Part II: An Exploration of Current Issues

The purpose of this paper is to explore current issues in communication, looking particularly at both the practical and theoretical aspects of what has been termed “convergence.” Convergence refers to the move away from a view of communication as disconnected “specialties,” to a more holistic blending of advertising, public relations, marketing, sales promotion, personal selling and interactive communication. The resulting amalgamation incorporates mass and interpersonal communication in ways that have implications for both academicians and practitioners. Part 1 of this project concluded with the hopeful predictions of Demers (1998, p. 1) in his editorial titled “Differentiation and Convergence,” who acknowledged that the challenges of the “new media” in the new millennium would require new ways of thinking. Everyone seems to recognize that things have changed, but where some see convergence, others see divergence. But Ithiel de Sola Pool, referred to as the “prophet of media convergence” (Jenkins, 2006, p. 10) because of his early treatment of the topic, saw symmetry between the concepts of convergence and divergence, rather than mutually exclusive forces working in opposition:

In his posthumously edited book Technologies without boundaries: on telecommunications in a global age, de Sola Pool (1984) was one of the first to anticipate the extent of societal and cultural changes that this convergence would have, predicting a world-wide impact as great as the printing press. Henry Jenkins might very well be a disciple of de Sola Pool, as his contemporary book Convergence culture: where old and new media collide, reminds us throughout that “convergence refers to a process, not an endpoint” (2006, p. 16) and that “convergence represents a cultural shift as consumers are encouraged to seek out new information and make connections among dispersed media content (2006, p. 3). His enthusiastic presentation of all things convergent is accomplished by considering a number of cultural phenomena (Survivor spoilers, The transmedia Matrix, the reality of American Idol, amateur Star Wars, and Harry Potter, Jr’s) to better understand “how” our society is changing to accommodate the convergence process. A portion of his introduction is quoted below to introduce the topic here as well:

To accomplish the objective of identifying and exploring convergence, and other current issues in communication, this paper will approach the topic from the practical perspective of the present reality in the fields of advertising, marketing, information processing and public relations. Most of the sections will include thoughts offered by practitioners who deal with the bottom line reality of convergence in everyday business decisions. Their insights will provide a springboard for identifying some of the unanswered questions and concerns facing the rapidly expanding and changing field of communication, as well as create opportunities to discuss recent theoretical advances.

Convergence: is it really “new?”

In light of the historical perspective presented in Part 1, it is only fitting that this look at the current state of the field begins with a retroactive tribute to Katz, who, years ago, recognized the need for convergence to “take account of the role of interpersonal relations in the process of mass communications” (Katz, 1960, p. 436). Katz outlines how mass communication researchers and rural sociologists “discovered” each other in their attempts to understand what he describes as “an interest in campaigns to gain acceptance of change” (1960, p. 435), which is ultimately the study of diffusion theory. He acknowledges that “it is not easy to conceive of two traditions that, ostensibly, seem more unrelated” (1960, p. 435), however one of the consequent benefits of their convergence included a strengthening of theoretical development stemming from parallel findings in the two areas. Katz makes a compelling argument for a multi-disciplinary approach in his article titled Communication research and the image of society: convergence of two traditions:

The broad path towards convergence was visible early on, at least to visionaries, but it has been a road less traveled, as demonstrated in the literature review of communication research presented in Part 1. For example, Rogers points to the “sub disciplines” of mass and interpersonal communication, describing them vividly as an “intellectual canyon” which slows theoretical development, decreases scholarly coherence and ultimately “violates the holistic nature of the human communication process” (1999, p. 618). Reardon and Rogers (1988) describe a discipline that functions dichotomously, leading to a lack of integration in communication theory, and thus an incomplete understanding of the communication process. They predicted a future struggle for those attempting to study newer, more interactive forms of communication, a concern which has, at least in part, come to pass.

Follow the money

One tried and true method of evaluating the status of an industry is to take a look at the financials. The changing media landscape can be viewed in stark relief in light of the shifting spending analyses, which demonstrate that greater amounts of money are being spent, but those dollars represent small, and often negative percent changes. For example, newspapers saw a 19.9% drop in spending from 1999 to 2006, and broadcast TV decreased by 17.4%; internet advertising increased during that same time period by 309.1% (Murphy, 2007). In predicting spending for fiscal year 2007, only internet spending was projected to be a double digit increase from the previous year, and that 15% change was a smaller increase than the 20% seen in 2006 (Ives, 2006). Holahan (2007) projects further blurring of the lines between TV and Web video, leading to a flood of web advertising, up to $4.3 billion by 2010. While the top forecasters do not completely agree about how the dollars will spread, Ad Age experts agreed the media outlook was “depressingly flat” for 2007 and described a situation where:

These changes in communication strategies and methods are becoming ubiquitous, and Murphy (2007) suggests that 2005 was a “change year” in that it was the first year that young people (aged 15-24) spent more time watching computer screens than television. He cites the fact that Pepsi launched Pepsi One with no TV advertising to support this contention, suggesting that strategic communication is evolving into a new and different creature and that the metamorphosis is nowhere near complete. An example in another venue is Proctor & Gamble (P&G), which has developed an online series called “Crescent Heights,” starring Ashley as a young woman working in public relations in Los Angeles. P&G is targeting young viewers on cell phones and PC’s with the show, and the story is more about clothes and relationships than Tide detergent. Kevin Crociata, Tide’s associate marketing director, is thrilled with response to the sitcom, which they promote through print ads, packaging and television commercials. He explains that “We want to speak to people about more than just laundry…We provide benefits to the fabrics she wears on a daily basis. They have much more meaning…We feel like we’ve hit on something that’s entertaining and, in our testing, has shown it’s influencing purchase intent” (Tedeschi, Oct. 15, 2007). P&G knows a little something about advertising, as the company has been first or second in ad spending for 50 of the 52 years Ad Age has produced the rankings. The greatest budgetary change over the years has been a drop in TV advertising, which accounted for more than 90% of spending in 1960-1980, but only 69.9% in 2006 (Endicott, 2007). Unilever, which spent about half ($4.27 billion) what P&G spent in 2006 ($8.19 billion) has also created several successful online series for products such as Degree deodorant, Dove soap, and Caress skin care (Endicott, 2007). The most popular is “Sprays in the City,” which promotes I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter! The brand manager claims the 3 minute Spraychel episodes have been viewed more than one million times online, with an average watch time of 6 minutes and “significantly” increased purchase intent, as reported through follow-up surveys (Tedeschi, Oct. 15, 2007). In another fascinating blend of mediums, American Eagle Outfitters (AEO), a clothing retailer, partnered with MTV to showcase their “It’s a Mall World” webisodes during “Real World: Sydney” commercial time, in exchange for running “Real World” in all its stores. AEO’s website experiences more than a 20% jump in traffic on show nights, and 75% of new visitors also make a purchase. AEO’s marketing vice president enthuses: ''While our customers really appreciated MTV programming, they were, through TiVo and other devices, disintermediating a lot of the spots we ran on the network. With this, we suddenly feel like we're truly creating a strategy that’s responsive to the way our customers actually consume media” (Tedeschi, Oct. 15, 2007). In an article about the changing nature of Nike’s advertising, Story (October 14, 2007) outlines a listing of current media tactics:

These are just a few examples of some of the “new” ways companies are communicating with their customers, altering strategies to deal with concerns such as “disintermediating,” a term which hadn’t been invented, much less used in general conversation, less than a decade ago.

Integrated marketing communications (IMC)

In the mid-90’s, Rust and Varki claimed that “the business of advertising will undergo a sea-change: interactive media will functionally displace mass-media, advertising will be both better targeted and higher in information-content, ‘intelligent’ software will aid individuals decision-making – and lastly, with more precise measurement of the impact of communication programs, marketers will finally resolve the riddle of the wasteful ‘half’ of advertising” (1996, p. 173). Their predictions describe characteristics of the interactive media these authors see “rising from the ashes of advertising,” and conclude that only those who “…successfully make the transition to this new environment, characterized by a multiplicity of audiences and channels, will be those that internalize their role as marketing communication specialists and adopt the principles of an IMC approach” (Rust & Varki, 1996, p. 180). Their article appeared in an issue of the Journal of Business Research (JBR) dedicated to a discussion of this “IMC approach.” IMC stands for integrated marketing communications, a concept that has provoked emotional debates reminiscent of early controversies, such as the one surrounding the apparent demise of communications research (Berelson, 1959), which has been kept alive for almost 50 years through sheer repetition, a humorously ironic situation for the field of advertising.

In the same issue of JBR, Hutton (1996) suggests that IMC is a bit of a Trojan horse, in that no one is making a case for “non-integrated” marketing communications. He summarizes the battle as one in which “advertising has taken the offensive, public relations has been on the defensive, and marketing, for the most part, has been on the sidelines” (1996, p. 155). He claims that IMC is not new, but has existed for decades (if not centuries). Hutton summarizes what he terms “the real debate,” saying:

He then provides an extensive overview of the evolution of marketing, advertising, and public relations, offers a heuristic to diagram the appropriate relationship among them, and concludes with a discussion about who should take leadership in what he terms the “IM/IC” debate,” listing the contenders as scholars and practitioners in each of the disciplines. Hutton concludes his thought-provoking article with the conclusion that

Stewart (1996) attempts to provide a comprehensive solution through what has been termed the “market-back” approach to IMC, referencing Narver and Slater and summarizing their work as “…an explicit basis for an evolving relationship between the firm and its customers that is adjusted for changing circumstances…form and structure follow from the relationship rather than vice versa...” (1996, p. 151). He makes specific suggestions, i.e. management by generalists rather than functional specialists, as do others in the same issue (Beard, 1996; Englis & Solomon, 1996; Gronstedt, 1996), particularly concerning performance and role expectations in the client-ad agency relationship. All of the articles acknowledge there are many challenges inherent in the IMC paradigm, not the least of which is the lack of agreement regarding what IMC “is,” much less how it operates, a dilemma extensively chronicled by each.

