Talk:Marketing Communications


I don't know that an advertisement for a university belongs in this definition. If so, may all universities now add their course offerings and promotional information to all definitiions? I don't think you want that.


Should there be some mention of blogging as Marcom, especially in new companies? --Arafalov 17:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly wouldn't hurt, but I'd be wary of mentioning any specific blogs. Adraeus 23:09, 11

October 2007 (UTC)


This article -- however small and insignificant in the grander scheme of things -- is really a non-article. "Human resources to human solutions". Gimme a break. The acute reader has probably noticed the quote doesn't even mean anything. This article needs to be either a) translated to human language, or b) deleted. (talk) 07:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Needs Work

Just came across this article. I agree that it needs work and I am amazed that since 2008 nothing has happened. A total rewrite will take some time but I propose to start with a properly sourced definition. Anyone have any good sources for this? Andrew Hennigan (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Full ack. See my thoughts below. Sorry for being 4 years late. -- Kku 19:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Both articles appear to come from similar sources, maybe the same author. Both are quite roundabout and tend towards bullshit bingo. Both are about communications in marketing. "Integrated xyz" might be a technical term in its own right with a particularization of "xyz" in some contexts, here it seems to be the even more general lemma as compared to "xyz" (with xyz=="Marketing communications"). Given the almost complete absence of any original thought (the great number of references notwithstanding) or clear definition in both, I think the world wouldn't suffer too much if we kept one "integrated" (or rather: combined) lemma and shortened both parts in the process. Immensely redundant meta-scientific ramblings about communication could readily be replaced by appropriate wikilinks, for example. -- Kku 19:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Desperately in need of restructure

This is a terrible article. Much of it is incomprehensible. But this article needs much, much more than improved expression. Like so many other marketing articles, it lacks an organising framework and exhibits major omissions. It is desperately in need of a logical structure so that it flows and to avoid unnecessary repetitions.

Specific Problems

1. Major Omission Number 1: Where are the elements of the marketing communications mix (advertising, PR, sales promotion, personal selling, etc)? By understanding how the communications mix consists of many, diverse elements can readers begin to understand the necessity for integrating messages across a broad range of activities and media platforms.

1a. Other Omissions: I cannot see any mention of other channels such as cinema, catalogues, brochures, billboards and out-of-home media, taxi-backs and other new media. Nor can I see any mention of other types of promotion such as sampling, point of sale displays, brand-oriented websites, virtual brand communities, trade fairs, exhibitions, event marketing, trade shows etc - the latter are VERY important for reaching distribution intermediaries and essential if the marketer is using a "push strategy". Finally, there is no mention of internal marketing communications - communicating the corporate values and vision to employees and internal stakeholders - another VERY important activity as firms shift from transaction based marketing to relationship marketing and especially important for service firms. Surely these are worthy of at least passing mention?

2. Traditional media (heading 5): This section appears to consist of a list of main advertising media. Fair enough, but how is this different from Heading 6 Communications Platforms? Surely, they are all media and should all be included under the same heading. And, how is any of this different from 6.8. E-communications which also covers the internet, cellphones etc and arguably represent different types of media or channel. Currently, the Internet is covered in three sections, namely 6.8.1 The Internet and 6.2 The Internet (and also briefly mentioned in 6.5 in-product comms). These channels all need to be collapsed together and integrated within a logical framework.

3. Balance: Far more weight is given to "communications platforms" than "traditional media" in terms of verbiage. Yet, in terms of adspend, traditional media still accounts for the majority of budgets. The treatment of alternative media options requires considerably greater balance. Digital media might be sexy, but they are cheap and therefore don't consume so much of the overall promotional budget.

4. Social mediation: (appears to be a process) What is this doing in the middle of the discussion on "communications platforms"? Has social media (a communications media or platform) been confused with social mediation (a process where influencers have some sort of impact on message credibility)

5. Marketing mix: What is this doing in the middle of the article? Marcomms is one element in the marketing mix - it might be worth mentioning in the opening section for the sake of context, but doesn't need its own heading. Other articles on WP cover this topic. No need to repeat material that is covered elsewhere.

