Journal of Promotion Management, 17:1–20, 2011

Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1049-6491 print / 1540-7594 online
DOI: 10.1080/10496491003595726

Drivers of Globally Integrated Marketing

Communications: A Review of Literature
and Research Propositions

MABEL ZVOBGO
San Michael College, Birmingham, England, UK
T. C. MELEWAR
Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Winterthur, Switzerland

The focus of this article is globally integrated marketing commu-

nications (GIMC), which was extended from integrated marketing
communication (IMC) by Grein and Gould (1996) and Gould, Ler-
man, and Grein (1999). In this article we review the literature on
market-situational and organizational factors that influence firms’
decisions to implement GIMC strategies. We then develop a series
of research propositions to demonstrate the relationship between
theses factors with GIMC. Finally, the academic and managerial
implications are discussed.

KEYWORDS integrated marketing communications (IMC), glob-

ally integrated marketing communications (GIMC)

INTRODUCTION

The marketing environment is becoming increasingly competitive. Dissatis-

faction with, and the increasing costs of, traditional marketing communica-
tions have forced both agencies and clients to seek alternative measures.
Survival in today’s competitive environment necessitates that organizations
embrace an integrated marketing communications (IMC) concept, which in-
volves coordinating all elements of the promotional mix to deliver con-
sistent messages or a single-minded and unified message to the target con-
sumer (Melewar & Saunders, 1999; Schultz, Tannenbam, & Lauterborn, 1992;
Yeshin, 1998). The concept of IMC is a phenomenon in which the artificial
walls between the major marketing communication disciplines are collapsing

Address correspondence to Mabel Zvobgo, Ph.D., San Michael College, 2nd Floor, 104-
106 Hagley Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B16 8LT UK. E-mail: [email protected]

1
2 M. Zvobgo and T. C. Melewar

(Kelly & Jones, 2008; Schultz et al., 1992). By breaking the walls, IMC
looks beyond traditional marketing communications goals of persuasion and
brand-building, to the goal of helping to build relationships with customers
(Hutton, 1996).
Grein and Gould (1996) and Gould, Lerman, and Grein (1999) ex-
amined the practice of integrated marketing communications both within
promotional disciplines and across countries. They referred to this type of
integrated marketing communications as globally integrated marketing com-
munications (GIMC). This article builds upon the work of Gould et al. (1999)
by looking at the factors that influence firms’ decisions to implement global
marketing communication strategies and whether implementing such strate-
gies improves brand performance. In line with Gould et al. (1999), this article
takes a contingency approach to the implementation of GIMC strategies. A
contingency approach to global promotions argues that there should be coor-
dination of global promotions programs, but that the level and nature of the
coordination that occurs across promotion disciplines and countries varies
depending on a variety of underlying conditions (Grein & Gould, 1996).
We organized the article as follows. First, the literature surrounding the
topic is discussed. The next section presents a series of research propositions.
In the concluding section, we discuss both the academic and managerial
implications of the study.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Various authors and researchers have developed some type of IMC approach
or concept; each appears to have developed the concept from his own view
(Schultz, 1997). There appears to be no mutually agreed upon definition,
description, or process to identify what is IMC and what is not (cf., Kerr,
Schultz, Patti, & Kim, 2008; Kitchen & Schultz, 1999; Kliatchko, 2008, 2009;
Schultz & Patti, 2009). As a result, there are different definitions of integrated
marketing communications. The definition of IMC adopted for this study is
that it is “a concept of marketing communications planning that recognizes
the added value of a comprehensive plan that evaluates the strategic roles
of a variety of communications disciplines (e.g., general advertising, direct
response, sales promotion, and maximum communications impact)” (Schultz
et al., 1992, p. 4).
Key to the issue of IMC is the fact that the consumer does not see ad-
vertising, public relations, sales promotion, and other marketing techniques
as separate and divisible components (Yeshin, 1998). Planning has a strate-
gic role of creating one voice (i.e., a single theme and image); integrating
both product image and relevant aspects of consumer behavior in promotion
management, and coordinating the promotion mix disciplines.
Scholars have for many years looked at the marketing communications
elements separately. In organizations too, these elements have been planned
 Drivers of Globally Integrated Marketing Communications 3

and implemented separately, often without consideration for the impact of

one tool on the workings of another (Linton & Morley, 1995; Yeshin, 1998).
Instead of the various marketing communications mix working separately,
the IMC concept forces the different parts to work together in order to deliver
a single-minded and unified message to the target consumer.
For IMC to be successfully implemented, a number of issues have to
be considered (Kelly & Jones, 2008). This new way of thinking means that
planning of campaigns is considered holistically rather than, as in the past,
as a series of individual components. Respective employees should be given
new skills, both on the part of those determining the strategy and tactics, as
well as those responsible for the implementation of the resulting campaign
(Yeshin, 1998). Staff in the organization should understand the contribution
that can be made by each of the communications elements and how these
elements affect communications process (Yeshin, 1998). This is one of the
major factors derailing the implementation of IMC programs.
An organization should not look at the marketing communications as
separate elements to be planned and implemented individually. The under-
lying requirement of IMC is to offer a unified voice. For this to happen,
it is, therefore, extremely important that each communications tactic serves
to reinforce the work of the other parts of the communications program.
This way of integration ensures that every part of the business combines to
deliver superior value at minimum cost (Davidson & Grab, 1993). Effective
integration is only possible if databases are developed about each customer’s
activities, purchases, and company interactions over time (Linton & Morley,
1995; Schultz, 1998; Zahay, Mason, & Schibrowsky, 2009). These databases
enable an organization to respond quickly to any customer action.
Similarly, the implementation of GIMC strategies is carried out in logical
steps (Schultz & Kitchen, 2000; see Figure 1). First, the company has to
develop a global customer database. Customer databases can be based on
beliefs, perception, shopping styles, and behaviors (Schultz & Kitchen, 2000;
Stewart, 1996). To be successful, the database should be developed with
adequate understanding of the customers (Stewart). These databases should
be used for planning and developing communication programs and should
be available to communication managers across countries.
Second, the company must value customers and potential customers.
This is achieved by identifying those customers who are most financially
valuable to the company today, and those customers who might be worth
the most to the company tomorrow. The company should also know the
number of customers who consume its brand as well as buying rate of these
customers.
Third, the company must know the customers’ contact points and
preferences. Contact points refer to all the ways current and potential
customers come into contact with the company’s products (Schultz &
Kitchen, 2000). The company should know the venues in which present
4 M. Zvobgo and T. C. Melewar

