Implications For Integrated Marketing Communications Marketing Essay

The rise of social networking over the last two decades has revolutionized communications and information management for thousands of companies all over the world. One of its most powerful effects is the near-instantaneous and influential spread of personal opinion across vast distances, time and space through virtual means. Social network communities, especially, have emerged in recent years as one of the most influential forums for consumers’ opinions, allowing almost anyone who is connected to the Internet to influence brand perceptions and consumption (Vogt and Knapman, 2008; see Blackshaw, 2008).

The rise of this phenomenon in the age of social media and Web 2.0 has been described as one in which key types of personalities engage with digital media in order to influence public and political opinion (Ecclestone and Griseri, 2008). Whether they are called ‘influencers’, ‘connectors,’ ‘salespeople’ or ‘mavens’ (ibid., 2008), we are undoubtedly living in a time when marketers have to take the power of peer-generated opinion seriously, particularly in a Web 2.0 environment.

The implications of social media communities continue to concern marketers and marketing strategy in a fluid, porous and dynamic online environment. This is an environment in which the traditional rules of controlled media, carefully-executed strategies and market/customer feedback research and analysis no longer hold, at least not the same extent as they have done in the 1970s and 80s. Today, social media networks permeate virtually all realms of marketing and can have a powerful influence upon how consumers perceive and consume brands. The effects can be highly positive or corrosive, depending on how companies manage online word-of-mouth (Jones, Temperley and Anderson, 2009).

The rise of massive ‘brand communities’ (Ouwersloot and Odekerken-Schroder (2008) is also a matter of concern for marketers because of their ‘cult’ status among consumers. Fans of Harley-Davidson motorbikes, for instance, of Apple devices, drive sales and revenues for the respective companies. They

When it comes to planning, designing and executing an Integrated Marketing Communications campaign (hereafter referred to as ‘IMC), therefore, social media can prove to be both simple and complex. It is worth stating that ‘textbook’ accounts of it often do not delve sufficiently into how newer technological developments like social networking affect its operations and eventual success or failure.

The aim of this paper, therefore, is to provide a critical examination of how social networking has thrown up new challenges for marketing communications and to examine some solutions in the literature.

The rest of this paper is structured as follows. I first put forward some of the mainstream and traditional conceptualisations of marketing communications and current discussions of its significance for branding as well as its pitfalls for unwary companies and consumers. Next, I discuss some of the implications of social media networks for IMC. Some examples follow. Finally, I examine the implications of my discussion, identify a couple of limitations of this paper and propose fruitful avenues for future research.

Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC): Definitions and Conceptualisations

Although there are a number of elements to marketing communications – including visual logos, corporate communications, promotions, advertising and sponsorship, just to name a few – there is widespread agreement among marketers and marketing academics alike that these elements have to be brought together in order to achieve cost efficiencies, synergies in resource utilisation and for a consistent and compelling overall message to be offered to a range of stakeholders, including, but not limited to, the end-customer (Schultz, 2008). In other words, integrated communications can be defined as “the notion and the practice of aligning symbols, messages, procedures and behaviours in order for an organisation to communicate with clarity, consistency and continuity within and across formal organisational boundaries” (Christensen, Firat and Torp, 2008: 423).

The process of IMC planning can be broken down into discrete stages, although some of these overlap in practice . There can be broken down as follows in terms of the SOSTAC Model (Roberts, 2006):

Situation Analysis (where are we now ?)

Objectives (where do we want to go?)

Strategy (how do we get there?)

Tactics (what steps do we take to get there?)

Action (implementing the steps of action)

Control (reviewing and monitoring the strategy against stated objectives)

Although there are a number of different models in the literature, this conventional paradigm for IMC is still regarded as a kind of ‘textbook’ model for how to ‘do’ IMC. It is a fairly linear process, as the outline above shows. According to this framework, the marketing manager would perform an analysis (typically a SWOT analysis) which breaks down a company’s performance into its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (from the environment, other competitors, and so on). Following this step, the marketer would identify key goals and objectives to drive the marketing campaign forward in terms of sales, revenues, return on investment, and/or other drivers of success. In traditional terms, these metrics typically include projected and actual sales. In the online environment, however, corporate reputation is far less able to be planned and controlled in this way and ‘sales’ now takes on complex meanings.

‘Tactics’ is next. These traditionally include sales tactics, sales promotions (using brochures, flyers, exhibitions at trade events, advertising and other forms of offline marketing communications). Companies then take ‘actions’ which lead to desired outcomes. Finally, companies (under the ‘traditional’ model) monitor and review progress of these tactics against stated objectives.

This entire model of IMC is being revolutionised by the emergence of social media and social networking. In terms of ‘tactics’, the game has changed. Instead of relying on expensive (and sometimes ineffective advertising) or on sponsorship of events (which can prove politically contentious and generate negative press), a number of global companies choose instead to invest heavily to boost corporate reputation through their their web presence. Global companies such as Toyota and IBM have dedicated corporate Facebook accounts for customers and members to interact and share their user-experiences online. These ‘brand communities’ perform several valuable functions for companies: they are, firstly, an effective way to test the waters before new product launches, secondly, a way to get instantaneous feedback from potential users, thirdly, a good platform to communicate directly with diverse users and last, but not least, a kind of public relations exercise to generate positive word-of-mouth for the company (Lee, Cheung and Sia, 2006). However, it is only logical to expect that social media networks can also pose dangers for unwary companies and do damage to their brands. We now turn to these social networks to see how they function.

