IMC: a consumer psychological perspective

IMC: a consumer psychological perspective Christopher Hackley Se nio r Le c ture r in Marke ting, Oxfo rd Bro o ke s Unive rsity Sc ho o l o f Busine ss, Oxfo rd, UK Philip Kitchen Se nio r Le c ture r in Marke ting, Unive rsity o f Strathc lyde , Glasgo w, UK The concept of Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC) is receiving increasing attention in many academic and practitioner media, primarily from an organisational perspective. Yet, infl uence of integrated communications programmes on consumers is difficult to establish in the literature. Consideration of IMC seems unpromising unless the concept itself can be grounded within a psychological perspective of consumer cognition. This paper is an attempt to conceptually explore these concerns. The paper commences with a discussion of broad issues facing contemporary research in marketing communications and strongly suggests that multidisciplinary approaches may offer greater insight than unidisciplinary ones. The authors then briefl y, and selectively, introduce questions concerning the psychological assumptions underpinning theoretical work in marketing communications and speculate on implications these assumptions may have for a consumer psychology of IMC. The fi nal strand of the argument considers the cognitivist notion of social cognition and contrasts this with the social constructionist view with regard to theoretical implications both views may have for a psychology of integrated marketing communications. We conclude by suggesting possible interpretations with practical implications for marketing communications practitioners. Marke ting Inte llige nc e & Planning 1 6 / 3 [ 1998] 2 2 9 –2 3 5 © MCB Unive rsity Pre ss [ ISSN 0263-4503] Introduction IM C – a broader contextual approach Con ceptu a l discu ssion in m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s u su a lly ta k es pla ce w ith in wh a t a ppea r s to be a m ist of in deter m in a cy con cer n in g con str u cts a n d con ceptu a l bou n da r ies of th e fi eld, n ota bly beca u se m a n y th eor etica l fou n da tion s a r e bor r owed fr om oth er older disciplin es w ith in th e socia l scien ces. For exa m ple, m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s m ay or m ay n ot be eth ica lly sou n d (Ha ck ley a n d Kitch en , 1997a ); m ay, or m ay n ot be a n in cr ea sin g for m of socia l pollu tion (Ha ck ley a n d Kitch en , 1998; Kitch en , 1994); m ay or m ay n ot be in cr ea sin gly in te gr a tive a s a n or ga n isa tion a l fu n ction (P h elps a n d J oh n son , 1996; Sch u ltz, 1991; Sch u ltz et a l., 1994; Kitch en a n d Sch u ltz, 1997); a n d, m ay or m ay n ot be in n eed of r a dica l th eor etica l a n d pr a ctica l r econ ceptu a lisa tion (Bu ttle, 1995; Kitch en , 1993). On e th in g, h owever, ca n be u n con tr over sia lly a gr eed u pon con cer n in g m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s. Th a t is, th er e is a lot of it a bou t! Ma r k etin g com m u n ica tion s a ppea r s to be th e m a in bu lw a r k of su sta in a ble com petitive a dva n ta ge a s fi r m s m ove tow a r d th e twen tyfir st cen tu r y (Kitch en a n d Sch u ltz, 1997). Con su m er s in m ost pa r ts of th e developed wor ld a r e fa ced con tin u ou sly w ith a m u ltiplicity of poten tia lly in tr u sive (m a in ly ir r eleva n t) m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s (Kitch en , 1994). In r espect of m essa ge a ppea ls for m or e con su m ption , a n d, in th e va r iety of ava ila ble m edia tech n ologies, th is a spect of da ily r epetitive exper ien ce is h istor ica lly u n pr eceden ted. F r om a m a n a ger ia l con text, r espon se to th is a ppa r en tly clu tter ed a n d a m or ph ou s m a r k etin g en vir on m en t h a s led m a n y or ga n isa tion s to th e desir a ble in te gr a tion of th eir com m u n ica tion s effor ts u n der th e u m br ella of on e str a te gic m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s fu n ction – n a m ely in te gr a ted m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s. Th e logic of th is str a te gic m ove wou ld seem to r est pa r tly on a ssu m ption s con cer n in g th e desir e for or ga n isa tion a l in fl u en ce of con su m er per ception s. If con tem por a r y con su m er s a r e su bject to m or e m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s in ter ven tion s, a n d if th ese in ter ven tion s a r e in cr ea sin gly in tr u sive, pa r tly sin ce th ey a r e ca r r ied on a n in cr ea sin g va r iety of for m s of m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s m edia tech n ologies (Daw son , 1996), a per ceived n eed for m or e m a n a ger ia l con tr ol of or ga n isa tion a l com m u n ica tion s seem s to r est u pon th e im plied possibility of m or e or gr ea ter in flu en ce over con su m er per ception s. Th e dr ive for or ga n isa tion a l in te gr a tion of m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s con tr ibu tes to gr ea ter in flu en ce over wh a t is per ceived a n d/ or decoded in r ela tion to con su m er k n ow ledge or ga n isa tion str u ctu r es. However, th is r espon se, wh ich in tu itively “m a k es sen se”, r ests on u n exa m in ed a ssu m