整合营销传播、市场定位与品牌定位的关系外文翻译.doc

1、 整合营销传播、市场定位与品牌定位的关系 市场关系在建立和维护股东关系上起着至观重要的作用，并且在品牌和渠道公平性上也起着维护这些关系的杠杆作用(Dawar 2004；DuncanMoriarty 1998； Lannon Cooper 1983；Srivastava FaheyShervani 2000；White 1999)。正如Dawar指出的：“品牌的广告和推动促使了交易和销售的数量；营销的努力和成果取决于品牌的水平；而品牌对于公司对短期竞争变化的回应是很关键的。很显然，品牌已经成为许多大公司市场努力的焦点，并且被视为一支市场支配力的独有资源，有竞争力的杠杆和更高的回报。为了响应建立在

2、品牌公正性上敌对市场环境的影响，以及与市场行为和责任相联系的日益增长的管理期望值，许多机构正在考虑如何改善管理方式及他们的市场关系项目的整合，从而运用了IMC-整合营销传播。然而，不少人围绕着IMC的定义引起了争论，在它的意思上缺乏相互的共识，包括许多需要澄清的领域(Baker Mitchell ，2000；Beard 1996；Cornelissen 2001； Duncan Mulhern 2004；Kitchen Schultz 1999； Low 2000；Phelps 1996)。这种概念的模糊很可能对操作标准的发展和机构里对IMC的评估产生很大的影响。的确，Pickton 和Har

3、tley (1998, p. 450)逐渐意识到来自于客户编审组的回馈是具有积极性和建设性的。这个编审组由Tom Duncan, Don E. Schultz和Charles Patti组成，还有两个匿名的评论家。其声明道：“朝着一个大方向去定义，集合所有机构所需的影响去获得概念的总体整合是非常困难的。但因为存在不同层次和方面的整合，造成了个人和集体的困难。 为了实现这一点，IMC需要整个组织和首席执行下代理们的参与。它需要从最高的公司战略水平和每天个人战略活动实施的全盘考虑。 认识到这个复杂性，这篇论文尝试着去解释IMC在机构中的角色。这篇论文也试着去描述或建立IMC、市场导向和一个浮现出的

4、品牌方向的概念之间的关系，通过建议市场导向和品牌方向是成功的IMC所必备的条件。我们所能接受的是把IMC构思成两个不同的层次，即战略上或战术上的；尽管如此，我们将重点强调IMC的战略组成部分，因为随着时间的流逝它比较重视设计品牌时文化和知识性的需求。这篇论文认识到了从IMC到市场定位和品牌定位之间的补充，以及通过建立品牌资产，如何处理每一个关键方面取得竞争优势。 简略说来，市场导向代表了机构的文化通过市场概念的获取以及潜在市场导向的营销观念与制度和程序(Harris，1998)。品牌导向代表了功能化或者聚焦在品牌上的业务单位以及品牌策略，如支持强大客户群体和股东的关系不管其是否在公司或者产品水

5、准，或者成为一项服务或者是一件人造的商品(Bridson Evans ，2004)。IMC在第十二期的广告周刊上的模型代表了整合市场营销信息传达的发展，目的是为了获取一定的品牌和信息传达的目标，以及提供了品牌策略和行动的桥梁，采取这样的行动是为了建立所需的顾客和股东之间的关系。为了达到这个目的，IMC利用文化倾向使大家共同合作，为了设计信息和媒体策略，支撑起机构的市场和顾客感知机制。而且，为了传达任务的实现，它采用了一种广泛的零基点渠道去选择合适的工具。同时，通过学习以市场和品牌导向机构的机制，发现其亦与品牌及目标市场的历史相关(Stewart ，1996)。整合营销传播的概念和尺度 在整合营

6、销传播的最新的领域(Duncan Mulhern ，2004)认为领域的范围是逐步扩大的，并且本身的概念和进程也在不断进化。同时，在领域内也存在这争论：整合营销传播究竟通常被认为是一种哲学理论还是一种对建立知名品牌有所帮助的一种与管理策略相关的过程。在努力得出结论并有所成就的尝试中，整合营销传播过程的管理者很有可能在协同工作方面借鉴文化的诱因，从而在组织的市场、顾客之间建立杠杆，进一步区分信息和媒体战略，并且运用正式的途径来选择编导沟通工作所需的适当的工具。伴随着进一步讨论和发展的整合营销的概念，（Kitchen JoanneTao ，2004)认为整合营销是近十年内最重要的沟通领域的发展，这