Develop customer database

Identify valuable customers

Establish contact points

Understand customer/brand
relationship

Plan message delivery

Measure brand performance

Identify similar and valuable target

customers

FIGURE 1 Implementation of GIMC strategy. Source: Adapted from Schultz and Kitchen
(2000).

and potential customers come into contact with its brands, and use this
knowledge when planning marketing communications programs. The com-
pany should also understand how customers want to communicate with it,
and how they want to access information from the company.
Fourth, the company should use customer brand knowledge in develop-
ing new brand communication programs, locally or globally. In developing
communication messages, the company should also use the customer’s brand
relationship with the brand. Fifth, in planning the message delivery system,
the company should consider the relevance of the message, and also when
it would be appropriate for the customer or prospect to be most receptive to
the message or incentive. In other words, an understanding of the customer
 Drivers of Globally Integrated Marketing Communications 5

would facilitate the identification of when various types of information do

and do not add value (Stewart, 1996).
Sixth, the company should consider the financial impact of marketing
communications programs. In other words, the company should decide how
to measure the performance of its brands. Seventh, the company should
aggregate people on behavior in order to create horizontal bands of similar
customers around the world. The company should be able to identify global
customers who are the most financially valuable. When these seven steps
are followed, GIMC becomes a strategic resource of the organization, not
just a functional support tool.
Critics of IMC argue that it is not clear whether IMC is a theoretical
concept, general idea, management technique, or mere rhetoric. Conceptu-
ally, due to lack of an agreed definition, it is difficult to say what IMC is
and what it is not (Cornelissen & Lock, 2000). There has been little formal
theory construction (Nowak & Phelps, 1994), thereby contributing to lack of
operational measures (Phelps et al., 1996). As a shallow theory, Cornelissen
and Lock (2000) view IMC as a management fashion. Abrahamson (1996)
defines a management fashion as a relatively transitory collective belief,
disseminated by management fashion setters, which leads to a rational man-
agement process. In the author’s view, fashionable management techniques
offer security and novelty, both of which are sought by managers. Sloan
(1994), Hutton (1996), and Griffin (1997) go a step further and argue that
IMC is nothing more than traditional marketing and advertising dressed up
in new clothes and given a new title and, as such, has a few real managerial
implications.
According to Drobis (1997) there is no such thing as IMC any more.
He argued that IMC died because we never could decide if it was a tool
to help sell advertising and public relations agency services or if it was a
true, complete communications discipline. According to Wightman (1999),
this is partly due to the entrenched tension between marketing and public
relations, what O Sullivan (1996) refers to egos and internal politics. Public
relations scholars, for example Drobis (1997) and Wightman (1999), are not
pleased by public relations’ subservience to marketing within the dominant
coalition. As such, resistance to IMC is based on the fear that integrated
marketing communications is only an excuse for advertising agencies to en-
gulf public relations (Kitchen & Schultz, 2009). Organizations are preoccu-
pied with functional focus where capable people are “strapped in functional
boxes,” thereby, being forced to perform specific functional duties like ad-
vertising, public relations, and direct marketing (McArthur & Griffin, 1997;
Schultz et al., 1992).
Despite the limitations of IMC discussed in the previous section, Grein
and Gould (1996) examined the practice of integrated marketing communi-
cations both within promotional disciplines and across countries.
6 M. Zvobgo and T. C. Melewar

Levels of Coordination in GIMC Strategies

As highlighted above, the study of GIMC takes a contingency approach. It is
the degree of coordination that defines whether an organization is practicing
an integrated strategy or a non-integrated strategy. The level of coordination
is influenced by a set of different factors, for example, the firm’s international
experience, the product’s uniqueness, the type of products, and the competi-
tive intensity (Cavusgil, Zou, & Naidu, 1993). These factors vary considerably
in strength and affect communication elements in different ways. Grein and
Gould (1996) classify international firms into four categories, based on the
level of coordination vertically (i.e., between promotional disciplines) and
horizontally (i.e., across countries). These are shown in Table 1.
A firm with a low level of coordination across both promotional dis-
ciplines and countries is following a multidomestic non-integrated strategy.
A firm pursuing a multidomestic integrated strategy integrates its marketing
communication disciplines within countries, but does not coordinate these
disciplines across countries. A firm pursuing global but non-integrated strat-
egy decides to standardize only one promotional discipline in different coun-
tries without attempting to coordinate the promotional discipline with other
promotional disciplines. A firm pursuing a globally integrated strategy coor-
dinates promotional disciplines across both disciplines and countries. This
strategy results when forces for coordination across disciplines and coun-
tries are strong, leading to a globally integrated marketing communication
strategy.
A global strategy is possible because buyer preferences are similar across
countries, so the strategy involves much more standardization of products
and integration of activities across countries than in an international or multi-
national strategy. The integration can involve standardized products, uniform
packaging, identical brands, synchronized product introductions, similar ad-
vertising messages, or coordinated sales campaigns across markets in several
countries (Johansson, 2000). This means that a country might be operating
in different markets but still not practicing global marketing strategies.
The global integrated strategy is based on the premise that global brand
managers within a company’s global marketing units assume accountability
for worldwide brand performance. These global brand managers decide the

