Evaluating The Effectiveness of Elements of Integrated Marketing Communications A Review of Research

Evaluating The Effectiveness of Elements of Integrated Marketing Communications: A Review of Research George E Belch, Professor of Marketing, San Diego State University Michael A Belch, Professor of Marketing, San Diego State University Direct Correspondence To: Dr George E Belch Department of Marketing College of Business Administration San Diego State University San Diego, CA 92182 Email: gbelch@mail.sdsu.edu Phone: (619) 594-2473 Fax: (619) 594-3272 George E Belch (Ph.D., University of California, Los Angeles) Professor of Marketing, San Diego State University gbelch@mail.sdsu.edu Michael A Belch, (Ph.D University of Pittsburgh) Professor of Marketing, San Diego State University mbelch@mail.sdsu.edu Evaluating The Effectiveness of Elements of Integrated Marketing Communications: A Review of Research Abstract In recent years there has been strong interest among academics and marketing practitioners in the concept of integrated marketing communications (IMC) However, to evaluate the effectiveness of an IMC program, marketers must be able to determine how the use of the various marketing communication tools impact their customers This paper reviews research and theorizing regarding ways of measuring the communication effects of the major IMC tools including advertising, sales promotion, the Internet and interactive media, public relations, and direct marketing Research on the synergistic effects of various media and IMC tools is also reviewed Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC) has emerged as the dominant approach used by companies to plan and execute their marketing communication programs Many marketers, as well as advertising agencies, are embracing the IMC paradigm and developing integrated campaigns that use a variety ways to communicate with their target audiences (McArthur and Griffin 1997, Belch & Belch, 2004, Duncan 2005) The shift toward the IMC perspective has been hailed as one of the most significant changes in the history of advertising and promotion (Moriarty 1994; Reitman 1994) and as the major communications development of the last decade of the 20th century (Kitchen, Brignell, Li and Jones 2004) The movement toward IMC is being driven by a number of factors including the evolution from mass to micromarketing; the fragmentation of consumer markets and media audiences; the increased use of sales promotions and public relations; the proliferation of new media and alternatives for reaching consumers, such as the internet and other digital and wireless devices; and the rapid growth and development of database marketing New technologies such as personal video recorders (PVRs) are threatening the traditional advertising model for television and leading marketers to turn to nontraditional media such as event sponsorships, product placements, and various forms of “advertainment” such as short films shown on the Internet (Bianco 2004) As marketers work to find the right way to send the right message to the right person at the right time they are looking beyond advertising and the traditional mass media-focused approach to marketing communication From an academic perspective, it has been argued that IMC is the foundation of new customer-focused marketing efforts for acquiring, retaining, and growing relationships with customers and other stakeholders (Duncan and Moriarty, 1998) However, despite the growing popularity of IMC, theory development and research in this area is still limited In fact, some scholars have argued that been critical of IMC labeling it as a management fashion that lacks definition, formal theory construction and research and is transient in its influence (Cornelissen and Lock, 2000) However, recently more attention has been given to theory development in IMC with the goal of better defining with it is, what it does and how it can be used to guide the development and implementation of marketing communication programs (Gould 2004; Kitchen, Brignell Li and Jones 2004) Several models and conceptualizations of IMC have been developed (Schultz, Tannenbaum and Lauterborn 1993; Duncan and Caywood 1995; Duncan 2002) However, most of the extant literature on IMC deals