6. Branding What is this doing in the middle of the article? Surely the more important issue is that there are different types of marketing communications - brand-oriented communications, corporate oriented communications and other types (e.g. political, pro-social, not-for-profit - all with their unique challenges) Other pages on WP cover branding - there's just no need to go over it again - and especially no need for a brief history of branding in the middle of this article.

7. Opinion Leaders: There's a lengthy section on opinion leaders bang smack in the middle of the communications model (heading 4.1) where it is not a good fit. The terms, opinion leaders and influencers seem to be used interchangeably, but there are no definitions - so we cannot really say whether they refer to the same type of person. Have these terms been conflated? Or are they really the same thing? We also have mention of opinion leaders in no less than six different sections (see below). This level of repetition is unnecessary, confusing and potentially boring to readers. It also underlines the need for a strong organising framework that develops ideas and themes in a logical manner. Sections which currently canvass opinion leaders/ influencers:

  • 2.1 Pyschology of communications
  • 4.0 Communications process
  • 4.1. Opinion leaders and opinion formers
  • 4.3 Adjusted model of communications
  • 6.0 Communications platforms
  • 6.1. Social mediation

8. Adjusted model of communications (heading 4.3): Why do we need to know about the adjusted communications model, when we haven't even been given the benefit of the original model (that is the model that was in use before it needed adjustment) nor given any insight into what was so wrong about earlier models that they even needed adjusting? Seriously What is this about I have been working in marketing and advertising for some 40 years and have never heard of this adjusted model! Is the reference reliable and does it reflect a consensus view in the literature?

9. Lack of managerial perspective: This article is very descriptive (and poorly-written description at that). It simply describes various activities, phenomena and media, but without giving any real indication as to how or why they are used to solve marketing related problems. This article needs a much stronger managerial or analytical perspective.

10. Trends in Marcomms: Marketing communications has undergone profound changes in last decade or two - fragmentation of audiences, fragmentation of media, changing role of advertising agencies, rise of in-house agencies, the demise of the 'disruption model' in favour of the 'conversation/dialogue' approach, the rise of relationship marketing, new types of advertising (e.g. behavioural targeting), the advent of adblocking, mass-customisation, co-creation of value, reduced advertising and promotion budgets, increased accountability for marketing and advertising managers, the importance of measuring advertising and communications effects. These trends present both challenges and new opportunities. Yet, the reader gets no sense of these profound changes which not only affect the way consumers attend to promotional messages, but also change the marketer's role and how they seek to communicate wit their target markets and target audiences.

The article on Integrated marketing communications is of no better quality than this article. Surely the two could be merged with the best bits from each used to form a new article that has a bit of substance and does justice to the topic? It doesn't matter whether it's called marketing communications or integrated marketing communications, since all communications in this day and age SHOULD BE integrated.

I strongly recommend that this article be merged with integrated marketing communications (which already has a lot of support on this talk page) and I have posted a suggestion for a new structure of the two articles on the Talk page of the Integrated Marketing Communications article. Some of the existing content from both articles could be located under the new, suggested headings, however, considerable new content would need to be developed.

If we can agree, more or less, on a structure, perhaps editors could then take responsibility for developing a single heading or sub-heading. In this way, the entire article could be rewritten in just a few weeks. (Note that there are so many articles in the marketing area that a screaming out for attention and restructure that I cannot undertake it all! We really need editors in the marketing area who are prepared to make substantive contributions/ undertake content development - rather than simply make Wiki tweaks).

I would encourage interested editors and others to have a look at the article on Advertising management which is currently undergoing restructure with major content development (also see the Talk page on that article) for a few ideas about how imposing an overall organisational structure or framework will help to sequence the topics in a logical order that flows, with each section building on the previous section, so that the article adds real value and makes it worthwhile for users to consult it. This suggested structure also serves as a work plan for prospective editors.

BronHiggs (talk) 08:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Merge Integrated marketing communications into this article on the grounds of overlapping scope. Klbrain (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I note that someone has proposed that the article Integrated marketing communications be merged with this one. However, I would like to propose the reverse - that this article be merged with Integrated marketing communications.

