DISCUSSIONContribution and Implicat

DISCUSSION

Contribution and Implications
To contribute to the discussion on IMC and its value to firms we have drawn on the RBV of the firm and have posi- tioned IMC as a firm capability. The RBV (Barney 1991; Grant 1991; Orr, Bush, and Vorhies 2011) provides an appro- priate framework to examine the scope of IMC’s impact on brand performance. Further, the study confirms its influence on both brand communication campaign effectiveness and a brand’s market-based performance. The study also provides evidence that the impact of IMC capability on a brand’s finan- cial performance is mediated by campaign and brand market performance. The findings contribute to the theory and prac- tice in several major ways.
First, the research represents one of the few endeavors to frame and empirically assess IMC as a process capability. While IMC and other brand-building activities may be impor- tant contributors to long-term financial success, providing tan- gible evidence of their impact (and marketing metrics more generally) has been difficult (Madhavaram, Badrinarayanan, and McDonald 2005; Stewart 2009). Our findings show that a firm’s IMC capability contributes to brand performance by facilitating the development and implementation of more effective IMC campaigns resulting in positive brand-related market performance outcomes. For managers, the implication is that resources need to be directed toward building an IMC capability, ensuring that sufficient financial and human invest- ment underpin the firm’s ability to design and execute cam- paigns over time.
The second implication is that a chain of IMC-related per-
formances occurs and that both IMC activities and subsequent campaign outcomes indirectly rather than directly relate to a brand’s financial performance. This chain of IMC performance links firm processes and activities in marketing

communication management and campaigns with customer and brand equity outcomes and financial outcomes; similar to the brand value chain concept (Ambler et al. 2002; Keller and Lehmann 2003, 2006). Consequently, firms should ensure that their approach to building an IMC capability is strategic and ongoing and involves the whole firm and its communication stakeholders (Stewart 1996). Furthermore, the way in which returns to communication investments are analyzed, particu- larly for brand franchise-building communications, must be appropriate. Managers need to account for the indirect influen- ces on financial performance and ensure metrics used account for the chain of effects and not only for direct financial returns.
One of the concerns that has limited empirical investiga- tion of IMC and its link to outcomes has been the absence of a more succinct and tested measurement instrument (Duncan and Mulhern 2004; Ewing, De Bussy, and Caruana
2000). A criticism of earlier studies claimed the instruments had been operationalized via a relatively narrow definition (Phelps and Johnson 1996) and had captured only the more tactical aspects in terms of whether advertising, public rela- tions (PR), and sales promotion executions are designed to influence simultaneously both purchases and perceptions (Beard 1996). Many IMC studies are still asking managers whether IMC is practiced or what they understand by IMC. It is time for researchers to move beyond this and start to focus more fully on the outcomes of a firm’s IMC capabil- ity, and this study provides a mechanism to do that. The IMC capability measure we use is grounded in the work of Duncan and Moriarty (1997) and Reid (2005) but highlights an approach that shows sound measurement properties and is easily incorporated in other studies. The approach we have taken addresses the call for “outside-in” thinking (Schultz 1998) and for marketers to view IMC as a set of organizational processes and behaviors (a capability) strate- gically guided by a brand management philosophy.
Finally, there are implications for managers, especially in light of the changes and dynamics of the brand-marketing landscape. An increased level of brand competition from both domestic and international competitors (Prahalad and Ram- aswamy 2012) means that brand marketers and their agencies must be able to develop impactful brand campaigns. The ongo- ing effects of the global economic crisis means that brand communication budgets are increasingly subject to scrutiny and managers are under pressure to prove the impact of expen- diture on the brand’s market and financial performance (Heerde et al. 2013). Moreover, the changing role of consum- ers from mostly passive receivers of brand communications to cocreators of value (Christodoulides, Jevons, and Bonhomme
2012) means that brand marketers need to have the ability to assess their IMC capability and understand how to leverage the consumer’s voice through new and emerging social media channels. Overall, it is critical that managers recognize the need to ensure their IMC capability is dynamic and not static so that its value continues in the face of increased competition.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research
There are limitations to our research and these offer scope for future research. Many intervening operational activities and environmental influences exist between the building of an IMC capability, the implementation of marketing campaigns, and the achievement of a brand’s financial performance out- comes. These include internal factors (e.g., pricing of products and cost of production) and external factors associated with responding to the market (e.g., fluctuations in competition and demand). Because these other factors were not in the measure- ment model, the variance explained for performance, although significant, may be improved with the inclusion of such mod- erators or antecedents. Furthermore, many aspects of market- ing communication involve a long-term commitment. The IMC capability impact may therefore not be immediately evi- dent, particularly in terms of the building of brand equity.
Future studies should adopt a specific lens, such as an examination of different organization sizes. Although we found no significant influence of size on performance, this result needs to be deconstructed through larger studies or tested in specific industry categories. For example, brands fighting in a supermarket environment might benefit from a larger budget as compared to smaller fashion brands that may benefit from social media. Given that the current study involves a diverse range of industry types, narrowing the focus to a single industry may also be beneficial in understanding the influence of IMC capability on brand performance and would enable researchers to better define and account for other marketplace and firm-level factors that influence performance. Moreover, our data are cross-sectional and do not track a brand over time relative to its IMC capability and campaign efforts. A longitudinal case analysis would be worthwhile to consider, as many aspects of marketing communication involve a long- term commitment, and the impact of an IMC capability may be more evident over time. While single informant studies are a commonly used and accepted marketing research technique, future studies would benefit by the inclusion of multiple informants from a single organization. Finally, IMC research- ers need to examine the challenges of building brands in emerging markets and how an IMC capability needs to be built for these environments. For example, emerging markets in China and India pose a challenge for marketers in terms of consumer access to and use of different media, access to agen- cies with the skills and capabilities to develop great creative strategy, and the ability to distribute and sell product which impacts on performance of campaigns in terms of sales volume and timing

