Probing Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC) in Turkey

This article was downloaded by: [Akdeniz Universitesi]On: 21 May 2014, At: 00:16Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Journal of PromotionManagementPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjpm20

Probing Integrated MarketingCommunications (IMC) inTurkeyFigen Ebren a , Philip J. Kitchen PhD b , Şafak Aksoy

PhD c d & Erdener Kaynak PhD ea Department of Public Relations and Advertising,Faculty of Communication , Akdeniz University ,Dumlupinar Bulvari, Antalya, Turkeyb Centre for Marketing and Communications ,Business School, University of Hull , Hull, NorthYorkshire, HU6 7RX, United Kingdomc Faculty of Economic and Administrative Sciencesd School of Tourism and Hotel Management, AkdenizUniversity , Dumlupinar Bulvari, Antalya, Turkeye Marketing Program School of BusinessAdministration, Pennsylvania State University ,Harrisburg, 777 West Harrisburg Pike, Middletown,PA, 17057, USAPublished online: 25 Sep 2008.

To cite this article: Figen Ebren , Philip J. Kitchen PhD , Şafak Aksoy PhD & ErdenerKaynak PhD (2005) Probing Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC) in Turkey,Journal of Promotion Management, 11:1, 127-151, DOI: 10.1300/J057v11n01_08

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J057v11n01_08

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjpm20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1300/J057v11n01_08

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J057v11n01_08

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

00:

16 2

1 M

ay 2

014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

ProbingIntegrated Marketing Communications (IMC)

in Turkey

Figen EbrenPhilip J. Kitchen�afak Aksoy

Erdener Kaynak

ABSTRACT. This article reviews the literature on IMC and then exam-ines its development empirically in Turkey. In this paper, we explore per-ceptions of IMC derived from a sample of advertising agency executives,and explore how perceptions of IMC within the developing country ofTurkey. The main aim of the survey was to explore how agencies imple-ment, coordinate, and evaluate IMC programs, and examine barriers relat-ing to these. Managerial and public policy implications of the study arealso offered. Findings underpin global adoption of IMC even in condi-

Figen Ebren is a Doctoral Student and Research Assistant, Department of PublicRelations and Advertising, Faculty of Communication, Akdeniz University, Dumlup-inar Bulvari, Antalya, Turkey (E-mail: [email protected]). Philip J. Kitchen(PhD, Keele University) is Professor of Strategic Marketing and Director of the Centrefor Marketing and Communications, Business School, University of Hull, Hull, NorthYorkshire HU6 7RX, United Kingdom (E-mail: [email protected]). �afak Aksoy(PhD, University of Bath) is Professor of Marketing, Faculty of Economic and Admin-istrative Sciences and also Director of the School of Tourism and Hotel Management,Akdeniz University, Dumlupinar Bulvari, Antalya, Turkey (E-mail: [email protected]). Erdener Kaynak (PhD, Cranfield University) is Professor of Marketing andChair of the Marketing Program, School of Business Administration, PennsylvaniaState University at Harrisburg, 777 West Harrisburg Pike, Middletown, PA 17057(E-mail: [email protected]). In addition, Dr. Kaynak is Executive Director of the Interna-tional Management Development Association (IMDA, http://www.imda.cc).

Journal of Promotion Management, Vol. 11(1) 2004Available online at http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JPM

2004 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1300/J057v11n01_08 127

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

00:

16 2

1 M

ay 2

014

tions of economic turbulence. Moreover, the findings confirm that IMC(in Turkey) as elsewhere is more related to tactical implementation of pro-motion than to strategic business development. [Article copies available fora fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mailaddress: <[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2004 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Advertising, integrated marketing communications (IMC),measurement, public relations, Turkey

INTRODUCTION

For many years, mass media advertising has had the greatest impacton the promotional activities of most businesses in Turkey. Because ofthis, ad agencies received the highest priority in terms of managementtime and budgetary allocation. Over and above advertising, marketershave used auxiliary marketing communications tools such as sales pro-motion, direct marketing, and package design. Even public relationsagencies were not viewed as integral participants in the marketing com-munications process. In a wider sphere, as the 1990s unfolded, manymarketers realized that this wider range of marketing and promotionaltools must be coordinated to communicate effectively with target audi-ences and present a consistent image to target markets (Belch andBelch, 2001).

There are many important market trends that encourage organizationsto pay increased attention to their marketing communications activities.One of these trends is the effort of the firms to gain more productivity andvalue from marketing and another is the growing use of internet (Vacek,1999) advertising. These trends–taken with many others–are changingthe way marketing communications decisions are made (Low, 2000).Changes in the marketing environment mean that singular promotionalmix variables (i.e., advertising, personal selling, sales promotion andpublicity) cannot achieve marketing communications goals as stand-alone functions (Garber and Dotson, 2002).

Figure 1 illustrates the various phases of IMC, in terms of develop-ment, definition, barriers, benefits, coordination, implementation, andevaluation, which we will use as a template for subsequent discussion.

128 JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

00:

16 2

1 M

ay 2

014

INTEGRATED MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS:ISSUES AND STRATEGIES

During the 1990s, as a consequence of media attention given to thetopic, many companies realized that they needed more strategic integra-tion of their promotional activities. As Belch and Belch (2001) noted,these firms began moving toward the process of integrated marketingcommunications (IMC), which initially involved coordinating variouspromotional elements and other marketing activities in order to commu-nicate more effectively with target customers. In previous research,Kitchen and Schultz (2000) had indicated that IMC needed to move wellbeyond such a simple juxtaposition of promotional mix elements, i.e., ev-ery element speaks with “one voice”; to become an integrated philosophythat reaches out and touches every facet of the business that claims to becustomer-oriented. During the same time period, advertising agencies–for a variety of reasons–became very interested in the area of integratedmarketing communications (Percy, 1997). The advertising industry soonrecognized that IMC was not a short-term managerial fad, nor was it are-formulation of existent praxis (Kitchen and Schultz, 1998).