with topics such as discussions and debates over its definition, advantages, acceptance and measurement (Swain 2004) Empirical studies of IMC deal primarily with issues such as the extent to which companies have put it into practice, responsibility and leadership for IMC, and barriers to its implementation (Swain 2004; Kim, Han and Schultz 2004; Kitchen and Schultz 1999) However, less attention has been to one of the major problems and challenges facing IMC, which is the issue of measuring its effectiveness The Problem of IMC Measurement One of the major criticisms of IMC involves the problem of measuring its effectiveness Schultz and Kitchen (2000) acknowledged this problem by stating that “We can’t measure IMC now and it may be some time before we can The problem is that many marketing activities can’t be measured and the value of communication effects and impacts are even more tenuous.” The authors go on to note that: “for the most part, marketing and communication measurement suffers from an attempt to measure “outputs,” that is, what is sent out, not “outcomes” or what impact the marketing communication had.” (p.19) The measurement problem is compounded by the fact that IMC programs consist of a variety of communication tools and measuring the interactive effects of all of these elements has proven to be extremely difficult The measurement of the effects of IMC has not been ignored as attention has been given to the problem, with various approaches to providing metrics having been put forth Much of the theorizing regarding the measurement of IMC comes from work done by Schultz and his colleagues Schultz, Tannenbaum and Latuerborn (1993) note that “the IMC goal is to develop communication programs that either reinforce the present purchasing behavior of customers or attempt to influence a change in the behavior of prospects in the future.” (p 108) They argue that behavior, in IMC terms, is any measurable activity by the customer or prospect that either moves the person closer to a purchase decision or reinforces a favorable existing buying pattern Schultz, et al, note that the measurement process for IMC should attempt to measure behavior that is as close to actual purchase behavior as possible, and suggest that measurement points should be built into the planning process However, as previously noted, Shultz and his colleagues themselves have been critical of the process used to measure the effects of marketing communication due to its focus on outputs rather than outcomes To address the measurement problem, Schultz et al (1993) and Kitchen and Schultz (1999) have advocated the use of an outside-in planning approach whereby the process begins with the customer and works back through the purchase decision process to determine the points at which customers and/or prospects might have contact with a brand or company This audience perspective approach requires that attention be focused on the consumer and various contact points or opportunities for delivering messages to them throughout the purchase process, and how the impact of these contacts might be measured Current or prospective customers can be reached through a variety of IMC tools including media advertising, sales promotion, the Internet and other interactive media, publicity/public relations, direct marketing, personal selling and event sponsorships as well as through a variety of nontraditional media However, to effectively use these tools in an integrated manner, more work is need to determine if and how these points of contact are experienced by recipients over time, and the impact they have both individually and in combination A significant challenge facing IMC is the determination of ways of evaluating the effectiveness or outcomes of integrated campaigns Marketers use IMC tools to achieve a variety of objectives including creating awareness of the company or brand; to make consumers familiar with attributes, features and benefits; to create, maintain and/or change brand attitudes, preference and purchase intentions and ultimately to influence brand choice in the form of purchase behavior Perhaps the most important aspect of developing effective IMC programs involves understanding the response process consumers go through in moving toward