitive intensity was positively related to IMC. Similarly, the interpretation is that organizations that compete in markets characterized by intense and turbulent competition may find it beneficial to integrate brand communication strategically to maximize the effects of communication activities. Furthermore, as organizations develop expertise in IMC planning and implementation, they are likely to experience an enhanced ability to compete and respond to competitors' marketing efforts (Low 2000).

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

As with any study, there are limitations in the present work that need to be identified. First, the Duncan and Moriarty (1997) IMC miniaudit is an audit of internal performance on a range of items related to the IMC process. In this research, it has been used to attempt an analysis of the relationship between the implementation of the IMC process and some external representation of brand outcomes. As a result, the results must always be interpreted with caution. Second, modifications were made to the wording of the original Duncan and Moriarty (1997) items based on interviews with managers and academics, and this has an impact on aspects of construct validity. Consideration should be given to employing an unmodified set of scales to further assess construct discrimination and stability. The CFA analysis undertaken in this research does suggest that scope exists to review the relationship between items in the Duncan-Moriarty IMC miniaudit and to strengthen the logical structure of the current normative constructs. The issue of small sample size and use of self-reported data also needs to be recognized. The implications of a small sample are felt in terms of potential nonresponse bias and whether the characteristics of the sample are representative of the population at large. No such claims of broad generalizability are made in this research, except to suggest that the sample includes large and small manufacturing and services organizations. With regard to self-reporting of data, issues exist around the ability to determine whether responses are a true reflection of the organization and its performance (Dwyer 1980). Further research is required to validate these results across industry and organizational type and to more accurately assess the characteristics of nonresponders.

One of the main issues facing IMC researchers is the need to provide proof to top management that IMC can result in tangible benefits for the organization (Duncan and Mulhern 2004). The findings reported here contribute to an increased understanding of the likely relationship between the implementation of the IMC process and brand outcomes. Although this was an exploratory research project, it does provide insight into further lines of inquiry for IMC researchers, particularly with regard to the conceptualization and testing of instruments to evaluate IMC in organizations, and in regard to employing different methodologies to triangulate the value of IMC across industries and organizational types.

To provide proof, researchers must develop, refine, and validate instruments for evaluating and auditing the IMC process and for linking this to customer- and brand-related outcomes. One approach to establishing a stronger base of empirical support for IMC is to utilize the basic methodology of Gray et al. (1998), who combined a range of different market orientation scales and used a large multi-industry sample to derive a more managerially useful and parsimonious set of scales for measuring marketing orientation. The opportunity exists for combining the models and scales of a range of authors (e.g., Comelissen 2001; Duncan and Moriarty 1997; Ewing, De Bussy, and Caruana 2000; Low 2000; Phelps and Johnson 1996) and examining relationships to derive a validated set of scales. Alternative approaches to derivation of such an instrument include both confirmatory factor analysis and qualitative Delphi approaches.

There needs to be further research conducted using both multi-industry samples and single-industry samples. At the single-industry level, the goal should be to drill down and examine how different types of organizations in the industry employ (or don't employ) the principles of IMC, and whether those that do have achieved some form of superior performance. This single-industry strategy is designed to remove potentially confounding interindustry effects on the IMC process and associated brand outcomes. A multi-industry approach is required to provide broader empirical generalizations that further prove the value of IMC, and to examine various interindustry effects of the implementation of the IMC process and related brand outcomes. These two approaches are not contradictory; both serve to build a strong body oflMC knowledge and insight.

The concept of IMC outcomes needs to be further developed and tested. This research employed a limited set of measures related to brand outcomes and found a significant association between the IMC process and brand outcomes. Providing proof to top management of the benefits of IMC requires acceptance of an appropriate and consistent set of metrics and measures to underpin such proof. The metrics of IMC are likely to span customer equity, brand equity, and market impact at a strategic level, as well as more intermediate effects such as return of customer touch point (Schultz, Cole, and Bailey 2004), affect brand awareness, brand attitude, and purchase propensity (Rossiter and Bellman 2005). Other important measures to utilize in evaluating IMC outcomes will also include customer lifetime value and share of wallet (Duncan and Moriarty 1997). In effect, IMC researchers may need to conceptualize a "chain of IMC productivity" (see Rust et al. 2004). The value of this chain is that researchers have a clear understanding of IMC outcomes and can begin to build a consistent body of performance-related insights that are managerially useful. It is important that the design of instruments to evaluate IMC be consistent with the external outcomes one wishes to link to the IMC process.