Kết quả (Việt) 1:

THẢO LUẬNĐóng góp và ý nghĩaĐể đóng góp vào các cuộc thảo luận trên IMC và giá trị của nó đến công ty chúng tôi đã rút ra trên RBV của công ty và có posi-tioned IMC là một khả năng công ty. RBV (Barney năm 1991; Grant 1991; Orr, tổng thống Bush, và Vorhies 2011) cung cấp một khuôn khổ appro-priate để kiểm tra phạm vi của IMC tác động đến hiệu suất của thương hiệu. Hơn nữa, nghiên cứu xác nhận của nó ảnh hưởng đến hiệu quả chiến dịch truyền thông thương hiệu và thương hiệu của một thị trường dựa trên hiệu suất. Nghiên cứu cũng cung cấp bằng chứng rằng tác động của IMC khả năng về một thương hiệu finan - cial hiệu suất là trung gian của chiến dịch và thương hiệu suất thị trường. Những phát hiện đóng góp cho lý thuyết và prac-tice trong một số cách lớn.Trước tiên, các nghiên cứu đại diện cho một trong các nỗ lực vài khung và empirically đánh giá IMC là một khả năng quá trình. Trong khi IMC và các hoạt động xây dựng thương hiệu khác có thể là impor-ý đóng góp cho thành công tài chính lâu dài, cung cấp tan-gible bằng chứng về tác động của họ (và tiếp thị số liệu nói chung) đã là khó khăn (Madhavaram, Badrinarayanan, và McDonald 2005; Stewart năm 2009). Những phát hiện của chúng tôi cho thấy rằng một công ty IMC khả năng đóng góp để thương hiệu suất bằng cách tạo điều kiện cho việc phát triển và thực hiện có hiệu quả hơn các chiến dịch IMC dẫn đến thị trường liên quan đến thương hiệu tích cực hiệu suất kết quả. Đối với quản lý, ngụ ý là nguồn lực cần phải được đạo diễn hướng tới xây dựng một IMC khả năng, đảm bảo có đủ tài chính và nhân đầu tư-ment làm nền tảng cho khả năng của công ty thiết kế và thực hiện cam-paigns theo thời gian.The second implication is that a chain of IMC-related per-formances occurs and that both IMC activities and subsequent campaign outcomes indirectly rather than directly relate to a brand’s financial performance. This chain of IMC performance links firm processes and activities in marketing communication management and campaigns with customer and brand equity outcomes and financial outcomes; similar to the brand value chain concept (Ambler et al. 2002; Keller and Lehmann 2003, 2006). Consequently, firms should ensure that their approach to building an IMC capability is strategic and ongoing and involves the whole firm and its communication stakeholders (Stewart 1996). Furthermore, the way in which returns to communication investments are analyzed, particu- larly for brand franchise-building communications, must be appropriate. Managers need to account for the indirect influen- ces on financial performance and ensure metrics used account for the chain of effects and not only for direct financial returns.One of the concerns that has limited empirical investiga- tion of IMC and its link to outcomes has been the absence of a more succinct and tested measurement instrument (Duncan and Mulhern 2004; Ewing, De Bussy, and Caruana2000). A criticism of earlier studies claimed the instruments had been operationalized via a relatively narrow definition (Phelps and Johnson 1996) and had captured only the more tactical aspects in terms of whether advertising, public rela- tions (PR), and sales promotion executions are designed to influence simultaneously both purchases and perceptions (Beard 1996). Many IMC studies are still asking managers whether IMC is practiced or what they understand by IMC. It is time for researchers to move beyond this and start to focus more fully on the outcomes of a firm’s IMC capabil- ity, and this study provides a mechanism to do that. The IMC capability measure we use is grounded in the work of Duncan and Moriarty (1997) and Reid (2005) but highlights an approach that shows sound measurement properties and is easily incorporated in other studies. The approach we have taken addresses the call for “outside-in” thinking (Schultz 1998) and for marketers to view IMC as a set of organizational processes and behaviors (a capability) strate- gically