The reasons for this are as follows:

1. There is considerable overlap between the two articles and at least one of them is redundant 2. All marketing communications should be integrated, therefore it mays more sense to use the IMC article as the foundation and merge to it. 3. The current article is in very poor shape with poor expression, conceptual problems, definitional problems, lack of sources etc evidenced by the many tags and templates that adorn it. 4. This article is a good candidate for deletion unless something is done. Rather than lose it entirely, it makes sense to merge it where the best of this article can be retained and used to improve another article.

This article also overlaps with a number of other articles on wikipedia, notably Promotion (marketing)which is also known as Marketing communications or Integrated marketing communications and since all communications should be integrated, really only one of these articles is required.

Some of the content of the current article overlaps with the following main articles:

as well as a plethora of smaller articles devoted to specific types of promotion, including, but not confined to:

and that's not to mention the proliferation of articles on digital media of which there are literally scores on Wikipedia. This level of overlap is excessive, and is causing lots of problems particularly internal repetitions and contradictions. It appears that many articles on resource have their own idiosyncratic understanding of the concepts of promotion and advertising and that there is little agreement between them. For the main part, these articles are not using standard definitions as used in the marketing literature. The result is that much of the material on marketing is at brest, confused and at worst, misleading.

These marketing pages need to be consolidated through mergers and deletions as a matter of some urgency. BronHiggs (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment It is true there is some overlap, and I think the general quality of many of these articles on marketing-related subjects are substandard, but merging them will entail rewriting, and much work, with the possibility of chopping off numerous points of view, so exactly what are you proposing here -- are you proposing to do the merging & rewriting? It is a big job. If so, how good of a writer are you? and what is your experience with marketing?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Another comment Hey BronHiggs I briefly looked over your contributions in marketing, particularly the article on Consumer Behaviour and your work is impressive -- you're a good editor here, talented, and have made a positive contribution. On the Consumer Behaviour article, it went from 56K to 109K with many more references, good ones, like Kotler etc, and the article is more intelligible overall (a problem with much business writing is that it quickly gets dry and vague -- it is really difficult to write in a way to make ideas vivid). And this is largely your work -- great job. So please -- all power to you, go ahead and fix up these articles as you see fit. If you run into problems, write something on my talk page, and I'll try to help out.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose The term "marketing communications" is older than the relatively new "integrated marketing communications"--see the Google Ngram comparison. There are four times more books about "marketing communications" than "integrated marketing communications" as evidenced by a WorldCat search: [1] vs. [2]. If I search for an "integrated marketing communications" job, the results are mostly for "marketing communications" positions: [3]. Articles should be named using the words people actually use, not the words we'd like them to use (especially when those people write WP:RS). I think the phenomenon you're running into for Marketing & Advertising is the same one generally for Business: Often an academic or consultant creates a "new" methodology or approach by slapping an impressive-sounding adjective on an old term (e.g., "total" + "quality management" = "total quality management"), but then when you try to figure out what exactly the difference between the two is, you come up empty handed. As always, start with the sources, not with your intuition. See also WP:Verifiability, not truth and WP:Recentism. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 09:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment DanielPenfield, my sense is that BronHiggs is proposing what you're proposing, that you're on the same page here -- am I getting this right -- that is, merging Integrated marketing communications and Marketing communications into one article, probably titled Marketing communications. For me this seems a reasonable proposition. Am I understanding properly what is being proposed here?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC) I think what BronHiggs is saying is that the IMC article is currently the better one, that content be merged into it, but the titling of the article, well, I'm kind of leaning to keeping the term MC but I don't feel that strongly about it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The template at the top of this article is {{merge from}}. The template at the top of Integrated marketing communications is {{mergeto}}. User:BrongHiggs states that he or she "would like to propose the reverse". -- DanielPenfield (talk) 13:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
DanielPenfield Tomwsulcer Response

The terms, "marketing communications", "integrated marketing communications" and "promotion" are used interchangebly. Even when a practitioner talks about "marketing communications" it is most often implied that the communications be integrated. The conventional wisdom is that all marcomms should be integrated. The term, IMC, first appeared in the 1990s when both audiences and advertising media began to fragment and when a plethora of new forms of promotion emerged. As marketers began to communicate across an ever burgeoning range of platforms, more opportunities for sending mixed messages presented themselves. In addition, advertising agencies which had historically focussed on developing advertisements exclusively, forced marketers to engage other consultancies to design websites, carry out PR and design direct marketing programs. This involvement of a myriad of agencies exacerbated the problem of mixed messages. To overcome this problem, marketers began to think about how to integrated messages and objectives across all agencies and all communications platforms.

