Agency Perceptions and Practices on Global IMC.

Subject(s): ADVERTISING executives -- United States; MARKETING -- Management Source: Journal of Advertising Research, Jan99, Vol. 39 Issue 1, p7, 14p, 3 charts, 3bw Author(s): Gould, Stephen J. Abstract: Provides information on a study which surveyed the perceptions and practices among United States-based advertising executives on Globally Integrated Marketing Communications (GIMC), a system of promotional management. Background of GIMC; Organizational influences on GIMC; Methods; Results and conclusion. AN: 1898809 ISSN: 0021-8499 Full Text Word Count: 9887 Database: Academic Search Elite Print: Click here to mark for print. View Item: Full Page Image XML Full Text

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------AGENCY PERCEPTIONS AND PRACTICES ON GLOBAL IMC

Dateline: Baruch College, CUNY; Baruch College, CUNY; Baruch College, CUNY

Globally Integrated Marketing Communications (GIMC) is a system of promotional management which coordinates global communications across both countries and promotion disciplines, regardless of whether a standardized or adaptive strategy is employed. This paper reports on a survey of GIMC perceptions and practices among U.S.-based executives of large multinational advertising agencies. The results of the closed-ended questions in the survey revealed the relative importance of various aspects of interoffice coordination, coordination of promotion disciplines, centralization, frequency of interoffice communications, and use of information technology. Analysis of the survey's open-ended questions yielded three emergent themes: the evolving nature of the globalization process, its contingency element, and its cultural dimensions of client and agency. Finally, implications for the practice and theoretical-research development of GIMC are provided.

Recent marketplace developments involving the increasingly international management and dispersion of promotion and other marketing decisions suggest that the impact of globalization on integrated marketing communications (IMC) should be examined. Toward that end, Grein and Gould (1996) proposed the concept of Globally Integrated Marketing Communications (GIMC) and indicated that it applied to both global advertising agencies and multinational marketers. This concept extends IMC by adding the international dimension, across country offices, to that of promotional disciplines. It holds that coordinated global management of both dimensions (i.e., across countries and disciplines) is essential for effective outcomes. Such management entails making strategic promotional decisions through the integrated tracking, comparison, and coordination of marketing communications across all relevant global markets, units, or offices in order to maximize both organizational learning and the efficient allocation of resources.

In contrast to the widely heralded dichotomy of standardized versus adaptive communications, GIMC instead argues for global managerial coordination, no matter which of the two is applied (Grein and Gould, 1996). Indeed, even in the standardization-adaptation literature, there have been a number of major refinements, including viewing this dichotomy as really a continuum between the two pure forms (Banerjee, 1994; Peebles, Ryans, and Vernon, 1978), examining different product-promotion combinations with regard to each form (de Mooji, 1998), and increasingly placing emphasis on a situational contingency approach to the issue (Jain, 1989). Wind (1986) suggested that achieving synergy and integration among diverse aspects of marketing and advertising programs was important whether or not adaptation or standardization was used in any particular case. As he described it, "think globally, act locally."

As noted by de Mooji (1998), the role of global advertising is to add value to global products. However, as many aspects of culture do not readily transfer to all countries, it is important to adapt communications when necessary, while attempting to preserve at least some of the benefits of a global brand. Thus, global promotional strategy requires either identification of a shared global set of values and perceived brand benefits or being able to describe and apply salient cultural differences in

a meaningful way. In practice, global brands are rarely promoted on a purely standardized or adaptive basis. Indeed, several researchers have proposed models in which both product as well as promotion variations form a continuum and also a typology of standardization-adaptation strategies (Keegan, 1995; de Mooji, 1998). For example, the product may be changed in some aspect while the promotion is essentially the same or vice versa. These strategies may also be implemented at various market levels: global, regional, country, or even local. Regardless of the strategy, however, the role of GIMC is to maximize synergies without losing the link to grass-roots consumers, namely the brand's values which are important at the local level. Successful development of a communications strategy, therefore, requires extensive learning and coordination throughout the communications network.

For example, while an agency might believe that an adaptive approach is best in different marketplaces, it will still seek to coordinate and manage resource allocation and synergistic, organizational learning across them, much as Bartlett and Ghosal (1989) propose in their formulation of a transnational framework for operating multinational firms. This means, for instance, that two units of an agency working on the same brand in two different country markets with varying (non-standardized) communications requirements will nonetheless share information about strategies, tactics, and communications-marketing outcomes with the aim of maximizing organizational learning, determining optimal resource allocation, and achieving the highest level of efficiency. For example, the sharing of such insights which spring from differences in creative messages across countries may reveal new ways to deliver them in each market, even if they remain different. Each country may in this sense be viewed as a natural laboratory whose marketing outcomes should not only be considered domestically but also transnationally. Such an approach will lead to the execution and formulation of an overall, globally coordinated strategy which accounts for local differences while simultaneously optimizing organizational learning and efficiency. However, while much has been written about the effects of national cultures on the standardization-adaptation issue (e.g., de Mooji, 1998), relatively little research effort has been concerned with the impact of organizational variables on marketing communications. Our emphasis, therefore, will be on organizational structure, culture, and processes as they impact the formation of marketing communication strategies.

Prior work by Grein and Gould (1996) has developed GIMC on a theoretical basis. However, little is known about the implementation and practice of GIMC. In order to shed further light on this phenomenon, this paper, using both quantitative and qualitative approaches, reports the results of an exploratory study of GIMC-related perceptions, attitudes, and practices of advertising agency executives with international responsibilities. We focus here on advertising agencies as a major, if not the central, agent in GIMC and leave advertiser attitudes and practices for future studies.

GLOBALLY INTEGRATED MARKETING COMMUNICATIONSAs indicated above, GIMC has its roots not only in the global marketplace, itself, but also in IMC. Thus, it is necessary to briefly consider the relevant aspects of IMC. According to the American Association of Advertising Agencies' Integrated Communications Committee, IMC is: "A concept of marketing communications planning that recognizes the added value in a program that integrates a variety of strategic disciplines" (in Stewart, 1996). It aims to strategically coordinate the various promotion-mix disciplines (e.g., advertising, sales promotion, public relations) in order to attain synergies and to assure that a message reaches and registers with its target audience (Nowak and Phelps, 1994; Schultz, 1991). However, a further breakdown in how IMC is defined has been proposed, including: (1) the creation of one-voice (i.e., a single theme and image), (2) the integration of both product image and relevant aspects of consumer behavior in promotion management as opposed to a focus on only one or the other of these two, and (3) the coordinated management of promotion-mix disciplines, which corresponds to the American Association of Advertising Agencies' definition (Nowak and Phelps, 1994; Phelps, Plumley, and Johnson, 1994).