Integrated Marketing Communications 129

Emergence and Nature of IMC

IMC defined

Barriers Construction of IMC programs

Coordination and Implementation

Evaluation and Measurement

Benefits

FIGURE 1. A Schematic Figure of IMC Evolution

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

00:

16 2

1 M

ay 2

014

After 1995, significant empirical work was undertaken. In 1996 aspecial edition of Journal of Marketing Communications was devotedto the subject. Despite this increased attention paid by academics andpractitioners, the influence of IMC programs on consumers has beendifficult to establish (Hackley and Kitchen, 1998); and this continues tobe the case to the present day.

By 2000, the challenge of how to transition from traditional functionsand operations to the new world of the 21st century and the global mar-ketplace became pronounced. Schultz and Kitchen (2000) argued thatthe best mechanism for making the adjustment to the new marketplacerealities was, unsurprisingly, integrated marketing communication. Kotlerin his centennial edition (2000) argued that the wide range of communi-cation tools, messages, and audiences made it “imperative” that compa-nies move toward integrated marketing communications.

The 1980s and 1990s almost amounted to a revolution insofar as mar-keting and marketing communications was concerned. This revolu-tion–in effect–changed the rules of marketing and the role of thetraditional advertising agencies. Major characteristics of this marketingrevolution are shown in Table 1.

Nature of IMC

Schultz (1996) stressed that the integration of production, operations,marketing, distribution, finance, communications and all other forms ofbusiness activity was inevitable because of the technological revolutionoccurring throughout the world. Yet earlier, he had argued that such in-tegration provides value to consumers and not just to marketers, agen-cies or media owners or vehicles. In this view the strategic planning ofIMC needs to be determined from the perspective of consumers ratherthan that of marketers (Schultz, 1993a). Customers and stakeholders au-tomatically integrate brand messages and that marketers must thereforedecide whether to abdicate or manage this process (Schultz, 1996).Moreover, an integrated marketing communications perspective recog-nizes that customers absorb information about a good, service, or orga-nization from many sources (Englis and Solomon, 1996). Put anotherway, sources of information and persuasion are multiple–not singular.

IMC itself is a clear reaction by agencies and their clients to a verita-ble constellation of factors: new forms of information technology, me-dia fragmentation, client desire for interaction/synergy (i.e., Griffin andPasadeos, 1998; Low, 2000; Eagle and Kitchen, 2000) and global andregional coordination (Kitchen and Schultz, 1998). Moreover, the new


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

00:

16 2

1 M

ay 2

014


TABLE 1. Rationale for Adopting the IMC Approach

• communications agency mergers and acquisitions

• increasing sophistication of clients and retailers

• increasing cost of traditional advertising media

• increasing global competition, increasing pressure on organizations’ bottom lines

• decreasing effectiveness of traditional media

• decreasing cost of database usage

(Source: Duncan and Everett, 1993)

• greater efficiency

• stronger customer loyalty

• globalization of marketing

• added impact

• heightened global competition

• technological advance

• more informed customers

• businesses demand more efficiency

• an image that can be transmitted globally

• more powerful impact

(Source: Burnett and Moriarty, 1998)

• a shifting of marketing dollars from media advertising to other forms of promotion, particularly con-sumer and trade-oriented sales promotions

• a movement away from relying on advertising-focused approaches, which emphasize mass mediasuch as network television and national magazines, to solve communication problems

• a shift in marketplace power from manufacturers to retailers

• the rapid growth and development of database marketing

• demands for greater accountability from advertising agencies and change in the way agencies arecompensated

• the rapid growth of the internet, which is changing the very nature of how companies do businessand the way they communicate and interact with consumers

(Source: Belch and Belch, 2001)

• lack of real growth in advertising expenditure

• shrinking employee base

• new promotional agencies setting up in competition with traditional advertising agencies

• growth in media independents

• clients moving to management consultants for strategic advice and planning

• increasing sophistication of client managers

• perceived competitive advantage and financial benefits of offering integrated services

• growth in international communications

• locus of retail power

• recognition of the need for a strategic view of marketing communications–growth in acceptance ofrelationship marketing and recognition of internal audiences

• technological advances especially in database technology

• integrated marketing communications perceived to provide extra benefits

(Source: Pickton and Broderick, 2001)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

00:

16 2

1 M

ay 2

014

approach underlined the perspective that traditional marketing commu-nications verities were losing power in the changing media, marketingand communications industry where through-the-line communicationtechniques and media were replacing rigid above-the-line approaches tomass communications (Cornelissen, 2001).

Because of this, marketers must bring together several communicationstools in some complementary manner in order to have an effective influ-ence in the consumer decision-making process. Now seen as the “IMCmix,” the combination of communication tools requires that decision mak-ers understand the nature and relative strengths of every promotional tool attheir disposal (Garber and Dotson, 2002) during the planning, implementa-tion, and evaluative phases of an integrated campaign.

IMC Defined

IMC is spoken of as “one voice marketing communications,” “inte-grated communications,” or “coordinated marketing communications”(Nowak and Phelps, 1994). While the differences among these aresometimes unclear, each constitutes a different approach to integratingcommunications (Carlson, Grove, Laczniak and Kangun, 1996). In re-cent years, more concepts with titles such as Integrated MarketingCommunications (IMC), Integrated Marketing (IM), Integrated Com-munications (IC) and integrating the Corporate Identity ManagementMix have taken place mainly in the marketing-communications, publicrelations and corporate identity literatures (Cornelissen, 2000).

As a basic level, IMC means that all the company’s key product andcorporate messages, positioning, image, and identity are coordinated(Lindell, 1997). Furthermore, the basic premise of integrated marketingcommunications is that there are a number of communication objectivesfor a brand and a number of different means of communication toachieve each of these objectives. The effects of any communication op-tion will depend on the communication effects engendered by othercommunication options. So, marketing communication programs can-not be developed in isolation (Keller, 2001).

