2 integrated marketing

5/28/2018 2 Integrated Marketing

1/13

Corporate Communications: An International JournalEmerald Article: Integrated marketing communication and postmodernity: anodd couple?

Lars Thger Christensen, Simon Torp, A. Fuat Firat

Article information:

To cite this document: Lars Thger Christensen, Simon Torp, A. Fuat Firat, (2005),"Integrated marketing communication and

postmodernity: an odd couple?", Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 10 Iss: 2 pp. 156 - 167

Permanent link to this document:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13563280510596961

Downloaded on: 30-08-2012

References: This document contains references to 50 other documents

Citations: This document has been cited by 13 other documents

To copy this document: [email protected]

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSIDADE FED DE PERNAMBUCO

For Authors:

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.

Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit

www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in

business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as


2/13

, y, p p y , p j ,

Integrated marketingcommunication and

postmodernity: an odd couple?Lars Thger Christensen, Simon Torp and A. Fuat Firat

The Department of Marketing, The University of Southern Denmark,Odense M, Denmark

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that, under conditions of postmodernity, themarket is too complex to be responded to with an IMC-framework. While the desire of IMC scholarsand practitioners to reinstate order and predictability in an increasingly disordered and fragmentedworld is understandable, such a mission may be misguided. The paper seeks to discuss the possibility

that such attempts instead precipitate the production of complexity of an even more unpredictablenature.

Design/methodology/approach The paper proceeds through a critical juxtaposition ofpostmodernity and IMC, arguing that the latter with its ambition to impose order and control fails to understand important dimensions of contemporary markets.

Findings Rather than imposing a monological and hegemonic identity on markets andorganizations an identity that will unavoidably be challenged by consumers and employees contemporary marketers and managers need to realize that organizational change and adaptabilitypresuppose openness to variety, difference and polyphony.

Research limitations/implications Although organizations, just like individuals, need acoherent narrative, polyphony promotes shared understandings and involvement and permits a kindof collective ownership that cannot be attained through the simple application of one-way managerialmodels that claim consistency and coherence without founding it in the life-world of the receiver.

Originality/value Postmodern communication cannot adhere tightly to principles of IMC. Instead,openness towards fluidity and a certain degree of indeterminacy must be nurtured if organizationswish to cope with the postmodern world. Along with tolerance toward variety, organizations need todevelop a tolerance for meanings negotiated together with consumer communities, such as brandcommunities, in the market.

KeywordsIntegrated marketing communications, Postmodernism

Paper type Conceptual paper

IntroductionHaving been a salient issue within social theory for almost three decades, it wasnt tillthe 1990 s that the field of marketing explicitly acknowledged postmodernism as animportant descriptor of the current social condition (e.g. Ogilvy, 1990; Brown, 1993a;Firat and Venkatesh, 1993, 1997; Cova, 1996). Although the sub-field of marketingcommunications, with a few exceptions, hasnt yet embraced the notion, lately itsyounger cousin, integrated marketing communications (IMC), has been chiming in.The specific and increasingly complex conditions of postmodernity, we are told by IMCscholars, necessitate an integrated approach to the management of the growing field ofmarketing communications (e.g. Proctor and Kitchen, 2002; see also De Pelsmackeret al., 2001). Postmodernism, in other words, calls for integrated marketingcommunication solutions. But is this really the case? Is IMC and postmodernism a

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/1356-3289.htm

CCIJ10,2

156

Corporate Communications: An

International Journal

Vol. 10 No. 2, 2005

pp. 156-167

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

1356-3289

DOI 10.1108/13563280510596961


3/13

suitable match? In this paper we argue that this is not the case, that clinging to an ideaof control of meanings solely by the author of the text is exhibiting a modernistimpulse in the advent of a postmodern turn.

Without question, the classical marketing approach of assessing and adapting to

the needs and wants of customers is being challenged in todays social environment inwhich such needs and wants are unclear or highly fluid, and in which the lifestyles ofconsumers exhibit disconnectedness or fragmentation (Bauman, 2000). Under suchcircumstances, the rational desire of to uncover and incorporate an unequivocal notionof the consumer is doomed to fail. Whether we refer to postmodernity or prefer otherterms for this condition of late modernity, the market of today is fraught withcomplexity and calls for sophisticated approaches to marketing and communication.Rather than jumping to the conclusion that the integration of marketingcommunications is the proper solution to a fragmented market, however, we suggesttaking a closer look at the phenomena in this equation postmodernity and IMC.