In defining GIMC, Grein and Gould (1996) suggest that the first and third definitions would be most applicable. Both clearly may be applied to standardized marketing communications campaigns in which the advertiser is seeking a relatively uniform approach across global marketplaces. However, the third definition in particular could also be consistent with a more adaptive strategy since there are various issues of resource allocation, synergies of organizational learning across globally dispersed agency offices, and economies of scale that could be addressed through coordination, even where, for instance, a one-voice approach is not followed (Phelps et al., 1994). Indeed, a one-voice perspective

for many products and brands will not necessarily apply across all countries. Moreover, the third definition even suggests that within one global campaign, some communications disciplines may be standardized whereas others would not. So long as these disciplines are developed in a coordinated, synergistic fashion and reinforce each other, the benefits of integration will accrue. Therefore, based on this analysis, the third definition dominates the first and constitutes the basis of GIMC.

The key definitional aspect of GIMC that differentiates it from previous definitions of IMC is its inclusion of both vertical and horizontal dimensions (Tortorici, 1991). The vertical dimension is the basis of IMC and concerns coordinating the various promotion-mix disciplines of advertising, public relations, and sales promotion along with other related marketing activities. The horizontal dimension refers to coordination across country-markets and may generally be viewed as an organizational dimension since marketing efforts are largely represented and conducted by branch offices or affiliates. It is the central aspect of GIMC and the key value-added element that expands GIMC beyond IMC. Although such an organizational dimension has certainly been recognized in IMC research (e.g., Beard, 1996; Gould, Grein, and Lerman, 1999; Gronstedt and Thorson, 1996; Prensky, McCarry, and Lucas, 1996), it has neither achieved a central role nor has it been generally considered on a global basis (for an exception see Grein and Gould, 1996).

Based on their analysis of the definitions of IMC and the addition of the horizontal dimension to it, Grein and Gould (1996) define GIMC as:

... a system of active promotional management which strategically coordinates global communications in all of its component parts both horizontally in terms of countries and organizations and vertically in terms of promotion disciplines.

On this basis, they designate a completely integrated strategy (i.e., across both countries and promotion disciplines) as a Globally Integrated Strategy. In one sense, such a strategy might be seen as an ideal since many agencies (and advertisers) may lack coordination along one or both dimensions, but are moving or desire to move in that direction. This paper aims to determine the degree of agency activity in this regard.

One additional point to note is that since GIMC is new, it has not become a term of common usage. Instead, it is etic (i.e., named by a researcher) rather than emic (i.e., the actual name for it used by agency personnel [Denzin, 1989]). Therefore, this study identifies potential aspects of GIMC and queries respondents about these rather than about GIMC as an explicitly recognized term. On the flip side, this study shows how the practices described by the GIMC concept are in fact being applied by agencies. In addition, it has also been suggested that academically developed terminology and concepts directly impact the discourse of marketing practitioners (Brownie and Saren, 1997). In this respect, the GIMC concept could well become more widely diffused and recognized, thus allowing future studies to address it in more explicit terms than is done here.

POTENTIAL ORGANIZATIONAL INFLUENCES ON GIMCPrior to conducting the study, we identified a number of potential agency-organizational aspects of GIMC which might impact its effective implementation, including (1) interoffice coordination, (2) coordination of promotion disciplines across country offices, (3) degree of centralization, (4) frequency of interoffice communication, and (5) use of information technology. These were studied on an exploratory basis to establish benchmarks for the status of GIMC and are described below.

Effort put into, degree of, and desirability of interoffice coordinationCoordination is an internal organizational process for managing various aspects of a business and has been identified as a major part of both IMC (Duncan and Caywood, 1996) and GIMC (Grein and Gould, 1996). Here, we emphasize intrafirm, interoffice coordination (Olson, Walker, and Ruekert, 1995) by focusing on the multiple, cross-national offices of agencies. We consider the effort put into such coordination, the degree achieved, and the desirability of it as positive indicators of a GIMC policy.

Coordination of promotion disciplines across country offices

Grein and Gould (1996) suggest that simultaneously integrating various promotion disciplines, not only within individual countries, but also across them is a major aspect of GIMC (cf. Nowak and Phelps, 1994). For example, one might consider the degree to which integration exists among advertising and public relations units across an agency's dispersed global offices.

Degree of centralizationCentralization is a structural factor that concerns the degree of delegation and dispersal of responsibility in a firm (Aiken and Hage, 1968). Central control as a form of centralization has been said to be important to IMC (Duncan and Caywood, 1996). However, in relation to GIMC, control is seen as a contingent factor since it may also be decentralized, dispersed, and shared, but still be effective (e.g., two offices of an agency may share information without one or the other being in control or the structure being centralized). In this regard, some writers have advocated a policy of coordinated decentralization in which international headquarters formulate standard operating procedures while other aspects, especially those related to appeals and media selection, are primarily determined at the local level (Terpstra and Sarathy, 1994). Moreover, the degree of centralization may interact with or help determine the resulting process of coordination (Olson et al., 1995).

Frequency of interoffice communicationCommunication, perhaps the most important process in interfirm relations (Bleeke and Ernst, 1993), has been associated with the process of coordination (Guiltinan, Rejah, and Rogers, 1980). We draw on interfirm communications theory which we believe may be applied to intrafirm or interoffice relations, such as those among relatively autonomous, international agency offices and affiliates. This theory holds that collaborative (two-way) communication between two parties may be central to interorganizational dynamics because it very likely becomes a part of the governance mechanism in shaping tasks and developing long-term relationships (Mohr, Fisher, and Nevin, 1996; Mohr and Nevin, 1990). Similarly, we propose that collaborative communications is relevant to GIMC on an intrafirm or interoffice basis since global agency offices and affiliates may often act both independently and interdependently.

Use of information technology: The Internal communications mixTechnology has been said to drive IMC (Schultz, 1996). One important aspect of this is information technology (IT) which involves the use of electronic devices to assemble, store, and transmit relevant organizational information (Bharadwaj, Varadarajan, and Fahy, 1993). It is thought to create differential advantage, for instance, by allowing quicker response to market shifts (Bharadwaj et al., 1993). Such technology-based information flow is likely to be helpful in designing an organizational structure to implement GIMC, especially since international distances and differences are generally great. Here, we assess this use in terms of specific communications technologies (e.g., faxes, videoconferencing, e-mail via intranet/internet) that comprise what we call the internal communications mix.

