We fist wrote about IMC in our book published in early 90s. We propagated that brands must tie together all its communication activities like mass media advertising, PR, Events, and other tools because consumers see them all as one. They don’t see them as separate activities for separate objectives—but all as messages from brands. But marketers see various promo tools as distinct silos. This is not the best view of a brand’s various communication initiatives.

Then came the Internet, and it change the entire paradigm. So much so that we wish we hadn’t written our book before the Internet era! In pre-Internet era, marketers worked on the assumption of ‘stimulus-response model’, where a firm is sending outbound messages to the customers who are seeking information. Today, that one-way model doesn’t work anymore. It’s a two way street. We are in a networked era. Consumers are coming to marketers with information and demands, as much as marketers are going to them. The Internet has made it possible. Look at the blogs, emails, and websites that consumers are creating to talk to brands today. Marketers have lost control and monopoly over the communication system. This has fundamentally changed the challenge of marketing communication.

Let’s first understand where all this is coming from. Product markets are in the stage of massive commoditisation. There seems to be no long-term product advantage there. Features get copies so fast. Also, there is hardly any price advantage left.

In this background brand experience has emerged as a strong philosophy to deliver a sustainable advantage. The new way is to deliver engaging customer experience thru product, people, and processes rather than just adding more GRPs.

Starbucks is an excellent example of this approach. Its not just coffee, but the entire experience that talks. Yes, I suggest the large brands to look at this strategy closely and imbibe it.

Surely marketing as it’s been taught and practiced in the 70s and the 80s has come under fire. The product, price, place, promotion model is too vertical. It makes the marketing process into functional silos.

We need to organise marketing more vertically. It should be a strategic planning function that should be at the heart of organization. Not just a department. Customer has to be the centre-point.

Coke comes to my mind first. Some years back they decided to not have a chief marketing officer anymore. They have elevated marketing into a strategy planning function. They expect the entire organisation to work on the premise that customer is the middle of all activities.

Our research tells us that consumers view all brand marketing communication as either messages or incentives. Messages are what brands are ‘telling consumers’, and incentives are what brands are ‘getting consumers to do’. For instance, thru a theme based mass advertising message brands tells about its values and personality, while through a coupon, or contest driven activity brands wants consumers to do something. Marketers should look at all activities through this prism because this is the way consumer looks at it. Also, this approach allows the top management to calculate return on marketing investments confidently. While messages are somewhat long-term investments, incentives should generate immediate short-term impact.

Yes, there is a historical baggage, but we have to move forward. The benefits are clear.

It depends on from where you look at this development. From a client’s point of view it is not a good news as it limits the choices. There’ll be only a handful of large firms to choose from. But obviously holding companies will gain clout.

Different holding firms are organised in different ways. While Omnicom gives its agency brands separate identity, WPP is driving a lot of things into itself. Interpublic operates a lot like a loose federation of agencies. I see the integration trend becoming stronger. More clients will align their business into one holding company.