Public relations as a media force

One area of contention is where each of the media players “belongs” in the mix. Public relations (PR) is often perceived, erroneously, as merely an “applied technical area” (Botan & Taylor, 2004), rather than a key player on the communications field. Part of this perception comes from their tendency to remain within professional boundaries of journals, associations and relational networks, but is also grounded in a changing university environment that often blends PR into an undifferentiated academic mix. Elizabeth Christian, President of Elizabeth Christian & Associates Public Relations in Austin, Texas, reflects some of the strong opinions from practitioners who see a lack of preparation for those entering PR, despite the fact that she recognizes a recent “evolution…in which top officers of companies value, appreciate and are committed to public relations to an extent not imaginable 30 years ago (Christian, November 19, 2007). She elaborates on her concerns, responding to a question about changes in the field since she entered it over 30 years ago:

What Christian is describing is a need for functional training and development of a basic PR skill set, a desire echoed across disciplines, as academicians and employers alike bemoan the inability of many students to write well and clearly. Interestingly, Botan and Taylor (2004), document a shift in the scholarly work on PR, describing it as a move away from a “functionalist perspective” towards one of “cocreation,” a change which hints at a disconnect between the real world needs of PR companies and a perceived theoretical imperative. They contrast the two approaches vividly, stating that the transition to a cocreational perspective is the “most striking trend in PR over the past 20 years:”

Regardless of one’s functional or cocreational bent, the stated purpose of the Botan and Taylor article is to illustrate the contributions that PR can make within applied communications. They outline the “strategic core” of PR as issues management, and grudgingly cite Chase, despite the “functionalist assumption” underlying his definition: “Issues management is the capacity to understand, mobilize, coordinate, and direct all strategic and policy planning functions, and all public affairs/public relations shills, toward the achievement of one objective” (in Botan & Taylor, 2004, p. 654). This encompassing definition suggests that PR will be deeply interconnected with IMC strategies, and no longer relegated to the lowest spot on the market totem pole. Ries and Ries go even further in their book The fall of advertising and the Rise of PR (2002). In fact, their premise is that IMC has been the catalyst for the “death” of advertising and PR’s ascendancy:

The Rieses fill their book with pithy statements and disparaging comparisons, such as “Advertising reaches everybody. PR reaches somebody” (2002, p. 247), or “Advertising is brand maintenance. PR is brand building” (2002, p. 265). They turn conventional wisdom upside-down, conducting an “anti-advertising” jihad from start to finish with an abundance of statements like: “The weakest link in any advertising program is its credibility. An advertising message has little believability with the average person. Advertising is taken for what it is – a biased message paid for by a company with a selfish interest in what the consumer consumes (2002, p. 5). While not everyone agrees that advertising has “fallen,” most agree that the media world is undergoing radical change, as we’ve seen from the start of this paper in quotes from scholars and working professionals. For example, the introduction to the online article The end of advertising as we know it (Berman, Battino, Shipnuck, & Neus, 2007) declares: “The next 5 years will hold more change for the advertising industry than the previous 50 did. Increasingly empowered consumers, more self-reliant advertisers and ever-evolving technologies are redefining how advertising is sold, created, consumed and tracked…Traditional advertising players – broadcasters, distributors and advertising agencies – may get squeezed unless they can successfully implement consumer, business model and business design innovation.” Finding the right “mix” appears to be the current challenge, and even the Ries’ acknowledge that PR and advertising will both play a role. Christian would agree with this concept of a “team” approach, and although she doesn’t directly use the term “IMC,” she shares how she sees the present-day convergence impacting her business and the growing awareness and appreciation of PR:

Integrating media

Clearly, media integration is happening in both the real world and academia, whether definitions and “rules” are agreed upon in advance or not. A recent issue of the Journal of Advertising Research (JAR) dealt with the “fuzzy picture” of IMC, wondering whether it represents a “breakthrough or breakdown” (Cook, 2004, p. 1), and editorial comments point to the seeming inability to move from conception to application. Cook offers his hope, though, that the meaning of “integration” has moved beyond the mere coordination of marketing efforts or a coherent management style, to a more complete, holistic approach. A majority of the articles attempt to “define” IMC, and often start with the one adopted in 1993 by the American Association of Advertisers and the American Marketing Association, stating that IMC is:

As Kitchen et al. (2004) point out, this early recognition of the need to be “outside-in” rather than the conventional “inside-out” method of communication has been a key element of IMC development, although not everyone is on board with the program. One observation has been that because “IMC as a theory is quite shallow through its lack of definition, formal theory construction, and research, the hypothesis emerges that IMC is a management fashion” (Cornelissen & Lock, 2000, p. 10), rather than a paradigm shift, although others have offered vehement counter-points to this view (Gould, 2000; Schultz & Kitchen, 2000). The more common perception is that “…in just a short decade, the concept of IMC has swept around the planet and become a watch cry – not only of the marketing and marketing communication literature, but also apparently of the marketing and even corporate communication strategies of many companies” (Kitchen et al., 2004, p. 21).