Finally, any definition needs to include or refer to concepts such asadded value, relationship marketing, corporate branding and the blend-ing of internal and external communications because IMC is seen to in-clude all consistent interactions a stakeholder has with an organization(Fill, 2001). In general, by combining various promotional tools, IMCcreate a synergy consequently delivering promotional messages withmore intensity and/or more cost-effectively (Fam, 2001).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

00:

16 2

1 M

ay 2

014

CONSTRUCTION OF IMC PROGRAMS

For several years, the term marketing communications has been usedfor various communication functions. The strategic integration of thesefunctional areas is what makes IMC a new approach. The theory of anIMC program is that it has one basic communications strategy for eachmajor target audience (Duncan and Everett, 1993). The logic of thisstrategic move would seem to rest partly on assumptions concerning thedesire for organizational influence in relation to consumer perceptionsand behavior (Hackley and Kitchen, 1998).

The concept of integration has been associated with various constructs,i.e., message consistency, co-ordination or orchestration of media, planning,close client-agency relationships, and a growing perceptual convergence be-tween the disciplines of public relations and marketing. Moreover, system-atic links between corporate, marketing and marketing communicationsfunctions are the supporting bricks of the construction of IMC (Cor-nelissen, 2000).

Although a valuable concept for practitioners, some believe that or-ganizational factors have imposed constraints on IMC. Within organi-zations, managers tend to focus on the functions as if strapped infunctional boxes, constrained and trained not to solve business prob-lems but to do advertising, public relations, or direct marketing. In oth-ers, where brand management is practiced, communications can be andare developed and implemented at the lowest brand management levels(McArthur and Griffin, 1997).

Benefits

IMC suggests that advertising and public relations efforts achievetheir greatest impact when harmoniously combined plus added marcomelements such as direct marketing and sales promotion to communicatewith customers through multiple channels (Griffin and Pasadeos, 1998),thus offering the potential to target consumers with certainty (Zinkhanand Watson, 1996).

Barriers

Although many firms realize the importance of IMC and intend toimplement such, there are still barriers for marketers to overcome interms of actualization (Garber and Dotson, 2002). Integration is not eas-ily achieved and while the problems of integration are not difficult, they


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

00:

16 2

1 M

ay 2

014

are significant (Pickton and Hartley, 1998). Many organizations thatmove to an integrated communications program have indicated com-mon problems or challenges. Almost all are related in some way to or-ganizational corporate culture (Schultz, 1993a).

COORDINATION AND IMPLEMENTATIONOF IMC PROGRAMS

In order to achieve coordination of IMC programs, businesses mayemploy one person in charge of the various activities or there may be astructural reporting relationship (McArthur and Griffin, 1997). Mostcommunications professionals are specialists trained in their own func-tional areas that may not be broad enough for the specialist to relate to,or direct, all of the other communications areas (Duncan and Everett,1993). The functions of marketing communications can be either out-sourced, i.e., the creative and media services, or handled in-house, i.e.,direct mail, sales promotion, and public relations services (Low, 2000).For an integrated marketing communications program, functional areasshould be strategically focused and organized to work together. Be-cause everyone wants to retain his or her authority, budget and turf,many communications agency mergers and acquisitions have not workedas well as expected. As a solution, the organizations need to overcomeego and turf issues, so that they can move towards IMC (Duncan andEverett, 1993). Moreover, such movement requires development ofskills, talents and capabilities to ensure that marketing communicationper se is not just a functional support mechanism. There are five keysuccess factors for IMC (Kitchen and Schultz, 2000):

1. Self-knowledge and absolute clarity on what the brand is, what itstands for, and what it represents.

2. Information needs to be gathered from all parties, i.e., customers,management, employees and other relevant stakeholders.

3. Clear and consistent communication to diverse audiences.4. Supported by products/services, business systems and policies

that enable consistent delivery of the core promise.5. Instilled at all levels of the organization.

Furthermore, the agency should have a different type of organiza-tional structure, a different approach to marketing communications, anda different set of skills for communication managers for realizing suc-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

00:

16 2

1 M

ay 2

014

cessful IMC programs (Kallmeyer and Abratt, 2001) than formerlyused.

IMC is different from traditional and functional marketing communi-cations in that the goal of the IMC manager should always be to know asmuch about individual customers and prospects as possible in order tobetter serve their needs and wants by accumulating data and informa-tion and utilizing this in developed focused campaigns. It is important tonote that IMC starts with the outside-in view, that is, with what consum-ers are doing or have done, and then works backwards to explain whythese behaviors exist, and seek to influence subsequent behavior (not at-titudes) (Schultz et al., 1993).

For successful IMC, any attempt at coordination must take place atthe business level, and it cannot generally be restricted just to the com-munications function, unless firms are too lax to take it further (Kitchenand De Pelsmacker, 2004). By accepting the dominant role of the con-sumer in the flow and control of information (Stewart, 1996) and adopt-ing the consumer’s perspective and to anticipate every opportunity orsituation in which he or she will be exposed to information about thegood, service, or organization, IMC will be most successful (Englis andSolomon, 1996). The design of successful IMC programs needs to be-gin and end with customers (Stewart, 1996).

Still, there is, as yet, no one correct way of defining, developing orimplementing integrated communication. Implementation depends onthe business using the concept, its level of development, and its under-standing of customer and market dynamics. For an agency, integrationdepends on what clients actually want, rather than on what the agencycan do (Kitchen and Schultz, 2000).

EVALUATION AND MEASUREMENT OF IMC PROGRAMS

Measurability and accountability are–apparently–cornerstones of theIMC process (Schultz, 1993c). Yet, in the 1990s what was availablemostly dealt with superficial case histories and anecdotes (Duncan andEverett, 1993; McArthur and Griffin, 1997). The measurement of per-ceptions and attitudes about IMC posed some problems because IMC isnot a concisely defined concept or even a process that is practiced uni-formly (Duncan and Everett, 1993).