a specific behavior (such as the purchase of a product or service) and how the various communication tools can be used to influence this process Marketers are interested in relevant intervening variables that are can be used as measures of movement through this response process and as outcomes of the contact they have with the company or brand Response metrics such as those listed above are routinely measured by marketers and considered to be important outcomes of IMC effectiveness To better understand how to measure the effectiveness of IMC, attention needs to be given to what is known about how the various communication elements influence the response process of consumers The purpose of this paper will be to review extant theorizing as well as research that has been conducted regarding the effects of traditional IMC tools such as advertising, sales promotion, the Internet and interactive media, public relations/publicity and direct marketing on the response process Consideration will also be given to how the various IMC tools might interact and their synergistic impact The goal is to provide insight and understanding of how the various IMC tools serve as contact points that affect consumers at various levels and how knowledge of their impact and effectiveness can be used in the planning, implementation and evaluation of IMC programs Advertising Effects The IMC tool that has received the most attention and theorizing regarding its impact on the response process of consumers is that of advertising Much of the theorizing regarding advertising effects deals with consumers’ processing of advertising messages The focus of this work is on more immediate responses to advertising as a form of persuasive communication and includes the cognitive response model of persuasion (Greenwald 1968; Wright 1980) as well as the relevance accessibility model (Baker and Lutz 1988, 2000) and the elaboration likelihood model (Petty, Cacioppo and Schumann, 1983) Excellent reviews of these models and theories are provided by MacInnis and Jaworski (1989), Meyers-Levy and Malaviy (1999), and Vakratsas and Ambler (1999) Of more relevance here, however, is theorizing regarding the effects of advertising over time rather than immediate responses to persuasive advertising messages The dominant conceptualization of how advertising works from an intermediate to long-term perspective is through some type of response hierarchy model (Strong 1925; Lavidge and Steiner 1961; McGuire 1978; Vaughn, 1980) As noted by Weilbacher (2001), hierarchy-of-effects (HOE) models have been around in the literature of marketing in one form or another for more than 100 years There are several conceptualizations of HOE models which have received a great deal of attention among practitioners as well as academicians The first is the response model proposed by Russell Colley (1961) as part of his work for the Association of National Advertisers, which resulted in the book Defining Advertising Goals for Measuring Advertising Results Colley’s work became known by its acronym (DAGMAR) which presented an approach to setting and measuring advertising goals and objectives based on a hierarchical model of response with four stages: awarenesscomprehensionconviction and action The DAGMAR text was revised by Dukta (1995), however, the basic hierarchical response model was retained as the basis of the DAGMAR approach Perhaps the best known of the response hierarchy models is that developed by Lavidge and Steiner (1961) as a paradigm for setting and measuring advertising objectives Their hierarchy-of-effects model depicts the process by which advertising works by assuming that a consumer passes through a series of steps in sequential order which include: awareness knowledgelikingpreferenceconvictionpurchase A basic premise of this model is that communication effects from advertising occur over a period of time Advertising generally does not lead to immediate behavioral response or purchase, but rather a series of effects must occur, with each step fulfilled before the consumer moves to the next step in the hierarchy Another type of hierarchical response approach to advertising is the information processing model of advertising effects developed by McGuire (1968) This