Modernity instilled the desire to control and order the world in order to complete aproject; that of controlling nature through scientific technologies to build a grandfuture for humanity (Angus, 1989). Accomplishing such a unified, grand goal did,indeed, require a rational ordering of the world that would allow the most efficientprogress towards the achievement of the goal. Such a project could not be completedunder conditions of disorder or chaos. It is understandable, therefore, that modernsystems and processes would emphasize control over phenomena in order to impose areasoned and organized, efficient progress toward uniform goals.

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that postmodernity is far too complex tobe responded to with a singularly ordered system; and in postmodernity, the market istoo complex to be responded to with an IMC-framework. The desire of IMC scholarsand practitioners to reinstate order and predictability in an increasingly disordered andfragmented world is very understandable, but may be misguided. We are concerned

that such attempts may, instead, precipitate the production of complexity of an evenmore unpredictable nature. The paper proceeds through a critical juxtaposition ofpostmodernity and IMC, arguing that the latter with its ambition to impose orderand control fails to understand important dimensions of contemporary markets.Rather than providing an extensive account of postmodernity as a social condition, wewill concentrate our discussion on a few significant features relevant to marketing andmarketing communications in particular. To rebut what we see as a reductionistcontrol perspective of IMC a perspective with potential for counter-productiveimplications for contemporary organizations we suggest using a perspective that notonly acknowledges complexity, but is able to match it accordingly.

The postmodern challengePut succinctly, postmodernity designates a social condition of profound doubt in thegrand project of modernity the project of progress, development and emancipation.Against the modern belief in a universal science based on reason and objectiveinformation as the foundation of this project, postmodern writers contend that thisfoundation is shaking and that the project, as a consequence, has lost its directive force(Lyotard, 1984). While the principles of reason and objective information have beenemployed in the service of totalitarian and essentially anti-modern projects, modernscience has itself most notably through developments in twentieth century physics

Integratmarketi

communicati

15


4/13

contributed to the erosion of a universal and privileged point of reference (Greene,2000). At the same time that the natural sciences demonstrated that the universe has nocentre and that observations are always relative to the observer, philosophers beganquestioning the foundation of our knowledge (e.g. Prigogine and Stengers, 1984). In

addition to philosophy, today we find traces of this questioning in a variety ofdisciplines and social practices, including art, architecture, literature, literary criticism,history and social theory (Rosenau, 1992). Within these different domains, the erosionof an authoritative point of reference has stimulated new modes of expression that atonce challenge our notion of a single reality and suggest alternative ways to combinestyles, genres and worldviews.

Marketing is one of the social practices in which the postmodern conditionmanifests itself most conspicuously (e.g. Brown, 1993b; Firat and Venkatesh, 1993).Although marketing theory is still largely modern in its outlook, its mode of analysisand its strategic approach, the nature of the market and the behaviour of consumershave become far too complex to be encompassed within the logocentric perspective of

modern marketing. Without a universal point of reference, our notions of truth,objectivity and authority are constantly challenged by alternative interpretationsand worldviews (Bauman, 1992). In the context of the market, this challenge manifestsitself as a lack of commitment to universal or totalizing ideas, a distrust of planned andpre-packaged images and general propensity to play around with signs and modes ofsignification (Cova, 1996). As a consequence, the postmodern market is characterizedby hyperreality, fragmentation and a tendency for production and consumption tobecome reversed (Firat and Venkatesh, 1993).

Hyperreality implies that the hype or the simulation is seen as, and becomes, morereal than the reality it allegedly represents. With the erosion of a shared foundation formeaning, signifiers become autonomized and only ephemerally linked to their originalreferents. Thus, for example, the intertextual association between and among

advertising messages is often more pronounced than the link between the message andthe product (Christensen, 2001). The image is not only seen as the primary essence, asBoorstin (1961) pointed out many years ago, but is often taken to represent nothing butitself. In fact, postmodern writers contend that there is nothing hidden behind thefacade, that appearances are our true reality (Baudrillard, 1988, 1994).