ption s con cer n in g th e psych ology of m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s, a n d in pa r ticu la r u pon a n em br yon ic con su m er psych ology of in te gr a ted m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s. It is wor th a sk in g: ju st wh a t m igh t th ese a ssu m ption s be; a n d, h ow ca n th ey be a r ticu la ted? On e aven u e of explor a tion is to dr aw u pon socia l psych ology to discu ss possible con ceptu a lisa tion s of m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s. Befor e doin g th a t, h owever, it is n ecessa r y to cla r ify th e le gitim a cy of th is per spective by developin g a n a r gu m en t in favou r of m u ltidisciplin a r ity in m a n a gem en t r esea r ch . M ultidisciplinarity in marketing and management research In a ttem ptin g to expla in th e in flu en ce of in te gr a ted m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s on con su m er per ception s a n d beh aviou r it is n ecessa r y to ta ck le psych ologica l con cepts. As sta ted pr eviou sly, m a r k etin g is a syn th etic disciplin e a n d r ests u pon older disciplin es in th e socia l scien ces. For exa m ple, th e cor pu s of m a n a ger ia lly-or ien ta ted th eor y on com m u n ica tion s in m a r k etin g der ives its a ssu m ption s pr in ciply fr om psych ology. Th er e a r e, h owever, qu estion s con cer n in g con tem por a r y r eleva n ce a n d expla n a tor y power of m a n y popu la r a ssu m ption s. Th ese qu estion s h ave been a ddr essed in a n u m ber of a lter n a tive w ays of con ceptu a lisin g th e psych ology of m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s (see for exa m ple, Bu ttle, 1996; va n Ra a j, 1989). If it is a ccepted th a t th er e a r e r ea son a ble gr ou n ds for a cr itica l r ea ppr a isa l of th e psych ology of m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s w ith in a ca dem ic m a n a ger ia l m a r k etin g th is be gs th e qu estion s of wh ich psych ologica l con cepts a n d [ 229 ] Christo phe r Hac kle y and Philip Kitc he n IMC: a c o nsume r psyc ho lo gic al pe rspe c tive Marke ting Inte llige nc e & Planning 1 6 / 3 [1 9 9 8 ] 2 2 9 –2 3 5 th eor ies ca n offer m a r k etin g r esea r ch er s expla n a tor y fr a m ewor k s w ith in wh ich to explor e th e possible im pa ct of IMC? Th is qu estion clea r ly h a s a n em pir ica l dim en sion , sin ce con su m er beh aviou r or a ttitu des in r espon se to m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s ca n , w ith va r yin g de gr ees of cr edibility, be m ea su r ed (IPA, 1997). However, a s Wittgen stein (1968) n oted, psych ology itself h a s em pir ica l m eth od a n d a lso con ceptu a l con fu sion , r a th er lik e a ca dem ic m a n a gem en t. Th e con ceptu a l issu es of a fi eld m ay, on Wittgen stein ’s r ea son in g, con stitu te a s im por ta n t a n a r ea for r esea r ch on a r a tion a list m odel of r esea r ch a s th e em pir ica l stu dies wh ich flow fr om often u n sta ted con ceptu a l a ssu m ption s, a ssu m in g th a t th ou gh t is pr ior to a ction . Ma n a gem en t r esea r ch in gen er a l h a s been su bject to a ca ll for gr ea ter m u ltidisciplin a r ity in r esea r ch [1], pa r tia lly on th e gr ou n ds th a t u n idisciplin a r ity ca n r esu lt in in tellectu a l solipsism . Th is r esu lt, a ccor din g to cr itica l m a n a gem en t th eor ists, ten ds to a fflict a n u m ber of fu n ction a l m a n a gem en t a r ea s, a m on g th em m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s[2]. Mu ltidisciplin a r ity is su ggested a s a cu r e for poten tia l solipsism in th e sen se th a t a r efl exive aw a r en ess of a lter n a tive in ter pr eta tion s by r esea r ch er s a n d th eor ists ca n r edu ce th e ten den cy for a ca dem ic wor k in fu n ction a l m a n a gem en t a r ea s su ch a s m a r k etin g to seem logica lly self-con fi r m in g beca u se of u n sta ted a ssu m ption s (Ha ck ley, 1998a ). Mu ltidisciplin a r ity open s th e door for psych ology of m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s to be exa m in ed th r ou gh a va r iety of th eor etica l per spectives wh ich a r e n ot n ecessa r ily pr e-em in en t w ith in th e m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s disciplin a r y field. Th ese th eor etica l per spectives dir ectly in for m th e n or m a tive dim en sion of m a n a gem en t r esea r ch wh ich , in th is ca se, is con cer n ed w ith th e qu estion of wh eth er m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s r ea lly ou gh t to be in te gr a ted w ith in th e or ga n isa tion , a n d, if so, h ow su ch com m u n ica tion s ca n best be design ed for m a xim a l effect. Follow in g, we explor e a n u m ber of view s of th e psych ologica l a ssu m ption s u n der lyin g popu la r tr ea tm en ts of m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s a n d th is lea ds on to th e discu ssion of possible a lter n a tives. M arketing communications theory and IM C Va n Ra a j (1989), in em ph a sisin g th e im por ta n ce of pr im a r y a ffective r espon se to m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s, a llu des to th e pr e-em in en t lin ea r pr ocessin g m odel wh ich is often fou n d u n der lyin