Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 507–513

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Public Relations Review

The public relations contribution to IMC: Deriving

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Integrated Marketing Communication (IMC) has been regarded primarily as a marketing
Received 26 February 2013 concept. However, as an ever more dominant context for communication management,
Received in revised form 17 August 2013
IMC presents opportunities for public relations scholarship’s contributions to the disci-
Accepted 27 September 2013
pline, in spite of IMC’s recognized threats. This article, which outlines the state of the fields
of IMC and public relations literature, proposes the way public relations roles in relation-
Keywords:
ship cultivation and organizational behavior uniquely contribute to IMC, and, at the same
IMC
Public relations time, establish management roles for public relations. This article also addresses three
Marketing challenges facing public relations research in integration by providing a better definition of
Stakeholder IMC, establishing relationship cultivation as a critical point in the theoretical convergence
Integrated communication of public relations and IMC, and providing a framework through which to conceptualize
iComm communication structures.
© 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

In today’s ever-evolving communication environment, the walls have been taken down. The structural shift to integrate
communications under the paradigm referred to as Integrated Marketing Communication or IMC has blurred the functional
lines between public relations and marketing.
So far, the leading voice on IMC has come from marketing. As public relations scholars, we have yet to establish a voice
on IMC, or at least one as strong as marketing. Up until this point, public relations scholarship has only begun to touch on
the subject of IMC, some of which (including Smith, 2012b,c) builds on core considerations established by Caywood (1997),
Hallahan (2007), and Hutton (2010). In spite of these efforts, the topic remains underdeveloped, and in some cases, continues
to be derided as a threat to public relations (as was originally reported by Hallahan (2007)). Without a public relations-based
research agenda in IMC, the roles of public relations may be left to marketing to define them. Perhaps for this reason Hutton
(2010) observed: “The marketing field is reinventing itself to include or subsume much or all of public relations” (p. 509).
The purpose of this paper is to open the discussion of IMC as a legitimate context within which to study the practice of
public relations. In doing so, this paper argues that public relations may contribute in three key areas, including practitioner
acumen in advisory and counsel, the concept of stakes and stakeholders, and public relations’ differentiating approach to
relationships. Based on early research identifying public relations as the most appropriate function to lead IMC because of its
emphasis on relationships between an organization and all of its stakeholders (Caywood, 1997), it behooves public relations
scholars to develop IMC from the domain of public relations. Following an introductory section outlining the concept of IMC,
as defined in marketing scholarship, this paper suggests challenges and opportunities for public relations to contribute to
the growing body of IMC research.

∗ Tel.: +1 765 494 3321.

0363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.09.012
508 B.G. Smith / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 507–513

1. IMC a marketing dominant concept

The basis for the limited discussion of IMC in the public relations domain may be that IMC is a marketing concept. The
concept of IMC as we know it today developed in the 1990s when marketing values transitioned from a product focus to
a customer relationship focus (Luck & Moffatt, 2009; Mihart, 2012). Marketers in the 1990s began to focus on maximizing
profit with customers through loyalty programs, leading to investment in direct response marketing mix elements (i.e.
promotion, sales, and direct marketing), culminating in advertising agencies buying public relations agencies to meet the
broad spectrum of client customer needs (Arens, Weigold, & Arens, 2013; Groom, 2011; Schultz & Patti, 2009).
Originally defined as a concept of “marketing communications planning that recognizes the added value in a program that
integrates a variety of strategic disciplines. . .[for] maximum communication impact” (Kerr, Schultz, Patti, & Kim, 2008, p.
515), the terminology suggests the role of the marketer is to “blend the ingredients of the mix into an integrated marketing
programme” (Luck & Moffatt, 2009; p. 312), rendering IMC the integration of marketing mix 4Ps (product, price, place,
and promotion) among the marketing communications, which include advertising, direct marketing, direct selling, and
promotion (Kitchen & De Pelsmacker, 2004).