With signifiers floating freely vis-a-vis their referents and often replacing these asour primary point of orientation, the social life becomes fragmented in a series ofdisjointed experiences and images. When fragmentation is predominant, differentstyles and genres are combined in novel and previously unthinkable ways. Thus,we have the pastiche as a quintessential postmodern phenomenon. And, since there isno universal authority to guide the signification process, we find today a paradoxicalcoexistence or juxtaposition of ideas, terms and principles that used to be thought of ascontradictory or even antagonistic. We observe such juxtaposition of oppositesprimarily in architecture, art and advertising where the play with signifiers and theability to redefine the meaning of terms, ideas and images are valued most explicitly(Firat and Venkatesh, 1993).

With the possibility of resignifying the ideas and messages of others, it becomesclear that consumption, rather than being a passive act of unpacking and discoveringthe meaning intended by the producer, is an active and creative process through whichconsumers continuously produce and reproduce their own identity (e.g. Gabriel and

CCIJ10,2

158


5/13

Lang, 1995). In their construction of identities and life styles, consumers draw from agrowing pool of symbols and signs that are constantly reconfigured and recombined ina bricolage-manner to fit each specific situation. Thus, consumption, in a sense,becomes production. Although consumption operates within a space delineated by the

system of production, it is not reduced to this system and transgresses it in a number ofsignificant ways (du Gay, 1996). Postmodern consumers interpret and use the productsand messages differently from their original purpose, reshape and adapt them topersonal use, and modify and sometimes pervert their meanings in ways not imaginedby their creators (Cova, 1996).

From a marketing perspective, one of the most important implications ofpostmodernity is the loss of control, consistency and predictability. The postmodernconsumer is, according to Ogilvy (1990, p. 15) a semiotic field of mixed messages,conflicting meanings and inconsistent impulses. Thus, whereas modern marketing isfounded on the principles of analysis, planning, implementation, and control (e.g.Kotler, 2003), marketers of today need to realize that they are no longer masters ofmeaning, that their products and messages are creations with a life of their own, andthat their intended receivers are not passive targets but creative partners in theproduction of experiences and identities.

To regard consumers as partners in the process of creating meaning, however, is notthe same as assuming that they are generally interested in establishing relations withthe producer. As Cova (1996) points out, the postmodern consumer prefers to createand maintain relations with other consumers, not necessarily with a brand or acompany behind the brand. The mistake of many marketing approaches to thepostmodern condition is, according to Cova, their notion that the erosion of a universaland shared perspective of meaning must be compensated for by the consumption ofcorporate images and symbols. While images and symbols obviously play a centralrole in the creation of individual identities, it is their linking value their ability to

link people with likeminded individuals which is of interest to the consumer, saysCova, not their reference to a virtual community of consumers designed and managedby corporations (see also, Christensen and Cheney, 2000; Davidson, 1998; Morgan,1999). Organizations that embark on grand reorganizing projects designed to sell thecompany behind the brand, tend to ignore this significant difference as well as othercentral aspects of postmodernity. Integrated marketing communications is one suchproject.

Integrated marketing communicationsOver the past decade, integrated marketing communications (IMC) has become apowerful idea within the marketing field and beyond. While leading marketingscholars have described IMC as a paradigmatic revolution with extensive implicationsfor contemporary management and communication practice (e.g. Schultz et al., 1994;Schultz and Kitchen, 2000), increasingly marketing practitioners have adopted thelanguage of integration when approaching the expanding field of market-relatedcommunications (see, Cornelissen, 2001). Although the growing managerialendorsement of IMC does not reflect the actual implementation of the idea inpractice (Cornelissen, 2001, 2003), the language of IMC and its implied notion ofaligning and coordinating all communications has gradually become shared currencyamong marketers and advertisers.