The data that Penfield produces in support of his objection would not pass Wikipedia's reliability test.
Firstly, the Google Ngram defies comprehension because the Y-axis lacks a value label. What is being measured? The number of books published in a given year? The cumulative number of books in print in a given year? The number of books listed on Google in a given year? Is it the number of times a book has been mentioned or cited on Google (in which case has double counting been factored into the results)? Is it a census of all marketing publications or a sample of publications? Given that the value is expressed as a percentage, what is the base? The number of Google mentions expressed as a percentage of all Google mentions or the number of titles in print?
Secondly, the Google Ngram reports percentages at .0000000% (one in 1,000,000) If the data is sampled (rather than a census), then normal sampling error of 5-10% (depending on the size of the sample) applies. Thus the data reported is too small to reach any conclusions about statistical significance.
Thirdly, the world cat search for titles on marketing communications is a poor indicator of the current titles and their scope. Many of the titles which allegedly are about marketing communications (and NOT written from an integrated marketing communications perspective) actually contain the term, integrated in their titles:
Examples of publication titles included in World Cat's list of Marketing Communications (but allegedly NOT integrated marketing communications) titles
  • Belch and Belch, Advertising and promotion : an integrated marketing communications perspective [emphasis added]
  • Kenneth Clow's Integrated advertising, promotion & marketing communications [emphasis added]
  • David Pickton's Integrated marketing communications [emphasis added]
  • Schultz et al's Integrated marketing communications [emphasis added]
  • Shimp's Advertising, promotion & supplemental aspects of integrated marketing communications [emphasis added]
  • P R Smith; Ze Zook, Marketing communications: integrating offline and online with social media
  • Kitchen and Pelsmacker, Integrated marketing communications: a primer [emphasis added]
  • Richard J Semenik, Promotion and integrated marketing communications [emphasis added]
  • Smith, Berry and Pulford, Strategic marketing communications: new ways to build and integrate communications [emphasis added]
  • Smith and Taylor's Marketing communications: an integrated approach [emphasis added]
  • Yeshin's Integrated marketing communications : the holistic approach (published by Chartered Institute of Marketing) [emphasis added]
  • Linton and Morley's Integrated marketing communications (also Chartered Institute of Marketing) [emphasis added]
  • Ouwersloot & Duncan, Integrated marketing communications [emphasis added]
  • Caywood, The handbook of strategic public relations and and integrated marketing communications [emphasis added]
  • Hackley, Advertising and promotion: an integrated marketing communications approach [emphasis added]
  • Kwang-Yong Shin, The executor of integrated marketing communications strategy : marcom manager's working model [emphasis added]
  • Hart's Implementing an Integrated' Marketing Communications Strategy [emphasis added]
  • Hutton and Mulhern, Marketing communications: integrated theory, strategy & tactics [emphasis added]
  • Arens et al , Contemporary advertising and integrated marketing communications [emphasis added]
  • Brannan, A practical guide to integrated' marketing communications [emphasis added]
  • Schultz, Patti and Kitchen, The evolution of integrated marketing communications: the customer-driven marketplace [emphasis added]

[Note: List only includes first 8 pages of World Cat listings and excludes self-published titles]