7、是一个潜在的竞争优势。据说，整合营销传播的力量在对其他公司的吸引力上能够产生影响的市场沟通环境、顾客之间的杠杆方面已经遭遇了一些变化。（Kitchen JoanneTao ，2004)也认为整合营销传播似乎正在经历或者已经经历了关于其意义所在和目的的有一定价值的争论，并且这在努力使自身与其他的营销方面的概念相区别，诸如整合营销、CRM（客户关系管理）、市场细分之类。从（Kitchen Joanne Tao ，2004)的观点来看，整合营销传播应当被看作是能够促进管理沟通的新的管理模式。整合营销沟通的中心是建立顾客和顾客兴趣并架起两者之间的关系。这种关系定位在联系整合营销和一对一市场与客户关系管

8、理，促使管理者们向即传统又崭新的市场营销方法的整合、测评、责任发起挑战。(Baker Mitchell ，2000)。在对顾客导向沟通概念进一步延伸的过程中，管理者们必须意识到一旦整合营销传播向组织提供更有优势的市场优点 ，这一定是市场驱动的，但如果不是这种情况，也不排除市场驱动的可能。(Carrillat JaramilloLocander，2004；Duncan Mulhern 2004； Jaworski, KohliSahay ，2000)。整合营销传播的定义与哲学理论 自从九十年代第一次对整合营销传播作出了下定义的尝试之后，整合营销传播的概念大量涌现，并在相关文献中较为详细地有所体现

9、(Duncan ，2002；Gould，2004;；Kitchen Joanne Tao，2004;；Kliatchko ，2005）。以Duncan为代表的观点认为：整合营销传播应被看作是能够推动品牌价值的客户关系管理过程。更详细地说，这是一个建立和滋补顾客和其他股份持有者利益关系的跨职能过程，主要的方法是通过策略性地控制或影响所有讯息资料,并鼓励带动这些集团。为表示概念和理论不断发展，一项有关整合营销传播的最新研究认为整合营销传播应作到以下两点：更具有战略性：不仅仅只是关于广告和销售促进的信息。结论 通过讨论，我们尝试着补充在IMC，市场定位和品牌定位向之间的关系。值得一提的是，对于每一个

10、概念，它们都有自己特殊的反映，但同时，它们又共同的为它们之间的关系提供了详细的描述和深刻的理解。对于许多的组织机构关键的问题在于：人们还没有严肃认真的对待它们的增长，因为，对于补充的宣传也是非常的重要的。对于定位在低消费的市场的机构，由于它们所关注的是消费者本身和同等功能的文化传承，在这种情况下，要试图发展IMC是不太可能成功的。这是因为通过功能，部门，SBUs（交易策略单位），或者是供应商和其它管理部门之间合作的文化基础并不存在。沿着同一条讨论的主线，我们深信，只要品牌定位一低，就意味着合作分享和品牌定义以及视角也随之降低，在试图介绍IMC的时候，也不会有当MO和BO同时存在时那样的成功。

11、管理人员了解并也接受这样一个道理，那就是对于综合的形成是相当困难的，因为要将从安逸的地方迁移过来的人们团结起来并且形成一定的地位是相当困难的，同时人们也知道，在大多数的单位实行的奖励制度并不是奖励那些合作的人的（而实际上往往是奖励那些具有竞争和小范围利益的团体）。有一些克服这种不良取向，并建立强代的市场定位和品牌定位的方法。这需要建立良好的文化氛围，同时鼓励那些进行合作的单位，这对于IMC的补充是相当有意义的帮助。从这篇论文中得到的模型知道，IMC能够使一些团体积极地合作。同时也知道，IMC也许是市场取向和品牌取向之间的中间体，或者IMC是品牌取向和表现形式的中间体，更或者是上述两种的综合体。

12、这个概念为我们对IMC在不同表现形式提供了深刻的理解。 最后，在这篇文章里面我们形成了概念化的理论模型。市场取向的标准已经行成了有十年了，也渐渐的被人们所接受，但品牌取向的标准也缓慢的被人们所接受，但还仍处于发展的早期阶段。文章中所提到的标准已经被一些研究人员用于实践考察，在可行性上认为是没有什么特殊问题的。这个模型的最大困难是充分掌握IMC发展的标准尺度和如何将它于合适的外部表现标准联系起来。Duncan 和 Moriarty(1997)DE 迷你型IMC存在工具证明了它对于测试它们的关系和它的出发点是一样的。模型（结构平衡模型）也全面的证实了数据的分析通过IMC 很好的将市场定位和品牌定位