Integratmarketi

communicati

15


6/13

What is IMC, then? While marketing scholars continue to debate formal definitionsof IMC, many discussions take their point of departure in the definition provided in1989 by the American Association of Advertising Agencies (AAAA). The 4Asdefinition states that IMC is:

A concept of marketing communication planning that recognizes the added value of acomprehensive plan that evaluates the strategic roles of a variety of communicationdisciplines for example, general advertising, direct response, sales promotion, and PR and combines them to provide clarity, consistency and maximum communication impactthrough the seamless integration discrete messages.

As Duncan and Caywood (1996) point out, this definition highlights the advantages ofcombining different media, but ignores the receiver end of the communication process.To compensate for this, Duncan and Caywood promote a set of broader definitions thatdraw attention, in various ways, to issues like multiple audiences, sources ofinformation, consumer behaviour, stakeholder relationships, and brand loyalty. Withtheir emphasis on differences, however, such definitional exercises fail to provide a

clear understanding of what IMC across definitional nuances implies to theorganizational setting. From a managerial perspective, the development of newdefinitions of IMC over the last decade may in fact be less significant than the qualitiesthese definitions have in common.

Across their differences, the definitions of IMC all converge around the notion ofcontrol. While Schultzet al.(1994) at Northwestern Universitys Integrated MarketingCommunication program, for example, focus on the management of the sources ofinformation to which customers are exposed, Duncan (1993) talks about controlling orinfluencing all messages which customers and other stakeholders use in forming animage of, and maintaining a relationship with, an organization. And while the purposeof such control measures varies from issues of sales and brand value (e.g. Keegan et al.,1992) over predictability (Proctor and Kitchen, 2002) to profitable relationships with

customers and other stakeholders, the promise of IMC is to provide the overarchingperspective and tool for a synchronization and coordination of all corporate messages.Although some IMC-scholars emphasize that the role of the corporate communicationdepartment is to counsel, mediate, support, and add value to the business units, not topolice them (Gronstedt, 1996), IMC is first and foremost a marketing-inspired vision oninspection, regulation, and control. In fact, it may be argued, along with Cornelissen(2001), that the reason why the IMC discourse appeals to managers is because itlegitimizes the organization and control of all communication functions.

Even the literature that claims to take its point of departure in the perspective of theconsumer is shaped by such control philosophy. Schultzet al.(1994, p. 5), for example,who contend that the integration serves to adapt communications to customerperceptions, argue that while decentralization may be desirable in order to pushdecision making as close to the customer as possible, the need for integration calls forcentralized jurisdiction: Integration cannot be accomplished by middle managers orfrom those in the lower levels of the organization. It must come from the top, and itcant be just a memo or a directive . . . There must be a commitment from topmanagement to integrate and to remove the barriers which prevent integration.Emphasizing the need for consistency across all media forms and across customergroups, Schultzet al.(1994) even suggest the establishment of a communications czarendowed with the power to regulate and control communications across the

CCIJ10,2

160


7/13

organizational setting. Likewise, van Riel (1995), who stresses the importance of areceiver-oriented perspective on integrated marketing communications, promotes asender-oriented approach focused on careful coordination, planning and control.

And lately, Proctor and Kitchen (2002, p. 148), who explicitly emphasize the need for

sensitivity to the postmodern condition, end up endorsing a modernist approach to themarket. They write: Communicators need to have access to extensive and ongoingdata gathering and information services in order to provide a degree of predictabilityas to which messages to deploy to influence which customers, and stakeholders viawhich contact points. While the need for market intelligence is as critical as ever, suchconventional attempts to reinstall predictability through the control of contact pointsmiss the observation that consumers in todays market pick and choose amongavailable signifiers, twist and manipulate them to fit individual purposes and regardattempts to control their interpretations with suspicion and ridicule (e.g. Firat et al.,1995). Across different definitions and aspirations, IMC is embedded in the grandmodern project of controlling nature through reason and objective information.