Fourthly, of the publication titles that allegedly do not include the term, integrated, in their titles, we cannot assume that they do not adopt an integrated perspective. Looking at the World Cat list of titles about Marketing Communications, and focussing on the very first entry, John Egan, Marketing Communications, London, Sage, 2015, the author makes a distinction between targeted communications and integrated communications (p.45). The book by Lyn Eagle et al, Marketing Communications devotes an entire chapter to integrated marketing communications (Chapter 4). Simple lists do not provide any information about the work's perspective and it is dangerous to make assumptions based on a simple title or its appearance in a list.
Fifthly, providing gross counts (frequencies) of the numbers of books containing integrated in their titles is a futile exercise. Of course, we would expect to see more publications with simple marketing communications titles simply because the concept of marketing communications has a much longer heritage and therefore more time for books with this title to accumulate. But observing the number of titles in print, tells us nothing about how the concept has changed or evolved over time.
Sixthly, other works contain neither marketing communications nor integrated marketing communications in their titles, yet adopt an integrated marcomms ×perspective. John Rossiter and Larry Percy's, Advertising and Promotion Management Mc-Graw-Hill, 1987 is one well-known example. Any attempt to comprehensively capture titles about marketing communications should not ignore promotion (since it is synonymous with marketing communications).
Seventh, the point about looking for job advertisements containing the term integrated ignores the fact that academics and practitioners use the terms synonymously. Those who place job advertisements in newspapers or online are charged on the basis of the number of characters in the advertisement. It is hardly surprising, then, that classified advertisers will use shortcuts to reduce verbiage. In case you are interested, here is a position description for a Marketing Communications Specialist that does not mention integrated in the position title, yet specifically calls for skills in integrating campaigns as part of the duties, See:
Eighth, to gauge how the terms marketing communications and integrated marketing communications are used, it is necessary to look inside publications and consider various writing about the concepts. For example, in their work, The evolution of integrated marketing communications: the customer-driven marketplace Schultz, Patti and Kitchen, state that "there can be little doubt that IMC has become one of the most influential marketing management frameworks of our time" (p.1). In another example, David Pickton and Amanda Broderick, in their work Integrated Marketing Communications (2nd ed, Pearson, 2005) write that "Integration is something with which the marketing communications industry at large is increasingly concerned." (p.3). In yet another example, Philip J. Kitchen and Inga Burgmann noted that "integrated marketing communication (IMC) emerged during the late twentieth century and its importance has been growing ever since" in Wiley International Encyclopedia of Marketing [Chapter 10] 2010. And, one final example, alluding to the need for change in terminology; "Integration has become an essential concept in marketing because technological advances have changed how business stakeholders interact. Marketing theory that was established during the discipline's formative years has been overtaken by the complexities of real-time, multimodal, multi-directional communication." Bilal Naeem, Muhammad Bilal and Uma Naz, "Integrated Marketing Communication: A Review Paper," Interdisciplinay Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, vol. 5, no 5, 2013, <online:>
It is very difficult to find a text book written since the mid 1990s that does not include some discussion of integrated marketing communications. The concept has evolved in response to changes in the marketing environment. The term, promotion as a synonym for marcomms is becoming increasingly outmoded. However, the terms marcomms and integrated marcomms have become synonymous. Some authors will make the distinction, especially when discussing the historical context, to separate early marcomms practice from integrated marketing communications. This is hardly recentism. The term IMC was first proposed in the late 1980s and early 1990s - although some authors claim that it has an older heritage dating back to the 1970s. (See Schultz, Patti and Kitchen, The evolution of integrated marketing communications: the customer-driven marketplace, for example). So we are talking about a concept that has been around for 30-50 years and has become a standard feature of almost all texts. It is a stable fixture within marketing vocabulary, features in every marketing dictionary or glossary of terms, enjoys widespread consensus amongst both practitioners and academics and is an integral part of marketing practice. That seems like a little bit more than just "slapping an impressive-sounding adjective on an old term" by some arcane academic wanting to make his or her name.
In spite of the opposition to the merge, resource is still left with three articles that more or less cover the same territory; Marketing communications; Integrated marketing communications and Promotion (marketing). However, it should be noted that while these articles purport to canvass the same topics, they are not identical in every respect and there is evidence of contradictions between them, giving rise to a great deal of confusion among users. Both articles are of exceedingly poor quality as noted by other editors for many years. My suggestion was that they be merged and that Integrated Marketing Communications become the main article in this area. If you do not wish to merge, any suggestions for how to overcome the overlapping problems and/or internal contradictions would be most welcome. BronHiggs (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. Sheesh, BronHiggs, can you write without making your own textbook?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Response I am afraid that I have become all too accustomed to reversionist, deletionist and obstructionist editors who look for one small issue in your counter-arguments and seize on it to dismiss the substance of the entire response. I have found it easier to provide substantive arguments right up front in an effort to minimise 'to and fro' debates. I would prefer not to debate these things at all, since from my viewpoint, it represents time and energy that could be devoted to cleaning up other poor quality articles.--BronHiggs (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. Yes, I understand, many of us who have been here for a while know about the back and forth; I've been thru what you're going thru, and yes it can be frustrating, but I think if you persevere, it will work out. Generally here I think you're both right -- DanielPenfield has excellent advice about naming articles and about some of the jargon-y junk words like 'integrated' etc and about strategies about how to approach things, and my sense is BronHiggs that you care about seriously improving these articles (which are in need of improvement) and you know what you're talking about -- frankly you've done a great job of taking the article on Consumer Behaviour from -this version in September to a recent version -- double in size, many more references, better organization, so good job BronHiggs. Are we getting bogged down with a naming detail here? Or, what if you didn't do a complete merge, but simply trimmed down one article, moved content to another one, but left both articles as articles? Just offering my thoughts here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC) One more thought: I kind of lean towards DanielPenfield's sentiment about preferring the title Marketing Communications for the reasons given (term is older, simpler; more hits; it's what people use most often, and the Integrated adjective seems rather consultant-ish buzzy, braggy and vague to my ear as if some salespeople are making a big deal out of nothing) but I really don't feel strongly about either choice.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