2. The IMC process

As a process, IMC comprises the integration of marketing content across media channels around stakeholder needs for
measurable results. Through IMC, messages are strategically developed to create “linkages in a receiver’s mind as a result of
messages that connect” (Moriarty, 1996, p. 333). These messages include: (a) planned messages about a product or service,
(b) messages that emanate from the performance of a product or service, and (c) unplanned messages from an audience about
the company, product or service (Duncan & Moriarty, 1997 cited in Arens et al., 2013). The central point of IMC content is
the brand (Kliatchko, 2008), which is considered “integrating factor around which all marketing and communication should
be built” (Luck & Moffatt, 2009, p. 318). As such, IMC literature emphasizes the value of every department “speaking the
brand language” (Kitchen, Spickett-Jones, & Grimes, 2007, p. 154), across a coordinated set of media channels, based on
customer preference for each channel (Kliatchko, 2008), in an effort to expand integrated “into every possible situation
where a receiver might have contact with a message from a company” (Moriarty, 1996, p. 333). In this way, marketers hope
to influence measurable customer decision-making in both high involvement and low involvement purchasing contexts
(Mihart, 2012).

3. The integrated mindset

Up until this point, IMC has been defined as a process. However, integration may be more than a process, but a mindset
or orientation. Schultz (2007) said the primary difference between IMC and other marketing paradigms is the emphasis
on the stakeholder-first outside-in orientation to marketing. IMC is a product of an organization’s culture, as integration
develops through the internal interactions between marketers, public relations practitioners, and other communicators. The
spirit or orientation to collaboration between organizational members drives integration (Smith, 2012b,c), rendering IMC
a “culturally-based and culturally-biased” concept (Schultz & Patti, 2009, p. 82). Christensen, Firat, and Torp (2008) argued
that IMC operates based on flexible organizational boundaries in which members can interact and share experiences in a way
that enables “the spirit of integration to be effectively disseminated” (Christensen et al., 2008). Torp (2009) has characterized
this spirit of integration as internal consistency that permeates every level of the organization. Because integration requires
“harmony between the individual’s, the organization’s and society’s aspirations and interests” (Torp, 2009; p. 200), it is most
appropriately considered a mindset rather than just a process.

4. Public relations concerns: IMC and the “marketing takeover”

Because of marketing themes in the concept and process of IMC, public relations scholar concerns about marketing dom-
ination and hesitation to validate IMC as a paradigm in public relations research may be natural. For example, concerns that
IMC may heighten territorial disputes between marketing and public relations have been well-documented (Hallahan, 2007;
Hutton, 2010). However, the argument that IMC is a marketing takeover of the public relations domain may be unfounded,
particularly because the argument rests on the assumption that marketing can fulfill public relations responsibilities. Public
relations and marketing are both necessary and fundamentally different organizational roles. That one (marketing) may take
over the duties of another (public relations) overlooks the critical differences in purpose and approach to communication of
each. As Grunig and Grunig argued, the difference is in each function’s role in the organizational mission.
Both processes begin with the mission of the organization. The role of public relations is to identify the consequences
of the mission on people outside the decision structure. Marketing. . .selects the segment of the environment that
will make it possible to implement its mission. . .Without public relations, organizations will be diverted form their
missions. Without marketing, they would miss an essential mechanism for implementing their missions. Both functions
are essential to an organization. (cited in Hallahan, 2007, p. 303; italics in original)
 B.G. Smith / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 507–513 509