Swain (2004) questions if practitioners have accepted and applied IMC, regardless of a lack of agreement about whether to categorize it as a paradigm, theory or practice. His study attempted to answer the question of Who’s at the wheel, and how can we measure success? (2004, p. 46) in an effort to move towards consensus about IMC leadership, measurement and agency compensation. He found, however, that there has been little progress in any of these areas, concluding that “little has changed from traditional mass marketing practices in the areas of IMC measurement and agency compensation” (2004, p. 55) and only a hint of agreement about leadership roles exists. Swain claims that for IMC to succeed it must be treated as a total package, and embraced at every level of an organizations culture. Paralleling this recommendation is Gould (2004), who suggests that while IMC is a controversial theoretical construct, it is best viewed through the “half-full” glass of poststructuralism. He describes IMC as a “living breathing set of practices and discourse that guides and comprises marketing communications programs and frames related educational processes,” and recommends moving towards a “more generalized theoretic perspective by comparing practices and perhaps deriving a set of best practices in varying situations” (2004, pp. 69,70). This search for “best practices” is a universal desire, and as Kitchen et al. (2004) point out, there is a certain “brand awareness” of IMC, a belief which is echoed by Kim et al. (2004), who discuss the global diffusion of IMC. Despite varying societal and marketplace factors, they found that in South Korea (as representative of non-English speaking cultures), “IMC will likely become not just a choice but a requirement for many clients and agencies,” and concluded that point of origin factors could act either as barriers or forces driving towards implementation. Zahay et al. (2004) conducted a different exploratory study of IMC, evaluating the risk to benefit ratio of transactional versus relational data in managing marketing communication relationships. They provide a masterful overview of the research supporting the move from a traditional transaction-based relationship described as “product-centric,” contrasting it with a relational, “customer-centric” approach. We know little about the relative value of these data sets. For instance, is customer lifetime value more impacted by a sales- or marketing-orientation? Is transactional or relationship data better able to provide information about how to best develop consumer interactions? Their conclusion is that “…improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the multitude of ways that firms touch customers and how their loyalty is earned, along with the increased use of transactional data, provides the greatest opportunity for reaching the long sought goal of one-to-one marketing” (Zahay et al., 2004, p. 15). They balance this advice with strong warnings about the dangers of having more information than can be effectively used. Lee and Park (2007) have recently developed an IMC measuring instrument which they claim will “assist the IMC practitioners to better assess the scope and depth of IMC implemented in their marketing communications program and to measure the impact of IMC on the marketing communications performance more accurately” (2007, p. 234) although its efficacy in a variety of situations warrants further investigation.

Susan Sheskey, recently retired Chief Information Officer of Dell Computers, Inc., understands performance metrics and the processing of information as well as anyone in the technology industry today. Her insights are of particular note since they come from the vantage of the technology provider, yet they resonate with those of other practitioners in a tone that reflects the changing role of the consumer (whether consuming or generating content):

It is clear we have moved well beyond the printing press, and only time will tell the story of which innovations stand the test of time. In a recent issue dedicated to Broader strategies for cross-channel integration (Woodard, 2005), the JAR offered further insights into IMC as well as perspectives on other “nontraditional” channels. The spectrum of articles included brand equity implications of joint branding programs (Lebar, Buehler, Keller, Sawicka, Aksehirli, & Richey, 2005), an IMC approach to event marketing (Sneath, Finney, & Close, 2005), the scope of media used in an IMC-driven advertising campaign (Sasser, Koslow, & Riordan, 2007), specific types of media, such as short-message-service direct marketing (Trappey & Woodside, 2005) and the effects of expert and consumer endorsements on audience response (Wang, 2005). This paper will focus on the Calder and Malthouse (2005) article, which provides a thorough and practical look at how to manage media and advertising change through what they call integrated marketing (IM). They lead off with the most parsimonious definition available, by stating that IM is simply a “paradigm for doing marketing” which has a more “organic” connection to the consumer compared to the “4 P’s” approach, which entails coordinating the marketing mix of product, price, place and promotion (2005, p. 356). They diagram the process as requiring a corporate strategy that moves towards a brand concept that focuses on the experience of the consumer: “…the idea the marketer wants the consumer to have, of the way the consumer should experience the product…Consumers must be contacted in ways that affect their experience and lead them to the brand concept” (2005, p. 357). Calder and Malthouse suggest the need to manage these contacts to provide a continuous feedback loop that always involves the brand concept: the “touch point” of the contact can be any number of experiences (including marketing and advertising), as long as they affect consumer experience as desired. Viewed in this light, they suggest that media context is just as important as media content in transferring relevant brand experiences in meaningful ways and cite a number of their own studies to support this contention. Their final point is that IM is a more “flexible framework that covers both mass and more customized branding,” which they describe as a “relationship brand” whose distinguishing characteristic is “that a large portion of its inherent appeal is that the idea can be experienced in a more individualistic or idiosyncratic way by the consumer” (2005, p. 359). They conclude with specific and practical recommendations to use IM to “treat advertisements as experiential contacts as opposed to persuasive messaging, evaluate media based not only on potential exposure but also on the strength of relevant experiences provided by the media context, and build (if indicated) a relationship brand by subsegmenting and customizing advertisements by how the different subsegments experience the brand” (2005, p. 361).

Lisa Carlson, Director of Professional Marketing for Quaker and Tropicana (a division of Pepsico) agrees with the premise that “contacts are king” and offers her view of “how IMC works” in the real world. In her words:

Bonnie Block, Vice President of Marketing for Fleishman-Hillard in Chicago, joins the chorus as she describes her “big picture” description of recent changes in the business of communication:

And lastly, Sheskey (November 26, 2007) shares how Dell “manages relationships” to build their brand, each focused on context-dependent empowerment:

Building Brands

It is clear that both academicians and practitioners are interested in how best to “build brands,” as that process appears to be at the heart of communications strategies, integrated or not. Not surprisingly, because brands mean different things to different people in different settings, there are numerous approaches to the study of brands, and little empirical understanding because of lack of consensus as to what a brand “is.” For example, brands have been studied as everything from a means of self-expression (Belk, 1988), a metaphor for personality (Caprara, Barbaranelli, & Guido, 2001), the expression of an ideal self (Malhotra, 1988) or a means of meeting the need for self-verification (Escalas & Bettman, 2003). Aaker (1997) targets brand personality, which she defines as “the set of human characteristics associated with a brand” and uses examples such a Absolut vodka being “cool” or “hip.” Others have studied message framing as an advertising strategy for brand communication, and Tsai (2007) suggests that the persuasive function of framing, appropriately applied after measuring self-construal, consumer involvement, and product knowledge, may significantly enhance brand attitude and purchase intention. Since our focus is current issues, we will consider the work of Hollis (2005), who provides information regarding the two primary measures of online advertising effectiveness (brand building or direct response), and then shift to Pawle and Cooper (2006), who propose a working model which blends emotional and rational processes in the creation of brand relationships.