g a ca dem ic r esea r ch in m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s, a dver tisin g, a n d con su m er beh aviou r. Adm ittedly, [ 230 ] va n Ra a ij is ta ck lin g a n old su bject wh ich view s con su m er s a s in for m a tion pr ocessor s. Wh ile th is pa r a digm is a n ele ga n t syn th esis of econ om ics’ r a tion a l m a n a n d cogn itive psych ology’s m eta ph or ica l m odel of m a n a s a com pu ter (Belk , 1987), it sim ply h a s pr oven illu sor y in illu m in a tin g th e m yster ies of con su m er beh aviou r. Dou btless, th e m odel of in for m a tion pr ocessin g h a s been h igh ly in fl u en tia l in m a in str ea m exper im en ta l psych ology, bu t r elies over m u ch on th e “m a n a s m a ch in e” m eta ph or to con str u ct expla n a tor y sch em es con cer n in g h ow com m u n ica tion s wor k . For va n Ra a j (1989) th e wea k n ess of th is on ce gover n in g m eta ph or lies in em ph a sisin g r a tion a l m essa ge a ppea ls ba sed on k n ow ledge or cogn ition . Despite th e r ecogn isa ble pa u city in th e a ppr oa ch , Bu ttle (1995) a lso a llu ded to th is con tin u in g ten den cy to con ceive of con su m er s a s r a tion a l in for m a tion pr ocessor s wh o exist in a socia l va cu u m a n d wh o pr ocess com m u n ica tion s ser ia lly. A pa r ticu la r lim itin g ch a r a cter istic of th is a ssu m ption is th e ten den cy to pla ce k n ow ledge a s som eth in g logica lly, a n d tem por a lly, pr ior to a ffective r ea ction or m or e su ccin ctly to see a ffective r espon se a s bein g ca pa ble of bein g m ea su r ed r a tion a lly, for exa m ple by Lik er t sca les (Hir sch m a n n a n d Holbr ook , 1982; Va len tin e a n d E va n s, 1993). Th is a ppr oa ch , r eflected in com m on m odels of th e com m u n ica tion s pr ocess su ch a s h ier a r ch y of effects, im plies th a t th e m ost im por ta n t fea tu r es of m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion con ten t a r e r a tion a l a ppea ls ba sed on pr odu ct fea tu r es. If k n ow ledge is th e pr im e m over in con su m er r ea ction to a dver tisin g or oth er for m s of m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion , th en favou r a ble pr odu ct in for m a tion wou ld seem to be th e m ost power fu l elem en t of m essa ge con ten t. Bu ttle (1995) fu r th er wen t on to r eview a n u m ber of texts pr im a r ily a ssocia ted w ith m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s r ea din g lists. His r eview ser ves to descr ibe a br oa d pr ocess of th eor etica l a dju stm en t wh ich h a s m oved over tim e fr om a n a ive position wh ich Sch r a m m (1971) descr ibed a s a “bu llet th eor y of com m u n ica tion ” a n d Kla pper (1960) a s th e “h ypoder m ic effect”, tow a r ds a th eor etica l per spective wh ich con ceives of com m u n ica tion a s a pr ocess wh ich is socia lly m edia ted a n d con cer n s th e con str u ction of m ea n in g. Th e u se a n d in ter pr eta tion of com m u n ica tion th eor y in m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion w a s cr iticised by Bu ttle (1995) on sever a l gr ou n ds. For exa m ple, th e dom in a n t beh aviou r a l or ien ta tion of m u ch th eor isin g is cr iticised on th e gr ou n ds th a t th e in dividu a l m ay n ot be r e ga r ded a s a n a ppr opr ia te u n it of a n a lysis given th a t “m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion h a s effects a t th e h ou seh old, fa m ily, in stitu tion a l a n d cu ltu r a l Christo phe r Hac kle y and Philip Kitc he n IMC: a c o nsume r psyc ho lo gic al pe rspe c tive Marke ting Inte llige nc e & Planning 1 6 / 3 [1 9 9 8 ] 2 2 9 –2 3 5 levels” (Bu ttle, 1995). F u r th er cr iticism is ba sed on th e a ssu m ption of pa ssivity in th e a u dien ce (n otw ith sta n din g th e sta ted m ovem en t aw ay fr om th is position by com m u n ica tion s th eor ists), th e focu s on in dividu a l m essa ges to th e exclu sion of possible effects der ivin g fr om th e tota lity of m essa ges (Kitch en , 1994), a n d th e focu s on th e sou r ce’s in ten t ba sed on m essa ge con ten t. Th e gen er a l, bu t r ecogn isa bly em er gen t, ca se m a de by Bu ttle a n d oth er s is th a t m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s th eor y h a s n ot k ept u p to da te w ith developm en ts in its in for m in g fi eld of com m u n ica tion s th eor y, a n d by im plica tion w ith psysch ology. N otw ith sta n din g ir r esolva ble a n d poten tia lly cir cu la r a r gu m en ts a bou t wh a t con stitu tes th e “m a in str ea m ” in a ca dem ic m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s a n d wh eth er th er e a r e gen u in e gr ou n ds for cr iticisin g it, th er e a r e a n u m ber of a ppr oa ch es wh ich m igh t offer th e possibility of in sigh t in to a con su m er psych ology of IMC wh ile esch ew in g, or a t lea st r edu cin g, th e in flu en ce of th e lin ea r in for m a tion -pr ocessin g m odel of cogn ition . For exa m ple, som e th eor ists h ave exa m in ed th e w ay con su m er s m igh t con str u ct m ea n in g fr om th e sym bolic con ten t of a dver tisem en ts th r ou gh a sem iotic per spective (for exa m ple, Ha ck ley, 1998c). Th e a u th or s h ave ta k en a ph en om en ologica l