Survey research alone will not be sufficient to build the body of IMC knowledge. Researchers must employ a range of other methodologies, including case study and action research. Case studies of organizations and brands that have successfully implemented IMC are necessary to demonstrate real-world application, and to build best-practice insights. The ability to point to successful organizations and to be able to demonstrate quantifiable benefits will provide strong foundations for boardroom acceptance of IMC. The use of action research also provides opportunities for very powerful insights into the process of implementing IMC and how the change in process impacts brand and customer outcomes. As a methodology, action research adopts a cyclical process of inquiry that involves diagnosing a problem situation, planning action steps, and implementing and evaluating outcomes. If IMC researchers are able to demonstrate how adoption of the process can be facilitated in organizations, and that such changes in the process can result in tangible benefits for brands and organizations, then further proof can be provided to top management.

Finally, it will be important to continue to position IMC within the existing body of marketing concepts that compete for management attention and, indeed, compete for academic resources. This research identified a possible relationship between IMC and market orientation that requires further investigation into the characteristics of the relationship. More broadly, IMC researchers need to consider how IMC supports, complements, or helps implement a host of business practices and orientations, including CRM (customer relationship management) and relationship marketing. By undertaking this research, we are in a position to counter the "not new" tag more effectively.

CONCLUSION

This exploratory study sought to answer four questions related to understanding how IMC might be evaluated in organizations, and whether successful implementation of the principles and processes of IMC might result in positive brand outcomes. Specifically, this research employed a modified version of the Duncan-Moriarty IMC miniaudit (1997) as a basis for evaluating the IMC process in organizations and as a basis for considering how the IMC process was related to brand outcomes as measured by sales performance, customer satisfaction, and brand advantage. Furthermore, the research sought to identify characteristics of organizations and the market environment that may be correlated with the IMC process. The findings suggested that IMC process had a significant and positive relationship with brand outcomes, and that market orientation, competitive turbulence, and the size and type of the organization were correlated with the implementation of the IMC process.

APPENDIX

The tables below provide the integrated marketing communication (IMC)
and performance items used in the research. All items reported here are
measured on seven-point Likert scales. The Cronbach's a is reported for
each of the constructs, including the final Cronbach's [alpha] for the
new "cross-functional strategic planning" construct derived from the
CFA (combined "organizational infrastructure," "strategic consistency,"
and "planning and evaluation"). [chi] = item deleted; [check] = item
retained.

IMC performance constructs and items         Items        Cronbach's
(based on Duncan and Moriarty 1997)         retained       [alpha]

Interactivity
 1. Your brand's media plan is a strate-
    gic balance between mass media and
    one-to-one media.                        [chi]            .6620
 2. Special programs are in place to
    facilitate customer inquiries and
    complaints about your brand.            [check]
 3. In your databases, you capture cus-
    tomer inquiries, complaints, compli-
    ments, and sales behavior related to
    your brand.                             [check]
 4. Your customer databases are easily
    accessible (internally) and user-
    friendly.                                [chi]

Mission marketing
 5. Your company's mission statement is a
    key consideration in the communica-
    tions planning for your brand.          [check]         .8736
 6. Your mission statement is promoted
    among customers and other key stake-
    holders of your brand (e.g.,
    employees, shareholders).               [check]
 7. Your brand's social sponsorship con-
    tributions are concentrated in one
    specific area or program (e.g.,
    sport, music, art, etc.).                [chi]