13、和IMC 外部的表现形式之间直接的见解的关系全面的建立了起来。而IMC的使用价值也将会在越来越清晰的IMC和其它市场概念和消费者，品牌平很和市场表现的关系中体现出来。THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTEGRATED MARKETING COMMUNICATION , MARKET ORIENTATION AND BRAND ORIENTATION.Mike Reid, Sandra Luxton, and Felix Mavondo. Marketing communication plays an important role in building and maint

14、aining stakeholder relationships, and in leveraging these relationships in terms of brand and channel equity (Dawar 2004; Duncan and Moriarty 1998; Lannon and Cooper 1983; Srivastava, Fahey, and Shervani 2000;White 1999). As Dawar states: “Advertising and promotions of brands drive traffic and sales

15、 volume; marketing efforts and outcomes are measured and managed at the brand level; and brands are central to a firms responses to shortterm competitive moves. In effect, brands have become the focal point of many a companys marketing efforts and are seen as a source of market power, competitive le

16、verage and higher returns” (2004, p. 31).In response to concerns about the impact of hostile marketing environments on brand equity and increased management expectations related to marketing performance and accountability, many organizations are considering how to improve the management and integrat

17、ion of their marketing communication programs using integrated marketing communication(IMC). Nevertheless, various authors support the contention that there is ambiguity surrounding the definition of IMC, with no consistent or mutually agreed upon meaning, and with many areas in need of clarificatio

18、n (Baker and Mitchell 2000; Beard 1996; Cornelissen 2001; Duncan and Mulhern 2004; Kitchen and Schultz 1999; Low 2000;Phelps 1996). This ambiguity is likely to have an impact on the development of measures to operationalize and assess IMC in organizations. Indeed, Pickton and Hartley (1998, p. 450).

19、The authors gratefully acknowledge the positive and constructive feedback from the guest editorial teamTom Duncan, Don E. Schultz, and Charles Pattiand from two anonymous reviewers. state: “It is very difficult to conceptualize the big picture and to muster all the organizational influences needed t

20、o achieve integration. There are many levels and dimensions to integration which all pose their individual and collective difficulties.To be implemented, IMC requires the involvement of the whole organization and its agents from the chief executive downward. It needs consideration from the highest c

21、orporate strategic level down to the day-to-day implementation of individual tactical activity.”In recognizing this complexity, this paper attempts to explain the role of IMC in organizations. The paper also attempts to delineate or establish a relationship between IMC,market orientation (MO), and a

22、n emerging concept of brand orientation (BO) by proposing that both MO and BO are necessary conditions for successful IMC. We accept that IMC can be conceived at two distinct levels, that is, strategic or tactical; however, we will emphasize the strategic component of IMC, which takes into account t

23、he cultural and learning requirements of positioning brands over time. The paper recognizes the complementarities between IMC to MO and BO, and how each addresses a critical facet of achieving a competitive advantage through building brand equity. Figure 1 introduces our discussion and presents the

24、relationship between the three concepts. Briefly, market orientation represents the culture of the organization through the adoption of the marketing concept and the systems and processes that underlie being market oriented (Harris, 1998). Brand orientation represents the functional or business-unit

25、 focus on brands and brand strategies that support strong customer and stakeholder relationships regardless of the brand being at the corporate or product level, or being a service or a manufactured good (Bridson and Evans 2004). IMC in this 12 The Journal of Advertising model represents the develop

26、ment of integrated marketing communication to achieve stated brand and communication objectives, and provides the bridge between brand strategy and actions taken to build the necessary customer and stakeholder relationships. In doing so, IMC draws on the cultural predisposition to work cooperatively

27、, leveraging the marketand customer-sensing mechanisms of the organization to devise message and media strategies. Furthermore, it adopts an informed zero-based approach to choosing the appropriate tools for the communication task and is also linked to brand and target-market history through the lea

28、rning mechanisms of a market- and brand-oriented organization (Stewart 1996). In justifying and presenting our model, we first present a background to the IMC, MO, and BO concepts, highlighting various approaches to conceptualizing IMC and the linkages to MO and BO. We then present a model that illu

29、strates the testable relationships between market orientation, brand orientation, and IMC, as well as the linkages to performance outcomes. Finally, we discuss the managerial and research implications of this paper.THE CONCEPT AND DIMENSIONS OF IMC In a recent white paper on IMC (Duncan and Mulhern

30、2004),it was stated that its scope was expanding and the concept and process were still evolving. It was also argued that IMC is generally considered to be a philosophy or process related to strategically managing all brand messages in a way that contributes to the building of strong brands. In atte