TABLE 1 Four Categories of International Firms

Coordination across countries

Coordination
across disciplines High Low

High Global integrated strategy Multidomestic integrated strategy

Low Global non integrated strategy Multidomestic non integrated strategy
Source: Adapted from Grein and Gould (1996).
 Drivers of Globally Integrated Marketing Communications 7

strategic direction for a brand on a worldwide basis and look to the local
country product managers for tactical implementation (Saldanha, Pesanello,
& Harrington, 1997). A global promotional campaign is designed at the outset
for multiple countries by considering both market differences and similarities
(Onkvisit & Shaw, 1999).

RESEARCH PROPOSITIONS

Grein and Gould (1996), Jain (1989), and Roth (1995) argue that the integra-
tion of global marketing communications is affected by many factors. Grein
and Gould (1996) divided these factors into three categories: horizontal fac-
tors, organizational factors, and vertical factors. Horizontal factors comprise
factors such as target market, market position, nature of the product, and
environment. Organizational factors comprise of agency-client relationships,
agency structure, and individual managerial differences. Vertical factors com-
prise marketing mix, overall promotion, advertising creation, advertising me-
dia, sales promotion, and public relations. Roth uses the terms “market con-
ditions,” and identifies two types: cultural and socio-economic conditions.
For the purposes of this study, these horizontal factors are grouped into
two categories: market-situational and organizational factors. Figure 2 is a
diagrammatically representation of the relationships among these two groups
of factors, GIMC, and brand performance.

Market-situational factors

National cultural factors

Technological factors GIMC
Economic factors
Political/legal factors Strategic coordination of: Brand
Product factors • Planning and executing different performance
communications tools
• Assigning responsibility for overall Market share
communications effort to a single
manager Leadership
• Ensuring that the elements have a
common strategic objective Sales volume
• Focusing on a common
communications message Return on
Organizational factors
investment

Agency-client relationships
Organizational culture
Organizational structure
Effort put into interoffice
coordination
Frequency of interoffice
communication
Use of information technology

FIGURE 2 Factors affecting the strategic coordination of GIMC strategies. Source: Adapted
from Grein and Gould (1996); Jain (1989); Low (2000); and Roth (1995).
8 M. Zvobgo and T. C. Melewar

In examining these relationships two steps will be followed. First, the

study intends to examine the effect of these factors on firms’ decisions to im-
plement GIMC. Low (2000) identified four components that contribute to the
coordination of marketing communication activities. These are planning and
executing communications tools, assigning responsibility for overall commu-
nications effort to a single manager, ensuring that the various elements of
the communication program have a common strategic objective, and focus-
ing on a common communication message. Second, the study intends to
examine the effects of implementing GIMC on brand performance.
Prior to carrying the survey, Gould et al. (1999) conducted an ex-
ploratory study of global advertising agencies to establish benchmarks for
the status of GIMC. The exploratory study identified five factors, namely, in-
teroffice coordination, coordination of promotion disciplines, centralization,
frequency of interoffice communication, and use of information technology.
Figure 1 shows some of the factors identified from the literature on interna-
tional/global marketing.
Onkvisit and Shaw (1999) argued that a global strategy is designed at
the outset for multiple countries by considering both market differences
and similarities. In their view a global strategy is, therefore, neither a stan-
dardized nor localized strategy. This study, therefore, supports the view that
firms can standardize some aspects of global marketing communications and
adapt/localize other aspects (Hostage, Fox, & Day, 1986). It should be noted
that most of the work on global marketing was done on advertising, where
it is possible to either standardize or adapt.

Market-Situation Factors and Decisions to Implement

GIMC Strategies
Market-situational factors considered in this study are cultural, technological,
economic, political/legal, and product factors (Buzzell, 1968; Ditcher, 1962;
Dunn, 1966; Hofstede, 1980; Keller, 1999; Kreutzer, 1988; Roth, 1995; Yip,
Loewe, & Yoshino, 1988). We discuss each of the market-situational factors
considered for this study in the following sections.

Cultural Factors
Many studies have been conducted in the area of cross-cultural research
(for example, Douglas & Craig, 1995; Hofstede, 1980; Malholtra, Agarwal, &
Peterson, 1996; Nasif, Al-Daeaj, Ebrahimi, & Thibodeaux, 1991). Hofstede’s
(1980) classic work comparing 40 countries identified four dimensions of
national culture, namely, individualism, power distance, uncertainty avoid-
ance, and masculinity (Malholtra et al.). By individualism, Hofstede refers to
cultures where people are supposed to look after their own interests and
 Drivers of Globally Integrated Marketing Communications 9