model assumes the receiver in a persuasive communication situation is an information processor and problem solver The stages of this model are similar to those in other HOE models and include presentation  attentioncomprehensionyieldingretention behavior McGuire’s model includes a stage not found in the other models, which is retention - or the receiver’s ability to retain that portion of the comprehended information that he or she accepts as valid or relevant This stage is considered important since most advertising campaigns are designed not to motivate consumers to take immediate action, but rather to provide information they will use later when making a purchase decision McGuire’s model views each stage of the response hierarchy as a dependent variable that should be attained and that may serve as an objective of the advertising communications process He also notes that each stage can be measured and thus provide the advertiser with feedback regarding the effectiveness of various advertising strategies For example, exposure/presentation can be measured with figures on audience size (television or radio ratings, magazine or newspaper circulation figures), attention, comprehension and/or retention can be assessed via recall or recognition tests, while acceptance or yielding can be measured through attitude and intention measures Both the Lavidge and Steiner and McGuire response hierarchy models imply that either consciously or subconsciously, advertising has some intermediate effect before it impacts behavior The two major types of intermediate effects are cognition, the thinking dimension of a consumers’ response, and affect or the feeling dimension Cognitive effects include outcomes such as awareness, knowledge, comprehension and retention The affective dimension includes measures such as feelings, attitudes, preferences, desires, and intentions However, Vakratsas and Ambler (1999), and Ambler and Goldstein (2003) argue that experience is a third principal intermediate effect that must be considered when studying the impact of advertising They note that behavior feeds back to experience as product preferences are often formed after an initial trial In some situations, product experience may be the dominant factor that impacts beliefs, attitudes and preferences, and the role of advertising is to reinforce existing habits, frame the experiences or serve more of a reminding or reinforcing role While the advertising response hierarchy models are considered of value in establishing communications objectives, a number of researchers have noted that there are problems with HOE models Major criticisms of these models include their reliance on the concept of a linear, hierarchical response process (Huey 1999; Moriarty 1983; Preston 1982), and that the models are poor predictors of actual behavior (Bendizlen 1993) Vakratsas and Ambler (1999) reviewed more than 250 journal articles and books in an effort to better understand how advertising affects the consumer They concluded that cognition, affect and experience are the three key intermediate measures of advertising effects However they argue that there is little Table IMC Response Metrics Response Stage Advertising Sales Promotion Direct Marketing Internet and Interactive Presentation/ Exposure Reach Frequency Ratings Circulation Distribution of Promotional Offers (Samples/Coupons) P-O-P Displays Pieces mailed Circulation Ratings Traffic Page views Time spent on site Recall Recognition Recall Recognition Recall Recognition Inquiries Recall/ Recognition Publicity/ Public Relatio ns Media Placements Number of positive/negative articles Video/audio exposures COGNITIVE Brand Awareness/ attention Brand Knowledge/ Comprehension AFFECTIVE Attitudes Brand Beliefs/ Perceptions/ Associations Brand Beliefs/ Perceptions/ Associations Beliefs/ Perceptions Association s AttitudeAd AttitudePromotion Attitudes Message Attitude Brand AttitudeBrand Message Brand Intentions Purchase Intentions Purchase Intentions Hits/visits Click throughs Page Visits Brand Beliefs/ Perceptions/ A Recall Impressions Brand/Company Beliefs/ Perceptions/ Associations Attitude Sit AttitudeEvent e Attitudes Company/ brand Attitude Brand Attitude Brand Purchase Intention Perceptions/ Associations Purchase