2003). We expect that greater campa

2003). We expect that greater campaign effectiveness will lead to, among other things, improved market-based performance, including improved brand awareness, brand recognition, mar- ket share, and financial returns:

H2: Campaign effectiveness has a direct positive effect on a brand’s market performance.

H3: Campaign effectiveness has a positive effect on a brand’s financial performance.

In measuring marketing productivity, Rust and colleagues (2004) link marketing strategy and tactics to customer, market- place, and financial benefits for the organization. Following the aggregation of these intermediate measures of performance to the level of marketing assets, the appropriate measures are brand equity and customer equity metrics. Marketing perfor- mance is also likely to have flow-on effects to financial impact such as ROI and economic value added (EVA) (Ambler
2003), as measured by financial position (including profits and cash flow). Thus:

H4: A brand’s market performance has a direct positive effect on its financial performance.

The effectiveness of brand communication campaigns at achieving objectives is also likely to mediate the impact of a firm’s IMC capability on brand performance (Ratnatunga and Ewing 2005). This is consistent with the arguments about tech- nical efficiency (Helfat et al. 2007) in that the impact of IMC on campaign effectiveness is a measure of technical efficiency of the capability. Technical efficiency should support evolu- tionary efficiency (long-term performance) or survival—in this case, market performance and financial performance. However, achieving technical efficiency does not lead to evo- lutionary efficiency automatically, as this depends on market demand, degree of competition, ability to offer lower cost or higher quality. Technical efficiency is an economic term that implies ability to achieve stated objectives. In this case this is a measure of IMC capability to achieve set intermediate objec- tives such as campaign goals and marketing objectives. The ability to achieve evolutionary fitness (or long-term perfor- mance) is a separate issue, as noted. Thus, campaign effective- ness may act as one of the principal mechanisms linking IMC to market and financial performance. Similarly, the market- based performances of the brand will partially mediate the impact of the firm’s IMC capability on the overall financial performance of the brand. In effect a chain of impacts in Fig- ure 1 reflects the partially mediated relationship between the IMC capability and financial performance. We hypothesized that the relationship between IMC capability and financial per- formance would be totally mediated by brand market perfor- mance and communication campaign effectiveness, hence the lack of a direct relationship between IMC capability and finan- cial performance.

Kết quả (Việt) 1:

Năm 2003). chúng tôi mong đợi rằng hiệu quả chiến dịch lớn hơn sẽ dẫn đến, trong số những thứ khác, cải thiện hiệu suất dựa trên thị trường, bao gồm cả nhận thức về thương hiệu được cải thiện, sự công nhận thương hiệu, Tháng ba-ket chia sẻ, và trở về tài chính:H2: Các hiệu quả chiến dịch có hiệu ứng tích cực trực tiếp trên hiệu suất thị trường một thương hiệu.H3: Các hiệu quả chiến dịch có hiệu ứng tích cực hoạt động tài chính của một thương hiệu.Trong đo năng suất tiếp thị, chất tẩy rửa và các đồng nghiệp (2004) liên kết tiếp thị chiến lược và chiến thuật với khách hàng, thị trường-nơi, và các lợi ích tài chính cho tổ chức. Sau tập hợp những biện pháp trung gian của hiệu suất để cấp độ tiếp thị tài sản, các biện pháp thích hợp là thương hiệu công bằng và khách hàng số liệu vốn chủ sở hữu. Tiếp thị perfor-mance cũng có thể có tác dụng dòng chảy vào các tác động tài chính như tỷ lệ hoàn vốn và thêm giá trị kinh tế (EVA) (Amblernăm 2003), được đo bằng vị trí tài chính (bao gồm cả lợi nhuận và tiền mặt). Vì vậy:H4: Các hiệu suất thị trường một thương hiệu có hiệu ứng tích cực trực tiếp vào hiệu quả tài chính của nó.The effectiveness of brand communication campaigns at achieving objectives is also likely to mediate the impact of a firm’s IMC capability on brand performance (Ratnatunga and Ewing 2005). This is consistent with the arguments about tech- nical efficiency (Helfat et al. 2007) in that the impact of IMC on campaign effectiveness is a measure of technical efficiency of the capability. Technical efficiency should support evolu- tionary efficiency (long-term performance) or survival—in this case, market performance and financial performance. However, achieving technical efficiency does not lead to evo- lutionary efficiency automatically, as this depends on market demand, degree of competition, ability to offer lower cost or higher quality. Technical efficiency is an economic term that implies ability to achieve stated objectives. In this case this is a measure of IMC capability to achieve set intermediate objec- tives such as campaign goals and marketing objectives. The ability to achieve evolutionary fitness (or long-term perfor- mance) is a separate issue, as noted. Thus, campaign effective- ness may act as one of the principal mechanisms linking IMC to market and financial performance. Similarly, the market- based performances of the brand will partially mediate the impact of the firm’s IMC capability on the overall financial performance of the brand. In effect a chain of impacts in Fig- ure 1 reflects the partially mediated relationship between the IMC capability and financial performance. We hypothesized that the relationship between IMC capability and financial per- formance would be totally mediated by brand market perfor- mance and communication campaign effectiveness, hence the lack of a direct relationship between IMC capability and finan- cial performance.