per spective on m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s in a discu ssion on eth ica l issu es in th e field (a s r epor ted in Ha ck ley a n d Kitch en , 1997a ). Th e ph en om en ologica l per spective ta k es, a s its sta r tin g poin t, su bjective exper ien ce a s it a ppea r s to th e su bject. Th e discu ssion r efer r ed to exa m in ed possible logica l im plica tion s of th is per spective for eth ics in m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s, given th a t th e n otion of eth ics pr esu pposes a for m of r a tion a lity wh ich m ay n ot be pr esen t in th e ph en om en ologica l exper ien ce of th e con tem por a r y con su m er. Th is th em e is r efl ected in th e pr esen t discu ssion , sin ce th e sa m e ba sic a ssu m ption (of r a tion a lity) m ay be pr esen t in m a n y m odels of m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s. Th e qu estion to be a ddr essed h er e is pa r tly con cer n ed w ith th e r a tion a lity of th e con tem por a r y con su m er. Is th is a for m of r a tion a lity wh ich is m ea n in gfu lly r epr esen ted by m odels of com m u n ica tion in m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s? Ar e th er e a lter n a tives w ith wh ich to con ceptu a lise in te gr a ted a ppr oa ch es in ter m s of poten tia l con su m er effects? Wh a t m igh t th ese con ceptu a lisa tion s im ply for m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s pr a xis? In or der to be gin to exa m in e th ese qu estion s th e discu ssion w ill tu r n n ow to a con sider a tion of th e idea of socia l cogn ition a n d its possible r ela tion to IMC. Social cognition and IMC Th e ter m “socia l cogn ition ” im plies sever a l th in gs. F ir stly, it im plies a cogn itivist position in psych ology: th a t is, cogn ition is ta k en a s som eth in g wh ich ta k es pla ce in a socia l va cu u m bu t wh ich is m edia ted th r ou gh a socia l con text. Th u s, in dividu a l r ea son in g m ay be fa u lty beca u se of m isin ter pr eta tion a n d m isca te gor isa tion . Th is ten den cy to m isa ttr ibu tion m igh t, for exa m ple, en ta il a con su m er w a n tin g a pr odu ct beca u se of th e w ay th ey per ceive a celebr ity wh o en dor ses it. Th e m ea n in gs of “celebr ity”, “a u th or ity”, “su ccess” a n d so on a r e a r e socia lly m edia ted bu t con str u cted by th e in dividu a l con su m er. Th u s, wh ile in dividu a ls con str u ct th eir m ea n in gs in ter n a lly, pr iva tely, th ey a r e h igh ly in flu en ced by th e socia l con text. In dividu a l m yth s ca n su sta in for m s of socia l a ction su ch a s pa r ticu la r for m s of con su m er beh aviou r a n d th ese m yth s m ay be socia lly m edia ted, on th is view, bu t m ea n in g is con str u cted by th e exper ien cer. Th is gen er a l position a ccor ds w ith th a t ta k en la tter ly by th e lea din g com m u n ica tion s th eor ists bu t wh ich h a s n ot, a ccor din g to Bu ttle (1995), been w idely a dopted in popu la r m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s texts. Th e power of per son a l m yth s h a s been a llu ded to by th e exper im en ta l psych ologist Ar on son (1995) w ith r espect to th e w ay people r a tion a lise th eir a ction s a n d m a k e sen se of th eir wor ld. Ar on son (1995) dr aw s exa m ples fr om th e wor ld of m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s to illu str a te th e pr in ciple of cogn itive econ om y, i.e. th e ph ilosoph ica l pr oblem of ca te gor isa tion . For exa m ple, con su m er s m ay tr y to cu t th r ou gh com petin g ch a llen ges to th eir iden tity fr om th e m u ltiplicity of a dver tisin g exh or ta tion s by ta k in g wh a t h e ca lls “cogn itive sh or tcu ts”. Th is ca n be m a n ifested in a ttr ibu tin g a ssocia tion s of tech n ologica l in te gr ity a n d r elia bility to a pr odu ct beca u se a m iddle-a ged m a n wea r in g gla sses a n d wh ite coa t is pictu r ed h oldin g it. Th is effect, still seen da ily on TV a n d in pr ess (for exa m ple soa p pow der ) a dver tisem en ts, is ba sed on (pr iva te, bu t socia lly der ived) m ea n in gs con cer n in g gen der, scien ce, power a n d a u th or ity. Th e sa m e gen er a l pr in ciple is seen a t wor k w ith celebr ity en dor sem en t a n d, in a sligh tly differ en t w ay, pr odu ct pla cem en t. With celebr ity en dor sem en t, th e con su m er, fa ced w ith th e da ily ba r r a ge of m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s, tr ies to m a k e sen se of th eir wor ld a s a con su m er by a tten din g to a pa r ticu la r m essa ge beca u se it is deliver ed by a spor tin g or film celebr ity w ith wh om th e con su m er iden tifi es in som e w ay. Th e con su m er is con str u ctin g m ea n in g h er e fr om th e m essa ge by [ 231 ] Christo phe r Hac kle y and Philip Kitc he n IMC: a c o nsume r psyc ho lo gic al pe rspe c tive Marke ting Inte llige nc e & Planning 1 6 / 3 [1 9 9 8 ] 2 2 9 –2 3 5 [ 232 ] a ssocia tion w ith th e m essa ge con text, i.e. th e m essa ge em er ges fr om th e celebr ity. Con su m er s pr oba bly wou ld n ot a r gu e th a t a n y r esu lta n t pr odu ct pu r ch a se ta k es pla ce on r a tion a l gr ou n ds. Most people k n ow ver y well th a t celebr ities a r e pa id