Online Social Networks

Online social network communities, such as online customer forums and chatrooms, have a powerful effect on its participants and even on casual ‘visitors’. Research has shown that people have a high propensity to trust online testimonials and user-generated feedback generated through word-of-mouth (WOM) communication (Sweeney, Soutar and Mazzarol, 2008). Positive WOM can be a useful and even profitable avenue of additional revenues for a company’s products and services; even more significant is the fact that it can force companies to change unethical practices or their processes, including supply chain procurement and management, labour management practices, right down to accounting and financial reporting measures. Social media also make it easier for companies to do market research (Precourt, 2008), especially after certain crucial events, such as product launches, product updates and so on. Microsoft is an example of a company that relies on such media to improve its products but many technology companies now use these methods to collect valuable market data.

On the other hand, there is certainly a ‘dark side’ to social media for brand communications. It has been noted that consumers today enjoy unprecedented levels of ‘consumer sovereignty’ (Hollenbeck and Zinkhan, 2006). Given the vast amount of information available over the Internet and increasingly vocal and powerful citizen-led lobbies and activist groups such as Greenpeace and so on, even governments sit up and take notice. The trend towards the democratization of opinion has been conclusively proven in the West but also increasingly in many other parts of the world.

Social Networks, Brand Impact and Marketing Communications

Based on the above discussion, social networks have a range of interesting impacts upon how brands are perceived and consumed. This section examines some pertinent examples of how social media can positively and negatively impact IMC.

Positive and Negative Impacts

As discussed earlier in this paper, the traditional notion of IMC was that it would be controlled and organized at a profound level (Christensen et al., 2008). Two key elements come into operation in IMC planning: consistency and control. Let me discuss each of these elements in turn.

First: consistency in IMC is emphasized repeatedly in the literature as being of paramount importance for any firm seeking to run a successful campaign. That is to say, every element of the marketing chain (from the consumer’s first becoming aware of the brand to the actual purchase and post-purchase evaluation) needs to be coordinated to ensure a successful outcome for the consumer’s experience of the brand. This alone is hard enough for many companies to achieve: what adds to the complexity today is that the consumer then goes online, types in her or his comments on the purchase, the brand, and so on and either reports a good or a bad experience with it. This aspect of the brand experience still needs more research, in my view, but there are already myriad examples of what it can to brand reputation.

Second: in more traditional contexts, marketing communications would be organised or influenced heavily either by an individual, a set of individuals or a divisional/team function. In social media/networking, there is no obvious or identifiable ‘owner’ of such communications. There is no way to trace back opinions to an ‘original’ source. It has become apparent, however, from recent developments, that companies and governments are prepared to take a stand against the anonymity afforded by the Internet. The recent furore over WikiLeaks, for instance, is a case in point. Although its founder, Julian Assange, intended WikiLeaks to be a wholly anonymous organization, he has, in fact, come to the forefront of public consciousness as a celebrity of sorts, hunted and wanted by different national jurisdictions on a number of charges, including sexual assault and treason. Other examples can be cited of the double nature of social media and its uses for marketing communications.

Further Examples

The implications of my discussion so far for brands are numerous. I have already provided some examples of the implications of social media for marketing research and data collection purposes, but further examples would make the point even clearer.

A recent example of how Kenneth Cole, the well-known American brand of shoes and clothing, tried to use Twitter to generate publicity using the recent political unrest in Egypt shows how easy it is for companies to receive a backlash from appearing to be insensitive to groups and people. According to the site, Nancy Myrland, the brand manager of Kenneth Cole made a joke about the Egyptian crisis, saying that protesters must be on the streets because they had heard about Cole’s most recent collection (Lacy, 2010). Such an attempt at humour completely backfired upon the company and the brand’s reputation suffered one of its worst crises in years as a result. Although it would be difficult to measure the impact of such an incident upon Kenneth Cole’s long-term reputation, its short-term brand image certainly suffered.

Another example is that of personal or celebrity brands. Facebook, Youtube and Twitter have greatly increased the influence of celebrities like Stephen Fry, Elizabeth Hurley and any number of Hollywood stars, sports celebrities and so on and so forth. Even the Queen has reportedly taken to using tweets to communicate her thoughts. In a world saturated by images, celebrities have become powerful brands in their own right through social media. This is an example of the power of instant communications and ‘Word-of-Mouth’ advertising of products endorsed by celebrities (see Smith et al., 2007).

Conclusion and Future Research

In summary, I have identified and analysed some of the implications of social media/networking for brands and marketing communications. This paper has not been able to analyse some of the impacts in-depth due to the constraints of time and word limits nor has it been able to convey the scope and range of key social media developments today. The field is still developing and this paper has tried to convey some of the key issues surrounding the impact of social media on brands.

Future research could include more detailed case studies or empirical research to track and monitor the effect of social media upon companies over a period of time (longitudinal studies). Even more interesting would be focus groups or action research taking place in young, start-up companies which want to use social media platforms to initiate their brand campaigns, rather than using it as an ‘add-on’ after trying ‘traditional’ media or as a supplement to traditional media. While there is certainly a place and time for more traditional communications channels, I hope this paper has made inroads into showing the potential benefits and dangers of this powerful medium.