+----------+ DanielPenfield Tomwsulcer Summing Up So far we have one person on the Marketing Communications talk page who has suggested merging the two articles, but has not indicated the direction of the merge. Over on the Integrated Marketing communications talk page there are three editors opposed to any merge at all - they seeem to want to keep IMC as a stand alone article. (These summary figures exclude the recent suggestions made by Penfield and myself). Now I have proposed a merge and David Penfield has opposed this, so we seem to cancel each other out. In my view, this does not amount to anything like a consensus, or if anything, it is a vote to keep IMC intact.

In addition, there are a number of comments about the very poor standard of both articles going back to as early as 2008; comments that I must endorse. Both are terrible articles - badly written, conceptually unsound, factually incorrect and imparting very little in the way of real insight. Very little appears to have been done to improve either since then. Moreover, it seems unlikely that anyone would want to edit an article that is possibly scheduled for merger or deletion. I have no doubt that I could make substantial improvements to at least one of these articles in the space of a week or so, but like other editors, I would be reluctant to put in such an effort when the long term fate of the article is uncertain. In addition, I would not be able to choose which one would receive my attention since, in my mind, and in most textbooks, integrated marketing communications is the contemporary version of marketing communications which means that of necessity there has to be considerable overlap. It would therefore be futile to work on both. And, merging is a lot of work to undertake - especially if there's a high probability of it being reverted.

I am very keen to improve articles. For the past three months, my aim has been to help provide articles that are interesting, conceptually sound, make use of references from leading thinkers on each topic or sub-topic and ultimately provide final articles that are worthwhile and useful to resource users. In the past, I have tried to find an poor quality/unfinished articles that do not generate much in the way of patrolling or vigilance, so that I can work away undisturbed and without having content constantly reverted or challenged. Clearly the articles on marcomms and IMC do not fall into that category. I am inclined to let them stand as they are. My suggestions for improvement can remain on the talk page indefinitely where they might serve as a template for another braver, editor who might come along at some point in the future with a determination to improve these articles and enough spine to take on any challenges. BronHiggs (talk) 04:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The sea will eventually wipe out all our creations...
BronHiggs, you're way overthinking things and way giving other contributors too much power to veto your potential future contributions. All wiki-content is impermanent like a sandcastle (you may enjoy the act of building and creating content) although unlike sandcastles, good stuff tends to last if it's well-referenced, cogent, and relevant. I've had entire articles deleted. My advice -- focus on content creation and less on politics; if you run into a troublesome obstructionist, write on my talk page, briefly, showing diffs and explain briefly what you'd like me to do to back you up.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Merge per nom. I'm in favour of the more general "Marketing communications" as the eventual title of the article, but I see no problem with merging this material to Integrated marketing communications and fixing it up there (if that's easier). Can leave decisions about its ultimate title until afterwards. - Reidgreg (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