METHODIn order to assess the application of GIMC, a survey was sent to 65 of the largest advertising agencies in the United States as reported by the 1996 Issue of the Standard Directory of Advertising Agencies. Although it is not entirely possible to determine from the Directory which agencies have substantial international billings, we reasoned that there would be a positive association between amount of total billings and extent of global communications activity and therefore chose to sample large agencies. One of the smaller agencies among the 65 sampled provided further evidence for this approach by responding that it does not engage in such activity. Thus, while smaller agencies may engage in some global activity, this procedure proved to be an effective method for targeting those large multinational agencies that are large enough to benefit from and practice GIMC. We leave it to future research to consider smaller agencies.

The surveys were mailed to high-level executives with worldwide responsibilities and/or agency presidents and CEOs who served as key respondents. Most were stationed in the United States, although one executive reported spending half his time in a European office. In six cases involving large agencies, surveys were sent to more than one executive since their titles indicated possible

responsibility in this area. Based on an analysis of the number of branch offices reported in the survey, however, we do not believe we received more than one response per agency.

All executives received a cover letter, a four page survey, and a preaddressed postage-paid envelope. A follow-up mailing contained an updated cover letter, another copy of the survey, and a second preaddressed postage-paid envelope. Respondents were encouraged to request copies of the study results, but were asked to do so under separate cover to protect their anonymity. Fourteen out of seventy-one surveys were completed for a response rate of 19.1 percent (note: in a few cases, surveys were sent to more than one person in an agency so that there were 65 agencies represented by 71 people in the mailing). One survey (mentioned above) was eliminated because the respondent's agency does not have offices outside the United States. This response appears to be reasonable for industrial mail surveys (Diamantopoulos and Schlegelmilch, 1996) and also for this particular research setting, given the small universe of large agency executives. Our conclusions, however, must be seen as exploratory, especially for the quantitative questions in our survey. Yet, it should be pointed out that qualitative studies which use questions similar to ours often use smaller samples.

The worldwide billings of the agencies responding ranged from $400 million to $8 billion. In this respect, the sample includes respondents from several of the very largest agencies and reflects the globally-oriented agency we targeted. Moreover, the voluntary (and unrequested) use of their own names by some respondents not only indicates their involvement in the topic but also provides further evidence of the quality of our sample given that they are well-known in the field. For privacy purposes, however, we will not reveal their names, nor the names of the agencies for which they work.

The survey contained a variety of closed and open-ended questions designed to reveal agency philosophy and practice with regard to globally integrated marketing communications. The analysis of each type of question will be reported separately. Regarding the close-ended questions, there were 18 scaled items which covered: (1) the degree to which agencies horizontally coordinate the promotion of brands, (2) the desirability of coordination across countries from both the agency's and client's perspective (as perceived by the agency respondent), (3) the degree to which an agency's worldwide branches are centralized, (4) the amount of effort put forth by the agency to coordinate various communications functions within the agency such as media planning and media buying, (5) the frequency with which agency branches use a variety of communication means such as telephone, e-mail, faxes, and other (the other item was not responded to and was dropped from further consideration), and (6) the frequency with which employees transfer to work in foreign branches of the agency. For classification purposes, respondents were also asked questions concerning their position within the agency, worldwide and local agency billings, headquarter locations, and the number of agency branches abroad. The open-ended questions encouraged respondents to discuss in more detail their agencies' specific philosophy and practice, or lack thereof, with regard to globally integrated marketing communications. More specifically, respondents were asked about the people and processes involved, the role of the client, the degree of success in implementing GIMC, and ideas for improvement.

CLOSED-END QUESTION RESULTSWe performed exploratory statistical analyses involving frequencies, means, and pairwise (within subject) t-tests to provide some perspective on the closed-ended questions. Although there are sample-size constraints on which types of statistical analyses we could conduct, these particular data analyses are consistent with research of this type and provide some important insights into GIMC management practices. We emphasize therefore that large agencies generally have more global exposure than smaller ones, and that our analyses, although limited in scope, very much reflect the concerns of these agencies.

Degree and desirability of interoffice coordination and the effort invested in itDegree of coordination Coordination is a central organizational element and a commitment to it is necessary for the effective implementation of GIMC. Although Table 1 reports fairly high levels of horizontal coordination in the area of brand promotion (mean = 5.54), examination of the responses indicates that no respondents reported using the middle level of coordination (i.e., none marked 3, 4, or 5 while 3 marked 2, and 9 marked 6 or 7 in the survey). Therefore, agencies are either highly or

barely coordinated. This indicates that if interoffice coordination is a prerequisite for global integration of marketing communications, then perhaps some agencies pay little heed to such integration while others do.

Desirability of coordination We also assessed agency respondents' perceptions of their clients' desire to coordinate across countries. In this regard, these respondents believe that their clients have a similar strong desire to coordinate across countries, as reflected in an exploratory t-test which indicates no significant difference between the two parties (means = 6.08 and 5.55, respectively, p > .10).

Effort put into coordination The mean effort agencies put into integrating communications for the same brand across countries (mean = 5.55) is roughly at parity with the actual level of coordination that these agencies report having achieved (mean = 5.54).

Coordination of promotion disciplines across country unitsWith respect to specific agency functions, respondents reported that the creative function received the most effort in terms of coordination (mean = 4.92), followed by efforts to coordinate the various promotion disciplines (e.g., advertising, publicity, and couponing--mean = 4.58), media planning (mean = 3.69), and media buying (mean = 3.00). An exploratory t-test revealed a marginally significant difference between the creative and media buying functions (p < .10). This result supports the idea, albeit rather weakly, that some promotion disciplines are more susceptible to global (horizontal) coordination than others.

Degree of centralizationThe degree of home or central office centralization of agencies' global offices was found to have a mean of 4.60. When this degree of centralization is compared to horizontal coordination of brand promotion (mean = 5.54), the difference was not statistically significant (p > .10). This would appear to support the common view that the two are related. However, it is worth noting that some individual scores of coordination and centralization fell at opposite extremes, i.e., some agencies were high on coordination and low on centralization while others reversed this relationship--see Table 2. This gives credence to the idea that GIMC coordination may be applied on either a centralized or decentralized basis as the original theory suggests, although the means average out and thus obscure these results.

Frequency of interoffice communicationA number of closed-ended questions in the survey speak to the frequency of interoffice communication. One item measures frequency in a range from "never or almost never" to "daily" (scaled 0 to 5). It had a mean of 3.36 (not including some cases where respondents checked multiple responses) with the most frequent response being "weekly" (6 out of 11 responses--8 out of 17 including multiple responses). The frequency of interoffice communication was also analyzed from another perspective. Table 2 reports a score called the Overall Communication Index (OCI) which is a sum of the frequencies of use of various means of communications (i.e., telephone, fax, e-mail, etc.). Such indices are often used as an indicator of some underlying phenomenon (Lazarfeld and Thielens, 1972). Here, we take it as one indicator of global integration of communications. The higher the Index, the more frequent the interoffice communications. Not surprisingly, the vast majority rely on frequent communication: 92 percent or 12 of them scored 21 or more out of a possible 42. However, in conjunction with the other results shown in Table 2, it can be seen that while such communication is necessary to GIMC, it is not sufficient to explain either brand coordination or centralization since these two did not always vary in the same direction with OCI or with each other.