Obviously, the vision of control depends on the scope of the integration project.From the relatively limited notion of integrated communication as we find, forexample, in corporate design programs or in the classical marketing perspective ofaligning the 4 Ps, over the more ambitious pursuit of creating and maintaining acoherent and shared corporate culture, to the integration of business partners,customers and other stakeholders, integrated marketing communications hasdeveloped from a rather bounded and specialized activity to an organization-wideissue and concern. In other words, where notions like coordination, orchestration,consistency, speaking with one voice, etc. used have fairly limited organizationalimplications, today they suggest an extensive managerial undertaking that presumesto cover all communicative dimensions of an organizations life. Thus, Aberg (1990)talks about total communications as a practice that involves both market-related

communications , e.g. marketing communications, product communications, imageand profiling activities and internally directed activities such as work instructions,internal marketing, training programs, etc. To these activities, writers on corporatecommunications add customer relations, public affairs, crisis communications, issuesmanagement, technical communications, labor relations, financial relations,sponsorship, business-to-business communication, lobbying and governmentrelations as indispensable dimensions of the total integration package (e.g.Dolphin, 1999; Goodman, 1994).

While it may not be feasible in practice to control all these dimensions within oneconsistent voice, the ambition of IMC is unmistakably to expand the range of control tostill more dimensions of the organizations internal and external affairs. Given theuncertainties of operating in a postmodern world, this ambition is understandable.

Whether such an approach is able to match the complexity and uncertainty ofpostmodernity, however, is questionable.

Retaining organizational complexityOrganizations can handle environmental complexity in several ways, but not all ofthese are equally adequate. Weick (1979, p. 188) cites Buckley to the fact that onlyvariety can regulate variety. Buckely points out that the variety within a system mustbe at least as great as at the environmental variety against which it is attempting to

Integratmarketi

communicati

16


8/13

regulate itself. This is the law of requisite variety (Conant and Ashby, 1970). Appliedto corporations, the law of requisite variety states that the organization needs to retainsufficient diversity internally in order to discern accurately the variety in itssurroundings. The organizational processes that are applied to complex and equivocal

inputs must, in other words, themselves be complex and equivocal.Following this observation, Weick (1979) points out that if a simple process,

nonetheless, is applied to such complex and equivocal inputs, only a minor part of theinput will be registered, attended to and understood. The continuous application ofsimplistic models on complex behaviour, thus, prevents organizations from knowingtheir environment and learning new adaptive capabilities. If organizations are unableand unwilling to tolerate equivocal inputs, they produce failure and isolation fromreality. Moreover, Weick says, the unwillingness of organizations to disrupt thewell-known order makes it impossible for them to create order in new situations.Equivocality, in other words, persists.

In line with Weick, system theorists have shown that attempts to steer and control a

living system toward one coherent unity runs the risk of reducing the complexity of thesystem and thus its chances of survival (Morin, 1992). This point is radicalized by somepostmodern writers who contend that the application of simple control systems oncomplex phenomena not only mean that certain inputs escape attention but also thatcomplexity is markedly increased. In his book Fatal StrategiesBaudrillard (1990), forexample, argues that social systems trying to predict and prevent catastrophes oftenend up producing side-effects that are potentially more destructive than the events theywere trying to evade. Beyond catastrophic circumstances, attempts to impose systemsof order and predictability on changes in the organizations environment may insteadprecipitate such changes and thus produce disorder and unpredictability. This is notan apologia for lack of action on the part of leaders and decision makers, but it is acautionary note on the desire to impose well-known schema of order and control on

phenomena of an equivocal nature.To sense equivocality accurately, says Weick, a system needs many elements

able to operate as independently of one another as possible. Whereas the numberof elements helps the system register different kinds of inputs, the independence ofelements prevents them from being affected too much by the activities of oneanother. Both features stimulate sensitivity to and perceptiveness of the object ofattention. By contrast, a smaller number of mutually dependent elements are ableto record fewer inputs and are more likely to have their registrations influenced bythe perceptions and registrations of one another. As a consequence, while suchsystems may experience lots of consensus and integration, they are less likely tonotice changes of importance for the survival of the system. Even if weacknowledge the ability of organizations to enact their own environments, or partsthereof, (another Weickian observation, 1979, 1995) their capacity to operatesubsequently within this more or less self-projected universe still depends on theirability to observe and attend to differences.

Accordingly, attempts to bring the highly varied, fragmented and fluid desires andplayful activities of consumers in the postmodern market, to an integrated focus willbackfire and will be resented, thus diminish consumer interest in the organizationsofferings. The postmodern response to this postmodern condition is not to try andcontrol the meanings linked to the organizations products or brands, but to playfully

CCIJ10,2

162


9/13

engage (with) the consumers in constructing and navigating experiences that areproduced by and produce the meanings negotiated, as we will discuss in conclusion.