In 1993, Duncan and Everett published an article measuring IMCperceptions; later Schultz and Kitchen (1997, 1999) added their surveysto the literature. Pickton and Hartley (1998) discussed measurement is-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

00:

16 2

1 M

ay 2

014

sues; and Fam (2000) analyzed how small businesses view integratedmarketing communications. Eagle and Kitchen (2000) surveyed differ-ences in perception between marketers and advertising agencies andhow integrated marketing communications processes should be man-aged and Low (2000) studied the measurement of the degree of integra-tion among various firms. Meanwhile, Reid (2001, 2003) measured therelationship between IMC and performance. For all these studies, how-ever, there is still no strong agreement on measurement or evaluationper se. Thus, there is no one rubric, system or process that can be used tomeasure effectives of marketing communication programs or cam-paigns that are presented as “integrated.” In fact, how to measure IMCprograms is an issue that most business executives regard as extremelyimportant, yet there is no overarching or acceptable response to the needat this time (Schultz and Kitchen, 1997; Kitchen and de Pelsmacker,2004).

Part of the difficulty appears to lie with individual specialists havingdeveloped separate and distinct measurement approaches and thesehave yet to be reviewed and integrated as part of the overall IMC pro-cess (Eagle and Kitchen, 2000). Such a review and its publication isnow way overdue (Kitchen et al., 2004).

Measurement is the key to IMC and the key to implementation is thedatabase. While it has always been the ambition of marketing communi-cations managers to measure actual customer purchase behavior, it isnew technology that has made IMC measurement possible. As costs de-cline as a result of technology, it may become feasible for all organiza-tions to build their own databases and have control over their ownsources of information (Schultz et al., 1993). Hence, the future appar-ently augurs well for IMC in terms of evaluation and measurement (butsee Kitchen and De Pelsmacker, 2004).

THE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT IN TURKEY

The purpose of this study is to find out the size and magnitude of IMCusage and implementation by advertising agencies in the developingcountry of Turkey. The country has a dynamic emerging market econ-omy with a complex mix of modern industry and commerce along witha traditional agriculture sector that in 2001 still accounted for 40% ofemployment. Agriculture accounts for some 16 percent of its GDP, in-dustry for 24 percent, and services for 60 percent. It has a strong andrapidly growing private sector, yet the state still plays a major role in ba-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

00:

16 2

1 M

ay 2

014

sic industry, banking, transport, and communication. The most impor-tant industry–and the largest exporter–is textiles and clothing, which isalmost entirely in private hands. In recent years the economic situationhas been marked by erratic economic growth and serious imbalances.Real GNP growth has exceeded 6% in many years, but this strong ex-pansion has been interrupted by sharp declines in output in 1994, 1999,and 2001 (World Factbook, 2005).

Turkey signed a customs union with the European Union (EU) in1995 and became a pre-accession candidate for EU membership at theHelsinki Summit in December 1999 (Turkey country brief, 2004). Tur-key has been a formal candidate for EU membership since 1999, but isthe only country so far not to have started accession negotiations withthe bloc. Recent signals from the EU have underlined that the actual im-plementation of the EU mandated reforms in Turkey will be crucial. On3 October 2005, membership negotiations are scheduled to be openedwith Turkey. The historic decision on 17 December 2004 by the Euro-pean Council has also called on the Commission to present a proposalfor a framework for negotiations (Grabbe, 2004).

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

Marketing communications activity in Turkey is almost entirely sub-sumed by the advertising industry. The breakdown of promotional budgetscovers the advertising cost, below the line promotions, local advertising,and production expenditures. The last three items generally account for25% of promotional budgets. Advertisers, advertising agencies, mediaagencies, advertising channels and producers of advertising constitutethe marketing communications industry. In this context, thousands ofwholesalers, large manufacturing and marketing concerns, and nearly100 advertising and media agencies rely on the power of advertising toachieve marketing communication objectives (for further informationsee www.rd.org.tr).

The real size of the industry in Turkey in 2000 was about US$1,365million. This figure dramatically descended to US$730 million in 2001due to national economic crisis. In the following years, however, the in-dustry recovered and the total spending reached 950 million USD and1,170 million USD in 2002 and 2003 respectively.

In this dynamic and turbulent setting, research was conducted withsenior executives of advertising agencies to explore the position of inte-grated marketing communications. The research will:


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

00:

16 2

1 M

ay 2

014

• explore perceptions of IMC and how it is implemented by adver-tising agencies (the members of the association of advertisers);

• examine how agencies coordinate and evaluate IMC;• examine barriers to coordinated approaches;• examine barriers to evaluation;• determine whether marketing communications are perceived to be

“integrated,” and how such integration might be implemented;• determine measurement levels of integration.

METHODOLOGY

The Questionnaire

The research instrument was a self-completion questionnaire. Ques-tions were organized into major areas related to the study objectives:(1) definitions of the IMC concept; (2) the development, implementa-tion, and control of IMC programs, and agencies’ approaches to thisprocess; and (3) personal and organizational demographics. To measurethe responses of the agencies to different IMC definitions, an ordinalscale was used. For the operation of the IMC process, seven-pointLikert scales were utilized. Demographic and socio-economic datawere collected using nominal scales and open-ended questions. Afterabout two weeks from sending the questionnaires, agencies were tele-phoned separately to encourage response and also told that they wouldbe informed of the research results upon completion.

Data Collection and Sample Description

CEO members of the Association of Turkish Advertisers in Istanbul,Turkey, were utilized for data collection. At present, there are just 69advertising and 8 media agency members affiliated with the association.As a member of the European Association of Communication Agencies(EACA) since 1987, the Association pioneered European advertisingstandards and media monitoring measurements as used in Turkey andelsewhere. There are 26 member agencies that have entered into jointventures or partnership with foreign agencies, or have some form of co-operative agreement with foreign agencies (www.rd.org.tr). A postal27-item questionnaire containing nominal, ordinal scale, and demo-graphic questions was mailed to the members of the Association in Jan-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

00:

16 2

1 M

ay 2

014

uary of 2004. By the end of March 2004, 43 useable responses werereceived, a response rate of 57%.

RESEARCH FINDINGS

Representativeness of the Sample

The representative power of a sample is usually measured by examin-ing the difference between the means (or proportions, where applicable)of the sample statistic and the population parameter. In this research,average annual turnover was accepted as the main population parame-ter. However, turnover data for all the 75 firms in the population was notavailable. Instead, a list of 43 firms with annual turnover figures in 2001was obtained from www.rd.org.tr. These 43 firms, accepted as a sub-population, had a total turnover of 632 million dollars, accounting for86% of the sector total of 734 million dollars in 2001. Out of these 43firms (N43 = sub-population), 26 (n26 = sub-sample) were among ouroriginal sample of respondents. Based on these data, we made somecomparisons between the sub-population (N43) and the sub-sample(n26). These are summarized in Tables 5 and 6.