Organizational infrastructure
 8. In your company, the process of
    managing the brand's reputation is
    the responsibility of all departments
    and employees.                           [chi]            .5743
 9. The people managing the communica-
    tions program for your brand have a
    good understanding of the strengths
    and weaknesses of all major marketing
    communications tools, such as direct
    response, PR, sales promotion, adver-
    tising, and packaging.                  [check]
10. Your company does a good job of
    internal marketing, informing all
    areas of the organization about your
    brand's objectives and marketing
    programs.                               [check]
11. Your major communication agencies
    (e.g., advertising agency) have (at
    least) monthly contact with each
    other regarding your brand.             [check]

Strategic consistency
12. You regularly review your marketing
    plan to ensure relevance and consis-
    tency of your brand messages and
    strategic brand positioning.            [check]         .7509
13. Your major promotional theme for the
    brand is conceptually broad enough to
    allow for different subcampaigns
    aimed at all key stakeholder groups.    [check]
14. You carefully coordinate the messages
    being sent by all of your operations,
    such as pricing, distribution,
    product performance, and service
    operations, to ensure consistency of
    brand positioning.                      [check]

Planning and evaluation
15. A SWOT analysis is used to determine               .7161 (the
    the strengths and opportunities you                combined [alpha]
    can leverage, and the weaknesses and               coefficient for
    threats you need to address, in your    [check]    the final
    brand's marketing communication                    measurement
    planning.                                          model was
16. You use a fresh start or zero-based                .8559)
    approach in planning your brand's
    marketing communication rather than
    using the last year's budget
    allocations.                             [chi]
17. When doing annual marketing communi-
    cation planning, first priority is
    given to managing the consumer
    contact(s) with your brand.             [check]
18. You use some type of systematic
    brand-tracking study to evaluate the
    strength of your relationships with
    customers and other key stakeholder
    groups.                                 [check]
19. Your brand-marketing strategies
    maximize the unique strengths of the
    various marketing communications
    tools.                                  [check]
20. The stated objective of your brand's
    marketing communication program is to
    create and maintain profitable rela-
    tionships with customers and other
    stakeholders by ensuring consistency
    in all messages sent to these groups.   [check]

Brand-related performance constructs and
items

Sales-related performance
 l. What is your market share compared to                   .8086
    your closest competitor?                [check]
 2. What is your sales growth compared to
    your closest competitor?                [check]
 3. What is your profitability compared
    to your closest competitor?             [check]
 4. What is your total sales income
    compared to your closest competitor?    [check]

Brand advantage
5. What is your customers' level of brand
   awareness compared with your closest
   competitor?                              [check]         .5865
6. What is your ability to command
   premium prices over similar competing
   brands in your principal market?         [check]
7. What level of channel cooperation do
   you receive relative to similar compe-
   ting brands in your principal market?    [check]

Customer satisfaction
8. How satisfied do you think your cus-
   tomers are with your brand compared to
   your closest competitor's customers?     [check]         .7014
9. How loyal do you think your customers
   are to your brand compared to your
   closest competitor's customers?          [check]

Notes: CFA = confirmatory factor analysis; SWOT = strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities, threats.

Respondents were asked to focus on their principal brand.

REFERENCES

Ambler, Tim, C. B. Bhattacharya, Julie Edell, Kevin Lane Keller, Katherine N. Lemon, and Vikas Mittal (2002), "Relating Brand and Customer Perspectives on Marketing Management," Journal of Service Research, 5 (August), 13-25.

Beard, Fred (1996), "Integrated Marketing Communications: New Role Expectations and Performance Issues in the Client-Ad Agency Relationship?" Journal of Business Research, 37 (3), 207-215.

Becker, Jan, and Christian Homburg (1999), "Market-Oriented Management: A Systems-Based Perspective," Journal of Market-Focused Management, 4 (1), 17-41.

Churchill, Gilbert A. (1979), "A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs," Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (1), 64-73.

Conduit, Jodie, and Felix Mavondo (2001), "How Critical Is Internal Customer Orientation to Market Orientation?" Journal of Business Research, 51, 11-24.

Cornelissen, Joep P. (2000), "Integration in Communication Management: Conceptual and Methodological Considerations," Journal of Marketing Management, 16, 597-606.

