Some twenty years ago marketers flirted with a tender concept called 'integrated communications'. A few public relations practitioners also swooned over the idea because, as some might cynically say, it often also meant caring for a swollen advertising budget. By the time 'integrated communications' entered the 21st century leading marketing experts already felt their passion begin to wane. Still, many companies continue to force marriages between the two. But after the honeymoon bliss, reality sets in and compatibility becomes a serious issue.
Way back in 1989 two commentators on marketing remarked, perhaps unkindly, "What marketeers mean by 'integration' is that marketing has to be the top-gun in the boardroom." But few took Graham Harding and Paul Walton seriously because they wrote this comment in the 'Bluffer's Guide to Marketing'.
Supporters of integrated marketing seem to believe that almost everything a company does to promote itself communicates and so marketing and communications should be lumped together.
Opponents of integration see a distinction between marketing and communications, while they may recognise some overlaps.
The nuptial knot between marketing and communications is not always tied with mutual understanding. Al Ries, a marketing expert and co-author of the classic 'Positioning' with Jack Trout, commented on the difference in an article entitled 'Marketing is not communications' in AdAge.com last year. Reis said: "Advertising is not communications; advertising is positioning. The best advertising communicates precious little about the product or service. What the best advertising does, however, is to establish and reinforce a position in the prospect's mind."
The mismarriage is often reinforced by corporate marketing myopia or simply lack of understanding. "Many Advertising Departments are now calling themselves the Marketing Communications Department or "Marcom" for short. Too bad. The name encourages advertising people to go in exactly the wrong direction," he says.
Some companies even mistakenly use the term marketing communications to describe a combination of marketing and communications when what they mean is the communication aspects of advertising and promotional media.
It seems that after Al and Laura Ries wrote the book 'The Fall of Advertising and the Rise of PR', marketers, realising the shortcomings of higher advertising costs and increasingly fragmented audiences, became more interested in the idea of 'integration'.
What then is the role of marketers, apart from expanding their fiefdom? An article entitled, 'Proving the value to advertising" by Tim Broadbent in an issue of marketing weekly, Campaign (UK), this year sums up their role. Broadbent says that in 'The Essential Drucker', Peter Drucker argued, "'Companies have only one sensible business purpose — to create customers'. It follows from this they have two, and only two, basic functions: marketing and innovation. By proving the value of marketing to the chief executives that pay for it, consistent, automatic evaluation of all activity would show marketing is 'a serious commercial tool' too".
Managing today's corporation in complex political, economic and social environments with national interests as well as global forces is not an easy task. This dynamic environment underpins the real issue behind the communication practitioner's concern about the direction in which public relations is moving.
Edward Bernays, one of the first and most successful practitioners of the art of public relations, in his classic 'Crystallizing Public Opinion', helped to define strategic public relations counsel. Bernays wrote that the role of the counsel on public relations was to "advise clients how positive results can be accomplished in the field of public relations and to keep them from drifting into unfortunate or harmful situations."
Many perhaps forget that obtaining public consent in environments with much change and potential threats is a rather complex and difficult task distinct from marketing.
Where companies are subject to high levels of competition, government regulation, labour conflicts and public scrutiny, communications is essential to company strategy.
By contrast, 'strategic' communications becomes less important in static, low threat environments, say authors Scott Cutlip, Allen Centre and Glen Broom in their industry bible, 'Effective Public Relations'.
Marketing therefore may be dominant in a company with less change and fewer threats but communications would be central in a changing environment with higher threats.
It is not easy to see how 'integrated communications' can romance its way through environmental, health, and social issues - to name some threats and risks facing companies today. Enticing consumers or customers to buy products and services (even in political buying markets), is far different from scanning environments for political, economic, social technological and ecological issues, and knowing how to address them.
As misunderstanding between the functions of marketing and communications continues to abound, it is unfortunate that highly skilled communications practitioners are restricted to beavering away at media relations and trying to gain valuable editorial space. At the same time, marketers grapple with adding value through 'total communications solutions' when they should be focused on customer innovation.
The future, it seems, will belong to companies who understand the important differences between marketing and communications, know when to give each function equal footing, and understand which is best suited to supporting the different challenges of implementing corporate strategy.