Intent Purchase intent BEHAVIOR Trial Initial Sales Repeat Purchase/ Loyalty Sales and Market share Redemption/use of coupons, rebates samples Sales made during promotion Membership in loyalty programs Initial sales Repeat Sales Redemption/ use of online coupons or samples Sales directly from web site Attendance Sales Market share 34 References Agee, Tom and Brett A.S Martin (2001), “Planned or Impulse Purchases? How to Create Effective Informericals,” Journal of Advertising Research, 41, (November/December), 35-42 Ambler, T and S Goldstein, Copy Testing: Practice and Best Practice, Henley-on-Thames, U.K WARC, 2003 Baker, William E (1993) “The Relevance-Accessibility Model of Advertising Effectiveness,” in Nonverbal Communications in Advertising, Sidney Hecker and David W Stewart, eds Lexington, MA: Lexington, 59-84 Baker, William E and Richard J Lutz (2000), “An Empirical Test of an Updated RelevanceAccessibility Model of Advertising Effectiveness,” Journal of Advertising, 29, (Spring) 1-15 Barry, Thomas E (2002), “In Defense of the Hierarchy of Effects: A Rejoinder to Weilbacher,” Journal of Advertising Research,” (May/June 2002), 44-47 Barry, Thomas E (1987), “The Development of the Hierarchy of Effects: An Historical Perspective,” Current Issues and Research in Advertising,” 10, 2, 251-95 , and Daniel J Howard (1990), “A Review and Critique of the Hierarchy of Effects,” International Journal of Advertising, 9, 2, 121-35 Belch, George E and Michael A Belch (2004) Advertising and Promotion: An Integrated Marketing Communication Perspective, 5th edition, New York, NY: McGraw Hill/Irwin Bezjian-Avery, Alexia, Bobby Calder and Dawn Iacobucci (1998), “New Media Interactive Advertising vs Traditional Advertising,” Journal of Advertising Research, (July/August), 2332 Bellizzi, Joseph A (2000), “Drawing Prospects to E-Commerce Websites,” Journal of Advertising Research, 40, (January/April), 43-53 Bendizlen, Mike T (1993), “Advertising Effects and Effectiveness” , European Journal of Marketing, Vol 27 (10), 19-32 Bianco, Anthony (2004), “The Vanishing Mass Market,” July 12, 61-68 Brodowsky, Glen H and George E Belch (2002), “The Informercial: The Handy Dandy Marketing Teaching Tool,” in Proceedings of the Marketing Educators Conference, Regina P Schlee and John A Schibrowsky (eds) Marketing Education Association, 1-6 Bruner Gordon C and Anand Kumar (2000), “Web Commercials and Advertising Hierarchy-ofEffects,” Journal of Advertising Research, 40 (January/April), 35-42 Chandon, Pierre, Brain Wansink and Gillles Laurent (2000), “A Benefit Congruency Framework of Sales Promotion Effectiveness, Journal of Marketing, 64 (October), 65-81 35 Chen, Qimei and William D Wells (1999), “Attitude Toward the Site,” Journal of Advertising Research, (September/October), 27-37 Colley, Russell H (1961), Defining Advertising Goals for Measured Advertising Results, New York, NY, Association of National Advertisers Cornelissen J.P and A.R Lock, (2000) “Theoretical Concept or Management Fad? Examining the Significance of IMC,” Journal of Advertising Research, 40, 5, 7-15 Cornwell, T Bettina and Isabelle Maignan (1998), “An International Review of Sponsorship Research”, The Journal of Advertising, 27 (1) Spring, pp1-22 Cramphorn, Spike (2004), “What Advertising Testing Might Have Been, If We Had Only Known”, Journal of Advertising Research, June 2004, 170-180 DoubleClick/Nielsen/Net Ratings/IMS Cross-Media Reach and Frequency Planning Studies (2003) www.doubleclick.net/us/knowledge Deighton, John, Caroline Henderson and Scott A Nielsen (1994), “The Effect of Advertising on Brand Switching and Repeat Purchasing,” Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (February), 2843 Dukta, Solomon (1995), DAGMAR: Defining Advertising Goals for Measured Advertising Results, 2nd Edition, Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Business Books Duncan, Tom (2005) IMC: Using Advertising and Promotion to Build Brands, 2nded, New York, NY: McGraw Hill/Irwin Duncan, Tom (2002) IMC: Using Advertising and Promotion to Build Brands, New York, NY: McGraw Hill/Irwin and Clarke Caywood (1996), “The Concept, Process, and Evolution of Integrated Marketing Communications, in Esther Thorson and Jeri Moore (eds), Integrated Communications: Synergy of Persuasive Voices, Hillsdale, NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum and Sandra E Moriarty (1998), “A Communication-Based Marketing Model for Managing Relationships,” Journal of Marketing, 62 (April),1-13 Edell, Julie A and Kevin Lane Keller (1999), “Analyzing Media Interactions: The Effects of Coordinated TV-Print Advertising,” Marketing Science Institute Report No 99-120 Cambridge, MA, Marketing Science Institute Edwards, Jim (2001) “The Art of the Infomercial,” Brandweek, September 3, 4-19 Eichenbaum, H., and J Bodkin “Belief and Knowledge as Distinct Forms of Memory.” In Memory, Brain, and Belief, D Schacter and E Scarry, eds Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000 36 Fitzgerald, Kate (1998) “Beyond Advertising,” Advertising Age, August 3, 1998, 1,14 Gardener, Elizabeth and Minakshi Trivedi (1998), “A Communications Framework to Evaluate Sales Promotion Strategies,” Journal of Advertising Research, (May/June), 67-71 Gay, Verne (1985), “Image Transfer: Radio Ads Make Aural History,” Advertising Age, January 24, p Gould, Steven J (2004), “IMC as Theory and as a Poststructural Set of Practices and Discourses: A Continuously Evolving Paradigm Shift”, 44(1) (March), 66-70 Gordon, W., and S Ford-Hutchinson “Brains and Brands: Re-thinking the Consumer”, Admap, January,2002 Greenwald, Anthony (1968), “Cognitive Learning, Cognitive Response to Persuasion and Attitude Change,” in Psychological Foundations of Attitudes, A.G Greenwald, T.C Brock and T.W Ostrom (eds) New York: Academic Press Hall, Bruce F (2004)“On Measuring the Power of Communications”, Journal of Advertising Research, (June), 181-187 Harris, Thomas L (1993), “How MPR Adds Value To Integrated Marketing Communications,” Public Relations Quarterly, (Summer),13-18 Hoch, Stephen A and Young-Won Ha (1986), “Consumer Learning: Advertising and the Ambiguity of Product Experience,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (October) 221-33 Holloway, Deborah (1992), “How to Select a Measurement System That’s Right for Your”, Public Relations Quarterly, 37(3), Fall, 15-18 Huey, Bill (1999) “Advertising’s Double Helix: A Proposed New Process Model” Journal of Advertising Research, (May/June), 43-51 Interactive Advertising Bureau, (2003), “The Cross Media Optimization Study (XMOS),” www.iab.net Jagpal, Harshareanjeet (1981), “Measuring Joint Advertising Effects in Multiproduct Firms,” Journal of Advertising Research, 21,1, 65-69 Jeffries-Fox, Bruce (2003), “Commission Debunks the Myth on Ad Value Equivalency”, PBI Media, LLC, February 24, 2003, Vol 59, No Keller, Kevin Lane (1993), “Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity, Journal of Marketing, 57, (January), 1-22 Kim, Ilchul, Dongsub Han, and Don E Schultz (2004), “Understanding the Diffusion of Integrated Marketing Communication,” Journal of Advertising Research, (March), 31-45 37 Kitchen, Philip J., Joanne Brignell, Tao Li and Graham Sprickett Jones (2004), “The Emergence of IMC: A Theoretical Perspective,” Journal of Advertising Research, (March) 19-30 and Don E Schultz (1999), “A Multi-Country Comparison of the Drive for IMC,” Journal of Advertising Research, 39,1, 21-38 Keller, Kevin Lane (1993), “Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity, Journal of Marketing, 57, (January), 1-22 Kotler, Philip and William Mindak (1978), “Marketing and Public Relations,” Journal of Marketing, 42, (October), 13-20 Lauzen, Martha M (1991), “Imperialism and Encroachment in Public Relations,” Public Relations Review, 17, (Fall) 245-55 Lavidge, Robert J and Gary A Steiner (1961), “A Model for Predictive Measurement of Advertisement Effectiveness,” Journal of Marketing, 25 (October) 59-62 Leong, Elaine K.F., Xueli Huang and Paul-John Stanners (1998), “Comparing the Effectiveness of the Web Site with Traditional Media,” Journal of Advertising Research, (September/October), 44-51 Levin, Irwin P and Gary P Gaeth (1988), “How Consumers Are Affected By the Framing of Attribute Information Before and After Consuming the Product,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (December), 374-78 Lilien, Gary L., Philip Kotler and K Sridhar Moorthy (1992), Marketing Models, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall Lindenmann, Walter