Marketing scholars similarly recognize a fundamental difference between public relations and marketing. Early on,
Kitchen and Papasolomou (1999) admitted, “non-marketing problems cannot be solved by marketing” (p. 344), signaling the
unique value contribution of the public relations function to the integrated mix and the inability of the marketing approach
to be all-encompassing. Add to this, there is simply no evidence of public relations sublimation to marketing in IMC. Rather,
multiple case studies have shown managerial responsibilities for public relations in IMC because of practitioners’ unique
interpersonal, bidirectional approach to communicating with stakeholders (Smith & Place, 2013).
Another argument against the integration of public relations and marketing may be the nature of messaging: that in an IMC
structure, the difference between public relations and marketing messages may lead to confusion for message receivers.
This concern is also unproven. On the contrary, research has shown that messaging featuring both public relations and
marketing agenda (a.k.a hybrid messaging) reduce tension between stakeholders regarding a message because of the use of
ambiguity, allowing stakeholders to assign multiple meanings to a message (Dickinson-Delaporte, Beverland, & Lindgreen,
2010). Hybrid messaging allows organizations to “balance commitments to product/service performance and wider moral
norms to allow different stakeholders to identify with the firm and its goals” (Dickinson-Delaporte et al., 2010, p. 1857).
Examining the differences in priorities and messaging between public relations and marketing in IMC signals the major
point of difference between the two functions: stakeholder orientation. Though marketers have broadened their targets
beyond consumers to stakeholders—marketers argue a customer may also be a stakeholder and vice versa (Gronstedt,
1996), and they increasingly use activities that resemble public relations (i.e. social marketing and content marketing)—the
marketing orientation to stakeholders continues to be unidirectional and sales-focused. The public relations priority on
bidirectional, non-sales-based messaging with stakeholders is not only unique to public relations, but is a critical need in
IMC research and practice. Early on, Thorson and Moore (1996) suggested that among consumers and non-consumers the
latter was under-recognized in IMC. This lack of attention continues today—marketers continue to prioritize consumers,
customers, and vendors in IMC (Arens et al., 2013; Luck & Moffatt, 2009). As Torp (2009) has argued, the scope of integration
needs to be broadened to include “everyone who is affected by the organization’s activities” (pp. 190–191).
Stakeholders, then, may be the critical contribution for public relations in IMC. Stakeholders legitimize an organization
(Post, Preston, & Sachs, 2002), and stakeholder relations are “one of the most important core competencies of public relations”
(de Bussy, 2010, p. 127). Stakeholders are the basis for “organizational wealth” (Post et al., 2002), and stakeholder wealth-
creating capacity lies in public relations priorities on stakeholder-organization relations and mediation (Grunig, 2006b;
Plowman, 2007). Marketing priorities on sales may not be appropriate for stakeholder relationship-cultivation.

5. The case for public relations’ contributions to IMC

Ironically, by ignoring IMC, we as public relations scholars have left the door open for marketing to dominate the
conversation—up until this point, public relations has been featured as media relations, promotion, and publicity in IMC
research (Kerr et al., 2008; Kitchen, Brignell, Li, & Spickett, 2004; Lawler & Tourelle, 2002; Stammerjohan, Wood, Chang, &
Thorson, 2005). The unique public relations approach to communication management has been overlooked and unrecog-
nized. This relegation of public relations to promotion in IMC research may be corrected with a dedicated emphasis on the
unique strategic contributions of public relations to IMC, which, I argue include (a) organizational advisory, (b) stakeholder
advocacy, and (c) relationship management.

5.1. Public relations as IMC advisor

Organizations rely on public relations as the corporate conscience (Bowen, 2008), and practitioner advisory covers areas
including “ethical and savvy management. . . [and]. . .the need for organizations to be good citizens” (Heath, 2007, p. 42).
Public relations advisory may be categorized into two areas—communication and behavior.
Caywood (2012) argued that public relations offer an organization the greatest communicative strength because of its
“experience and skill in the use of various communications-based strategies and tactics” (Caywood, 2012; p. 6). Practitioners
enable firms to communicate properly among the broad array of stakeholder groups critical for organizational legitimacy.
Heath (2007) argued that public relations helps firms “add value to the ideas in communities where they work” as firms
engage in the marketplace of ideas and fulfill roles as community citizens (p. 42). As public relations advises firms on
messaging as a community citizen, practitioners promote stakeholder interests in messaging, including ways product pro-
paganda may be at odds with stakeholder needs for non-product messages. This role relates directly to the IMC mandate
that communication proceed from stakeholder interests (Schultz, 2005).
Public relations also fulfills advisory needs in IMC to ensure organizational behaviors (i.e. decisions and activities) match
organizational messages in fulfilling stakeholder needs. For IMC to work, planned communication messages (i.e. promotional
messages) must match product and service messages (i.e. product performance), which in turn must be confirmed by
stakeholder endorsement (Duncan & Moriarty, 1997 cited in Arens et al., 2013). Integration fails to work when planned
messages are not confirmed, which may be a result of faulty execution on stakeholder needs or expectations. Communication
and behavior are interconnected—as Grunig and Hung (2002) argued: “what an organization does (more than what it says)
has a strong influence on what people think and say about it and the relationship they have with that organization” (p. 14).
Public relations helps organizations balance stakeholder public needs and serves as a mediator between the two (Grunig,
2006a; Plowman, 2007). As such, public relations plays a critical role in the triangle model of IMC messaging proposed by
510 B.G. Smith / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 507–513