that of the immediate family. By power distance, he refers to the extent to

which those who are powerless in a culture accept and expect that power
is distributed unequally. By uncertainty avoidance, he meant the extent to
which people in a culture avoid unstructured, ambiguous situations and
try to avoid them. By masculinity, he meant how men are expected to be
ambitious, while women are expected to be caring and serve.
Hofstede (1980) has made it clear that these four dimensions were
proposed to describe societal contexts, and not individuals (Malholtra et al.,
1996). In other words, what characterizes a culture does not necessarily
characterize individuals in the culture.
National culture encompasses the values, beliefs, attitudes, language,
and assumptions that define a distinct way of life of a group of people and is
based on the fundamental concepts imparted in early individual development
(Britt, 1984; Buzzell, 1968; Hofstede, 1980; Kaynak & Mitchell, 1981; Kreutzer,
1988; Papavassiliou & Stathakopoulos, 1997). It also shapes how reality is
interpreted in a society, such as the distribution and use of power (Hofstede,
1980) relationship definition (Griffith & Harvey, 2001; Trompenaars, 1994)
and the appropriate roles and obligations between individuals, and between
individuals to organizations. In other words, national culture influences the
expected behavior of employees and, in turn, what employees expect in
exchange for their labor (Hofstede, 1980).
Difficulty arises as similarities and unique features between cultures in-
fluence communication among global partners. For example, one national
culture can stress collectivism and harmony in communication, and the
other may stress formalities and the achievement of specific goals (Griffith &
Harvey, 2001). Communications between these global partners can be very
difficult. Even if a firm operates within a similar culture, the macro culture
is divided into a myriad of subcultures (Griffith & Harvey, 2001). These
subculture differences are argued to be potential communication barriers to
effective network operations. For example, messages may be misinterpreted
or marketing intentions undermined within organizations because of differ-
ing subcultural values and beliefs held by organizational members (Daymon,
1999). From the aforementioned discussion, the following is presented as a
research proposition:

P1: Cultural factors in the host country influence the strategic coordi-
nation of globally integrated marketing communications strategies for a
particular brand.

Technological Factors
Kreutzer (1988) observed that the appropriateness of a marketing strategy de-
pends on technological factors. These include rate of technological change
within the industry, distribution systems, and quality of infrastructure. In
10 M. Zvobgo and T. C. Melewar

other words, if technological changes are high companies standardize their

products and customize (localize) when technological changes are stable
(Samiee & Roth, 1992). Gould et al. (1999) state that technology-based infor-
mation flow is likely to be helpful in designing an organizational structure
to implement GIMC. In order to investigate the relationship between tech-
nological factors and the implementation GIMC strategies, we suggest the
following proposition:

P2: Technological factors in the host country influence the strategic coor-
dination of globally integrated marketing communications strategies for
a particular brand.

Economic Factors
The economic conditions prevailing in the host country are of major concern
in influencing global strategy (Buzzell, 1968; Dunn, 1966; Keller, 1998; Roth,
1995). One way in which the economic conditions in a host country can
influence firms’ decisions to implement GIMC strategies is by determining
demand potential for a particular brand (Keller, 1998). The overall level of
economic and industrial development of a country determines customers’
priorities in terms of products they consider essential, in addition to the
prices they are able and willing to pay for different products (Jain, 1989).
Thus, a global marketing communication strategy pursued by a global firm
in a particular foreign country should reflect these factors (Theodosiou &
Katsikeas, 2001). Other factors to be considered are standard of living, in-
come levels, consumer shopping patterns, and similarity of markets. James
and Hill’s (1991) survey findings suggest that advertising standardization
is more likely in less affluent countries than in more affluent countries be-
cause of under-supply of economies, less competition, and less sophisticated
consumers. Based on the aforementioned discussion, we developed the fol-
lowing proposition:

P3: Economic factors in the host country influence the strategic coordi-
nation of globally integrated marketing communications strategies for a
particular brand.

Political and Legal Factors

Empirical evidence has shown that differences in government laws and reg-
ulations across markets are the major obstacles to global marketing (Cavusgil
et al., 1993; Baalbaki & Malhotra, 1995; Malholtra et al., 1996). The political
and legal factors selected in global marketing can have varying degrees of
homogeneity or heterogeneity (Tse, Belk, & Zhou, 1989). According to the
 Drivers of Globally Integrated Marketing Communications 11

authors, the greater the homogeneity, the easier it is to have a standardized

approach. Adaptive strategies should be considered when physical, legal,
and the marketing infrastructure factors differ across countries (Jain, 1989).
Political stability, nationalism, laws regulating competitive behavior; media
restrictions on promotions, independence of media from government af-
fect the implementation of international marketing strategies (Buzzell, 1968;
Ditcher, 1962; Kaynak & Mitchell, 1981). Empirical work could be planned
around two propositions:

P4: Political factors in the host country influence the strategic coordi-
nation of globally integrated marketing communications strategies for a
particular brand.
P5: Legal factors in the host country influence the strategic coordination of
globally integrated marketing communications strategies for a particular
brand.

Product Factors
There is evidence that world brand success may depend on product type,
and some products may be easier than others to develop as global brands
(Domzal & Unger, 1987). The nature of the product affects the degree of a
marketing strategy in global marketing. There are some products that can be
easily standardized, for example, if the product use is similar across markets
(Jain, 1989). In addition, if market response is dominated by differences
between products rather than countries, then a standardized approach should
be adopted (Farley & Lehman, 1994), thereby leading to the implementation
of GIMC (Grein & Gould, 1996). Product factors include product design,
product use conditions, quality levels, and product standards (Buzzell, 1968).
Consumers around the world who are interested in high-tech products
share a common language, in bytes and other technical features, which
enable global strategies to be successful (Domzal & Unger, 1987). High-
tech products such as personal computers, video and stereo equipment, and
automobiles, and high-touch categories such as health food, fitness clothing,
mineral water, and fragrances are popular the world over (Ricks, Fu, &
Arpan, 1974; Domzal & Unger, 1987). High-tech product positioning focuses
on concrete product features. Buyers of these more technical products may
require considerable product information to make their decision (Domzal &
Unger, 1987). In contrast, high-touch products emphasize image as opposed
to specific copy points and tend to use more emotive appeals.
The stage of the product life cycle is a fundamental variable affecting
global marketing strategies and marketing communication strategies across
the various stages (Anderson & Zeithaml, 1984). In view of such differences,
the most effective way to promote a product may vary from market to market
12 M. Zvobgo and T. C. Melewar