In Table 2, it is clearly seen that the distributions of turnover classesfor the sub-population and sub-sample are similar. This similarity is fur-ther reinforced in Table 3 that the mean turnovers for both groups (16.4and 14.7 million dollars) are again close. Bearing in mind that the origi-nal sample size (43 respondents) is greater than 23, we are quite confi-dent that the sample will provide a good population approximation.Thus, the results presented in the following sections are based on theoriginal sample size of 43.

Respondent Profile

Fully 93% of the respondent companies are working as full serviceagencies, and a small percentage of the agencies work on commissionand fee basis. A total of 25.5% have overseas affiliates where 55.8%have none. Thus, the advertising agency business is small and mainlynational in scope and scale. It is anticipated that this situation willchange in the near future as economic stability in the country is main-tained.

Turkish advertising agencies do provide miscellaneous services forclients. Most of the surveyed Turkish advertising agencies are orga-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

00:

16 2

1 M

ay 2

014

nized to have departments for customer relations, creative and mediadepartments that service many media channels. There are 12 mediaagencies of which 6 are members of the association of advertisers. Allare using media monitoring measurement data–identified as valuableby agency members in the European Union. Most respondents are ad-vertising agencies executives, accounting for 93% of the total respon-dents. Both media and advertising agencies offer media planning andbuying and internet services (70%). In recent years the internet has beenadded to the promotional mix and now has an important role in buyinghabits as well as direct marketing. As ad agencies have integrated ad-vertising services in Turkey, they do provide IMC programs for theirclients (56%). Besides, agencies proffer direct marketing, PR, and salespromotion services (35%) to their clients.

Definition of IMC

In order to explore the respondents’ point of view on the definition ofIntegrated Marketing Communications, abbreviated statements werepresented to the respondents and they were asked to prioritize them interms of their perception (see Table 4). The major response is that IMC


TABLE 2. Turnover of Ad Agencies in Turkey

Turnover in 2001(US$ million)

N43(# of agencies)

n26(# of agencies)

N43%

n26%

40+ 2 1 4.7 3.8

31-40 7 6 16.2 23.1

21-30 4 2 9.3 7.7

11-20 3 1 7.0 3.8

1-10 21 13 48.8 50.0

Under 1 6 3 13.9 11.5

TABLE 3. Comparison of the Sub-Population and Sub-Sample (2001)

Total turnover Turnover sharein the sector

%

Mean turnover(million $)

N43 632,000,000 86 14.7

n26 425,981,000 58 16.4

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

00:

16 2

1 M

ay 2

014

is simply a way of coordinating or harmonising promotional mix ele-ments. Respondents also indicated that IMC is a strategic business pro-cess used for brand communication programs. The findings indicatethat IMC programs are not yet seen as a potential way to organize thebusiness, or as a way to deliver unified messages to customers or con-sumers. Thus, we can safely say that IMC is at an early stage of its de-velopment insofar as ad agencies in Turkey are concerned.

Construction of IMC Programs

Table 5 indicates the percentage of the clients requesting some typeof “integrated campaign” or “integrated communication program.” InTurkey, nearly 84% of the advertising agencies offer “IMC” services toclients mainly on a commission basis, whereas “25% to 50%” of clientsrequest some type of “integrated campaign” or “integrated communica-tion program.” Despite the national scope of the Turkish advertising in-dustry, their clients are mostly international (67%), and they are mostlylarge firms (77%), usually in the services sector (72%). Fully 40 of therespondents’ firms indicate that they perform some type of integrated


TABLE 4. Definition of Integrated Marketing Communications

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th

% % % % % %

The co-ordination of the variouscommunications disciplines (i.e.,general advertising, direct response,sales promotion, public relations,events, etc.)

56 5 7 12 9 9

A strategic business process utilizedfor brand communication programs

7 30 26 23 5 -

A way to develop and direct brandstrategy

14 21 23 14 19 2

Another term for coordinatedadvertising or PR programs

7 23 12 14 23 9

A way to deliver unified messages tothe customer or consumer

2 14 21 23 26 5

A way to organize the business of thefirm

12 - 2 2 7 62

n = 43

Note: The percentages were calculated from prioritised frequencies (i.e., the frequency of the 1st rank statement was multi-plied by 6, 2nd statement by 5 and so on).Abbreviated statements tested prioritised from 1 to 6; where 1 is the highest and 6 is the lowest.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

00:

16 2

1 M

ay 2

014

marketing activity for and on behalf of clients, but this is relativelyweak in scope and scale.

Nonetheless, the planned and controlled promotional program ac-complishes most of organizations’ communications with the market-place. The basic tools used to achieve an organization’s communicationobjectives are elements of the promotional mix, subsumed inside adver-tising agencies. Table 6 explores how important each of the promo-tional mix is in developing integrated campaigns for clients.

As seen in the table there is a ranking as per the mean values of thecommunication tools. In order to test the significance of the differencesbetween the means, ANOVA procedures were used. However, as theassumptions of the equality of variances are violated, the non-paramet-ric Friedman test was applied (c2 = 139.304, sig. = 0.000). The test hasshown that the importance of various communication tools in develop-ing an integrated campaign varies significantly. To further identifywhich promotion tools play the greatest role in IMC, paired compari-sons were made between the means using the Wilcoxon signed ranktest. The results indicate, as might be anticipated, that “advertising” isof primary importance while public relations rank second and sales pro-motion ranks third. Internet and direct marketing take fourth place,whereas personal selling has the least importance.