One way to facilitate the ability to observe and attend to differences in the market isto establish a one-to-one correspondence between the variety of the environment and

the variety of the organization. Obviously, this all-encompassing solution is not onlyextremely costly but also requires elaborate coordination activities able to piece themany different observations together into one coherent and manageable whole.Instead, Weick suggests complicating the organization. Complicated observers, Weicknotes, take in more input and are able to perceive and utilize subtle variations andnuances that other observers miss. Just as an individual can sensitize him or herself toobserve distinctions in, say, opera or in painting, organizations can learn to observeand attend to variations that they didnt recognize previously. The intentionallycomplicated organization, according to Weick, not only increases its perceptiveabilities quantitatively but also qualitatively. Rather than being attentive to everythingthat goes on in its environment, it learns to select more insightfully the dimensions ofthe environment which are most susceptible to change and to which it needs,accordingly, to pay most attention. Vis-a-vis this sub-environment, the organizationneeds to bring all its perceptive abilities into play, to utilize all its variety of attention,interpretation and organizing. While the approach of complicating the observer istime-consuming and difficult to implement, especially since the required openness toequivocality and variation may paralyze action, it holds significant advantages toother approaches primarily because it stimulates openness, creates insight andproduces adaptation.

Still, many organizations choose to reduce environmental variety. While a fewpowerful organizations are able to simplify their environments by engaging ininterorganizational collaboration (networks, cartels, monopolies or agreements), mostorganizations seek to do that by imposing management models, fads or other organizing

measures that are sanctioned or approved by the management community. Total qualitymanagement and business process reengineering programs are examples of such modelsand measures that, in different ways, promise to reduce environmental complexity andvariety by restoring order and predictability. As we have seen, the same can be saidabout IMC. The problem with such measures, Weick points out, is that they not onlysimplify the environment but also the organizations employing the measures. As aconsequence, they reproduce the problem of requisite variety again.

Following Weick, the question should be: Is IMC, as a principle of organizing, ableto match the call for complexity of a postmodern marketplace? In other words, is IMCsophisticated enough to allow for the nuances, the variety and the inconsistencies ofpostmodern consumption? Hardly. Although the field describes itself as a trulyoutside-in approach to the market (e.g. Proctor and Kitchen, 2002; Schultz et al., 1994), it

is possible to claim that its relentless pre-occupation with issues of order,predictability, regulation and control makes it impossible for IMC to observe andacknowledge problems and developments that cannot be encompassed within its owndomain of clarity, consistency, coherence and continuity.

ImplicationsPostmodernity holds significant challenges for marketers and managers in terms ofenabling their organisations to deal with increased complexity. Although

Integratmarketi

communicati

16


10/13

contemporary society still retains many of its modern features not all environmentalcomplexity is postmodern it is a serious mistake to impose a clearly modernapproach, as IMC is, on postmodern consumption phenomena. This is not to reject therelevance of IMC, but to question its general applicability as a response to new

consumption practices. While some market developments clearly call for an integratedmarketing approach, not all developments do and certainly not those labelledpostmodern.

In contrast to the monolithic one-voice perspective of IMC, Hazen (1993) points outthat post-modern thinkers stress the importance of other discourses, other voices (seealso, Boje and Dennehy, 1993; Rouleau and Clegg, 1992). Drawing on Bakhtins notionof heteroglossia, Hazen emphasize that differences are life giving and essential tochange. Hazen (1993, p. 16) puts it this way:

When we bind our understanding about organization processes and change to monolithic,closed visual models, it does not occur to us to listen for and to the voices of all who areworking together . . . If we conceive of organization as many dialogues occurring

simultaneously and sequentially, as polyphony, we begin to hear differences and possibilities.We discover that each voice, each person, is his or her centre of any organization. And it isfrom each of these dynamic centres that change occurs.