(Keegan, 1999). Consequently, global firms need to modify their marketing

communication strategies to take account of particular local market condi-
tions (Rau & Prebble, 1987). The significance of such an approach diminishes
in circumstance in which there is no difference in a product’s life cycle stage
between the domestic and the international markets (Sorenson & Wiech-
mann, 1975). To investigate the relationship between product factors and
implementation of GIMC strategies, we present the following proposition:

P6: Product factors influence the strategic coordination of globally inte-

grated marketing communications strategies for a particular brand.

Organizational Factors and Decisions to Implement GIMC Strategies

Organizational factors such as structure, agency-client relationships, organi-
zational culture, effort put into interoffice coordination, frequency of interof-
fice communication, and use of information technology clearly affect how
well a desired global strategy can be implemented (Gould, Lerman, & Grein,
1999; Yip et al., 1988).

Agency-Client Relationship
In global marketing, the nature of the relationship between the client and the
agency may affect the decisions to implement GIMC. For example, where
clients are stronger than the agency, this may lead to poor quality advertising
(Grein & Gould, 1996). Implementation of GIMC may depend as much on the
confidence in the local agency talent as on other factors (Hite & Fraser, 1988).
Importantly, agencies recognize that clients are driving the trend towards IMC
(Schultz & Kitchen, 1999). Therefore, we posit that:

P7: The importance of agency-client relationship influences the strategic

coordination of globally integrated marketing communications strategies
for a particular brand.

Organizational Culture
Organizational culture is manifested by a culture taken from the individ-
uals in the organization (for example, employees and managers) as well
as the standards and/or operating process and procedures that are estab-
lished within the organization itself (Griffith & Harvey, 2001). Perlmutter
(1969) distinguishes among ethnocentric, polycentric, and geocentric cul-
tures. Ohmae (1985) argued that managers and units should be treated as
if they were equidistant from the corporate centre. The objective is to let
 Drivers of Globally Integrated Marketing Communications 13

culture of a global rather than a national identity implements a global mar-

keting strategy.
For this study, we define a global culture as a culture that is neutral
between countries or nationalities. This culture is indicated by the extent to
which the overall culture of the company is global rather that of the home
country. Increased communication complexity is derived with increased cul-
tural diversity in the organization. Difference among organizational cultures
within a network of organizations can create conflict among member firms.
Organizational culture is recognized as an ordering characteristic that is re-
flected in the employees’ attributes and understanding, policies and prac-
tices implemented, and overall conditions of the work environment (Schein,
1985). Thus, we propose that:

P8: The importance of organizational culture of both the headquarters

and the subsidiary in the host country influences the strategic coordi-
nation of globally integrated marketing communications strategies for a
particular brand.

Organizational Structure
The shape an organization takes has implications for the practice and posi-
tions of marketing communications. Whether managed communications take
a strategic or tactical role, whether they are controlled centrally or are decen-
tralized often depends upon the way an organization is structured, i.e., the
formal lines of accountability and interaction of people in an organization
(Daymon, 1999). The structure of a firm is an important factor in implement-
ing GIMC strategies. One reason for the success of Gillette in Asia-Pacific
region was the structure introduced which allowed its managers to learn
how to cooperate with people that they had no direct authority over, that
is, people from an acquired business (Kanter & Dretler, 1998). The resultant
structure permitted cohesion. The new structure was designed to not only
exploit synergies and avoid duplication but also to advance Gillette’s global
integration strategy by allowing the company to act as a single entity to
suppliers in developing markets. Based on the aforementioned, we suggest:

P9: The importance of organizational structure of both the headquarters

and the subsidiary in the host country influences the strategic coordi-
nation of globally integrated marketing communications strategies for a
particular brand.
14 M. Zvobgo and T. C. Melewar

Interoffice Coordination
Coordination has been identified as a major part of both IMC and GIMC
(Duncan & Caywood, 1996; Grein & Gould, 1996). Effort in and frequency
of interoffice coordination is seen as an internal organizational process for
managing various business aspects. Following Grein and Gould (1996), the
emphasis is on intrafirm, interoffice coordination by focusing on the multiple,
cross-national offices of global firms. We believe that the effort put into such
coordination affects the implementation of GIMC strategies. Communication
has been associated with the process of coordination (Guiltinan, Rejab, &
Rogers, 1980). Following Gould et al. (1999), we share their view that col-
laborative communication influences the implementation of GIMC strategies,
since the global firm and the firm in the host country may often act inde-
pendently or interdependently. The following proposition is developed:

P10: The importance of effort put into inter-office coordination and the
frequency of interoffice between the headquarters and the subsidiary in the
host country influences the strategic coordination of globally integrated
marketing communications strategies for a particular brand.