Duncan and Moriarty (1997), advising on the effects and consistency of planned messages, product and service messages,
and unplanned messages (or the stakeholder response).

5.2. Public relations as advocate of integrated stakeholder needs

One of dominant themes in public relations research is practitioner advocacy of stakeholder needs (Vardeman-Winter
& Tindall, 2010), a role that has gone under-recognized in IMC scholarship despite IMC’s stated focus on serving all stake-
holders, not just customers (Duncan, 2002; Schultz, 2005). Stakeholder insight and fulfilling stakeholder needs are critical
for developing high levels of IMC (Caywood, 1997; Duncan & Caywood, 1996). In fact, Duncan and Caywood (1996) argued
early on that the transition from introductory efforts to synchronize the look and feel of messaging to advanced levels of
IMC requires an integration of the gamut of stakeholder needs.
As such, integration depends on public relations’ acumen in identifying the needs of the broad array of a firm’s stake-
holders, including employees, shareholders, government and non-government officials, regulators, news media personnel,
social media content generators, and even customers and retail marketers (Caywood, 2012; pp. 4–5). Public relations roles
in boundary spanning and environmental scanning enable the practitioners to anticipate societal pressures and assess risk,
which Caywood (2012) has argued is critical to integrate and “operate in a complex social setting” (Caywood, 2012; p. 8). In
doing so, practitioners identify the stakeholder needs that are critical for an organization’s operations.

5.3. Public relations as relationship manager in IMC

IMC is a relationship concept. Some argue that IMC proceeded from the relationship marketing paradigm of the 1990s
(Blakeman, 2009). Yet, relationship management remains underdeveloped in IMC research and practice. Kitchen et al. (2007)
pointed toward a need to improve relationship management capacities in integration because few integrated structures
account for the vast network of relationships necessary to make integration work. Schultz (2005) argued for the need to
“focus on identifying the interactions that IMC creates” (p. 7).
Public relations’ contribution, then, may comprise the function’s unique approach to building relationships with the
gamut of stakeholders critical to an organization’s legitimacy. Grunig (2006a) has argued as much:
Public relations scholars can make an important contribution to marketing if we move beyond the messaging, publicity,
and asymmetrical communication common in marketing communication and use our theories to develop symmetrical
principles of cultivating relationships with consumers” (p. 170).
Though both marketing and public relations emphasize trust, commitment, and satisfaction as key components of
the organization-stakeholder relationship (Grunig & Huang, 2000; Morgan & Hunt, 1994), the public relations approach
prioritizes stakeholders (and stakeholder needs) that fall outside of the purview of marketing and expand IMC from a
consumer-focus to a complete stakeholder-focus characteristic of advanced levels of integration (Caywood, 1997, 2012).
To argue that marketing relationships focus solely on the consumer would be shortsighted. Rather, marketing rela-
tionships focus on consumerism. The heart of the marketing relationship is the exchange—the relationship begins with a
customer’s first contact with the product or service offering as the prospect moves up the loyalty ladder from customer
to business partner for improved product and service offerings (Kitchen & De Pelsmacker, 2004). As such, the marketing
exchange relationship is based on the monetary transaction between consumer and company (Zahay, Peltier, Schultz, &
Griffin, 2004), and comprises the groups that make the exchange possible including manufacturers, wholesalers, distribu-
tors, and retailers. The aims of the marketing relationship are to build an active customer base of brand advocates (Keller,
2008) by bringing “customer service and marketing into close alignment” (De Pelsmacker, Geuens, & Van den Bergh, 2001,
p. 340).
Marketing’s focus on consumer loyalty may not fulfill relationship management needs in IMC. Marketing scholars recog-
nize as much. Kerr et al. (2008) discovered through an analysis of university courses that adequate relationship-building is
not taught in IMC programs, and suggested students should seek appropriate relationship management principles in public
relations curriculum. Similarly, Kliatchko (2008) argued that the transaction-based relationship in marketing lacks public
relations’ long-term orientation to relationships. The problem with the marketing approach to relationships in IMC is that it
treats stakeholders as customers. Hutton (2010) reported “strong public resistance” from stakeholders to the idea of being
treated like customers (p. 519). For these reasons, Caywood (2012), Hallahan (2007), and Hutton (2010) all argued that the
public relations managerial role in integration is stakeholder relationships.
The public relations contribution to relationships in IMC centers on the discipline’s concept of exchange and communal
relationships. First, public relations scholars can lead IMC scholarship in the discussion of the exchange concept beyond the
purchase-based transaction (or market-based approach). With the IMC focus squarely on stakeholders (Duncan, 2002), the
central point of interest becomes the exchange of interests between stakeholders and the organization, otherwise known
as stakes (Heath, 1994). Stakes are resources that a party desires and can be either tangible (favors, promotions, etc.) or
intangible (agreement, understanding, etc.) (Heath, 1994, p. 147, 149). In a relationship, stakes are exchanged around the
common point of interest between organization and stakeholder (Smith, 2012a) making the exchange of stakes a public
relations departure from the monetary transaction typical of marketing exchange relationships. Stakes that relate specifically
to public relations include corporate credibility, stakeholder need fulfillment, power, trust, third-party endorsement, and
 B.G. Smith / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 507–513 511