This page needs help - but the help it needs isn't being tagged 7 times over the course 3 years. I removed it - add them back (as needed), but please attempt to be bold and make some fixes yourself instead of waiting for others to take the lead. I've added this page to my watch list (and overhaul list) - but don't wait for me to fix it. Garchy (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Merge with Integrated marketing communications

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To merge as per the discussion above. Klbrain (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

There is simply no academic justification for retaining this article. All text books on marketing communications these days adopt an integrated approach. As the media and the market become more and more fragmented, the imperative for integrated communications assumes greater importance rather than less. I would be happy to overhaul an article on integrated marketing communications if we could get agreement to merge in that direction. Both these articles currently have very similar content and are equally shabby in their conceptualisation and execution. It is not enough to say that these two articles could be improved and then merged at a later date. The article would be written VERY differently depending on whether it was a historical article about general marketing communications (as it was practiced in the 1980s and 90s) or a contemporary article about integrated marketing communications as it is practiced today. I would not want to waste my time locating references for concepts of integration in a communications context, only to find that it all becomes redundant when the article becomes deleted in favour of retaining the historical piece. BronHiggs (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

citing from Read more: and the corresponding imc page:
marketing communications
Coordinated promotional messages delivered through one or more channels such as print, radio, television, direct mail, and personal selling.
integrated marketing communications
An approach to achieving the objectives of a marketing campaign, through a well coordinated use of different promotional methods that are intended to reinforce each other. As defined by the American Association of Advertising Agencies, integrated marketing communications " ... recognizes the value of a comprehensive plan that evaluates the strategic roles of a variety of communication disciplines advertising, public relations, personal selling, and sales promotion and combines them to provide clarity, consistency, and maximum communication impact."
Integrated CM is ONLY about the insight that CM must be coordinated. Wow. Who would've guessed. This is far too flimsy for a non-management-consultant to merit a mention of its own. Merge: Definitely. CM to ICM: Oppose. -- Kku (talk) 10:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Your claim My Response
There is simply no academic justification for retaining this article. You seem confused. resource does not use "academic justification", it uses the general notability guideline for determining what to include in resource and what not to include. I understand that you want to deny that the term "marketing communications" is used much more frequently than "integrated marketing communications" (as evidenced by Google Ngram, WorldCat, and actual job postings on major employment websites). However, even you in a recent talk page post used "marcomms" literally ten times more than "integrated marcomms". That's right, your own natural use of the term undermines exactly what you're attempting to get everyone else to believe.
All text books on marketing communications these days adopt an integrated approach. Why do you want to restrict sourcing to college textbooks of the last ten years or so only? Why should other types of sources on the subject be supressed? Why should sources closer in time to the first use of the term be supressed?
As the media and the market become more and more fragmented, the imperative for integrated communications assumes greater importance rather than less. If you can find reliable sources that discuss this, then it sounds like you've got the beginnings of a section that describes this aspect of marketing communications.
Both these articles currently have very similar content and are equally shabby in their conceptualisation and execution. That's probably because like many business-related terms, they were vaguely defined (or more accurately, never defined) by the people who invented them decades ago.
It is not enough to say that these two articles could be improved and then merged at a later date. The only person suggesting this is you because you cannot accept that an article on marketing communications should cover both "marketing communications" and "integrated marketing communications".
The article would be written VERY differently depending on whether it was a historical article about general marketing communications (as it was practiced in the 1980s and 90s) or a contemporary article about integrated marketing communications as it is practiced today. I understand that you really, really want others to accept is that it's one or the other because "it cannot be both." That is a false dilemma.
I would not want to waste my time locating references for concepts of integration in a communications context, only to find that it all becomes redundant when the article becomes deleted in favour of retaining the historical piece. More confirmation that you want to 1) restrict sourcing to only the newest, shiniest college textbooks and 2) cover only marketing communications as it exists in 2017. You could benefit from reading WP:RECENTISM and WP:NPOV.
-- DanielPenfield (talk) 09:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

