A web designer, an advertising sales manager, a social media expert, a grants writer, a journalist and a media relations specialist all sit at a table. This sounds like the beginning of a joke. In fact, for many in the communication profession, the concept of integrating all of these facets into a cohesive whole is a joke. But who’s laughing? As a member of the previously mentioned meeting, I can speak to the fact that this was no laughing matter. The purpose of the meeting was to “coordinate efforts so the organization could speak with one voice.” This type of meeting is commonplace in small NPOs and companies, and is met with a moderate amount of success. However, larger institutions confront more opposition to IMC. Why? Is the concept of IMC too much of a joke for larger corporations, or is the table just not big enough?
In the Smith article, Representing PR in the Marketing Mix: A Study on Public Relations Variables in Marketing Mix Modeling, we read, “A recent report from the Council of Public Relations Firms revealed that the disciplines of corporate communications are converging (Rand & Rodriguez, 2007). Past norms rendering public relations departments separate from marketing departments are no longer appropriate in this age of consumerism in which consumers aggregate all messages from a company in making a decision to interact with the company.” (Schultz, 1996). In fact, in previous course blogs, I have addressed the rise of social media and Web 2.0 programs and how marketing and PR are finding common ground in ways never before seen in the communication field. David Meerman Scott also addresses these issues in his book, The New Rules of Marketing and PR. So why is there such a perceived struggle with the concept of IMC?
While I believe that corporations and larger institutions carry some of the burden of this problem, I place a great deal of the responsibility of the members of the communication profession. If we can’t speak with “one voice” concerning our profession, how can we offer an integrated voice to our organizations and publics? As an example, I recently attended the BEA/NAB conference and, this November, I will be attending the NCA conference. My fields of knowledge include Marketing, PR, Public Speaking, and Theatre. As a marketing professional, I am welcomed with a metaphorical place at the table. As a PR professional, I am asked to sit with the marketing professional. As a public speaker, I am told my skills were once useful, but no longer a prominent discipline in the field of communication. And, as a theatre professional, I am made to feel that I have walked into the wrong conference. Is this a joke? If we are going to practice IMC in the professional world, perhaps the lesson begins at home. A greater sense of integration with our colleagues is the first step.
IMC does work. I have experienced it with small organizations. It is also the future of our field. According to Smith, ‘Integrated marketing communication (IMC) is a strategic approach to corporate communication that entails the coordination of all company communications to present a harmonious and consistent message to consumers and publics.” This is no laughing matter. The quicker that we can embrace the power of IMC and respect the value of all communication fields, the more equipped we will be at serving our organizations and publics.
Ignore the inevitable, and the joke will be on us.