Use of information technology: The Internal communications mixIntegrating marketing communications necessarily involves internal communications and the use of various information technologies (the internal communications mix) among those creating and managing them. The study indicates that faxes are used most frequently (mean = 5.77) while videoconferencing is used the least (mean = 2.77). With the exception of videoconferencing, this

ranking shows a heavy reliance on technology. Based on exploratory t-tests, faxes were used significantly more than other communications modalities such as mail, face-to-face contact, and videoconferencing (p < .05).

Employee transfer, while not strictly a form of communication, also had a statistically significant lower score (mean = 3.31) in relation to faxes (p < .05), as might be expected in terms of its greater cost and effort.

RESULTS OF OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS AND PATTERNS AND DIRECTION OF GIMC STRATEGYWhen all the results are considered, the practice of globally integrating marketing communications appears to be quite complex, a result mirrored in the themes that emerged from the open-ended responses--see Table 3. In particular, we found some of the key strategic-philosophical elements which provide further for the networking emphasized in the close-ended questions.

The evolving nature of globalization and GIMC strategyGlobalization seems to be taken for granted at this point as indicated by one respondent who reacted with, "This questionnaire acts like global business is still a question mark." However, the status of globalization and its future development remain open questions as indicated by other responses to this survey. For instance, a divisional president from a very large agency suggested that there are stages in the development of globally integrated communications. Essentially, this executive sees two basic forms, Global (highly centralized) and Multi-Local (highly decentralized), which are giving way to a transnational approach that:

... Combines global efficiencies with local sensitivity by connecting the dots on the map and harnessing the talents, skills, and resources of the various parts into an interdependent, highly collaborative network.

This transnational approach involves creating networks across borders and bringing people together in various ways (e.g., cross-national teams). It also reflects the ideas of international marketing and management in which the role of top management is to influence the "decision process rather than the decision itself" by organizing ad hoc teams, task forces, committees, project teams, and the like who make the actual decisions (Prahalad and Doz, 1987). Such an approach is very much echoed in the GIMC position that the main issue of global communications is not thought to be standardization versus adaptation per se but rather organizational coordination which recognizes and encourages global strategies while working with local managers and markets (cf. Grein and Gould, 1996). However, the evolution of such an approach appears to vary in the respondents' perceptions, and no one else expressed it in quite the terms used by this executive. This suggests that only very large agencies may be able to fully undertake such integration, perhaps because of the presence of larger global clients operating in similar fashion, as well as because of economies of scale.

The contingent nature of globalization and GIMC strategyA number of respondents indicated that contingency appears to be very important for globalization and the deployment of GIMC. As one executive v.p. put it: "There are no hard and fast rules." Contingency as it emerged takes on two different general although-related meanings: (1) market-situational contingency recognized by the respondents with respect to brands, products, markets, and clients and (2) organizational contingency since due to differences in agency and client culture, key personnel may assess the issues of global integration and coordination in quite different ways. The latter form of contingency has not been recognized in the literature to the degree that the former has but, in fact, may have a central role to play in how the market-situational contingency is managed.

In this regard, several executives indicated that brands and markets (market-situational factors) have had a tremendous influence on organizational coordination. Social and cultural differences were also cited in this regard. An agency executive responsible for network business development illustrated organizational contingency by not only adding some remarks to close-ended questions (i.e., "for some brands," "we run the whole gamut," or "depends on client/brand") but also by writing that:

Degrees of coordination and integration between countries and between disciplines vary greatly. Not only do these variations occur by company but they also occur between brands in the same company.

Thus, the link involving market-situational factors, such as brands and clients, with the agency as an organization indicates that the two types of contingency are associated and that organizational coordination mirrors the requirements of the market, much as structure is said to follow strategy (Chandler, 1962). However, the complexity of an agency having various brands and clients further intensifies the issue of contingency and its management. In this regard, there not only needs to be coordination of specific brand information across subsidiary local offices but also the pooling of relevant information across brands and campaigns in different product categories in order to facilitate synergistic organizational learning and evolution. For instance, being able to access information about what worked for a brand in another category may be useful at least in benchmarking what to expect from a new campaign in a different category. Global databases and various globalized formal and informal communications channels would all be helpful in this regard.

The cultural environment and GIMC strategyAs noted in the previous section, contingency appears to be based on market-situational and organizational factors. One agency senior vice president framed these issues by identifying not only the target consumer culture(s) as important but also the corporate cultures of the client and the agency. These latter are particularly important for GIMC strategy and will be discussed further below. They not only reflect the idea of a matrix or multi-focal organization in which there are two points for gaining strategic advantage in the marketplace, namely local responsiveness and global integration (Prahalad and Doz, 1987), but also the further expansion of that idea to include cross-firm networks formed by clients and their agencies.

Client culture and mirroring An important factor that emerged in this study with respect to GIMC is the culture of the client and the mirroring of it by the agency. The idea of mirroring is perhaps well known but how it works in relation to GIMC is relatively new. In this regard, a senior v.p. suggested that understanding the corporate culture of the client, as well as the national culture of the target consumer, could be important for creating effective global advertising although he or she was less forthcoming on detail. Still, this approach is consistent with previous research (e.g., Hirschman, 1989) in which the client is seen as the driving force in the agency-client relationship.

Moreover, several agency executives indicated that it is very important to fit with and echo the client, an attitude that very much reflects an understanding of the interdependence of both parties (Bartlett and Ghosal, 1989). Some mentioned clients who represent famous brand names as examples of how they are globalizing and how their agencies must follow them. Clients thus drive agencies both directly in asking for certain things (e.g., optimization of results in each geographic location), as well as indirectly by taking steps toward better integration which agencies must follow just to keep up (e.g., setting up networks). In this respect, mirroring also appears to have a strong effect on internal agency culture and structure. For example, the divisional president cited earlier indicated that:

Agencies will be expected to manage their networks as they never have before. Like an increasing number of their clients, they too will have to be transnational, collaborating, and adjusting global/local skills and resources within a responsive, interdependent network--across borders and disciplines.

However, an executive vice president sounded a cautionary note with respect to this picture, "[we are] committed to creativity more than identical home offices." In other words, this executive emphasizes that globalization and mirroring of the client must not be delinked from the ultimate product of the agency which is effective marketing communications.