K (1993), “An Effectiveness Yardstick to Measure Public Relations Success,” Public Relations Quarterly, 31, No 1, (Spring) 7-10 MacInnis, Deborah J and Bernard J Jaworski (1989), “Information Processing from Advertisements: Toward an Integrative Framework,” Journal of Marketing, 53 (October), 1-23 MacKenzie, Scott, Richard J Lutz and George E Belch, (1986) “The Role of Attitude Toward the Ad as a Mediator of Advertising Effectiveness: A Test of Competing Explanations,” Journal of Marketing Research, 23, (May), 130-43 McArthur, David N and Tom Griffin, (1997) “A Marketing Management View of Integrated Marketing Communications,” Journal of Advertising Research, September/October, 19-26 McGuire, William (1978) “An Information Processing Model of Advertising Effectiveness,” in Behavioral and Management Science in Marketing, Harry L Davis and Alvin J Silk, eds New York: John Wiley & Sons 156-80 Media Mix Study, (2002), Online Publishers Organization, (March) Joan Meyers-Levy, Prashant Malaviya (1999), “Consumers' Processing of Persuasive 38 Advertisements: An Integrative Framework of Persuasion Theories,” Journal of Marketing (63), 45-61 Moriarty, Sandra E, (1983) “Beyond the Hierarchy of Effects: A Conceptual Framework,” in Current Issues in Advertising, James H Leigh and Claude Martin, Jr (eds), Ann Arbor, MI: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration Moriarty, Sandra E (1994), “PR and IMC: The Benefits of Integration,” Public Relations Quarterly, (Fall), 39 (3), 38-44 Naik, Prasad A and Kalyan Raman, (2003), “Understanding the Impact of Synergy in Multimedia Comparisons, Journal of Marketing Research, 60 (November), 375-388 Nash, Edward L, Direct Marketing: Strategy, Planning, Execution, (4th Edition), New York, McGraw Hill, 2000 Neslin, Scott A Sales Promotion, Cambridge MA: Marketing Science Institute, 2002 Nielsen, Scott A., John Quelch and Caroline Henderson (1984), “Consumer Promotions and the Acceleration of Product Purchases,” in Research on Sales Promotion, Collected Papers, Katherine E Jocz (ed) Cambridge, MA Marketing Science Institute Online Publishers Association and Millward Brown Intelliquest, “Media Mix Study”, www.online-publishers.org, March 2002 Pavlou, Paul A and David W Stewart (2000), “Measuring the Effects and Effectiveness of Interactive Advertising: A Research Agenda,” Journal of Interactive Advertising, 1, (1) Pedrick, James H and Fred S Zufryden (1991), “Evaluating the Impact of Advertising Media Plans: A Model of Consumer Dynamics Using Single-Source Data,” Marketing Science, 10, 2, 111-30 Petty, Richard E and John T Cacioppo and David Schumann (1983), “Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement,” Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (September) 135-46 Phillips, David (2001), “Evaluating Content Counts”, Journal of Communication Management”, 6(1), (September) 77-93 Pham, Michel Tuan (1991), “The Evaluation of Sponsorship Effectiveness: A Model and Some Methodological Considerations,” Gestion 2000, 47-65 Prentice, R.M (1977), “How to Split Your Marketing Funds Between Advertising and Promotion Dollars,” Advertising Age, January 10, 41-42, 44 Preston, Ivan L (1982) “The Association Model of the Advertising Communications Process,” Journal of Advertising, 11, (2) 3-15 39 Raghubir, Priya (2004), “Coupons in Context: Discounting Prices or Decreasing Sales?” Journal of Retailing, 80, (January), 1-12 Raghubir, Priya (2004), “Free Gift with Purchase: Promoting or Discounting the Brand?,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, (January), 181-85 Raghubir, Priya and Kim Corfman (1999), “When Do Price Promotions Affect Pretrial Brand Evaluations?” Journal of Marketing Research, 36, (May), 211-22 Ray, Michael L (1973), “Communication and the Hierarchy of Effects,” in New Models for Mass Communication Research, P Clarke (ed), Beverly Hills, CA: Sage147-75 Reitman, Jerry I (1994), “Integrated Marketing: Fantasy or the Future?” presented to Marketing Science Institute Conference on Marketing Communication Strategies Today and Tomorrow: Integration, Allocation, and Interactive Technologies, Boston, MA Ries, Al and Laura Ries (2002), The Fall of Advertising and the Rise of PR, New York, Harper Business Roberts, Mary Lou and Paul