la r ge su m s to en dor se pr odu cts wh ich th ey do n ot n ecessa r ily u se. N ever th eless, th e a ssocia tion of th e pr odu ct w ith th e celebr ity seem s to h ave a power fu l effect in m a k in g th e m essa ge m ea n in gfu l, a s for exa m ple w ith th e a ppa r en tly h igh ly su ccessfu l BT ca m pa ign in th e UK in wh ich fi lm sta r Bob Hosk in s told people to ta lk m or e on th e teleph on e[3]. Th ey did. In th e ca se of pr odu ct pla cem en t (i.e. th e pr om in en t u se of br a n ded pr odu cts a n d br a n d sym bols in film a n d television pr odu ction s), th e socia l con text of th e m essa ge is per h a ps br oa der a n d less iden tifi ed w ith a n in dividu a l, bu t n ever th eless th e a ssocia tion w ith a film a n d th e sta r s of th e film gives a m essa ge, or in th e ca se of a pr odu ct pla cem en t, a sym bol, m ea n in g for th e con su m er. Ciga r ettes, for exa m ple, h ave r eceived m or e th a n th eir fa ir sh a r e of pr odu ct pla cem en t in Hollywood film s over th e yea r s. Th is (pa st) a ssocia tion of ciga r ettes w ith gla m ou r, sex a n d tou gh n ess m ay be specu la ted u pon a s a sa lien t va r ia ble in th e con tin u ed popu la r ity of ciga r ette sm ok in g in spite of m ou n tin g eviden ce of sign ifica n t da m a ge to h ea lth . On a r a tion a l level, ciga r ette sm ok in g ca n n ot be r e ga r ded a s sexy, gla m or ou s etc. E ven en th u sia stic sm ok er s wou ld u su a lly scor n th is su ggestion , ju st a s a teleph on e u ser wou ld be lik ely to scor n su ggestion s th a t th ey u se th e teleph on e m or e beca u se th ey w a n t to be a ppr oved of by Bob Hosk in s. As a n expla n a tor y device, th e r a tion a l ba sis of pr odu ct a ppea ls in th ese few exa m ples seem s difficu lt to su sta in . An expla n a tor y sch em e for th e pr ocess of th e con su m er r ela tion to in te gr a ted m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s m u st, it seem s, look a t th e con str u ction of m ea n in g fr om m essa ges by con su m er s a s a n on r a tion a l, u n a r ticu la ted pr ocess wh ich , n ever th eless, ca n be expla in ed by r ecou r se to r a tion a l, a r ticu la ted sch em es. Th e cogn itivist per spective on socia l cogn ition m ay offer som e in sigh ts in th e r ein ter pr eta tion of con su m er beh aviou r a s r esu ltin g fr om con ceptu a l m isca te gor isa tion . Th e beh aviou r ist sta n ce a lso offer s som e pen etr a tion in to h ow th is pr ocess of ir r a tion a l a ttr ibu tion m ay be lea r n ed th r ou gh con dition in g a n d r ein for cem en t. However, th e cogn itivist per spective h a s its lim ita tion s in th a t in dividu a l r ea son in g is ta k en a s som eth in g essen tia lly pr iva te. In th is r espect it seem s to a ccor d w ith th e n a ive view of lin ea r in for m a tion -pr ocessin g cogn ition . Th e da ta in pu t, socia lly m edia ted in th e sen se th a t n otion s lik e celebr ity, a u th or ity, scien ce a n d sta tu s a r e socia l con str u ction s, is n ever th eless pr ocessed ser ia lly a n d pr iva tely on th e cogn itivist socia l cogn ition m odel. In or der to seek a m or e con ceptu a lly soph istica ted ela bor a tion on th is pr in ciple we n ow tu r n to a br ief exa m in a tion of socia l con str u ction ism , a n d specu la te on som e possible im plica tion s th is per spective in socia l psych ology m ay h ave for a con su m er psych ology of IMC. The social constructionist perspective and IMC Un dou btedly, a n a ll em br a cin g socia l con str u ction ist per spective wou ld esch ew th e n otion of pr iva te con str u ction s of m ea n in g a ltogeth er. Mea n in gs, on th e socia l con str u ction ist per spective, a r e socia l, r a th er th a n in dividu a l (Br u n er, 1990; Bu ttn y, 1993). Per son a l iden tity is con str u cted th r ou gh th e socia l wor ld, a n d m ea n in gs a r e con str u cted a s a dju n cts to th e sen se of per son a l iden tity. Th e sen se of per son h ood is seen a s som eth in g em bedded in cu ltu r e (Ma u ss 1985). Th e n otion of selfh ood h a s n o m ea n in g wh en a bstr a cted fr om th e socia l m a tr ix. Con su m er s pa r ta k e in m ea n in gs in th eir va r iou s socia l discou r ses. Th e socia l con str u ction ist view poin t h olds th a t, in a m ost pr ofou n d sen se, con su m er s a r e socia l a n d n ot m er ely in dividu a l bein gs. Th is view m igh t h ave im plica tion s for th e w ay m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s specia lists con ceptu a lise a n d design m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s. Specu la tively, if m a r k eter s wer e to a ba n don th e a ssu m ption s of lin ea r in for m a tion pr ocessin g, pr iva te con su m er r a tion a lity a n d ser ia l m essa ge decodin g, th en th e a dver tisin g a n d m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s design er m u st r econ sider th e n a tu r e of th eir ta sk to a sign ifica n t exten t. It is clea r th a t, w ith in th is per spective, a m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion ca n n ot be con ceived of a s a “m essa ge” wh ich is ca te gor ica lly in depen den t fr om both th e en coder a n d th e decoder a n d wh ich is “tr a n sm itted” th