The culture of the agency Agency culture as a whole embodies and reflects the multifocal interdependence of multi-country, multi-office structures, and networks Thus, its effects are prevalent in many aspects of the integration process as well. Furthermore, IMC's emphasis on the cultural impact of employees, their involvement in both external and internal communications, and their roles in internal marketing (Schultz, 1998) applies equally to GIMC. For instance, the chairman and creative director of one agency focused on its creative people and their force in driving agency integration:

Everything (in our agency) is led by the creative people! They decide the big idea that can work everywhere. The creative decides the execution.

Some people within the agency are likely to be what the divisional president in our sample called "Globies." These are people who work for transnational companies and are leading the effort to construct and manage global, collaborative networks in their firms. They also bridge the gap between national and organizational culture. Many of these people literally travel the network on a worldwide basis and, according to this respondent, have a "truly global mindset":

They motivate people to broaden their view of the world beyond their own local patch. They promote the global vision of the organization and encourage people to adopt it in their thinking. ... They respect and embrace diversity but don't let them become barriers. They are naturally collaborative and skillful in finding common ground within these differences. They build teams sans frontiers and encourage ideas from everywhere. This is a skill you must learn--a special attitude and sensitivity you must develop through direct personal experience.

Other factors, especially organizational ones, may also be necessary for effective agency globalization. For example, the senior v.p., cited earlier, suggests some general organizational requirements:

To make it work ... requires [an] environment that encourages collaboration, a strong, centralized client, constant communication, a respected leader, [and] common tools and processes.

SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS OF RESULTS

SummaryThe GIMC process is a highly dynamic, evolving one. In this regard, our study should be seen as a benchmark for gauging the development of GIMC from a managerial point of view and for pursuing further research. What we find in general is that agency perspectives differ and are very broadly subject to organizational as well as market contingencies. Moreover, individual executives commonly reported that they encounter an extensive product and/or client-situational contingency which drives their GIMC strategies beyond any particular overall agency approach In general, these findings confirm and amplify the need to seek a balance between global efficiency and responsiveness to local conditions (Douglas and Craig, 1995). Such a balance is necessary for the creation and design of global management systems which attempt "to achieve the desired degree of horizontal and vertical communication and coordination" (Douglas and Craig, 1995).

Beyond these general results, the findings with respect to each specific topic may also serve as a base for further thinking and research. The degree of interoffice coordination appears to match the desirability of coordination. Respondents reported frequent use of information technology, such as faxes and e-mail, in their internal communications mix. However, given that the typical frequency of contact was reported to be only weekly, it appears that close global collaboration is still not as commonplace as it might be.

The respondents also indicated that coordination was not necessarily associated with centralization. In addition, they reported that the creative function was the most coordinated of the promotion disciplines while media buying was the least, which suggests that the media function is perceived in more localized terms than is the creative function. Collectively, these findings serve to focus on global marketing communications as much in terms of internal organizational issues as in terms of external market, cultural, and consumer issues. Thus, the organizational factor should be given special emphasis not only with regard to GIMC, but also IMC as well.

The results concerning the lack of a significant difference between agencies' own desires and their perceptions of clients' desires to coordinate brand promotion also suggest that mirroring the client in at least some aspects of strategy and structure is often an important part of the agency's internal organizational process (Grein and Gould, 1996). In this regard, the client-marketer is perceived to be the leader in the process of marketing globalization (cf. Bergen, Durra, and Walker, 1992; Hirschman, 1989), although it is not always clear with regard to IMC that the client possesses the

expertise to do so (Beard, 1996). These findings indicate that more research might be done which focuses on this relationship as a dynamic process in which global marketing communications are seen as a product of the coevolution of both parties. In this regard, future studies might examine communications, relative power, and relationships between the two parties. For example, what are the means of such communication, what is said, and what seems to be withheld? In general, the agency-client relationship seems to be underresearched, possibly for reasons of its proprietary nature.

Agency executives should view their GIMC strategy as an evolving one for which they must benchmark their current position and project where they should be moving in the future.

The present study is limited by the following: (1) with a few exceptions only one person in each agency was contacted, (2) agencies not responding may differ from those that did, and (3) agencies based in other countries were not surveyed. However, all of these may be addressed in future research. In addition, questions might be asked which reflect other aspects of GIMC. Moreover, other methods might be employed in the study of GIMC, such as participant-observation in which a researcher participates in, observes, and reports on the day-to-day affairs of an agency (Workman, 1993).

ImplicationsBased on the present research and other observations, it appears that the issues and concerns involving GIMC are similar for both marketing communications executives and academic researchers. Therefore, the implications discussed below are generally applicable to both parties.

GIMC and the standardization-adaptation issue We find that GIMC is a strategic policy force in global marketing communications, whether those communications are standardized or not. In this regard, both promotion agencies and clients need to think of themselves as multifocal organizations and/or also as parts of multifocal networks in which both local responsiveness and global integration are key to strategic advantage in the marketplace. However, some of the responses in our survey indicate that market forces may impede or appear to impede coordination. This finding suggests that although coordination applies equally to standardization and adaptation, coordination may be more difficult to achieve in adaptive situations. However, while the form of coordination may vary, for example, according to whether a standardized or adaptive strategy is applied, the main managerial implication remains that such GIMC coordination must be present and supported by top-level management. This entails the development of appropriate collaboration, oversight, information acquisition and sharing, organizational learning, and resource allocation policies. In this regard, the agency should have multiple strategic capabilities so that it can be both globally and locally responsive, especially since it will have multiple clients with different standardization-adaptation needs at different times (cf. Douglas and Craig, 1995). Future research should more closely examine this issue and focus in particular on the development of coordination strategies where adaptation is dictated by the marketplace.

Dynamics and process of global integration While this study examined a number of elements involved in globally integrating marketing communications, it did so at one point in time. As noted earlier, globally integrated strategy remains an ideal for many. Agency executives should view their GIMC strategy as an evolving one for which they must benchmark their current position and project where they should be moving in the future. Academic research which examines that process of evolution and the problems in doing so would be very useful. For example, investigators might look at the various interests and agendas within advertising agencies to see how they determine global coordination policy. They should also consider the stages and/or varying degrees of integration that can be achieved (cf. Grein and Gould, 1996; Wackman, Salmon, and Salmon, 1986).

Another issue concerns leadership in the formation of GIMC strategy and organization. As one reviewer of this paper suggested, one country typically takes the lead in organizing a campaign and/or generating the "big idea." Often, this may be seen as "U.S.-centric" and in cases where this perception stifles other local efforts, it may e necessary to overcome it, albeit perhaps not without a great deal of effort (Lancaster, 1998). In this context, both managers and researchers should consider how good ideas may evolve and how there may be truly shared efforts and rewards among all global participants within an agency (or multiple agencies working on aspects of a given account). Some possible answers emerge from the present data while others remain to be found.