-- (2001), "Integrated Marketing Communications and the Language of Market Development," International Journal of Advertising, 20 (4), 483-499.

--, and Andrew R. Lock (2000), "Theoretical Concept or Management Fashion? Examining the Significance of IMC," Journal of Advertising Research, 40 (5), 7-15.

--, --, and Hanne Gardner (2001), "The Organization of External Communication Disciplines: An Integrative Framework of Dimensions and Determinants," International Journal of Advertising, 20 (1), 67-88.

Covin, Jeffery G., and Dennis P. Slevin (1989), "Strategic Management of Small Firms in Hostile and Benign Environments," Strategic Management Journal, 10 (1), 75-87.

Duncan, Thomas R. (2005), Principles of Advertising and IMC, New York: McGraw-Hill.

--, and Stephen E. Everett (1993), "Client Perceptions of Integrated Marketing Communications," Journal of Advertising Research, 33 (3), 30-40.

--, and --, (1997), Driving Brand Value, New York: McGraw Hill.

--, and Sandra Moriarty (1998), "A Communication-Based Marketing Model for Managing Relationships," Journal of Marketing, 62 (2), 1-13.

--, and Frank Mulhern, eds. (2004), A White Paper on the Status, Scope and Future of IMC (from IMC symposium sponsored by the IMC programs at Northwestern University and the University of Denver), New York: McGraw-Hill.

Dwyer, E Robert (1980), "Response Errors in Survey Research," California Management Review, 23, 39-45.

Eagle, Lynne, and Philip J. Kitchen (1999), "IMC, Brand Communications, and Corporate Cultures," European Journal of Marketing, 34 (5), 667-686.

Ewing, Mike T., Nigel De Bussy, and Albert Caruana (2000), "Perceived Agency Politics and Conflicts of Interest as Potential Barriers to IMC Orientation," Journal of Marketing Communications, 6 (2), 107-119.

Gray, Brendan J., Sheelagh Matear, Christo Boshoff, and Philip K. Matheson (1998), "Developing a Better Measure of Market Orientation," European Journal of Marketing, 32 (9/10), 884-903.

Hartley, Bob, and David Pickton (1999), "Integrated Marketing Communications Requires a New Way of Thinking," Journal of Marketing Communications, 5, 97-106.

Helfert, Gabriele, Thomas Ritter, and Walter Achim (2002), "Redefining Market Orientation from a Relationship Perspective: Theoretical Considerations and Empirical Results," European Journal of Marketing, 36 (9/10), 1119-1140.

Hutton, James G. (1996), "Integrated Marketing Communications and the Evolution of Marketing Thought," Journal of Business Research, 37 (3), 155-163.

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

Jones, John Philip, and Margaret H. Blair (1996), "Examining 'Conventional Wisdoms' About Advertising Effects with Evidence from Independent Sources,"Journal of Advertising Research, 36 (6), 37-60.

Keller, Kevin Lane (1993), "Conceptualizing, Measuring, Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity," Journal of Marketing, 57 (1), 1-22.

--. (2001), "Mastering the Marketing Communications Mix: Micro and Macro Perspectives on Integrated Marketing Communications,"Journal of Marketing Manager, rant, 17, 819-847.

Kitchen, PhilipJ.,Joanne Brignall, Tao Li, and Graham Spickett Jones (2004), "The Emergence of IMC: A Theoretical Perspective," Journal of Advertising Research, 44 (1), 19-30.

Kliatchko, Jerry (2005), "Towards a Definition of Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC)," International Journal of Advertising Research, 24 (1), 7-34.

Kohli, Ajay K., and Bernard J. Jaworski (i990), "Market Orientation: The Construct, Research Propositions, and Managerial Implications," Journal of Marketing, 54, 1-18.

Low, George S. (2000), "Correlates of Integrated Marketing Communications,"Journal of Advertising Research, 40 (3), 27-39.

Narver, John C., and Stanley F. Slater (1990), "The Effect of a Market Orientation on Business Profitability," Journal of Marketing, 54, 20-35.