Benefits of IMC Programs

IMC suggests that advertising and public relations efforts achievetheir greatest impact when used in association with other marketingcommunication elements. Whereas advertising provides consumers withinformation they can use to make consumption decisions, creates brand


TABLE 5. Percentage of Clients Requesting Some Type of “Integrated Cam-paign” or “Integrated Communication Program”

n %

None 1 .02

Less than 25% 15 35

Between 25% and 50% 15 35

Between 50% and 75% 10 23

Over 75% 1 .02

Note: n = 43.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

00:

16 2

1 M

ay 2

014

awareness, helps position brands, and builds brand image; PR evaluatespublic attitudes, identifies the policies and procedures of an organiza-tion with the public interest, and executes a program of action (and com-munication) to earn public understanding and acceptance (Belch andBelch, 2001). The two have differential influence and forms of use, butare the more common of the promotional tools. The points given to ad-vertising, to public relations and to other tools can be seen at Table 7.

Major companies in Turkey use advertising agencies to assist them indeveloping, preparing, and executing promotional programs. Ad agen-cies specialize in planning and executing ad programs. Public relationsfirms plan PR strategies and programs, help generate publicity, conductlobbying and public affairs efforts, assist firms to be seen to be involvedin community activities and events, prepare news releases and othercommunications, conduct research, design, promote and manage spe-cial events, and help businesses manage crises. Many companies are in-tegrating public relations and publicity to increase message credibilityand save media costs. Close cooperation and coordination between adand PR agencies in the development and execution of an “IMC” cam-paign reveals many effects (see Table 8).

As seen in Table 8, cooperation between advertising and public rela-tions agencies seems to provide more communication effectiveness.Clearly defined roles and responsibility in the organization is rankedsecond, and improved decision-making and cost savings taking thirdand fourth rank respectively.


TABLE 6. The Importance of Promotional Tools in Developing “IntegratedCampaigns”

Mean SD

Advertising 6.7 1.2

Public Relations 5.9 1.9

Sales Promotions 5.5 1.4

Internet 4.9 1.6

Direct Marketing 4.7 1.8

Personal Selling 4.0 2.0

Other 1.6 2.7

Note: n = 43.Abbreviated statements tested, scaling from 1 to 7; where 1 is unimportant and 7 is very important.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

00:

16 2

1 M

ay 2

014

Barriers

Although IMC is widely accepted and implemented, there are somebarriers for marketers and agencies to overcome. Mainly, the organiza-tions should overcome the turf battles among participating agencies andstrive to overcome differing corporate cultures and organizational struc-tures between participating agencies (see Table 9).

Again as seen in Table 9, there seems to be a ranking as per the meanvalues of the factors. In order to test the significance of the differ-ences between the means, Friedman test was used (c2 = 94.898 and


TABLE 7. The Value of Elements in a Successful IMC Program (100 Points Di-vided by n)

Mean SD

Advertising 49 16

+ PR 28 10

+ Other 23 10

= Total (IMC) 100 points

Note: n = 43.

TABLE 8. Effects Occurring as a Result of Close Cooperation and CoordinationBetween Advertising and PR Agencies in the Development and Execution ofan “IMC” Campaign

Increasedcommunicationeffectiveness

Clearlydefined roles

and responsibilityImproved

decision-making Cost saving

Prompt reactionsby clients to

changingenvironmentalcircumstance Other

1st 70 16 5 2 2 -

2nd 16 35 21 9 7 2

3rd 5 19 33 19 16 -

4th 5 14 12 30 30 -

5th 2 9 19 28 28 -

6th 2 2 - - 2 9

Note: n = 43.Abbreviated statements tested (prioritised from 1 to 6); where 1 is the highest and 6 is the lowest.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

00:

16 2

1 M

ay 2

014

sig. = 0.000). The significance is important and there are differences be-tween the factors. For the comparison of the pair populations, theWilcoxon signed rank test was used. The pair statements have the sameimportance within their groups, meaning that each may replace theother and the trio of statements in group three have the same importanceagain.

Coordination and Implementation

A total of 28 (65%) of the respondents claim that advertising agen-cies should have overall control of the IMC program in behalf of the cli-ents, where they–in their own opinion–contribute most to integratedprogram success. However, 16 respondents (n = 43) indicated that cli-ents hold the control. No control in relation to “success” was believed toaccrue to PR or media agencies.

Construction of IMC programs needs contributions by all parties. Assuch, campaign control calls for the combined contribution of clientsand advertising agencies. This same cooperation is important for thecontrol of the development, execution and evaluation of IMC cam-paigns, and its success (see Table 10).

Advertisers are the key participants in the process. They have theproducts, services, or causes to be marketed, and they provide the client


TABLE 9. Perceived Barriers to IMC Programs (Factors Affecting the Difficultyof the Coordination of the Work of Advertising and PR Agencies)

Mean SD Ranking*

Turf battles among participating agencies 5.6 1.5

Different corporate cultures between participating agencies 5.3 1.7 1

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………Different organisational structures between participating agencies 4.7 1.8

Controlling other participating agencies 4.4 1.5 2

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………Drive to increase existing budget 3.0 2.1

Being controlled by the main agency 2.9 1.9

Involvement of client's top management 2.6 2.0 3

Note: n = 43.(*) According to the Friedman and Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests, there are three groups having different degrees of impor-tance. The importance of the statements within each group is the same.Abbreviated statements tested, scaling from 1 to 7, where 7 is very high.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

00:

16 2

1 M

ay 2

014

monies that pay for advertising and promotion. They assume major re-sponsibility for developing the programs (Belch and Belch, 2001). Hereit can be seen that for the control of development and the execution pro-cesses, PR agencies have the greatest role to play in terms of execution.Note that for the execution control, media agencies do exhibit a signifi-cant involvement.

Evaluation and Measurement

Although 74% of the agencies claim to measure the effectiveness ofthe campaigns where the client is responsible for the costs, the standardmeasuring metrics are also available. For example, the usual rubrics suchas return on investment, sales increase and other methods are imple-mented, as are methods such as pre- and post-tests, customer information,research firms, customer relationship management, brand monitoring,customer reports, and tracking and campaign research (see Table 11).Despite claims, that ROI and sales increase are the “best methods,” noexplanation was provided as to either as operationalized in practice.