Information Technology
Schultz et al. (1992) argued that communications technology and the wider
technological revolution are very important factors in driving integrated mar-
keting communication programs. One important aspect of communication
technology is information technology which involves the use of electronic
devices to assemble, store, and transmit relevant organizational information
(Bharadawaj, Varadarajan, & Fahy, 1993; Zahay et al., 2009). Specific infor-
mation technologies of interest include faxes, videoconferencing, and e-mail
via intranet/internet. Information technology creates differential advantages,
and as such, is helpful in designing an organizational structure to implement
GIMC (Gould, Lerman, & Grein, 1999). Therefore, we posit that:

P11: The importance of the use of information technology between the

headquarters and the subsidiary in the host country influences the strate-
gic coordination of globally integrated marketing communications strate-
gies for a particular brand.

Brand Performance
A major problem in this area of research study is that while IMC is recognized
as offering significant value to clients and agencies, no acceptable disposi-
tion of measurement has found widespread acceptance (Kitchen & Schultz,
 Drivers of Globally Integrated Marketing Communications 15

1999). However, senior management is demanding assurance that market-

ing investments are made in the right places (Hayman & Schultz, 1999).
In addition, the pursuit of global standardization is generally considered to
be appropriate only to the extent to which it has a positive influence on
financial performance (Samiee & Roth, 1992).
A number of writers have shown that implementing IMC is related to
brand performance. For example, an empirical study by Fraser and Hite
(1990) showed a positive correlation between some international marketing
mix variables and market share, sales volume, and profitability. An empirical
study by Duncan and Everett (1993) on client-organizations’ perspective of
IMC indicates that IMC has a significant effect on sales level. In an empirical
study of companies Low (2000) found a positive relationship between IMC
and current market share, sales volume, and profit.
Schultz et al. (1992) pointed out that one of the major advantages of IMC
is that it focuses on sales and profit goals. In their view, marketing organi-
zations are totally dependent on customer, so the customer base determines
the amount of product that can be sold, which, in turn, partly determines
the level of profit. They also argued that firms adopting true IMC perspec-
tives emphasize sales and other behavioral measures. According to Bergen
(1996) and Wood (1997) in order to build market share from increasingly
segmented audiences and mind share from over-stimulated consumers, mar-
keters have been combining advertising, promotions, events and sponsor-
ships, direct marketing, and public relations. Consequently, the measures of
brand performance adopted for this study are market share (de Mooji, 1994;
Prescot, 1986), brand leadership (Broadbent, 1999; Weinstein, 1998), price
premium (de Chernatony & McDonald 1998; Weinstein, 1998), sales vol-
ume (Weinstein, 1998), and return on investment (Fraser & Hite, 1990). The
aforementioned discussion raises the question, “Does implementing GIMC
strategies improve the performance of a particular brand?” To answer this
question, we suggest the following proposition:

P12: Implementing a GIMC strategy improves brand performance.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The main objective of this article was to review the literature on factors
that influence firms’ decisions to implement GIMC strategies. A review of
relevant literature shows two main groups of factors: market-situational and
organizational factors. A conceptual framework was developed and research
propositions suggested.
There are theoretical, academic, and managerial implications of this
article. In terms of theoretical implications, the article builds on our under-
standing of both integrated marketing communications (IMC) and globally
16 M. Zvobgo and T. C. Melewar

integrated marketing communications (GIMC). Being a fairly new concept,

the study makes a significant contribution to the conceptualization of GIMC.
In terms of academic implications, the framework presented in this
article could be used to determine the factors that influence firms’ decisions
to implement GIMC strategies. The review of literature here goes beyond
the studies conducted to date that looked at only one element of global
marketing communications i.e. advertising. A study by Cavusgil et al. (1993)
found that the decision to standardize advertising campaigns was influenced
by a firm’s international experience, product’s uniqueness, and the type of
the product and the competitive intensity. An empirical study would examine
the factors that influence firms’ decisions to implement GIMC strategies, and
whether implementing GIMC strategies improve brand performance.
In terms of managerial implications, the framework developed in this
article could help managers to identity those factors that influence their de-
cisions to implement GIMC strategies. According to Grein and Gould (1996),
managers need to know the factors that influence their decisions to either
standardize or adapt their global marketing communications activities. They
need this information when developing their global marketing communi-
cations activities in their own settings as a way of actively managing their
portfolios of countries and subsidiaries and promotional competencies and
personnel.
Specifically, the framework would help managers in planning and im-
plementing GIMC strategies. It would help them to be aware of different
factors in the competitive target markets so that they can develop and imple-
ment appropriate marketing communication strategies. It would help them
to know coordination techniques; that is, when to coordinate their market-
ing communication disciplines, and databases management techniques. The
framework would help managers to see how GIMC plays a strategic role
in today’s competitive environment. Most of all, the framework would help
managers to know whether implementing GIMC strategies improve brand
performance. This is of great interest to both practitioners and academics.

REFERENCES

Abrahamson, E. (1996). Management fashions. Academy of Management Review,

21(1), 258–285.
Anderson, C., & Zeithaml, C. P. (1984). Stage of product life cycle, business strat-
egy, and business performance. Academy of Management Journal, 27(1), 5–
24.
Baalbaki, I. B., & Malhotra, N. K. (1995). Standardization versus customization in in-
ternational marketing: an investigation using bridging conjoint analysis. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(3), 182–194.
Bergen, J. D. (1996). Beyond integrated marketing. Management Review, 85(5),
62–64.
 Drivers of Globally Integrated Marketing Communications 17