One useful idea concerns delegating authority. No one person can manage all aspects of all issues, especially when the span of control is global and cross-cultural. This means that people who truly reflect and are part of an organization's culture must come from different national cultures in order to ensure that the former is diffused and effective in all relevant markets and offices. To that end, consider the idea of "globies' mentioned in the study. These people could be found or developed internationally so that no one nationality has a monopoly on them. If such people are seen as exerting leadership and having strong roles in strategy formulation and policy making then, resulting organizational ties and campaign strategies will have more internal credibility. Such people, in other words, could serve as global organizational links, as well as national representatives, within the agency structure and culture.

Global teams might also be useful in regard to establishing and applying organizational networks and linkages and they could rely on interactive communication tools explored in this paper. For example, Olgilvy & Mather Worldwide organized Worldwide Client Service (WCS) teams which sought to bring together the best people across the world to manage multinational accounts (Harvard Business School, 1995). Such teams mirrored their client organizations on a transnational, horizontal (i.e., multiple center) basis.

However, despite the potential promise of global networking, the results of this study suggest that highly interactive means of communication were not used as frequently as they might be (i.e., video-conferencing, face-to-face meetings). Researchers might explore the use of these tools and how they impact GIMC decisions and the possible formation of teams. In this regard, the proactive application of other, ever-evolving IT tools, such as various function-specific software programs (e.g., media planning programs), shared online databases, networking, intranets, and enterprise software, should also be examined. Moreover, the formulation and implementation of general agency policy with respect to IT and its integrative role in successful GIMC (and IMC) remains largely unexplored territory which needs to be charted.

Additional important issues concern how agencies formulate the mix of specific communications services they will both offer and not offer to clients, how they work on a collaborative basis with other agencies that provide services they do not offer in-house on their own, how they allocate resources across transnational offices, how they practice IMC especially in relating it to GIMC, and finally how they devise their strategies and plan for integration. Managers might study these issues on both an in-house basis and comparative basis with competitive agencies and then formulate and implement GIMC policies.

Client-agency relationships and inter-firm dynamics Since the management of marketing communications is performed on an interfirm alliance basis involving both agencies and clients and also since a number of respondents indicated that mirroring was present, managers and researchers should also examine the client side of the dyad. For example, Lerman, Gould, and Grein (1996) found that had there been better internal communications and an integration of external communications among various European divisions of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies in a policy dispute over the disposal of an oil rig, the issue could have been much more easily managed and resolved. One solution to this problem might have been coordination of the communications by an agency with more global oversight. Thus, not only should agencies think in GIMC terms but they should also integrate and share that thinking with their clients and use it to establish their own usefulness and competitive advantage. Consideration of integrated marketing (IM) in which all marketing-mix functions are viewed in terms of their communications aspects might be of further use in this regard (Duncan and Moriarty, 1997).

Research in this area might consider such theoretical approaches as agency theory which examines agency-principal relationships (Bergen et al., 1992) and interorganizational theory which examines business alliances in terms of noneconomic, relationship factors (Varadarajan and Cunningham, 1995). As suggested by these theories, investigators might explore how agencies and marketers make decisions about managing global campaigns, how they coordinate and organize them, and how control and incentive schemes are used to implement them. Researchers might also examine the agency selection problem in global terms since it has been suggested that synergies across brands and markets may be gained or lost depending on whether or not a marketer consolidates such selection decisions (Rosen, Boddewyn, and Louis, 1988). Perhaps of most immediate interest would be the

concept of cohesion in which symbiotic parties (i.e., the client and agency) create value-added networks built on shared beliefs and other resources (Friedkin, 1984). Thus, ultimately, GIMC (and also IMC) must be viewed in interfirm (client-agency), as well as intrafirm or interoffice terms, and various organizational role perspectives should be considered (Beard, 1996).

... GIMC offers the possibility of managing global communications in a contingent manner which is compatible with each agency's (and client's) particular promotion environment.

Personnel policies As suggested by some people in our study, a global mindset is necessary to be a "globie" or a person who can truly be an integrator in the GIMC sense. Managerially, this implies that agencies (and clients) should hire people who have this global-mindedness and then nurture it by moving them around to various countries. The net result of such personnel policies will not only be to increase global sensitivity but also to expedite and improve the diffusion and development of organizational culture. In this regard, such culture will come to reflect the core values and best practices of the agency while ensuring attention to local and regional differences. In addition, global coordination should also be encouraged by creating compensation and incentive systems that reward such behavior (Yip and Madsen, 1996). For example, a portion of compensation may be tied to the overall global performance of an agency or increased pay, and/or promotion may be rewarded to those who become globies or experts in GIMC. Such policies might move agencies toward adopting what one reviewer of this paper called a "global reward system."

There is also a need to conduct research concerning how to develop personnel policies that fulfill the requirements of GIMC and to examine the joint evolution and effects of ethnic and corporate cultures, especially when they interact in a global, multicultural environment. We might also consider what sorts of education, training, or other aspects of background and experience help to stimulate or enhance global performance by individuals. Moreover, we should not only explore individual behavior in this regard but also team, communications, and network behavior in cross-national settings for clues concerning how to enhance and manage global group performance. For example, Procter and Gamble created Euro Brand teams in which the ideas were leveraged across countries and motivation was enhanced by choosing a subsidiary general manager who was most enthusiastic about the brand in question (Bartlett and Ghosal, 1989).

Strategies, policies, controls, and audits Managing GIMC implies that strategies and policies which formally and proactively incorporate GIMC in strategic plans should be formulated. This means that not only should each global brand be promoted with regard to GIMC, but in keeping with the organizational emphasis of this paper, the strategic plans of agencies, themselves, as integral business entities with numerous clients, many brands, and a panoply of services offered should be formulated in GIMC terms. For example, strategy regarding organization and structure should aim to develop intra-agency networks and formal roles (e.g., individual positions, teams, committees) for managing, overseeing, and exercising authority in allocating resources and in coordinating, monitoring, and controlling efforts to set and achieve global performance goals.

Of particular importance, benchmarks should be established and audits conducted to assess performance (cf., Michell, 1987). For example, global teams might be assessed on a cost-benefit basis to see how well they perform in meeting goals. Interviews with and surveys of team members might be conducted to assess their effectiveness. Global database and communications use might also be assessed. All this suggests that formalizing the GIMC process, much as is done with marketing and advertising planning and implementation, would make global planning not merely a random occurrence, but rather a purposeful, coordinated effort.