D.Berger (1999), Direct Marketing, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall Rodgers, Shelly and Ester Thorson (2000), “The Interactive Advertising Model: How Users Perceive and Process Online Ads,” Journal of Interactive Advertising, (1)1-23 Rothschild, Michael L and William C Gaidas (1981), “Behavioral Learning Theory: Its’ Relevance to Marketing and Promotions,” Journal of Marketing, 45, 2, 70-78 Sawyer, Alan G and Peter H Dickson, (1984) “Psychological Perspectives on Consumer Response to Sales Promotion,” in Research on Sales Promotion: Collected Papers, Katherine E Jocz (ed) Cambridge, MA, Marketing Science Institute Schultz, Don E and Philip J Kitchen (2000), “A Response to ‘Theoretical Concept or Management Fashion?,” Journal of Advertising Research, 40, 5, 17-21 , and (1997), “Integrated Marketing Communications in U.S Advertising Agencies: An Exploratory Study,” Journal of Advertising Research, (September/October), 7-18 Schultz, Don E., Stanley I Tannenbaum and Robert F Lauterborn (1993), Integrated Marketing Communications: Pulling It Together and Making It Work, Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Business Books Singh, Mandeep, Siva K Balasubramanian and Goutam Charkraborty, (2000), “A Comparative Analysis of Three Communication Formats: Advertising, Infomercial, and Direct Experience,” Journal of Advertising, 29, 4, 59-75 Smith, Robert E (1993), “Integrating Information from Advertising and Trial: Processes and Effects on Consumer Response to Product Information,” Journal of Marketing Research, 30 (May), 204-19 40 Sparks, Robert, E.C (1995), “Rethinking Media Evaluation: Tobacco Sponsorship Messages and Narrative Conventions in Motorship Telecasts” , in World Marketing Congress Proceedings, K Grant and I Walker, eds., Melbourne, Australia: Academy of Marketing Science, (3), 111115 Spethman, Betsy (1998), “Is Advertising Dead?” PROMO, September, 32-36 Stevenson, Julie S., Gordon C Bruner Anand Kumar (2000) “Webpage Background and Viewer Attitudes,” Journal of Advertising Research, 40, 2, (January/April), 29-34 Strong, Edward K Jr (1925), “Theories of Selling,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 9, 75-86 Swain, William N (2004), “Perceptions of IMC After a Decade of Development: Who’s at the Wheel, and How Can We Measure Success?”, Journal of Advertising Research, (March), 46-65 Thorson, Esther and Jeri Moore (1995), “Integrated Communications: Synergies of Persuasive Voices, Hillsdale, NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum Weilbacher, William M (2001), “Does Advertising Cause a ‘Hierarchy of Effects’?,” Journal of Advertising Research, 41,6, 19-26 , (2002) “Weilbacher Comments on ‘In Defense of the Hierarchy of Effects’,” Journal of Advertising Research, (May/June), 48-49 Wells, William D and Qimei Chen, (2000) “The Dimension of Commercial Cyberspace,” Journal of Interactive Advertising, (1), (Fall) Wright Peter (1980), “Message Evoked Thoughts, Persuasion Research Using Thought Verbalizations,” Journal of Consumer Research, (September) 151-75 Vakratsas, Demetrios and Tim Ambler (1999) “How Advertising Works: What We Really Know?,” Journal of Marketing, 63, (January) 26-43 Vaughn, Richard (1980), “How Advertising Works: A Planning Model,” Journal of Advertising Research, 20, 5, 27-33 Yoon, Sung-Joon and Soo-Ho Kim (2001), “Is the Internet More Effective Than Traditional Media? Factors Affecting the Choice of Media,” Journal of Advertising Research, (November/December), 53-60 Young, Charles E (2004), “Capturing the Flow of Emotion in Television Commercials: A New Approach”, Journal of Advertising Research, (June), 202-209 41 42 ... mbelch@mail.sdsu.edu Evaluating The Effectiveness of Elements of Integrated Marketing Communications: A Review of Research Abstract In recent years there has been strong interest among academics and... views each stage of the response hierarchy as a dependent variable that should be attained and that may serve as an objective of the advertising communications process He also notes that each stage... consistently purchase a brand because of a coupon or price-off deal may attribute their behavior to the external promotional incentive rather than to a favorable attitude toward the brand By contrast, when