r ou gh n eu tr a l m edia “to” th e ta r get in dividu a l (Ha ck ley, 1998d). In deed, if th is w ay of con ceivin g of m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s ever h a d a r a tion a le in psych ology, it wou ld h ave been lost w ith th e dem ise of beh aviou r ism . F u r th er logica l a r gu m en ts seem to fl ow fr om th is pr oposition . Th e a ssu m ption of m a n a ger ia lism wh ich u n der lies so m u ch th eor y in m a n a gem en t, a n d in m a r k etin g, a n d wh ich ca r r ies im plica tion s of power a n d con tr ol, wou ld seem m or e difficu lt to esta blish on a socia l con str u ction ist ba sis. Th a t is, h ow ca n on e be sa id to be exer cisin g a for m of socia l in fl u en ce th r ou gh m a r k etin g Christo phe r Hac kle y and Philip Kitc he n IMC: a c o nsume r psyc ho lo gic al pe rspe c tive Marke ting Inte llige nc e & Planning 1 6 / 3 [1 9 9 8 ] 2 2 9 –2 3 5 com m u n ica tion s if th e m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion sym bolisin g a n exch a n ge between th e or ga n isa tion a n d th e con su m er is seen a s a m u tu a lly con str u cted m ea n in g? It wou ld seem th a t, if th e com m u n ica tion is to be con sider ed m ea n in gfu l by oth er socia l a ctor s, th en or ga n isa tion s con sider th eir com m u n ica tion s fr om w ith in a per spective wh ich sh a r es som e m u tu a lity w ith th e con su m er often r efer r ed to a s a n over la ppin g fi eld of exper ien ce, wh ich fi elds th em selves a r e socia lly con str u cted over tim e. Th is lin e of a r gu m en t seem s con sisten t w ith th e br oa der n otion th a t m a r k etin g, a n d m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s, ca n ser ve fu n ction s wh ich a r e ben ign r a th er th a n pu r ely per su a sive. Th a t is, m a r k etin g, a n d m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s, is th e bu sin ess of m ea n in gs. On th is a r gu m en t, th e con su m er is a pa r tn er in th e con str u ction of m ea n in g, exa ctly th e for m of a r gu m en t wh ich ca n be u sed to ju stify th e developm en t of IMC. Th er e a r e a spects to th is view wh ich m ay a ppea r u n sa tisfyin g to som e. For exa m ple, th e eth ica l con cer n s of va lu e a r e difficu lt to a scer ta in fr om w ith in a con str u ction ist position of con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k (n ot m or a l) r ela tivism . If socia lly con stitu ted m ea n in gs a r e th e cu r r en cy of con su m er selfh ood, wh a t is th e r ole of va lu e? Wh a t is th e m ea n in g of va lu e? However, n otw ith sta n din g th ese eth ica l qu estion s, th e socia l con str u ction ist view wou ld seem to m a k e th eor etica l issu es in m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s m or e con ceptu a lly com plica ted (th a n th e com m on n a ïve en code-m essa ge-decode com m u n ica tion m odel of th e texts) wh ile a lso open in g u p som e possibilities for a m or e th or ou gh u n der sta n din g of h ow th e con cept of IMC m igh t be developed. On e possible view is th a t th e socia l con str u ction ist per spective m igh t be seen to le gitim ise th e con cept of IMC. If m ea n in gs a r e socia lly con stitu ted, th en it becom es m or e difficu lt to see con su m er beh aviou r in ter m s of a n elicited “r espon se” to a “ta r geted” “m essa ge”. Th e or ga n isa tion a s a socia l en tity m igh t see a r a tion a le in br in gin g its com m u n ica tion s u n der on e m a n a ger ia l fu n ction , i.e. “in te gr a tin g” th em , th e better to co-or din a te, m on itor a n d con tr ol th e con str u cted m ea n in gs wh ich em er ge fr om or ga n isa tion a l com m u n ica tion . On th e oth er h a n d, if a pa r ticu la r m essa ge h a s a ver y power fu l m ea n in g it m igh t tr a n scen d a ll oth er in flu en ces. Attem pts to m ea su r e a dver tisin g su ccess a r e ba sed on th e idea th a t a sin gle com m u n ica tion ca m pa ign ca n be isola ted fr om oth er a spects of or ga n isa tion a l com m u n ica tion in th e con su m er ’s en vir on m en t, a s w ith th e Bob Hosk in s BT ca m pa ign m en tion ed a bove. Th er e is a ppa r en t eviden ce (for exa m ple fr om th e IPA) th a t sin gle a dver tisin g com m u n ica tion ca m pa ign s (lin k ed to oth er in te gr a ted fa cets) ca n wor k to ch a n ge th e for tu n es of a com pa n y. For exa m ple, Levi Str a u ss a n d Co’s for tu n es ch a n ged dr a m a tica lly for th e better in th e 1980s on ce th ey m oved aw ay fr om ben efit (i.e. cogn itive) – or ien ted com m u n ica tion s, to a focu s on socia l discou r se, for exa m ple in th e la u n der ette a dver tisem en t, a n d m or e r ecen tly w ith th e Mer m a ids ser ies of in te gr a ted com m u n ica tion s. However, su ch exa m ples, su cceed, a lbeit tem por a r ily, beca u se th ey offer m ea n in gs wh ich a r e m or e power fu l th en th ose con str u cted th r ou gh oth er sou r ces, wh ilst lin k ed in extr ica bly to socia lly con str u cted m ea n in gs, r a th er th a n pr odu ct ben efits. Th u s, cr ea tively power fu l pr om otion a l ca m pa ign s m ay be con ceived a s som eth in g wh ich ca n slice th r ou gh th e cogn itive debr is of oth er h a lf r em em ber ed ca m pa ign s, m