Bharadawaj, S., Varadarajan, R. P., & Fahy, J. (1993). Sustainable competitive ad-
vantage in service industries: A conceptual model research and propositions.
Journal of Marketing, 57(4), 83–99.
Britt, S. H. (1974). Standardizing marketing for the international market. Columbia
Journal of World Business, 9(4), 39–45.
Broadbent, M. (1999). Measures of business performance. London, UK: The Chartered
Institute of Management Accountants.
Buzzell, R. D. (1968). Can you standardize multinational marketing? Harvard Busi-
ness Review, 46(6), 102–113.
Cavusgil, T. S., Zou, S., & Naidu, G. M. (1993). Product and promotion adaptation
in export venture: An empirical investigation. Journal of International Business
Studies, 24(3), 479–506.
Cornelissen, J. P., & Lock, P. A. (2000). Theoretical concept or management fashion?
Examining the significance of IMC. Journal of Advertising Research, 40(5), 7–15.
Davidson, J. A., & Grab, E. (1993). The contribution of advertising testing to the
development of effective international advertising: The KitKat case study. Mar-
keting and Research Today, 21(1), 15–24.
Daymon, C. (1999). The organizational context of marketing communications. In P.
Kitchen (Ed.), Marketing communications: Principles and practice (pp. 73–88).
London, UK: International Thompson Business Press.
de Chernatony, L., & McDonald, M. (1998). Creating powerful brands. Oxford, UK:
Butterworth and Heinemann.
de Mooji, M. (1994). Advertising worldwide. New York, NY: Prentice-Hall.
Ditcher, E. (1962). The world customer. Harvard Business Review, 40(4), 113–122.
Domzal T., & Unger, L (1987). Emerging positioning strategies in global marketing.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 4(4), 23–40.
Douglas, S. P., & Craig, C. S. (1995). Global marketing strategies. New York, NY:
McGraw Hill.
Drobis, D. R. (1997). Integrated marketing: Communications redefined. Journal of
Integrated Communications, 8, 6–10.
Duncan, T., & Caywood, C. (1996). The concept, process, and evolution of integrated
marketing communications. In E. Thorson & J. Moore (Eds.), Integrated com-
munications: Synergy of persuasive voices (pp. 13–34). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Duncan, T. R., & Everett, S. E. (1993). Client perceptions of integrated marketing
communications. Journal of Advertising Research, 33(3), 30–39.
Dunn, W. (1966). The case study approach in cross-cultural research. Journal of
Marketing Research, 3(1), 26–31.
Farley, J. U., & Lehmann, D. R. (1994). Cross-national “laws” and differences in
market response. Management Science, 40(1), 111–122.
Fraser, C., & Hite, R. E. (1990). Configuration and coordination of global advertising.
Journal of Business Research, 21(4), 335–344.
Gould, S. J., Lerman, D. B., & Grein, A. F. (1999). Agency perceptions and practices
on global IMC. Journal of Advertising Research, 39(1), 7–20.
Grein, A. F., & Gould, S. J. (1996). Globally integrated marketing communications.
Journal of Marketing Communications, 2(3), 141–158.
Griffith, D. A., & Harvey, M. G. (2001). Executive insights: An international model for
use in global international networks. Journal of International Marketing, 9(3),
87–103.
18 M. Zvobgo and T. C. Melewar

Guiltinan, J., Rejab, I., & Rogers, W.,(1980). Factors influencing coordination in a
franchise channel. Journal of Retailing, 56(3), 41–58.
Hayman, D., & Schultz, D. E. (1999). Measuring returns on marketing 2000 and
communications investments. Strategy and Leadership, 27(3), 26–33.
Hite, R. E., & Fraser, C. (1988). International advertising strategies of multinational
corporations. Journal of Advertising Research, 28(4), 9–17.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, leadership and organization: Do American theories
apply abroad? Organisational Dynamics, 9(1), 42–63.
Hutton, J. (1996). Integrated marketing communications and the evolution of mar-
keting thought. Journal of Business Research, 37(3), 155–162.
Jain, S. C. (1989). Standardization of international marketing strategy: Some research
hypotheses. Journal of Marketing, 53(1), 70–79.
James, W. L., & Hill, J. S. (1991). International advertising messages: To adapt or
not to adapt (that is the question). Journal of Advertising Research, 31(3),
65–71.
Johansson, J. K. (2000). Global marketing: Foreign entry, local marketing, and global
management. Boston, MA: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Kanter, R. M., & Dretler, T. (1998). Global strategy and its impact on local operations:
Lessons from Gillette Singapore. Academy of Management Executive, 12(4),
60–68.
Kaynak, E., & Mitchell, L. A. (1981). Analysis of marketing strategies used in diverse
cultures. Journal of Advertising Research, 21(3), 25–32.
Keegan, W. J. (1999). Global marketing management. London, UK: Prentice Hall
International.
Keller, K. (1998). Building, measuring and managing brand equity. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kelly, J. S., & Jones, S. K. (eds.) (2008). The IMC handbook: Readings and cases in
integrated marketing communications. Chicago, IL: Racom Communications.
Kerr, G., Schultz, D., Patti, C., & Kim, I. (2008). An inside-out approach to integrated
marketing communication: An international analysis. International Journal of
Advertising, 27(4), 511–548.
Kitchen, P. J., & Schultz, D. E. (1999). A multi-country comparison of the drive for
IMC. Journal of Advertising, 39(1), 21–38.
Kliatchko, J. (2008). Revisiting the IMC construct: A revised definition and four pillars.
International Journal of Advertising, 27(1), 133–160.
Kliatchko, J. (2009). IMC 20 years after: A second look at IMC definitions. Interna-
tional Journal of Integrated Marketing Communications, 1(2), 7–12.
Kreutzer, R. T. (1988). Marketing-mix standardization: An integrated approach in
global marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 22(10), 19–30.
Linton, I., & Morley, K. (1995). Integrated marketing communications. Oxford, UK:
Butterworth Heinemann.
Low, G. S. (2000). Correlates of integrated marketing communications. Journal of
Advertising Research, 40(3), 27–39.
Malholtra, N. K., Agarwal, J., & Peterson, M. (1996). Methodical issues in cross-
cultural marketing research. International Marketing Review, 13(5), 7–43.
McArthur, D. N., & Griffin, T. (1997). A marketing management view of integrated
marketing communications. Journal of Advertising Research, 37(5), 19–26.
 Drivers of Globally Integrated Marketing Communications 19