Nowak, Glen J., and Joseph Phelps (1994), "Conceptualizing the Integrated Marketing Communications Phenomenon: An Examination of Its Impact on Advertising Policies and Its Implications for Advertising Research," Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 16 (1), 49-66.

Phelps, Joseph E., Thomas E. Harris, and Edward Johnson (1996), "Exploring Decision-Making Approaches and Responsibility for Developing Marketing Communications Strategy," Journal of Business Research, 37 (3), 217-214.

--, and Edward Johnson (1996), "Entering the Quagmire: Examining the 'Meaning' of Integrated Communications," Journal of Marketing Communications, 2, 159-172.

Porter, Michael E. (1985), Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, New York: The Free Press.

Rossiter, John R., and Steven Bellman (2005), Marketing Communications: Theory and Applications, Victoria: Pearson Prentice Hall, Australia.

Rust, Roland T., Tim Ambler, Gregory S. Carpenter, V. Kumar, and Rajendra K. Srivastava (2004), "Measuring Marketing Productivity: Current Knowledge and Future Directions," Journal of Marketing, 68 (October), 76-89.

Sarkar, M. B. Raj Echambadi, S. Tamer Cavusgil, and Preet S. Aulakh (2001), "The Influence of Complementarity, Compatibility, and Relationship Capital on Alliance Performance,"Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29 (4), 358-373.

Schultz, Don E., Bill Cole, and Scott Bailey (2004), "Implementing the 'Connect the Dots' Approach to Marketing Communications," International Journal of Advertising, 23 (4), 455-477.

--, and Heidi Schultz (1998), "Transitioning Marketing Communication into the 21st Century," Journal of Marketing Communications, 4 (1), 9-26.

Shimp, Terrence A. (1999), Advertising and Promotion: Supplemental Aspects of Integrated Marketing Communications, 5th ed., Fort Worth: The Dryden Press.

Slater, Stanley E (1997), "Developing a Customer Value-Based Theory of the Firm," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25 (2), 162-176.

--, and John C. Narver (1994), "Does Competitive Environment Moderate the Market Orientation-Performance Relationship," Journal of Marketing, 58 (1), 46-55.

Smith, Paul (1996), "Benefits and Barriers to Integrated Communications," Admap (February), 19-22.

Stewart, David W. (1996), "Market-Back Approach to the Design of Integrated Communications Programs: A Change in Paradigm and a Focus on Determinants of Success,"Journal of Business Research, 37 (3), 147-153.

Swain, William N. (2004), "Perceptions of IMC After a Decade of Development: Who's at the Wheel, and How Can We Measure Success," Journal of Advertising Research, 44 (1), 46-65.

Zahay, Debra, James Peltier, Don E. Schultz, and Abbie Griffin (2004), "The Role of Transactional Versus Relational Data in IMC Programs: Bringing Customer Data Together,"Journal of Advertising Research, 44 (1), 3-18.

Mike Reid (Ph.D., Otago University) is a senior lecturer in the Department of Marketing, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

The author gratefully acknowledges the positive and constructive feedback from the guest editorial team--Professor Tom Duncan, Professor Don E. Schultz, and Professor Charles Patti--and two anonymous reviewers. The author also thanks Associate Professor Felix Mavondo, Professor Arch Woodside, and Professor Art Kover for their comments on earlier drafts of the paper.

TABLE 1

Profile of Respondents

Position                            Percent

Marketing manager                    39.2
Brand manager                         3.6
Senior brand manager                  1.8
Sales manager                         2.4
(Company and marketing director)     53.0

Total                                100%

Years at company                    Percent

Less than 1 year                     17.3
1-3 years                            35.1
3-6 years                            23.2
6-9 years                             6.5
More than 9 years                    17.9

Total                                100%

Number of employees                 Percent

1-99                                 44.4
100-399                              27.2
400-699                              11.8
700-999                               4.2
1,000+                               12.4

Total                                100%

Company type                        Percent

Large consumer                       22.5
Small consumer                       14.8
Large service                        30.2
Small service                        32.5