Rather than imposing what Humphreys and Brown (2002) call a monological andhegemonic identity on markets and organizations an identity that will unavoidablybe challenged by consumers and employees contemporary marketers and managersneed to realize that organizational change and adaptability presupposes an openness tovariety, difference and polyphony. Although organizations, just like individuals, needa coherent narrative (Czarniawska, 1997), polyphony promotes shared understandingsand involvement and permits a kind of collective ownership that cannot be attainedthrough the simple application of one-way managerial models that claim consistencyand coherence without founding it in the life-world of the receiver.

ConclusionPostmodern insights reveal that communication is not simply a means of relayingmessages to others, but a process of constructing and recognizing the self (Christensen,1997). As they communicate, both the organization and the consumers come tounderstand and discover themselves. Thus, communication is as much a process ofdiscovery as it is transmission of messages and meanings. Thinking, therefore, in themodernist mode and hoping that the meaning of all that is authored can be determinedby the author is merely an illusion (Fish, 1982).

For this reason, postmodern communication cannot adhere tightly to principles ofIMC. Instead, openness towards fluidity and a certain degree of indeterminacy must benurtured if organizations wish to cope with the postmodern world. Along withtolerance toward variety within the organization, as we discussed above, organizationsneed to develop a tolerance for meanings negotiated together with consumercommunities, such as brand communities, in the market. That is, consumers must notbe perceived simply as targets, but as collaborators or partners in generation ofmeanings for the organizations offerings. This requires not so much processes ofintegration and control, as in IMC, as it does processes of playful engagement,networking, and negotiation.

CCIJ10,2

164


11/13

Does this mean a loss of control of the organizations offerings? Not at all! As weindicated earlier, insisting on single-handed control of the meanings linked to anorganizations offerings, when the consumers in the postmodern market insist on beinginvolved in the creation of life meanings and experiences is the sure way to lose control.

Contemporary organizations must develop the knack to be playful, interact and engagein co-construction of communicated meanings. This will, some may thinkparadoxically, give them the ability to have as great a control as is possible and,maybe more importantly, the only possibility to maintain livelihood in the complex,fluid, and highly dynamic postmodern markets.

References

Aberg, L. (1990), Theoretical model and praxis of total communications, International PublicRelations Review, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 13-16.

Angus, I. (1989), Circumscribing postmodern culture, in Angus, I. and Jhally, S. (Eds), CulturalPolitics in Contemporary America, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 96-107.

Baudrillard, J. (1988),The Ecstasy of Communication, Semiotext(e), New York, NY.

Baudrillard, J. (1990),Fatal Strategies, Semiotext(e)/Columbia University, New York, NY.

Baudrillard, J. (1994),Simulacra and Simulation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.

Bauman, Z. (1992), Intimations of Postmodernity, Routledge, London.

Bauman, Z. (2000), Liquid Modernity, Polity Press, Cambridge.

Boje, D. and Dennehy, R. (1993), Managing in the Postmodern World: Americas RevolutionAgainst Exploitation, 1st ed., Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, IA.

Boorstin, D.J. (1961), The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America, Vintage Books, NewYork, NY.

Brown, S. (1993a), Postmodern marketing?, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 4,

pp. 19-34.Brown, S. (1993b), Postmodern marketing: principles, practice and panaceas, Irish Marketing

Review, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 91-100.

Christensen, L.T. (1997), Marketing as auto-communication, Consumption, Markets andCulture, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 197-227.

Christensen, L.T. (2001), Intertextuality and self-reference in contemporary advertising,in Hansen, F. and Hansen, L.Y. (Eds), Advertising Research in the Nordic Countries,Samfundslitteratur, Kbenhavn, pp. 351-6.

Christensen, L.T. and Cheney, G. (2000), Self-absorption and self-seduction in the corporateidentity game, in Schultz, M., Hatch, M.J. and Larsen, M.H. (Eds), The ExpressiveOrganization, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 246-70.

Conant, R.C. and Ashby, W.R. (1970), Every good regulator of a system must be a model of that

system, International Journal of System Science, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 89-97.

Cornelissen, J.P. (2001), Integrated marketing communications and the language of marketingdevelopment, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 483-98.