IMC: The evolution of a discipline

Here follows a few quotes, taken from authoritative sources about the current widepread acceptance and practice of IMC. Disciplines change - they evolve over time. IMC is widely regarded as an important evolution in marketing communications, and has been widely accepted for more than 20 years.

"The planning and execution of all marketing communication should be integrated." Source: Larry Percy, Strategic Integrated Marketing Communications, Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2008, p. 14 [emphasis original]
"The emergence of integrated marketing communications (IMC) has become a significant example of development in the marketing discipline. It has influenced thinking and acting among all types of companies and organizations facing the realities of competition in an open economy." Source: Olof Holm, (2006) "Integrated marketing communication: from tactics to strategy", Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp.23-33,
"The findings [in a multi-country study on the application of IMC] indicate that IMC is not a short-lived managerial fad, nor is it just a reworking of existent theory or practice. Instead, IMC is a very clear reaction by advertising agencies and their clients as they are affected by a multitude of factors such as new forms of information technology including development and usage of databases, media fragmentation, client desires for interaction/synergy, and global and regional coordination. " Source: Kitchen, P.J. and Schultz, D.E. "A Multi-Country Comparison of the Drive for IMC." Journal of Advertising Research, 1999, Vol. 39, no. p. 21
An integrated approach "has emerged as the dominant approach used by companies to plan and execute their marketing communication programs." Source: Belch, G.E and Belch, M.A., "Evaluating the Effectiveness of Elements of Integrated Marketing Communications: A Review of Research," Occasional Paper, San Diego State University, 2016 <Online:>
"The most marked example of progress in marketing communications is the emergence of Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC)." Source: Kitchen, P.J., "New paradigm - IMC - under fire", Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, Vol. 15 Issue: 1, 2005, p.72, <Online:>
"Research has shown that IMC is indeed a new paradigm and can be quite successfully deployed by all types of firms in the new millennium." Source: Ichul, L., Han, D. and Schultz, D., "Understanding the Diffusion of Integrated Marketing Communications," Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 44, No. 1, 2004, p. 31
"IMC has given rise to different theoretical models and understandings." Source: Cornelissen, J.P., Christensen, L. and Vijn, P., "Understanding the Development and Diffusion of Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC): A Metaphorical Perspective, NRG Working Paper No. 06-02, 2006, p.1
"IMC makes "good sense." Source: Pettigrew, L.S., "If IMC is so Good, Why Isn't Being Implemented: Barriers to IMC Adoption in Corporate Amercia," Journal of Integrated Communication, 2000-2001
"The general acceptance of the IMC discourse may... be explained by reference to its rhetorical appeal, that is, its promise to provide coherence at many different levels." Source: Cornelissen, J.P., Christensen, L. and Vijn, P., "Understanding the Development and Diffusion of Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC): A Metaphorical Perspective, NRG Working Paper No. 06-02, 2006, p.11

I have added some new content to the article on Integrated marketing communications with a view to improving it, correcting some factual errors and removing some internal inconsistencies. I have nothing more to say on the subject and withdraw my previous offer to rewrite the article. BronHiggs (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

  This article uses material from the Wikipedia page available here. It is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.



Connect with defaultLogic
What We've Done
Led Digital Marketing Efforts of Top 500 e-Retailers.
Worked with Top Brands at Leading Agencies.
Successfully Managed Over $50 million in Digital Ad Spend.
Developed Strategies and Processes that Enabled Brands to Grow During an Economic Downturn.
Taught Advanced Internet Marketing Strategies at the graduate level.

Manage research, learning and skills at Create an account using LinkedIn to manage and organize your omni-channel knowledge. is like a shopping cart for information -- helping you to save, discuss and share.

  Contact Us