In an admirable attempt to determine what has been learned in the past ten years about how online advertising builds brands, Hollis (2005) begins with a helpful look at the history and cycles that he describes as passing through birth, boom, bust and revival. He uses the first static banner ad, which appeared on Hot-Wired in 1994 and linked to the AT&T website, as representative of the fact that integrated on-and off-line campaigns are not new. In 1996, Hot-Wired conducted the first online study comparing survey responses between customers who received a test ad versus those who received a control ad, and concluded that banner ads effectively build advertised brands, even with first impressions (in Hollis, 2005). The boom years (1996 to 2000) saw online advertising spending grow from a miniscule base to $8.2 billion in 2000, and these years were marked by experimentation by both advertisers and the multitude of dot-com’s who seemed to have money to burn. Hollis notes that there was ongoing skepticism about the potential brand-building capability of the web, driven by the value most placed on its more obvious direct-response capacity. He mentions his 2000 review of online news journals and discovering a 2:1 belief ratio that online advertising could not build brands, supported by quotes such as “…branding, at least in the traditional sense, just doesn’t work on the web. Successful branding happens on TV and radio through a subtle, emotion-inspiring combination of music, images, or voices. Web banner ads that flash catch tag lines don’t do it” (Hollis, 2005, p. 256). He notes that this conviction was strengthening at the same time

click-through rates (CTR), the accepted measure of direct response to online ads, were falling. The “bust” occurred in 2001-2002, when online advertising revenues declined sharply, although nowhere near original levels. Despite attempts by the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) to fund studies demonstrating online brand building potential, Lohtia et al. (Lohtia, Donthu, & Hershberger, 2003, p. 411) reported that “Clicks and advertisement impressions…are the top two metrics used for advertisement delivery reporting and audience measurement.” Revival came in 2003 as online advertising revenues began to climb and the IAB exclaimed with pride (and no small measure of relief): $2.2 BILLION Q4 2003 is 38% over Q4 2002 ("Interactive Ad Revenue Sets Record With Best Quarter Ever ", 2004). As the U.S. economy thrived, the industry matured, and TV advertising declined, marketers turned online as broadband penetration escalated to 58 million households (Leggatt, July 24, 2007), and all these factors have contributed to the upward trend in online advertising. The news continues to be positive, and the IAB once again splashed a banner headline to celebrate: Internet advertising revenues in Q3 ’07 surpass $5.2 billion, setting new high: Industry Maintains Record-breaking Trend; 2007 Q3 Revenues Up Over 25% from 2006 Q3 ("Internet advertising revenues 2007", 2007).

As mentioned, the use of CTR has been the primary measure of ad effectiveness, as it indicates an active response, rather than simply measuring passive exposure. The shifting understanding towards focusing on the consumer and whether they are seeking information or actively shopping fits well with a proposed model of “attitudinal equity” demonstrating how online advertising can instigate movement towards purchase based on online exposure. The trademarked pyramid BrandDynamics© is used to show the consumer moving from a low to high likelihood to buy through the steps of presence, relevance, performance, advantage and, lastly, bonding (Hollis, 2005). While this is just one example of numerous intuitive commercial “models,” it is interesting to note how previous communications research is evident in both design and recommendations. For instance, this particular pyramid reflects the impact of involvement level and elaboration likelihood, to name just two theories synthesized in this design. Others have studied the role of engagement as a driver of message involvement affecting advertising effectiveness (Wang, 2006), or whether measures of media engagement correlate with the likelihood of product purchase (Kilger & Romer, 2007), both reminiscent of the early hierarchy of effects and related theories (Krugman, 1965; Lavidge & Steiner, 1961). Regardless of model choice, Hollis makes it clear that there is room for both CTR and brand building metrics to measure online advertising success, but leaves no room to doubt that he, and all of these authors, are trying to get at the same thing: what makes people buy?

The heart of the message: the role of emotion and the “unconscious”

Pawle and Cooper (2006) offer a fascinating shift away from the more sterile measuring of brand awareness and purchase intent in their article Measuring emotion – lovemarks, the future beyond brands. They rely on the book by that title by Kevin Roberts for insights, and link his term “lovemarks” with the use of emotion rather than product attributes as a key means of differentiating among increasingly similar products and brands. Brands compete for attention, but Roberts argues that lovemarks are “super-evolved brands” which have effectively connected emotionally with consumers to inspire loyalty, advocacy and celibacy. He lists a variety of traits that influence the development of love and respect for brands, including intimacy, mystery, sensuality, trust, reputation and performance. Lovemarks transcend brands because they represent a relationship, rather than just a cold business transaction. They represent the “high love, high respect” quadrant of the lovemark grid, whereas brands elicit “low love and high respect,” fads “high love and low respect,” and products the meager quarter of “low love and low respect.” We will consider emotion from the physiological and neuroscience perspective a bit later, but for now, suffice to say that it is generally accepted that consumer decisions are often not logical and reasoned, but reflect a mixture of feeling, intuition, knowledge and ideas simultaneously operating both consciously and subconsciously.