Melewar, T. C., & Saunders, J. (1999). International corporate visual identity: Stan-
dardization or localization. Journal of International Business Studies, 30(3),
583–598.
Nasif, E., Al-Daeaj, H., Ebrahimi, B., & Thibodeaux, M. S. (1991). Methodological
problems in cross-cultural research: An updated review. Management Interna-
tional Review, 31(1), 79–91.
Nowak, G., & Phelps, J. (1994). The integrated marketing communications phe-
nomenon: An examination of its impact on advertising practices and its im-
plications for advertising research. Journal of Current Issues and Research in
Advertising, 16(1), 49–66.
Ohmae, K. (1985). Triad power: The coming shape of global competition. New York,
NY: Free Press.
Onkvisit, S., & Shaw, J. J. (1999). Standardization of international advertising: Some
research issues and implications. Journal of Advertising Research, 39(6), 19–23
O’Sullivan, T. (1996). Positive linking. Marketing Week, 18(50), 45–48.
Papavassiliou, N., & Stathakopoulos, V. (1997). Standardization versus adaptation of
international advertising strategies: towards a framework. European Journal of
Marketing, 31(7), 504–527.
Perlmutter, H. V. (1969). The tortuous evolution of the multinational corporation.
Columbia Journal of World Business, 4(1), 9–18.
Phelps, J. E., Harris, T. E., & Johnson, E. (1996). Exploring decision-making ap-
proaches and responsibility for developing marketing communications strategy.
Journal of Business Research, 37, 217–223.
Prescot, J. E. (1986). Environments as moderator of the relationship between strategy
and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 29(2), 329–346.
Rau, P. A., & Preble, J. F. (1987). Standardization of marketing strategy by multina-
tionals. International Marketing Review, 4(3), 18–28.
Ricks, D. A., Fu, M. Y., & Arpan, J. (1974). International business blunders. Colum-
bus, OH: Grid.
Roth, M. S. (1995). Effects of global market conditions on brand image customization
and brand performance. Journal of Advertising, 24(4), 55–75.
Saldanha, G., Pesanello, P., & Harrington, E. (1997, December). Building value
through global markets. Pharmaceutical Executive, 17(12), 72–81.
Samiee, S., & Roth, K. (1992). The influence of global marketing standardization on
performance. Journal of Marketing, 56(2), 1–17.
Schein, E. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Schultz, D. E (1996). The inevitability of integrated communications. Journal of
Business Research, 37(3), 139–146.
Schultz, D. E. (1997). Check out your level of integration. Marketing News, 31(17),
10–16.
Schultz, D. E (1998). New century needs new marcom methods. Marketing News,
32(3), 12–13.
Schultz, D. E., & Kitchen, P. J. (2000). Communicating globally: An integrated mar-
keting approach. Chicago, IL: NTC Business Books.
Schultz, D. E., & Patti, C. (2009). The evolution of IMC: IMC in a customer-driven
marketplace. Journal of Marketing Communications, 15(2/3), 75–84.
20 M. Zvobgo and T. C. Melewar

Schultz, D. E., Tannenbam, S. I., & Lauterborn, R. F. (1992). Integrated marketing

communications: Putting it together & making it work. Chicago: NTC Business
Books.
Sloan, J. R. (1994, February 28). Ad agencies should learn the facts of life. Marketing
News pp. 4–5.
Sorenson, R. Z., & Wiechmann, U. (1975). How multinationals view marketing stan-
dardization. Harvard Business Review, 53(3), 38–45.
Stewart, D. W. (1997). Market-back approach to the design of integrated marketing
communications programs: A change in paradigm and a focus on determinants
of success. Journal of Business Research, 37(3), 147–153.
Theodosiou, M., & Katsikeas, C. S. (2001). Factors influencing the degree of inter-
national standardization of multinational corporations. Journal of International
Marketing, 9(3), 1–18.
Trompenaars, F. (1994). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding diversity in
global business. Burr Ridge, IL: Richard D. Irwin.
Tse, D. K., Belk, R. W., & Zhou, N. (1989). Becoming a consumer society: A lon-
gitudinal and cross-cultural content analysis of print ads from Hong Kong, the
People’s Republic of China, and Taiwan. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(4),
457–572.
Weinstein, L. (1998, December). Branding: a refresher course. Bank Marketing,
30(12), 12–13.
Wightman, B. (1999). Integrated communications organisations and education. Pub-
lic Relations Quarterly, 44(2), 18–22.
Wood, M. B. (1997). Clear IMC goals build strong relationships. Marketing News,
31(13), 11–15.
Yeshin, T. (1998). Integrated marketing communications. Oxford, UK: Butterworth
Heinemann.
Yip, G. S., Loewe, P. M., & Yoshino, M. Y. (1988). How to take your company to
the global market. Columbia Journal of World Business, 23(4), 37–48.
Zahay, D., Mason, C. H., & Schibrowsky, J. A. (2009). The present and future of
IMC and database marketing. International Journal of Integrated Marketing
Communications, 1(2), 13–30.
Copyright of Journal of Promotion Management is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.