Total                               100.0%

TABLE 2

Internal Consistency, Square Roots of Average Variance Extracted, and
Correlation Matrix

                             Internal
                            consistency       1         2       3

IMC construct
1. Interactivity                .66        .70# (a)
2. Mission marketing            .87        .31         .86#
3. Cross-functional
     strategic planning         .86        .59         .46     .59#

Performance construct
1. Brand advantage              .59        .55# (a)
2. Sales performance            .81        .56         .71#
3. Customer satisfaction        .70        .49         .18     .63#

Note: The value with # shows square root of average variance extracted
for each construct.

Note: IMC = integrated marketing communication.

(a) The diagonal in bold italic shows square root of average variance
extracted for each construct.

TABLE 3

Factors Correlated to the Level of Integrated Marketing Communication
(IMC) Performance Achieved

                                                            Regression
                                                 Number
                                      Type         of      Correlation
Variable                            of scale     items      with IMC

Company characteristics
  Larger manufacturing/consumer     0-1 Dummy    1 (a)        .29 **
  Smaller manufacturing/consumer    0-1 Dummy    1 (a)        .02
  Larger service                    0-1 Dummy    1 (a)        .08
  Smaller service                   0-1 Dummy    1 (a)       -.35 **
  Annual sales                       6 point     1 (B)        .29 **
  Respondent experience              5 point     1 (c)        .02
Brand position
  Market leader                     0-1 Dummy    1 (a)        .26 **
  Market challenger                 0-1 Dummy    1 (a)       -.02
  Stable middle                     0-1 Dummy    1 (a)       -.10
  Struggling middle                 0-1 Dummy    1 (a)       -.10
  Market niche                      0-1 Dummy    1 (a)       -.14
Brand objectives
  Maintain position                 0-1 Dummy    1 (a)        .02
  Grow existing markets             0-1 Dummy    1 (a)        .04
  Expand to new markets             0-1 Dummy    1 (a)       -.07
Marketing communications effort
  Annual budget                      5 point     1 (d)        .20 **
  Budget change                      5 point     1 (e)       -.01
Market orientation
  Customer orientation               7 point     8 (f)        .46 **
  Competitor orientation             7 point     4 (f)        .35 **
  Interfunctional coordination       7 point     7 (f)        .38 **
Environmental conditions
  Customer turbulence                7 point     3 (f)        .17 *
  Competitive turbulence             7 point     5 (f)        .27 **
  Technological turbulence           7 point     5 (f)        .08
  Market opportunity                 7 point     2 (f)        .17 *

                                        Regression

Variable                            [beta]        t

Company characteristics
  Larger manufacturing/consumer
  Smaller manufacturing/consumer
  Larger service
  Smaller service                    -.22     -3.278 **
  Annual sales
  Respondent experience
Brand position
  Market leader                       .19      3.057 **
  Market challenger
  Stable middle
  Struggling middle
  Market niche
Brand objectives
  Maintain position
  Grow existing markets
  Expand to new markets
Marketing communications effort
  Annual budget                       .18      2.586 *
  Budget change
Market orientation
  Customer orientation                .26      3.077 **
  Competitor orientation
  Interfunctional coordination        .21      2.443 *
Environmental conditions
  Customer turbulence
  Competitive turbulence              .14      2.163 *
  Technological turbulence
  Market opportunity

Note: Regression model: [R.sup.2] = .42; adjusted [R.sup.2] = .40;
F = 19.45. **

(a) Each classification coded separately using dummy variable.

(b) As with Low (2000), each anchored with 1 = less than $10 million,
6 = greater than $1 billion.

(c) Each anchored with 1 = less than 1 year, 5 = more than 9 years.

(d) Each anchored with 1 = less than $100,000, 5 = more than $24
million.

(e) Each anchored with 1 = decrease, 5 = increase of 30% or more.

(f) Likert scale (summed scale/number of items in scale), anchored with
1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree.

* p [less than or equal to] .05.

** p [less than or equal to] .01.