Most of the respondents claim that their clients will seek to obtain in-tegrated approaches from PR and ad agencies and agencies will cooper-ate more in providing integrated services for their clients. Also thebenefits of IMC allow many clients to consider IMC programs. For thesuccess of IMC programs cooperation is almost the most important ele-ment. There is a hope to have more IMC programs in Turkey. Althoughthere are some other ways of payment, it seems that the agencies will ac-cept performance-based compensation more in the future (see Table12).


TABLE 10. Responsible Parties for the Control of the Strategy, Development,Execution, and Evaluation of an Integrated “IMC” Campaign

ControlStrategy

n

ControlDevelopment

n

ControlExecution

n

ControlEvaluation

n

Client 23 18 11 34

Advertising agency 37 34 32 15

PR Agency 8 14 21 8

Media Agency 4 8 18 9

Other 2 5 6 7

Note: n = 43.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

00:

16 2

1 M

ay 2

014

The nonparametric Friedman test was used in order to clarify the sta-tistical difference between the means of the future thoughts on market-ing communications. The test results were significant (c2 = 73.443 andsig. = 0.000) in that the respondents had varying thoughts on the futureof the IMC. Further comparisons using the Wilcoxon signed rank test


TABLE 11. The Best Measuring Method

N %

Return on Investment 11 25.5

Communication Level 3 0.6

Sales Increase 8 18.6

Other 12 27.9

Note: n = 43.

TABLE 12. Future Thoughts on Marketing Communications in Terms of AgencyOfferings

Mean SD Ranking*

Clients will seek to obtain integrated approaches from PR and adagencies

5.6 1.6

Agencies will co-operate more in providing integrated services for theirclients

5.6 1.4 1

Agencies will accept performance based compensation 5.0 1.8

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Clients will use several communication agencies in the future 4.4 2.0

Advertising agencies will expand their service to other communicationareas

4.3 2.0 2

Clients will use one media agency in the future 4.0 2.3

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Range of services/functions in agencies will expand to incorporateall communication areas

3.7 2.3

Clients will use one major PR agency in the future 3.7 2.2 3

PR agencies will expand their service to communication areas 3.2 2.0

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Clients will use one major advertising agency in the future 2.9 2.0 4

Note: n = 43.(*) According to the Friedman and Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests, there are four groups having different degrees of impor-tance. The importance of the statements within each group is the same.Abbreviated statements tested (scaling from 1 to 7), where 1 is not very high at all and 7 is very high.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

00:

16 2

1 M

ay 2

014

between the items showed that there were at least four different groupsof thought on the future of the IMC.

CONCLUSIONS

As in other countries, integrated marketing communication develop-ment and adoption of IMC programs are playing a significant and impor-tant role in terms of the types of services offered to clients by the dominantadvertising agencies in Turkey. Admittedly, the sector is small, but Turkeyis seeking European Community membership, which if circumstances sta-bilize will mean significant inroads by international and multinationalfirms, and a likely massive increase in terms of marcom expenditure. As inother countries, marketing and marketing communications seem to betransitioning from the old historical product-driven outbound marketingsystems toward the new information-driven interactive consumer-focusedmarketing of the twenty-first century as described by Kitchen and Schultz(1999). In this new market, organizations need integrated communications,well-established databases of customer knowledge, and indeed, closer rela-tionships with their clients. Yet, despite the promise shown, there are stillbarriers and problems insofar as Turkey is concerned.

• A major barrier is the relative dominance of advertising as the ma-jor persuasive vehicle of the promotional mix. Elsewhere, salespromotion is the dominant force, with advertising and other com-munication tools as integrated and orchestrated partners.

• Despite ad agency executives stating that clients seek or want inte-grated programs, this may be merely a reflection of the rhetoric ofIMC.

• We still do not know how well integrated activities have pene-trated the thinking and behavior of national and international cli-ents. Focus on clients and IMC is a prime target for future research.

• As elsewhere (Kitchen and de Pelsmacker, 2004), a further prob-lem and barrier is the relative invisibility of how promotional cam-paigns of an integrated nature are measured and evaluated. Andyet, the measurements of outcomes are vital–not only for organiza-tional success, but the very success of IMC as a concept, philoso-phy, and managerial tool.

Overall the findings indicate that there is an ongoing change towardadoptions and usage of IMC in Turkey. Based on these initial findings


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

00:

16 2

1 M

ay 2

014

from advertising agency respondents, many agencies and the clientsthey serve are taking on board the new initiatives and ideas from aroundthe world, of which IMC is one. Undoubtedly, once this first phase ofresearch is supplemented with in-depth research with client organiza-tions, we will be able to evaluate more fully the development of IMC inTurkey.

REFERENCES

Belch, George E., and Belch, Michael A. (2001). Advertising and Promotion, 5th ed.Homewood, IL: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Burnett, John, and Moriarty, Sandra (1998). Introduction to Marketing Communica-tions: An Integrated Approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Carlson, Les, Grove, Stephen J., Laczniak, Russell N., and Kangun, Norman (1996).Does environmental advertising reflect integrated marketing communications? Anempirical investigation, Journal of Business Research, 37 (3), 225-232.

Cornelissen, Joep P. (2000). Integration in communication management: Conceptualand methodological considerations, Journal of Marketing Management, 16 (6),597-606.

Cornelissen, Joep P. (2001). Integrated marketing communications and the language ofmarketing development, International Journal of Advertising, 20 (4), 483-498.

Duncan, Thomas R., and Everett, Stephen E. (1993, May-June). Client perceptions ofintegrated marketing communications, Journal of Advertising Research, 33 (3),30-39.

Eagle, Lynne, and Kitchen, Philip J. (2000). IMC, brand communications, and corpo-rate cultures: Client/advertising agency co-ordination and cohesion, EuropeanJournal of Marketing, 34 (5/6), 667-686.

Englis, Basil G., and Solomon, Michael R. (1996). Using consumption constellationsto develop integrated communications strategies, Journal of Business Research, 37(3), 183-191.