guided by a brand management philosophy.Finally, there are implications for managers, especially in light of the changes and dynamics of the brand-marketing landscape. An increased level of brand competition from both domestic and international competitors (Prahalad and Ram- aswamy 2012) means that brand marketers and their agencies must be able to develop impactful brand campaigns. The ongo- ing effects of the global economic crisis means that brand communication budgets are increasingly subject to scrutiny and managers are under pressure to prove the impact of expen- diture on the brand’s market and financial performance (Heerde et al. 2013). Moreover, the changing role of consum- ers from mostly passive receivers of brand communications to cocreators of value (Christodoulides, Jevons, and Bonhomme
2012) means that brand marketers need to have the ability to assess their IMC capability and understand how to leverage the consumer’s voice through new and emerging social media channels. Overall, it is critical that managers recognize the need to ensure their IMC capability is dynamic and not static so that its value continues in the face of increased competition.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research
There are limitations to our research and these offer scope for future research. Many intervening operational activities and environmental influences exist between the building of an IMC capability, the implementation of marketing campaigns, and the achievement of a brand’s financial performance out- comes. These include internal factors (e.g., pricing of products and cost of production) and external factors associated with responding to the market (e.g., fluctuations in competition and demand). Because these other factors were not in the measure- ment model, the variance explained for performance, although significant, may be improved with the inclusion of such mod- erators or antecedents. Furthermore, many aspects of market- ing communication involve a long-term commitment. The IMC capability impact may therefore not be immediately evi- dent, particularly in terms of the building of brand equity.
Future studies should adopt a specific lens, such as an examination of different organization sizes. Although we found no significant influence of size on performance, this result needs to be deconstructed through larger studies or tested in specific industry categories. For example, brands fighting in a supermarket environment might benefit from a larger budget as compared to smaller fashion brands that may benefit from social media. Given that the current study involves a diverse range of industry types, narrowing the focus to a single industry may also be beneficial in understanding the influence of IMC capability on brand performance and would enable researchers to better define and account for other marketplace and firm-level factors that influence performance. Moreover, our data are cross-sectional and do not track a brand over time relative to its IMC capability and campaign efforts. A longitudinal case analysis would be worthwhile to consider, as many aspects of marketing communication involve a long- term commitment, and the impact of an IMC capability may be more evident over time. While single informant studies are a commonly used and accepted marketing research technique, future studies would benefit by the inclusion of multiple informants from a single organization. Finally, IMC research- ers need to examine the challenges of building brands in emerging markets and how an IMC capability needs to be built for these environments. For example, emerging markets in China and India pose a challenge for marketers in terms of consumer access to and use of different media, access to agen- cies with the skills and capabilities to develop great creative strategy, and the ability to distribute and sell product which impacts on performance of campaigns in terms of sales volume and timing