CONCLUSIONThis paper has considered advertising agency practices which it links to the etic concept of Globally Integrated Marketing Communications (GIMC). Future developments will not only lie in the theoretical advancement and further study of this concept and its practices but also in its potential emic diffusion among global advertisers and agencies. In this regard, GIMC offers the possibility of managing global communications in a contingent manner which is compatible with each agency's (and client's) particular promotion environment. It does so by framing the issues in ways that transcend the standardization-adaptation contingency and instead focus an agency on the organizational issues of global policy development, intrafirm (interoffice) network linkages, interfirm

network linkages, synergistic organizational learning, and efficient resource allocation, all of which result from the effective application of appropriate coordination strategies.

TABLE 1 Means of Responses to Coordination and Communications ItemsLegend for chart:

A1=1. Coordination of brand promotion across countriesA2=2. Desire to coordinate brand promotion across countriesA3=3. Clients' desire to coordinate brand promotionA4=4. Centralization of agencies' branchesA5=5. Agency effort in coordinating communications for the samebrand across countriesA6=6. Agencies' effort in integrating the various promotionalcommunications disciplines on a global basisA7=7. Agencies' effort in integrating creative functionA8=8. Agencies' effort in integrating media planningA9=9. Agencies' effort in integrating media buyingA10=10. Frequency of telephone usage between branchesA11=11. Frequency of mail/postal service usage between branchesA12=12. Frequency of e-mail/internet usage between branchesA13=13. Frequency of fax transmission between branchesA14=14. Frequency of videoconferencing usage between branchesA15=15. Frequency of face-to-face meetings between branchesA16=16. Frequency of employee transfer to foreign branchesA17=17. Frequency of interaction of people working on same brandacross agency branches

Question N MeanGeneral GIMC Policies A1 12 5.54 A2 12 5.55 A3 12 6.08 A4 10 4.60 A5 13 5.54Agency Functions A6 13 4.58 A7 13 4.92 A8 13 3.69 A9 12 3.00Frequency of Communications Mix Modes Use among Agency BranchesA10 13 5.54A11 13 3.77A12 13 5.00A13 13 5.77A14 13 2.77A15 13 3.38Other Frequency ItemsA16 13 3.31A17 13 3.00

Note: All items except item #17 were scored on a 1 to 7 scalewith anchors of "Not At All-Very Much" for item 1, "Not VeryDesirable-Very Desirable" for items 2 and 3, "Not Very Much-VeryMuch" for items 4 and 6 to 9, "Very Decentralized-VeryCentralized" for item 5, and "Not Very Frequently-Very Frequently"for items 10 to 16. Item 17 was measured on a scale of 0 = "Neveror Almost Never," 1 = "Yearly," 2 = "Bimonthly,' 3 = "Monthly,"4 = "Weekly," and 5 = "Daily." An eighteenth item, "Other" in terms

of communications mix modes, is not shown as it was notresponded to.

TABLE 2 Overall Communication Indices, Level of Coordination, and Level of Centralization by Agency

OverallCommunication Level of Brand Level ofIndex Coordination Centralization38 6 434 7 534 2 229 7 -28 6 227 7 527 7 727 7 626 7 -22 2 622 - 321 6 - 6 2 6

Note: The Overall Communication Index is a composite scorebased on the frequency of communication across various meansof communications (i.e., telephone, fax, mail, e-mail, videoconferencing, and physical-face-to-face meetings--an "other"category was also available but no one used it).

TABLE 3 Emergent Themes from the Open-Ended Questions

ThemeThe evolving nature of globalizationThe contingent nature of globalizationThe cultural environment Culture of the client and mirroring Culture of the agency

PHOTO (BLACK & WHITE): STEPHEN J. GOULD Baruch College, CUNY

PHOTO (BLACK & WHITE): DAWN B. LERMAN Baruch College, CUNY

PHOTO (BLACK & WHITE): SANDREAS F. GERIN Baruch College, CUNY

REFERENCESAiken, Michael, and Jerald Hage. "Organizational Interdependence and Intraorganiza-tional Structure." American Sociological Review 33, 6 (1968): 912-29.

Banerjee, A. "Transnational Advertising Development and Management: An Account Planning Approach and a Process Framework." International Journal of Advertising 13, 2 (1994): 95-124.

Bartlett, C. A., and S. Ghosal. Managing across Borders: The Transnational Solution. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1989.

Beard, Fred. "Integrated Marketing Communications: New Role Expectations and Performance Issues in the Client-Ad Agency Relationship?" Journal of Business Research 37, 3 (1996): 207-15.

Bergen, Mark, Shantanu Dutta, and Orville C. Walker, Jr. "Agency Relationships in Marketing: A Review of the Implications and Applications of Agency and Related Theories." Journal of Marketing 56, 3 (1992): 1-24.

Bharadwaj, Sundar G., P. Rajan Varadara-Jan, and John Fahy. "Sustainable Competitive Advantage in Service Industries: A Conceptual Model and Research Propositions." Journal of Marketing 57, 4 (1993): 83-99.

Bleeke, Joel, and David Ernst. Collaborating to Compete. New York: John Wiley, 1993.

Brownie, Douglas, and Michael Saren. "The Sounds of Silence: Discourse and Communicative Praxis in Marketing." In New and Evolving Paradigms: The Emerging Future of Marketing, Tony Meenaghan, ed. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1997.

Chandler, Alfred V. Strategies and Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1962.

de Mooji, Marieke. Global Marketing and Advertising: Understanding Cultural Paradoxes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998.

Denzin, Norman K. Interpretive Interactionism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1989.

Diamantopoulos, Adamantios, and Bodo B.

Schlegelmilch. "Determinants of Industrial Mail Survey Response: A Survey-on-Surveys Analysis of Researchers' and Managers' Views." Journal of Marketing Management 12, 6 (1996): 533-49.

Douglas, Susan P., and C. Samuel Craig. Global Marketing Strategy. New York: McGraw Hill, 1995.

Duncan, Tom, and Clarke Caywood. "The Concept, Process, and Evolution of Integrated Marketing Communications." In Integrated Communication: Synergy of Persuasive Voices, Esther Thorson and Jeri Moore, eds. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996.

-----, and Sandra Moriarty. Driving Brand Value. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997.

Friedkin, Noah E. "Structural Cohesion and Equivalence Explanations of Social Homogeneity." Sociological Methods and Research 12, 3 (1984): 235-61.

Gould, Stephen J., Andreas F. Grein, and Dawn. B. Lerman. "The Role of Agency-Client Integration in Integrated Marketing Communications: A Complementary Agency Theory-Interorganizational Perspective." Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising 9, (1999) in press.