social capital, among others. The nature of stakes as “multifaceted and inherently connected to each other” (Freeman,
Harrison, & Wicks, 2010, p. 27) renders the discussion of competing stakes a relevant one for public relations scholars in
IMC.
The public relations concept of the communal relationship is also critical for IMC. Listed by Hon and Grunig (1999) as one
of the outcomes of a symmetrical relationship, communal relationships are the “extent to which parties in a relationship
benefit from each other due to a shared concern for the other” (Lee & Park, 2013, p. 192). The basis of the communal
relationship is good will and public welfare, separating public relations from the “cost-benefit marketing orientation” of
transaction-based exchange relationships (Hon & Grunig cited in Lee & Park, 2013, p. 192).
Up until this point, relationships based on shared concern have been altogether undiscussed in IMC, and communal
relationships may be an entry point for the conversation of social media-based relationships in IMC, where publics discuss
organizations as human entities and the relationship borders the interpersonal (Smith, 2010). Under the communal relation-
ship, public relations relational strategies including positivity, openness, assurances of legitimacy, networking and shared
tasks (Grunig & Huang, 2000, p. 37) may have particular application in IMC. The mutual concern of a communal relationship
moves the IMC relationship orientation from transaction and exchange to partnership, a concept that calls upon public
relations priorities in symmetrical communication.

6. Solidifying public relations’ future in IMC: where we go from here

Up until this point, we as public relations scholars have left the door open to marketing to define and direct the devel-
opment of IMC, limiting discussion of public relations to promotional roles. In doing so, we have left unfulfilled fruitful
research discussions on stakeholder relationships in an integrated structure. It is time to enter the IMC discussion. We can
best contribute to the development of IMC in the areas of IMC advisory, stakeholder needs, and the unique public rela-
tions approach to relationships (including considerations on exchange and communal relationships). As a part of the public
relations domain, then, research and practical considerations for development of IMC should include the following:

6.1. Revised terminology

Early definitional debates saw two different ways to refer to integration: integrated marketing communication and inte-
grated communication. As research and practice expanded, some references to integration began to drop the “m” in favor of
the term integrated communication to refer to the expanded understanding that integration should comprise all commu-
nication tools (Caywood, 1997; Gronstedt, 1996; Vos & Schoemaker, 2001). Some prematurely proclaimed the concept of
integrated marketing communication was dead (Grunig, Grunig, & Dozier, 2002). However, IMC remains the accepted way to
refer to the concept of integration (Caywood, 2012). The problem with the term IMC is it primarily refers to the integration
of the marketing communication mix, including advertising, direct marketing, personal sales, and promotion (Arens et al.,
2013), rendering public relations a promotional tool, as has been argued. The term ‘integrated communication’ or iComm
has been used sparingly, but appropriately reflects the inclusion of all communication roles in integration efforts.