em or ies of pr odu ct tr ia ls a n d popu la r m yth s, to cr ea te a n ew or m or e per su a sive sen se of m ea n in g for con su m er s. Th is possibility cou ld be seen a s a n a r gu m en t su ppor tin g th e a dver tiser s’ ca ll for “cr ea tivity” in a dver tisin g, if cr ea tivity is seen a s th e elu sive bu t ta n gible ca pa bility of design in g com m u n ica tion s wh ich offer th e possibility of bein g con str u cted a s especia lly power fu l m ea n in gs by con su m er s. However, on th is a r gu m en t, th e r a tion a le for th e in te gr a tion of or ga n isa tion a l com m u n ica tion s seem s str on ger r a th er th a n wea k er sin ce th e pr ospect of gr ea ter m a n a ger ia l in flu en ce in r ela tion to con su m er per ception s (con str u cted m ea n in gs) th r ou gh in te gr a tion m ay be a dva n ta geou s if a sin gle, cr ea tively in te gr a tive ca m pa ign ca n offer con su m er s con str u cted m ea n in gs so power fu l th a t th ey wor k in over com in g im pedim en ts occa sion ed by oth er en vir on m en ta l sou r ces of m ea n in g. If “cr ea tivity” ca n be a n expla n a tor y sh or th a n d for th e design of com m u n ica tion s wh ich a r e socia lly con str u cted a s power fu l m ea n in gs, a n d if or ga n isa tion a l con tr ol ca n be cou n ter pr odu ctive to cr ea tivity (e.g. P a per a n d J oh n son , 1997), th en seek in g gr ea ter m a n a ger ia l con tr ol over com m u n ica tion s ou tpu t m igh t ser ve to r en der or ga n isa tion a l com m u n ica tion s m or e, r a th er th en less m ea n in gfu l, to con su m er s. Concluding comments Th is pa per h a s explor ed th e idea of IMC w ith r e ga r d to th e u n der pin n in g psych ologica l a ssu m ption s wh ich cou ld be ca lled u pon to h elp give IMC a n oper a tion a l r a tion a le, fr om a con su m er sta n dpoin t. Th e discu ssion h a s r eviewed som e th eor etica l developm en ts in m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s a n d h a s [ 233 ] Christo phe r Hac kle y and Philip Kitc he n IMC: a c o nsume r psyc ho lo gic al pe rspe c tive Marke ting Inte llige nc e & Planning 1 6 / 3 [1 9 9 8 ] 2 2 9 –2 3 5 su ggested th a t con tem por a r y psych ologica l position s on socia l con str u ction ism m igh t be u n der -r epr esen ted in m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s th eor y. Som e possible im plica tion s for th e con cept of IMC wh ich m ay be en ta iled in th e socia l con str u ction ist per spective h ave been discu ssed. Th ese im plica tion s m ay be ta k en to im ply th a t IMC h a s a r a tion a le in con su m er psych ology fr om two per spectives: th e fir st is depen den t on wh eth er con su m er s con str u ct th eir m ea n in gs fr om w ith in a flow of or ga n isa tion a l com m u n ica tion s over tim e a s in dividu a ls; th e secon d on wh eth er th ey do so th r ou gh on e cr ea tively in spir ed com m u n ica tion wh ich fi n ds som e m eta ph or ica l ba sis for th e con str u ction of a pa r ticu la r ly power fu l sen se of m ea n in g, a n d wh ich tr a n scen ds a ll oth er sou r ces of m ea n in g in r ela tion to th e object con cer n ed (br a n d, or ga n isa tion ) in th e con su m er ’s socia l en vir on m en t. Th ese specu la tion s a r e offer ed a s in itia l con tr ibu tion s to th e r efl exivity of m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s pr a ctition er s wh o, in design in g or ga n isa tion a l com m u n ica tion s a n d in a r gu in g th eir cr ea tive ca se to clien ts a n d collea gu es, ca n dr aw u pon th e r ich er con ceptu a l voca bu la r y of sociologica l socia l psych ology to su pplem en t th e cogn itivist m odel wh ich h a s pr oved en du r in g yet em pir ica lly pr oblem a tic Notes 1 See B r itish J ou r n a l of M a n a gem en t (1997), Vol. 8 N o. 1. 2 See r efer en ces to Bu ttle (1995) for m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s cr itiqu e. For cr itica l per spectives on m a in str ea m a ca dem ic m a r k etin g, see for exa m ple, Ha ck ley, 1997a , 1997b; Ha ck ley a n d Kitch en , 1997b; Hu n t, 1991; O’Sh a u gh n essy, 1992. For cr itica l per spectives on a ca dem ic m a n a gem en t in gen er a l see, for exa m ple, B r itish J ou r n a l of M a n a gem en t, Vol. 8 N o. 1, 1997, Gr ey, 1996; N odou sh a n i, 1996. 3 IPA Con fer en ce (1997), Lon don , UK References Ar on son , E . (1995), T h e S ocia l A n im a l, 7th ed., F r eem a n . Belk , R.W. (1987), “A m odest pr oposa l for cr ea tin g ver isim ilitu de in con su m er in for m a tion pr ocessin g m odels a n d som e su ggestion s for esta blish in g a disciplin e to stu dy con su m er beh aviou r ” in F ir a t, A.G., N ik k ilesh , D. a n d Ba gozzi, R.D. (E ds), Ph ilosoph ica l a n d R a d ica l T h ou gh ts in M a rk etin g, Hea th & Co, D.C. pp. 361-84. Br u n er, J . (1990), A cts of M ea n in g, Ha r va r d Un iver sity P r ess, Ca m br idge, MA. Bu ttle, F.A. (1995), “Ma r k etin g com m u n ica tion s th eor y: wh a t do th e texts tea ch ou r stu den ts?” In ter n a tion a l J ou r n a l of A dv er tisin g, Vol. 14, pp. 297-313. [ 234 ] Bu ttn y, R. (1993), S ocia l A ccou n tab ility in Com m u n ica tion , Sa ge, Lon don . Daw son , C. (1996), “Television a dver tisin g – in n eed of r ein ven tion a l”, In ter n a tion a l J ou r n a l of A dv er tisin g, Vol. 15 N o. 2, pp. 302-13. Gr ey, C. (1996), “Tow a r ds a cr itiqu e of m a n a ger ia lism : th e con tr ibu tion of Sim on e Weil”, J ou r n a l of M a n a gem en t S tu d ies, Vol. 33 N o. 5, pp. 591-611. Ha ck ley, C. (1998a ), “Ma n a gem en t lea r n in g a n d n or m a tive m a r k etin g th eor y”, M a n a gem en t L ea r n in g (for th com in g). Ha ck ley, C. (1998b) “Ta cit k n ow ledge a n d th e epistem ology of exper tise in m a r k etin g m a n a gem en t”, Eu ropea n J ou r n a l of M a rk etin g, (for th com in g). Ha ck ley, C.E . (1998c), “Th e com m u n ica tion s pr ocess a n d th e sem iotic bou n da r y”, in Kitch en , P.J . (E d.), M a rk etin g Com m u n ica tion s: Pr in ciples a n d Pra ctice, In ter n a tion a l Th om pson (for th com in g). Ha ck ley, C.E . (1998d), “Mission sta tem en ts a s cor por a te com m u n ica tion s; th e con sequ en ces of socia l con str u ction ism ”, Corpora te Com m u n ica tion s: A n In ter n a tion a l J ou r n a l (for th com in g). Ha ck ley, C. a n d Kitch en , P.J . (1997a ), “E th ica l con cepts for a ph en om en ology of m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s”, u n pu blish ed con fer en ce pa per, th e 1997 Con fer en ce of th e E u r opea n Bu sin ess E th ics N etwor k , Un iver sity of N or th u m br ia a t N ew ca stle. Ha ck ley, C. a n d Kitch en , P.J . (1997b), “Cr ea tive pr oblem solvin g a s a tech n ology of exper t beh aviou r w ith in m a r k etin g m a n a gem en t”, Crea tivity a n d In n ova tion M a n a gem en t, Vol. 6 N o. 1, pp. 45-59. Ha ck ley, C.E . a n d Kitch en , P.J . (1998), “E th n ica l per spectives on th e postm oder n com m u n ica tion s levia th a n ”, J ou r n a l of B u sin ess Eth ics, (foth com in g). Hir sch m a n n , E .C. a n d Holbr ook , M.B. (1982), “Hedon ic con su m ption : em er gin g con cepts, m eth ods, a n d pr oposition s”, J ou r n a l of M a rk etin g, Vol. 46 N o. 2, pp. 92-101. Hu n t, S (1991), M od er n M a rk etin g T h eor y – Cr itica l Issu es in th e Ph ilosoph y of M a rk etin g S cien ce, Sou th -wester n P u blish in g Co., Cin cin n a ti. IPA (1997), “It pays to a dver tise!”, Con feren ce Proceed in gs, In stitu te of P r a ctition er s in Adver tisin g, Lon don . Kitch en , P.J . (1993), “Ma r k etin g com m u n ica tion s r en a issa n ce”, In ter n a tion a l J ou r n a l of A dv er tisin g, Vol. 12 N o. 3, pp. 367-86. Kitch en , P.J . (1994), “Th e m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s r evolu tion : a levia th a n u n veiled”, M a rk etin g In telligen ce & Pla n n in g, Vol. 12 N o. 2, pp. 19-25. Kitch en , P.J . a n d Sch u ltz, D.E . (1997), “IMC: wh a t it is a n d wh y com pa n ies a r e wor k in g th a t w ay?”, N ew Ways for Optim isin g In tegra ted Com m u n ica tion s, E SOMAR, Th e N eth er la n ds, pp. 1-24. Christo phe r Hac kle y and Philip Kitc he n IMC: a c o nsume r psyc ho lo gic al pe rspe c tive Marke ting Inte llige nc e & Planning 1 6 / 3 [1 9 9 8 ] 2 2 9 –2 3 5 Kla pper, J .T. (1960), T h e Effects of M a ss Com m u n ica tion , F r ee P r ess, N ew Yor k . Ma u ss, M. (1985), “A ca te gor y of th e h u m a n m in d: th e n otion of per son : th e n otion of self ”, in Ca r r ith es, M., Collin s, S. a n d Lu k es, S. (E ds), T h e Ca tegor y of th e Person , Ca m br idge Un iver sity P r ess, Ca m br idge. N odou sh a n i, O. (1996), “Th e pr oblem s a n d pr ospects of postm oder n m a n a gem en t discou r se”, M a n a gem en t L ea r n in g, Vol. 27 N o. 3, pp. 359-81. O’Sh a u gn essy, J . (1992), Ex pla in in g B u yer B eh a viou r – Cen tra l Con cepts a n d Ph ilosoph y of S cien ce Issu es, OUP, N Y. P a per, D.J . a n d J oh n son , J .J . (1997), “A th eor etica l fr a m ewor k lin k in g cr ea tivity, em power m en t, a n d or ga n isa tion a l m em or y”, Crea tivity a n d In n ova tion M a n a gem en t, Vol. 6 N o. l, pp. 32-44. P h elps, J . a n d J oh n son , E . (1996), “E n ter in g th e qu a gm ir e: exa m in in g th e ‘m ea n in g’ of in tegr ated m a r ketin g com m u n ication s”, J ou rn al of M ark etin g Com m u n ication s, Vol. 2 No. 3. Sch r a m m , W. (1971), “Th e n a tu r e of com m u n ica tion between h u m a n s”, in Sch r a m m , W. a n d Rober ts, D. (E ds), T h e Process a n d Effects of M a ss Com m u n ica tion s, Un iver sity of Illin ois P r ess, Ur ba n a , IL. Sch u ltz, D.E . (1991), “In te gr a ted m a r k etin g com m u n ica tion s”, J ou r n a l of Prom otion M a n a gem en t, Vol. 1 N o. 1, pp. 99-105. Sch u ltz, D.E ., Ta n n en ba u m , S.I. a n d La u ter bor n , R.F. (1994), In tegra ted M a rk etin g Com m u n ica tion s, N TC Bu sin ess Book s, Illin ois. Va len tin e, V. a n d E va n s, M. (1993), “Th e da r k side of th e on ion : r eth in k in g th e m ea n in gs of ‘r a tion a l’ a n d ‘em otion a l’ r espon ses”, T h e J ou r n a l of th e M a rk et R esea rch S ociety, Vol. 35 N o. 2, p. 125-44. va n Ra a j, F.W. (1989), “How con su m er s r ea ct to a dver tisin g”, In ter n a tion a l J ou r n a l of A dv er tisin g, Vol. 8 N o. 3, pp. 261-73. Wittgen stein , L. (1968), Ph ilosoph ica l In v estiga tion s, Ma cm illa n , N ew Yor k , N Y, section 580. [ 235 ]