In April 1997, I participated as a panelist in a workshop sponsored by the Florida International University School of Journalism & Mass Communications and spoke on the subject of Integrated Communications. To prepare for the workshop, I spent some time reflecting on my own experiences, and thinking about what the term meant and how public relations professionals utilize the concept.
The first thing that came to mind was that when I entered the world of academia in 1992, the term "integrated marketing communications" and its function were being debated in academic circles. At the time, it seemed incredible that university professors were talking about IMC when for years before (at least when I entered the profession in 1972), public relations had been utilizing what we called "total communications" -- that is, the entire spectrum of communications tactics to reach and influence a targeted audience, and to persuade that audience to behave in a certain manner.
The second thing that I recalled was that a few years later, in approximately 1995, the word "marketing" had been dropped, and the term had evolved to "integrated communications." What further surprised me about the change was the revelation by some FIU workshop students that they could earn a degree in Integrated Communications. Apparently, FIU is one of only four schools in the world that offer this degree.
Several issues arise when the term "integrated communications" is used. I'd like to talk about three of them: (1) the abortive attempt by the marketing discipline to usurp both the advertising and public relations functions, (2) what integrated communications can do for the client, and (3) what integrated communications cannot do.
Most of the marketing people I know (with a few notable exceptions) have the arrogant attitude that marketing drives everything in the business world. And to an extent, their arguments hold water. After all, marketing controls communications in so many ways, from the creation of a product and/or service, to the moment that it is consumed or used by the customer. No argument there.
In the so-called "marketing mix" -- a "flavor-of-the-month" term used in the '70s -- marketing takes the lead. Advertising delivers the specific message to the ultimate consumer via paid messages; public relations can deliver additional customer awareness through promotional activities and publicity. Advertising and public relations play supportive roles in product/service awareness.
Encouraged by this, I believe the marketing people (academicians in particular) began a turf battle for control of marketing communications, and attempted to usurp the traditional territory so zealously guarded by their colleagues in advertising and public relations. What they didn't count on was the intensity of the resistance they received. The upshot is, I believe, that they backed down (or at least, advertising and public relations unceremoniously eliminated the word "marketing" from the term in their own discussions of total communications).
Integrated communications makes total sense. If you were going to attempt to influence a potential buyer to purchase and use your product, wouldn't you use every means of persuasive communications at your disposal to influence the purchasing decision? Of course, you would.
You would use product design, packaging, point-of-purchase, counter-cards, posters, direct mail and/or direct response methods, paid broadcast or print advertising, special events, publicity, news conferences, give-aways, kiddie-clubs, CD ROM's, the Internet . . . if you could conceive it, and could afford it, you would do it.
The power of this total communications process is inestimable. What occurs is a synergistic effort that is larger in its scope and influence than anything any single one the three "marketing mix" disciplines can achieve on its own, or even in partnership with one or the other.
To the extent that the communicator is attempting to sell a product, or a service, or an idea, integrated communication is the perfect answer.
What integrated communication cannot do is establish a reputation upon which an organization's image is based. But first, here are a few "I-Will-Give-You-These" concessions:
Marketing is concerned with human feelings only to the extent that they cause a person to buy and use the product. Advertising is concerned with human feelings on to the extent that they respond to the message and . . . buy the product.
Public relations, on the other hand, is concerned with human feelings to the extent that the relationships established can help the company change its operations and philosophies to serve more than just the company's objectives, more than just the buyer's needs, more than just the community. Public relations can (and does) work from within an organization to serve a much nobler goal -- that of serving the public interest.
We are indeed the conscience of an organization. We are the ones who create the soul of an organization. Public relations alone can humanize an organization in the eyes of its stakeholders. What integrated communications does is provide some of the tools we need to do this job.
Integrated communications . . . total communications . . . the marketing mix . . . when all is said and done, it really doesn't matter what it's called, as long as public relations professionals recognize that every conceivable form of communications can -- and should -- be used to influence desired behavior.
We need to work with the marketing and advertising people, but do not let either discipline take control of what we do, because they will forget about establishing relationships and reputation. Advertising and marketing think they know what public relations professionals do, but when it gets down to it, they have absolutely no idea what true, well-strategized public relations can do beyond supporting their own ends.
Sign the Strategic PR Guestbook
View the Strategic PR Guestbook
Get your own Free Home Page