6.2. Application of IMC to public relations cases

Traditional IMC studies focus on proactive and strategically planned promotional efforts. Few studies have considered
public relations-oriented scenarios. Hendrix (2004) considered an insurance’s integrated response in a disaster area in an
effort to service all stakeholders affected, but little else has been done in areas like issues management, crises, internal rela-
tions, or community relations and corporate social responsibility. Case studies on integrated approaches to these areas would
invigorate IMC research with new topical areas and a representative domain for exploring all communication functions.

6.3. IMC as internal relations

With IMC’s focus on a wide-variety of stakeholders, and public relations’ unique responsibilities vis-à-vis marketing in
internal relations, the opportunity to consider IMC from the inside out may be uniquely a public relations issue. Though
integration may be commonly considered as an external process, it begins internally. One emerging area of consideration
is the notion that pieces of the IMC puzzle, the communication functions, fit together naturally. This concept, which can be
termed “organic integration”, recognizes what Duncan and Caywood (1996) considered as the greatest degree of integration,
and which “emerges from the cooperative efforts of traditionally separate fields” and which is marked by “the elements
working together” as “integration is mastered and accepted” (p. 23, 29). Some research has ventured into this evaluation
of spontaneous, natural, and organic process underlying communication integration (Christensen et al., 2008; Gurau, 2008;
Smith, 2012c), but the topic remains under-developed.

6.4. IMC in public relations education

For too long public relations education has been separate from marketing, to the detriment of both domains. Busi-
ness school marketing graduates emerge with little knowledge of public relations beyond its promotional capacities, and
512 B.G. Smith / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 507–513

mass communication school public relations graduates emerge with an equally misinformed perspective of marketing. IMC
perspectives expressing the opportunity for didactic development of IMC in public relations, particularly around strategic
relationship management, but those perspectives also make it clear that marketing scholars are uninformed on didactic
direction in public relations. IMC is often relegated to light discussion in public relations texts (i.e. Broom, 2009; Smith,
2013), lumped with a generic description of marketing communications and marketing roles, leaving the text devoid of the
full weight of the integrated context in which students may operate and develop a management role following graduation.

6.5. Developing practitioner considerations

Limitations on the IMC concept may also be tied to practitioner-perspectives. In various research studies conducted by
this researcher, the common way practitioners consider IMC when discussing it is “making sure our messages are consistent”.
Prodding these practitioners for further insights reveals that they may primarily consider public relations’ contribution to
IMC as publicity and media relations. In fact, those who express this opinion also tend to report high-levels of IMC at their
organization, when, in fact, research-based models like those of Duncan and Caywood (1996) would assess their IMC efforts
as basic and in need of development. It is possible that IMC research insights may not reach practice, and instruction on public
relations management roles, their application to IMC, and IMC as a behavioral concept may be critical areas for practitioner
instruction.

7. Conclusion

It is time for public relations scholars to enter the IMC debate, and not as opponents to its existence, but as partners in its
development. In detailing the landscape of IMC and public relations, this article has sought to provide context for discussion,
and initiate public relations-based scholarship in the field of IMC.