Fam, Kim Shyan (2001). Differing views and use of integrated marketing communica-tions-Findings from a survey of New Zealand small businesses, Journal of SmallBusiness and Enterprises Development, 8 (3), 205-214.

Fill, Chris (2001). Essentially a matter of consistency: Integrated marketing communi-cations, The Marketing Review, 1 (4), 409-425.

Garber, Lawrence L., Jr., and Dotson, Michael J. (2002). A method for the selection ofappropriate business-to-business integrated marketing communications mixes, Jour-nal of Marketing Communications, 8 (1), 1-17.

Grabbe, Heather (2004, November). When negotiations begin: The next phase inEU-Turkey relations. London: Centre for European Reform, online at http://www.cer.org.uk/pdf/essay_turkey_hg_nov04.pdf.

Griffin, W. Glenn, and Pasadeos, Yorgo (1998, Summer). The impact of IMC on ad-vertising and public relations education, Journalism and Mass Communication Ed-ucator, 53 (2), 4-18.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

00:

16 2

1 M

ay 2

014

Hackley, Christopher, and Kitchen, Philip J. (1998). IMC: A consumer psychologicalperspective, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 16 (3), 229-235.

Hutton, James G. (1996). Integrated marketing communications and the evolution ofmarketing thought, Journal of Business Research, 37 (3), 155-162.

Kallmeyer, Janice, and Abratt, Russell (2001). Perceptions of IMC and organizationalchange among agencies in South Africa, International Journal of Advertising, 20(3), 361-380.

Keller, Kevin Lane (2001). Mastering the marketing communications mix: Micro andmacro perspectives on integrated marketing programs, Journal of Marketing Man-agement, 17 (7-8), 819-847.

Kitchen, Philip J., Brignell, J., Li, T., and Spickett-Jones, J. G. (2004). The emergenceof IMC: A theoretical perspective, Journal of Advertising Research, 44 (1), 19-30.

Kitchen, Philip J., and de Pelsmacker, Patrick (2004). A Primer on Integrated Market-ing Communications. London: Routledge.

Kitchen, Philip J., and Schultz, Don E. (1998). IMC: A UK ad agency perspective,Journal of Marketing Management, 14 (4/5), 465-485.

Kitchen, Philip J., and Schultz, Don E. (2000, September). The status of IMC: A21st-century perspective, Admap, World Advertising Research Center, 18-21.

Kotler, Philip (2000). Marketing Management, the Millennium Edition. Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Lindell, Griffith P. (1997, May 26). You need integrated attitude to develop IMC, Mar-keting News, 31 (11), 6.

Low, George S. (2000, May-June). Correlates of integrated marketing communica-tions, Journal of Advertising Research, 40 (3), 27-39.

McArthur, David N., and Griffin, Tom (1997, September-October). A marketing man-agement view of integrated marketing communications, Journal of Advertising Re-search, 37 (5), 19-26.

Nowak, Glen J., and Phelps, Joseph (1994, Spring). Conceptualizing the integratedmarketing communications’ phenomenon: An examination of its impact on adver-tising practices and its implications for advertising research, Journal of Current Is-sues and Research Advertising, 16 (1), 49-66.

Percy, Larry (1997). Strategies for Implementing Integrated Marketing Communica-tions. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Business Books.

Pickton, David, and Broderick, Amanda, eds. (2001). Integrated Marketing Communi-cations. London: Prentice-Hall.

Pickton, David, and Hartley, Bob (1998). Measuring integration: An assessment of thequality of integrated marketing, International Journal of Advertising, 17 (4), 447-466.

Reid, Mike (2001). Integrated marketing communications and New Zealand wine in-dustry, International Journal of Advertising, 20 (2), 239-262.

Reid, Mike (2003). IMC-performance relationship: Further insight and evidence fromthe Australian marketplace, International Journal of Advertising, 22 (2), 227-248.

Reklamcilar Dernegi Web sitesi (Website of the Association of Advertisers in Turkey),www.rd.org.tr.

Schultz, Don E. (1993a, January 18). Integrated marketing communications: Maybedefinition is in the point of view, Marketing News, 27 (2), 17.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

00:

16 2

1 M

ay 2

014

Schultz, Don E. (1993b, July 19). How to overcome the barriers to integration, Market-ing News, 27 (15), 16-20.

Schultz, Don E. (1993c, August 16). Four basic rules lay groundwork for integration,Marketing News, 27 (17), 5.

Schultz, Don E. (1996). The inevitability of integrated communications, Journal ofBusiness Research, 37 (3), 139-146.

Schultz, Don E., and Kitchen, Philip J. (1997, September-October). Integrated market-ing communications in U.S. advertising agencies: An exploratory study, Journal ofAdvertising Research, 37 (5), 7-18.

Schultz, Don E., and Kitchen, Philip J. (1999, January-February). A multi-countrycomparison of the drive for IMC, Journal of Advertising Research, 39 (1), 21-38.

Schultz, Don E., and Kitchen, Philip J. (2000). Communicating Globally: An Inte-grated Marketing Approach. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Business Books.

Schultz, Don E., Tannenbaum, Stanley, and Lauternborn, Robert (1993). IntegratedMarketing Communications. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Publishing Group.

Stewart, David W. (1996). Market-back approach to the design of integrated communi-cations programs: A change in paradigm and a focus on determinants of success,Journal of Business Research, 37 (3), 147-153.

Turkey country brief (2004, September). Washington, DC: The World Bank, online athttp://www.worldbank.org.tr/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/ECAEXT/TURKEYEXTN/0,,menuPK:361722~pagePK:141132~piPK:141107~theSitePK:361712,00.html.

Vacek, Sarah (1999, March). Adding the internet to the mix, Agri Marketing, 37 (3),24.

The World Factbook (2005, June). Economy overview, Washington, DC: Central In-telligence Agency, http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/tu.html

Zinkhan, George M., and Watson, Richard T. (1996). Advertising trends: Innovationand the process of creative destruction, Journal of Business Research, 37 (3),163-171.

Received: June 17, 2005Accepted: August 1, 2005


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Akd

eniz

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

00:

16 2

1 M

ay 2

014

Documents

Probing Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC) in Turkey