Grein, Andreas, F., and Stephen J. Gould. "Globally Integrated Marketing Communications." Journal of Marketing Communications 2, 3 (1996): 141-58.

Gronstedt, Anders, and Esther Thorson. "Five Approaches to Organize an Integrated Marketing Communications Agency." Journal of Advertising Research 36, 2 (1996): 48-58.

Guiltinan, Joseph, Ismail Rejab, and William Rogers. "Factors Influencing Coordination in a Franchise Channel." Journal of Retailing 56, 3 (1980): 41-58.

Harvard Business School. Charlotte Beers at Olgilvy & Mather Worldwide (A). Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing, 1995.

Hirschman, Elizabeth C. "Role-Based Models of Advertising Creation and Production." Journal of Advertising 18, 4 (1989): 42-53.

Jain, Subhash C. "Standardization of International Marketing Strategy: Some Research Hypotheses." Journal of Marketing 53, 1 (1989): 70-79.

Keegan, Warren J. Multinational Marketing Management, 5th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1995.

Lancaster, Hal. "Global Managers Need Boundless Sensitivity, Rugged Constitutions." Wall Street Journal, October 13, 1998.

Lazarfeld, Paul F., and WAGNER THIELENS, JR. "Comment on the Nature of Classification in Social Research." In Continuities in the Language of Social Research, Paul F. Lazarfeld, Ann K. Pasanella, and Morris Rosenberg, eds. New York: The Free Press, 1972.

Lerman, Dawn, Stephen J. Gould, and Andreas F. Grein. "An Application of Globally Integrated Marketing Communications: The Case of Greenpeace vs. Shell." In Communicating in an Uncertain World: Coping with Crisis and Change, Mary Cross and Walter Cummins, eds. Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University, 1996.

Michell, Paul. C. N. "Auditing of Agency-Client Relations." Journal of Advertising Research 26, 6 (1986): 29-41.

Mohr, Jakki, and John Nevin. "Communication Strategies in Marketing Channels: A Theoretical Perspective." Journal of Marketing 50, 4 (1990): 36-51.

------, Robert J. Fisher, and John R. Nevin. "Collaborative Communication in Interfirm Relationships: Moderating Effects of Integration and Control." Journal of Marketing 60, 3 (1996): 103-15.

Novak, Glen J., and Joseph Phelps. "Conceptualizing the Integrated Marketing Communications' Phenomenon: An Examination of Its Impact on Advertising Practices and Its Implications for Advertising Research." Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising 16, 1 (1994): 49-66.

Olson, Eric M., Orville C. Walker, Jr., and Robert. W. Ruekert. "Organizing for Effective New Product Development: The Moderating Role of Product Innovativeness." Journal of Marketing 59, 1 (1995): 48-62.

Peebles, Dean M., John K. Ryans, Jr., and Ivan R. Vernon. "Coordinating International Advertising: A Programmed Management Approach that Cuts through the 'Standardized vs. Localized' Debate." Journal of Marketing 42, 1 (1978): 28-34.

Phelps, Joseph, Joseph Plumley, and Edward Johnson. "Integrated Marketing Communications: Who is Doing What?" In The Proceedings of the 1994 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising, Karen Whitehill King, ed. Athens, GA: University of Georgia, 1994.

Prahalad, C. K., and Yves L. Doz. The Multinational Mission: Balancing Local Demands and Global Vision. New York: The Free Press, University of Georgia, 1987.

Prensky, David, John A. McCarty, and James Lucas. "Integrated Marketing Communication: An Organizational Perspective." In Integrated Communication: Synergy of Persuasive Voices, Esther Thorson and Jeri Moore, eds. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996.

Rosen, Barry Nathan, Jean J. Boddewyn, and Ernst Louis. "Participation by U.S. Agencies in International Brand Advertising: An Empirical Study." Journal of Advertising 17, 4 (1988): 14-22.

Schultz, Don E. Strategic Advertising Campaigns. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC, 1991.

------. "The Inevitability of Integrated Communications." Journal of Business Research 37, 3 (1996): 139-46.

------. "'It's the Employees, Stupid.'" Marketing News 332, 20 (1998): 6.

Stewart, David W. "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 (1997): 147-53.

Terpstra, A., and R. Sarathy. International Marketing, 6th ed. Hinsdale, IL: The Dryden Press, 1994.

Tortorici, Anthony J. "Maximizing Marketing Communications Through Horizontal and Vertical Orchestration." Public Relations Quarterly 36, 1 (1991): 20-22.

Varadarajan, P. Rajan, and Margaret H. Cunningham. "Strategic Alliances: A Synthesis of Conceptual Foundations." Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 23, 4 (1995): 282-96.

Wackman, Daniel B., Charles T. Salmon, and CARYN C. SALMON. "Developing an Advertising Agency-Client Relationship." Journal of Advertising Research 26, 6 (1986): 21-28.

Wind, Yoram. "The Myth of Globalization." Journal of Consumer Marketing 3, 2 (1986): 23-26.

Workman, Jr., John P. "Marketing's Limited Role in New Product Development in One Computer Systems Firm." Journal of Marketing Research 30, 4 (1993): 405-21.

Yip, Goerge S., and Tammy L. Madsen. "Global Account Management: The New Frontier in Relationship Marketing." International Marketing Review 13, 3 (1996): 24-42.

~~~~~~~~

By Stephen J. Gould

STEPHEN J. GOULD is professor of marketing at Baruch College. He has published extensively in leading marketing, consumer research, and advertising outlets. His current interests include global advertising and Globally Integrated Marketing Communications, cross-cultural research, organizational aspects of Integrated Marketing Communications, Internet marketing and advertising, product placement, software piracy, healthcare marketing, applications of qualitative research methods, experiential consumption, and consumers' self-regulation of moods during consumption

DAWN LERMAN is a doctoral student at Baruch College where she is pursuing research regarding the role of language and linguistics in marketing and consumer behavior. Her research has been presented at conferences and published in journals. Ms. Lerman holds an M.B.A. in marketing and international business from New York University and a B.A. in French language and literature from Brandeis University

ANDREAS F. GREIN is assistant professor of marketing at Baruch College. He is interested in global marketing strategies, international advertising and marketing communications, and the changing patterns of national competitiveness. One particular focus of his research has been on the global competitive interaction of firms of different nationalities. He has published in the Journal of International Business Studies, The International Executive, the International Journal of Advertising, the Journal of Marketing Communications, and the Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Copyright of Journal of Advertising Research is the property of Advertising Research Foundation 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.Source: Journal of Advertising Research, Jan99, Vol. 39 Issue 1, p7, 14p, 3 charts, 3bw.Item Number: 1898809