Cornelissen, J.P. (2003), Change, continuity and progress: the concept of integrated marketingcommunications and marketing communications practice,Journal of Strategic Marketing,Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 217-34.

Cova, B. (1996), The postmodern explained to managers: implications for marketing,BusinessHorizons, November-December, pp. 15-23.

Integratmarketi

communicati

16


12/13

Czarniawska, B. (1997), Narrating the Organization: Dramas of Institutional Identity,The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Davidson, D.K. (1998), Consumers dont really care about brand products owners, MarketingNews, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 5-6.

De Pelsmacker, P., Geuens, M. and Van Den Bergh, J. (2001), Marketing Communications,Financial Times/Prentice-Hall, London.

Dolphin, R.R. (1999),The Fundamentals of Corporate Communications, Butterworth-Heinemann,Oxford.

Du Gay, P. (1996), Consumption and Identity at Work, Sage, London.

Duncan, T. (1993), Integrated marketing? Its synergy, Advertising Age, 8 March, p. 22.

Duncan, T. and Caywood, C. (1996), The concept, process, and evolution of integrated marketingcommunication, in Thorson, E. and Moore, J. (Eds), Integrated Communication: Synergyof Persuasive Voices, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 13-34.

Firat, A.F. and Venkatesh, A. (1993), Postmodernity: the age of marketing, InternationalJournal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 227-49.

Firat, A.F. and Venkatesh, A. (1997), From segmentation to fragmentation: markets andmarketing strategy in the postmodern era, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 Nos.3/4, pp. 183-207.

Firat, A.F., Dholakia, N. and Venkatesh, A. (1995), Marketing in a postmodern world, EuropeanJournal of Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 40-56.

Fish, S. (1982), Is There a Text in This Class?, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Gabriel, Y. and Lang, T. (1995),The Unmanageable Consumer: Contemporary Consumption andits Fragmentations, Sage Publications, London.

Goodman, M.B. (1994),Corporate Communication. Theory and Practice, State of New York Press,Albany, NY.

Greene, B. (2000),The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for theUltimate Theory, Vintage Books, New York, NY.

Gronstedt, A. (1996), Integrated communications in Americas leading total qualitymanagement corporations,Public Relations Review, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 25-42.

Hazen, M.A. (1993), Towards polyphonic organization, Journal of Organizational ChangeManagement, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 15-26.

Humphreys, M. and Brown, A.D. (2002), Narratives of organizational identity and identification:a case study of hegemony and resistance,Organization Studies, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 421-47.

Keegan, W., Moriarty, S. and Duncan, T. (1992), Marketing, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Kotler, P. (2003), Marketing Management, 11th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Lyotard, J.-F. (1984), The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, University of

Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.Morgan, M. (1999), Eating the Big Fish. How Challenger Brands Can Compete against Brand

Leaders, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY.

Morin, E. (1992), Method towards a study of humankind, The Nature of Nature, Vol. 1,Peter Lang, New York, NY.

Ogilvy, J. (1990), This postmodern business,Marketing and Research Today, February, pp. 4-20.

Prigogine, I. and Stengers, I. (1984), Order out of Chaos: Mans New Dialogue with Nature ,Heinemann, London.

CCIJ10,2

166


13/13

Proctor, T. and Kitchen, P. (2002), Communication in postmodern integrated marketing,Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 144-54.

Rosenau, P.M. (1992),Postmodernism and the Social Sciences: Insights, Inroads, and Intrusions,Princeton University Press, New York, NY.

Rouleau, L. and Clegg, S.R. (1992), Postmodernism and postmodernity in organization analysis,Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 8-25.

Schultz, D.E. and Kitchen, P.J. (2000), Communicating Globally. An Integrated MarketingApproach, Macmillan Business, London.

Schultz, D.E., Tannebaum, S.I. and Lauterborn, R.F. (1994), The New Marketing Paradigm.Integrated Marketing Communications, NTC Business Books, Chicago, IL.

van Riel, C.B.M. (1995), Principles of Corporate Communication, Prentice-Hall, London.

Weick, K.E. (1979),The Social Psychology of Organizing, 2nd ed., Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Weick, K.E. (1995), Sensemaking in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Integratmarketi

communicati

16

2 integrated marketing

Documents