31、mpting to achieve this aim, managers of the IMC process are likely to draw on the cultural predisposition to work cooperatively,leverage the market- and customer-sensing mechanisms of the organization to devise message and media strategies, and adopt an informed approach to choosing and orchestratin

32、g the right tools for the communication task.In furthering the debate and development of the IMC concept,Kitchen, Joanne, and Tao (2004) suggest that IMC is the major communications development of the last decade, and that it is a potential driver of competitive advantage. The power of IMC is said t

33、o counter a range of changes in the marketing communication environment that are having an impact on the ability of companies to attract, retain, and leverage customers. Kitchen, Joanne, and Tao (2004) also argue that IMC seems to have passed through, and is still passing through, significant debate

34、 over its meaning and purpose, and that it is struggling to emerge and distinguish itself from other marketing concepts such as integrated marketing, CRM(customer relationship management), and market orientation.From Kitchen, Joanne, and Taos (2004) perspective, IMC needs to be seen as a new paradig

35、m that will facilitate the management of marketing communication.IMC is centered on building and leveraging customer and consumer interests and relationships. This relationship orientation ties IMC to one-to-one marketing and CRM, and challenges managers to deal with the integration, alignment, meas

36、urement, and accountability of both traditional and new interactive marketing approaches (Baker and Mitchell 2000). In further extending this notion of customer-oriented communication, managers must realize that as long as IMC provides the organization with a superior market advantage, on occasions,

37、 it can be a market driver, and on others, it may be market driven (Carrillat, Jaramillo, and Locander 2004;Duncan and Mulhern 2004; Jaworski, Kohli, and Sahay 2000).Defining IMC and PhilosophySince initial attempts to define IMC in the early 1990s, an abundance of definitions have emerged, and have

38、 been discussed in detail in many recent papers (Duncan 2002; Gould 2004; Kitchen, Joanne, and Tao 2004; Kliatchko 2005). In Duncans representation, IMC is seen as “a process for managing the customer relationships that drive brand value. More specifically, it is a cross-functional process for creat

39、ing and nourishing profitable relationships with customers and other stakeholders by strategically controlling or influencing all messages sent to these groups and encouraging data driven, purposeful dialogue with them” (2002, p. 8). As an indication of ongoing conceptual and theoretical development

40、,a recent IMC white paper suggested that IMC should be more strategic than executional, be about more than just advertising and salespromotion messages,Conclusion: MANAGERIAL AND RESEARCH IMPLICATIONSThroughout the discussion, we have attempted to show the complementarities between IMC, market orien

41、tation, and brand orientation. We have emphasized that each concept reflects specific emphasis, but collectively, they provide a rich description and complex insight into the relationship. For most organizations, the issue of what is an antecedent to what does not seriously arise, because it is the

42、exploitation of the complementarities that is more important. However, for organizations with low market orientation, in this case, the cultural context for interfunctional coordination and focusing on customers, attempts to develop IMC may not succeed. This is because the cultural foundation for co

43、operation across functions, departments, and SBUs (strategic business units), or with suppliers and other stakeholders, may not exist. Along the same line of argument, we believe that where brand orientation is low, implying low sharing of corporate or brand identity and vision, attempts at introduc

44、ing IMC may not be as successful as when both MO and BO are adequately developed. The arguments presented in this study have implications Winter 2005 21 for managers. It is known and accepted that any form of integration is generally difficult. This is because efforts to integrate move people out of

45、 their comfort zones and threaten the status quo. It is also known that the reward systems in most organizations are not designed to reward cooperation (in fact, more often, organizations encourage competition and parochial interests). Some approaches to overcome this include building a strong marke

46、t orientation and building a strong brand orientation. This allows for setting a positive cultural environment and will encourage routine cooperation, which will significantly assist in the implementation of IMC. From the model developed in this paper, there is a suggestion that IMC is positively as

47、sociated with some performance metrics. There is also the suggestion that perhaps IMC mediates the relationship between market orientation and performance, or that IMC mediates the relationship between brand orientation and performance, or both. This conceptualization providesa rich insight into how

48、 IMC might be linked to various performance measures. Finally, we see the conceptual model presented in the paper as being imminently testable. The measures of market orientation have been around for over a decade and are becoming well accepted. The measures of brand orientation are slowly becoming

49、acceptable, although still at an early stage of development. The performance measures suggested in the study have been empirically tested by other researchers and present no special problems with operationalization. The most difficult part of the model relates to the development of scales that adequately capture the essence of the IMC process and can link to the appropriate external performa