References

Arens, W. F., Weigold, M. F., & Arens, C. (2013). Contemporary advertising & integrated marketing communications (14th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Blakeman, R. (2009). The barebones introduction to integrated marketing communication. Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield.
Bowen, S. A. (2008). A state of neglect: Public relations as ‘corporate conscience’ or ethics counsel. Journal of Public Relations Research, 20(3), 271–296.
Broom, G. M. (2009). Cutlip & Center’s effective public relations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Caywood, C. (1997). Handbook of strategic public relations & integrated communication. New York: McGraw Hill.
Caywood, C. (2012). The handbook of strategic public relations and integrated marketing communications (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Christensen, L. T., Firat, A. F., & Torp, S. (2008). The organization of integrated communications: Toward flexible integration. European Journal of Marketing,
42, 423–452.
de Bussy, N. M. (2010). Dialogue as a basis for stakeholder engagement: Defining and measuring the core competencies. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), The Sage
handbook of public relations (pp. 127–144). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
De Pelsmacker, P., Geuens, M., & Van den Bergh, J. (2001). Marketing communications. England: Pearson Education.
Dickinson-Delaporte, S., Beverland, M., & Lindgreen, A. (2010). Building corporate reputation with stakeholders: Exploring the role of message ambiguity
for social marketers. European Journal of Marketing, 44(11/12), 1856–1874.
Duncan, T. R. (2002). IMC: Using advertising and promotion to build brands. New York:: McGraw-Hill.
Duncan, T. R., & Caywood, C. (1996). The concept, process, and evolution of integrated marketing communication. In E. Thorson, & J. Moore (Eds.), Integrated
communication: Synergy of persuasive voices (pp. 13–34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Duncan, T. R., & Moriarty, S. E. (1997). Driving brand value: Using integrated marketing to manage stakeholder relationships. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gronstedt, A. (1996). Integrating marketing communication and public relations: A stakeholder relations model. In E. Thorson, & J. Moore (Eds.), Integrated
communication: Synergy of persuasive voices (pp. 287–304). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Groom, S. A. (2011). The next integration: IMC and the field of communication. Review of Communication, 11(2), 145–160.
Grunig, J. E. (2006a). Furnishing the edifice: Ongoing research on public relations as a strategic management function. Journal of Public Relations Research,
18, 151–176.
Grunig, J. E. (2006b). After 50 years: The value and values of public relations. In Paper presented at the 45th Annual Distinguished Lecture The Institute for
Public Relations, New York.
Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relations and effective organizations: A study of communication management in three countries.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Grunig, J. E., & Huang, Y.-H. (2000). From organizational effectiveness to relationship indicators: Antecedents of relationships, public relations strategies,
and relationship outcomes. In J. A. Ledingham, & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and
practice of public relations (pp. 23–53). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Grunig, J. E., & Hung, C-J. F. (2002). The effect of relationships on reputation and reputation on relationships: A cognitive, behavioral study. In Paper presented
at the PRSA Educator’s Academy 5th Annual International, Interdisciplinary Public Relations Research Conference Miami, Florida.
Gurau, C. (2008). Integrated online marketing communication: Implementation and management. Journal of Communication Management, 12(2), 169–184.
Hallahan, K. (2007). Integrated communication: Implications for public relations beyond excellence. In E. L. Toth (Ed.), The future of excellence in public
relations and communication management (pp. 299–336). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Heath, R. L. (1994). Management of corporate communication: From interpersonal contacts to external affairs. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Heath, R. L. (2007). Management through advocacy: Reflection rather than domination. In E. L. Toth (Ed.), The future of excellence in public relations and
communication management (pp. 41–65). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hendrix, J. A. (2004). Public relations cases. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Measuring relationships in public relations. Gainesville, FL: Institute for Public Relations.
Hutton, J. G. (2010). Defining the relationship between public relations and marketing: Public relations’ most important challenge. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), The
Sage Handbook of Public Relations (pp. 509–522). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Keller, K. L. (2008). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing brand equity (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Kerr, G., Schultz, D., Patti, C., & Kim, I. (2008). An inside-out approach to integrated marketing communication: An international analysis. International
Journal of Advertising, 27(4), 511–548.
 B.G. Smith / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 507–513 513

Kitchen, P. J., Brignell, J., Li, T., & Spickett, G. (2004). The emergence of IMC: A theoretical perspective. Journal of Advertising Research, 44(3), 19–30.
Kitchen, P. J., & De Pelsmacker, P. (2004). Integrated marketing communications: A primer. New York: Routledge.
Kitchen, P. J., & Papasolomou, I. (1999). Marketing public relations. In P. J. Kitchen (Ed.), Marketing communications: Principles and practice (pp. 340–360).
London: Thomson.
Kitchen, P. J., Spickett-Jones, J. G., & Grimes, T. (2007). Inhibition of brand integration amid changing agency structures. Journal of Marketing Communications,
13, 149–168.
Kliatchko, J. (2008). Revisiting the IMC construct: A revised definition and four pillars. International Journal of Advertising, 27(1), 133–160.
Lawler, A., & Tourelle, G. (2002). Public relations: The integrated communication tool in the launch of a new software operating system—A case study.
Journal of Communication Management, 7(2), 156–159.
Lee, H., & Park, H. (2013). Testing the impact of message interactivity on relationship management and organizational reputation. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 25, 188–206.
Luck, E., & Moffatt, J. (2009). IMC: Has anything really changed? A new perspective on an old definition. Journal of Marketing Communications, 15(5),
311–3215.
Mihart, C. (2012). Impact of integrated marketing communication on consumer behavior: Effects on consumer decision-making process. International
Journal of Marketing Studies, 4(2), 121–129.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38.
Moriarty, S. E. (1996). The circle of synergy: Theoretical perspectives and an evolving IMC research agenda. In E. Thorson, & J. Moore (Eds.), Integrated
communication: Synergy of persuasive voices (pp. 333–353). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Plowman, K. D. (2007). Public relations, conflict resolution, and mediation. In E. L. Toth (Ed.), The future of excellence in public relations and communication
management: Challenges for the next generation (pp. 85–102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Post, J. E., Preston, L. E., & Sachs, S. (2002). Redefining the corporation: Stakeholder management and organizational wealth. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Schultz, D. E. (2005). IMC research must focus more on outcomes. Journal of Advertising, 34(4), 6–7.
Schultz, D. E. (2007). Northwestern University’s Don Schultz, the “father of integrated marketing communications. Retrieved from
http://www.medill-imc.podomatic.com
Schultz, D. E., & Patti, C. H. (2009). The evolution of IMC: IMC in a customer-driven marketplace. Journal of Marketing Communications, 15(2/3), 75–84.
Smith, B. G. (2010). Socially distributing public relations: Twitter, Haiti, and interactivity in social media. Public Relations Review, 36, 329–335.
Smith, B. G. (2012a). Public relations identity and the stakeholder relationship: A revised theoretical position for public relations scholarship. Public Relations
Review, 38, 838–845.
Smith, B. G. (2012b). Communication integration: An analysis of context and conditions. Public Relations Review, 38, 600–608.
Smith, B. G. (2012c). Organic integration: The natural process underlying integrated communication. Journal of Communication Management, 16(1), 4–19.
Smith, R. D. (2013). Strategic planning for public relations (4th ed.). New York: Routledge.
Smith, B. G., & Place, K. R. (2013). Integrating power? Evaluating public relations influence in an integrated communication structure. Journal of Public
Relations Research, 25, 168–187.
Stammerjohan, C., Wood, C. W., Chang, Y., & Thorson, E. (2005). An empirical investigation of the interaction between publicity and advertising, and previous
brand attitudes and knowledge. Journal of Advertising, 34(4), 55–67.
Thorson, E., & Moore, J. (1996). Introduction. In E. Thorson, & J. Moore (Eds.), Integrated communication: Synergy of persuasive voices (pp. 1–10). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Torp, S. (2009). Integrated communications: From one look to normative consistency. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 14(2), 190–206.
Vardeman-Winter, J., & Tindall, N. T. J. (2010). Toward an intersectionality theory of public relations. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), The sage handbook of public relations
(pp. 223–235). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Vos, M., & Schoemaker, H. (2001). Integrated communication: Concern, internal and marketing communication (2nd ed.). Netherlands: LEMMA.
Zahay, D., Peltier, J., Schultz, D. E., & Griffin, A. (2004). The role of transactional versus relational data in IMC programs: Bringing customer data together.
Journal of Advertising Research, 44(1), 3–18.