Pawle and Cooper (2006) designed a methodology with both qualitative and quantitative components to identify branded lovemarks, a unique challenge as they needed to be “able to measure both implicit, emotional, and unconscious effects and explicit, more conscious and rational effects” (2006, p. 40). Their interesting results showed that consumers are between 1.6 (cereals) and 2.3 times (cars) more likely to purchase a “lovemark” than a “brand,” and between 4 (cereals) and 7 times (cars) more likely compared to a mere “product” (2006, p. 46). In essence, their multiple regression analysis supports the contentions of Roberts that the emotional factors that drive love (most strongly intimacy, mystery and sensuality) are consistent across product categories and associated with higher levels of consumption of that product. While they offer some minor adjustments and refinements to the Lovemark hypothesis, they applaud the universality of its application and its robust response to experimentation. Certainly, the recognition of the key role of emotion in advertising is here to stay and will continue to develop and drive further empirical research and field trials.

The Lovemark article appeared in the March 2006 issue of JAR, which was dedicated entirely to the topic of emotion. The lead editorial opens the discussion of the dichotomy between “head and heart” in advertising, and argues that the current emphasis on the emotional side of advertising, drawing from the fields of neuroscience and cognitive psychology is long overdue (Plummer, 2006). Plummer highlights one of the articles (Gordon, 2006) in his opening editorial comments, evidently without a drop of sarcasm, irony or even tongue-in-cheek, as he emotes that she is going to explore the essential question of “what do people do to advertising?” in addition to “what does advertising do to people?” Katz gets the nod as the prescient one who proposed this exact emphatic shift in the development of the uses and gratifications approach as far back as 1959 (in Severin & Tankard, 2001), yet it remains one of the recurrent themes in communication literature, a seasonal self-flagellation, if you will. Gordon, however, shifts the focus to what consumers do “emotionally” with advertising, and suggests that it is “Little wonder that mental models that argued that the advertising process is complex, nonrational (sociocultural, emotional, unconscious, interactive) and not easy to measure, and that consumers control the process of creating meaning (rather than brand owners and their agencies) were basically ignored” (2006, p. 4). She provides an excellent overview of the supportive science from fields as wide-ranging as neuroscience, clinical neurology, cognitive psychology, molecular biology and psychoanalysis, summarizing the current thinking into the understanding that most mental function occurs at an unconscious level. The three common terms used to describe “memory” are semantic, procedural, and episodic (autobiographical), yet it is the role of working memory that has practical implications for advertising and brand-building. Roy Williams, the self-proclaimed “Wizard of Ads,” and highly successful entrepreneur, stresses the importance of using this biological information in persuasive communication. He makes the case that the ultimate goal is to get your message to the prefrontal cortex of the brain, where decisions are made. Williams paints an engaging picture of a trip to Emerald City (the prefrontal cortex): information must pass the “tollbooth” of Broca’s area, which screens neural information and dismisses the “predictable.” Broca turns away the conventional and things it “sees coming” as not worthy of entry, but a new or surprising thought is permitted to slip by (2001). Williams relies on the work of Alan Baddeley (2000), a renowned neuroscientist, to support his theory that the Yellow Brick Road is the stretch between Broca’s tollbooth and the Emerald City, which corresponds to the “dorsolateral prefrontal association area of the brain.“ Williams calls “imagination” what Baddeley terms “working memory,” and he explains its three components are the central executive, the phonological loop, and the visuospatial sketch pad. Each of these parts plays a key role in how we process information, involving the senses of sound and sight in addition to decision making, the function of the “central executive.” For example, Williams describes the phonological loop as a “cul de sac” on the Yellow Brick Road, a place we’ve all visited where we’ve spent time aimlessly wandering as a song, stuck in a mental groove, plays endlessly. The visuospatial sketchpad he describes as “the movie screen of your mind,” where you see things you’ve not literally seen, in your “mind’s eye” (Williams, 2001, pp. 50-51). Bargh and Chartrand (1999) further explain working memory and note that we can hold just seven units of information in our minds at a time: the implication is that the majority of information used in normal function needs to be processed in the unconscious portion of the mind/brain. The application of this knowledge supports research that has been dismissed in the past (Biel, 1990; Gordon & Langmaid, 1986), and Gordon reviews the findings of several of these studies to support the contention that “advertising-branding” associations exist that are not able to be consciously recalled (Gordon & Langmaid, 1986). She also makes the case for the potential ability of low-attention processing to encode information which may not be accessible to immediate recall upon questioning, questioning the validity of testing ad effectiveness relying solely on recall measures (Heath, 2000). Gordon quotes Carroll in the journal Research, insights for todays investors, as framing the challenge:

She concludes with a list of time simple, but “scientifically proven” principles to guide and direct all forms of media communication, starting with the fact that people do not say what they mean or mean what they say: reasons “why” are generally post-decision rationalizations. Next is the fact that people “dance with brands fleetingly,” thus it’s important to capitalize on meaningful touchpoints. The fact that brands are both cognitively and emotionally encoded in the brain results in what she terms brand representation: sets of cells situated in different parts of the brain communicate with one another to “create” brand awareness. How strongly a brand is “anchored” affects the power of the interaction, and emotional anchoring determines how brand information is processed, attended and responded to. Gordon then claims that “words need help” because they are often “fuzzy and imprecise” and encourages trusting both personal and customer intuition, since people are not passive receivers, but active “transformers,” who make communication and brand information personally relevant. The point of the entire article, the fact that the unconscious exists, is a call to see and embrace the intertwining of the rational and emotional. She suggests that “emotions rule” and should form the foundation of the decision making process, citing Franzen and Bouwman who claim “Emotions constitute an integrated element of the seemingly most rational decision- making. Whenever thinking contradicts with emotions, emotions win” (2006, p. 9). Her final three points revolve around the vagaries of working with humans: behavior and attitudes are context-dependent, memory is dynamic and can be distorted or changed, and truth is relative, when it comes to what people think they know or believe. Several books reviewed in this issue support the importance of recognizing the role of the unconscious, as Gordon has, including Wilson’s Strangers to ourselves: discovering the adaptive unconscious (Cramphorn, 2006), whose premise is that every action is rooted in unconscious feelings, which, in turn, drive most decisions. In a similar vein, Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell (2005), is subtitled the power of thinking without thinking, to emphasize how trusting initial instincts more often than not results in “getting it right.” The advertised mind: ground-breaking insights in how our brains respond to advertising by du Plessis (Truss, 2006) enlarges this concept to link our increased understanding of brain physiology directly to advertising and marketing. He uses campaigns such as MasterCard’s “Priceless” to propose a new model of how advertising “works:”

Randazzo (2006) continues this theme with his article titled Subaru: the emotional myths behind the brand’s growth, which documents the development of the Subaru “brand” by Temerlin McClains’ use of Paul Hogan as spokesperson. He suggests that:

Randazzo appropriately connects this persuasive strategy to the work of Joseph Campbell and the mytho-symbolic, meta-narrative technique covered extensively in his collaboration with Bill Moyers on the PBS series The Power of Myth, In an earlier work, Campbell (1949) explains that in primitive societies, the shaman’s function was “to make visible and public the systems of symbolic fantasy that are present in the psyche,”’ and Randazzo suggests this is the role of entertainment and advertising today. The narrative power of mythic imagery has been used to explain everything from the transcendent appeal of movies such as Braveheart, The Matrix or The Lord of the Rings (Eldredge, 2003), to the more mundane, but still pervasive impact of the Marlboro Man campaign (Randazzo, 2006). Randazzo further argues that Temerlin McClain created an emotional connection between the consumer and the Subaru brand with their use of an archetypical “hero” producing a direct and immediate impact on sales for Subaru, who experienced seven consecutive years of increasing sales during the ad campaign (2006). This comeback was perceived as an almost miraculous revival, since most in the advertising and automotive industries had believed the company was in the throes of a slow and painful death process, chronicled in excruciating, and often hilarious detail in the book Where suckers moon: an advertising story (Rothenberg, 1995). Randazzo concludes the article with an almost passing reference to the fact that the Crocodile Dundee ads “worked,” even in those consumers who convinced themselves they purchased the car for the attribute of all wheel drive, noting that “that is the funny thing about mythic images. We are not always conscious that they are working…” (2006, p. 17). This belief in personal immunity has been documented and described succinctly by Clark: “Asked about the power of advertising in research surveys, most agree it works, but not on them,” and Braun-Latour and Zaltman use this notion to explore their belief that “ultimate persuasion occurs when advertising becomes internalized into – blends with – the consumers’ belief structure that in turn fosters enduring emotional impact (in 2006, pp. 57,58).

Braun-Latour and Zaltman (2006, pp. 57-58) recount the history of studying advertising effectiveness and contrast it with current knowledge of internal and external information processing:

Braun-Latour and Zaltman underscore the challenges inherent in measuring the ability of an ad to become integrated into one’s internal belief system, and the common techniques of rating involvement, emotional response, or personal relevance, all of which have the potential to be confounded by factors such as “brand likeability” and the bias of self-report. In other words, “Internalization happens below consumers’ conscious awareness and is unlikely to surface through traditional verbal self-report measures” (Braun-Latour & Zaltman, 2006). They support a reconstructive, as opposed to reproductive, view of memory, and evaluate a “memory integration paradigm” as a potentially more effective means of evaluating advertising effectiveness. Their findings indicate that memory and persuasion should be considered simultaneously, rather than as separate entities and that the reconstructive nature of recall:

Despite the confident assertions of the preceding authors, another pair in this issue titles their article Reconsidering of recall and emotion in advertising, and argue that emotional content has the potential to boost recall, a measure which they contend does not “miss” the emotion in advertising (Mehta & Purvis, 2006). From their review of the literature they conclude that recall, at either the conscious or unconscious level of brain functioning, is connected to emotion, and, despite somewhat conflicting results from a variety of studies, that liking an advertisement and other “advertising diagnostics” such as “worth remembering” and “imaginative/interesting” are significantly positively associated with recall (2006, p. 53). The conflicting opinions of these authors brings up a shift in thinking regarding the effects of advertising likeability, recently reviewed by Smit et al. (2006), because of previous research indicating that likeability is uniquely able to break through the “clutter,” enhance the “stopping power” of an advertisement and yield more positive impressions of the product or brand. They found that reactions to Dutch television advertising over the period from 1992-2001 demonstrated a reduction in likeability and effectiveness which varied by product, although different dimensions of likeability (entertainment, relevance, clearness and pleasantness) remained stable over time. The classic meta-analysis of television advertising by Lodish et al. (1995) as well as other recent meta-analytic forays analyzing the impact of television advertising have produced a relatively broad understanding that is of developmental interest to advertising managers, particularly prior to launch. For example, Abernathy and Franke (1996) report advertising does, indeed provide consumers with information; Grewal et al. (1997) demonstrate that comparative advertisements generate better brand awareness, higher levels of processing and increased purchase intentions and behaviors; and Brown et al. (1998) link positive and negative feelings to advertising response. Hu et al. (2007) have compiled a 15-year update in this area, and amidst a multitude of statistics, adjusted volumes and advertising weight conclude that more recent advertising (post-1995) indicate an improvement in sales effectiveness of TV advertising, but also suggests there is a precarious balance between the right creative product and a response to the “time-urgency” of an increasingly fast-paced market demand for change. They refer to a recent study (Vakratsas, Feinberg, Bass, & Kalyanaram, 2004) and agree with their findings, blending them with their own, to conclude:

The study of other technology: the Internet

Television advertising research has a long and storied history within which to make comparisons to present day issues, and most of the current questions involve how TV has changed (i.e. network diffusion, 24-7 coverage, etc.) and whether advertising is able to maintain quality while keeping pace with the sheer volume necessary to fill air time, while at the same time trying to apply lessons learned about “how advertising works” in that medium. How does advertising work in other media environments, such as the Internet? The time has seemed ripe for “McLuhan revival” in this age of global villages of media environments connected through digital communications (Wasser, 1998). McLuhan (1964) led the move away from the objective, linear understanding of his day towards an inter-connectedness between message and medium, and medium and consumer. Perhaps even he would not have believed the current degree of broadband household penetration mentioned earlier (close to 60 million U.S. households), which is expected to increase, paralleling the rise in online advertising spending. There is a much smaller base of information available on what is often termed the “new media” because it has changed almost as rapidly as it has developed, yet at the same time the quantity and scope of the available research is rather overwhelming. For instance, Dutton et al. (1987) evaluated existing survey research to assess factors related to the adoption of personal computers, how the computers are used, and the social implications flowing from these patterns of adoption and diffusion. Walther (1992) considered interpersonal effects in computer-mediated relationships, focusing on relational tone in communication and the relative effectiveness of verbal and textual cues. Eastin et al (2006) evaluated the influence that parenting styles and the level of internet access in the home exert on time spent online and parental mediation of content. Sohn and Leckenby (2007) delved into the risk of virtual collapse resulting from the communication dilemma of unequal contributions in virtual communities. A recurrent theme is the application of uses and gratification (U&G) theory to the internet (Fawkes & Gregory, 2000), where a variety of studies have considered topics from computer-mediated communication (CMC) and network interactivity (Rafaeli, 1997), to audience perception of message content (Swanson, 1987); from computer-aided instruction (Kuehn, 1994) to audience experiences, including personal involvement and continuing relationships (Eighmey & McCord, 1998). Eveland (2003), in a comprehensive article describing a “mix of attributes” approach to the study of media effects and new communication technologies, details work as early as 1935 attempting to link the attributes of a “new” medium to it’s potential effects and acknowledges Jeffres (1997) contribution in identifying three categories of media effects (media/channel differences, media uses and framing). He explains the benefits of the “mix of attributes” approach that does not fixate on the qualitative differences between mediums (i.e. newspapers and magazines) but deals only with quantitative differences, which he points out is particularly helpful in this era of “media convergence.” Essential to his presentation is an understanding that media is multi-dimensional, rather than unidimensional, and should be considered in the reflected light of other mediums as well as in their own glow. For example, he notes that only rarely does a researcher link to something “new” that appears to be qualitatively different from the “old,” thus missing important connections such as the functional similarity between a TV remote and computer mouse or “web surfing” and “TV grazing” (Eveland, 2003, p. 397). He identifies a number of attributes than can be used to define a medium, including interactivity, organization (structure), control, channel, textuality, and content, and encourages others to continue to search for new variables that offer significant empirical impact. His challenge is to his peers:

Eveland offers a review of a number of studies he has conducted, each implicitly utilizing the attribute mix approach, in a variety of settings. One study compared identical information with traditional print media and online versions (Eveland & Dunwoody, 2002) while another manipulated information structure (linear versus non-linear) to assess impact on learning (in Eveland, 2003, p. 402). A “real world” study demonstrated that linear information presentation (i.e. TV news, newspapers) leads to more accurate recall, but more integrated structures (i.e. online news) yield more structured information in memory (Eveland, Seo, & Marton, 2002). He concludes the article with an extensive description of the potential theoretical and empirical benefits of the attribute mix approach. Some of the benefits include increased clarity in media explication, facilitation of theorizing about media effects, identification of new independent variables to improve predictive strength, resulting in the introduction of new dependent variables, an ability to explain null findings, easy incorporation of atypical uses of media technology, the development of new and better media, and finally, eliminating the need to “reinvent the wheel” every time a new technology comes along. This writer, for one, applauds this attempt to develop an approach that has both depth and breadth, which embraces a rich history of communication research, but also contains elements that are able to expand and grow in changing times.

In a similar “big-picture” fashion, Walther et al. (2005) ask the question: How do communication and technology researchers study the internet?, and also address the equally important question of “Why?” They include the typology of Eveland, as well as others, and answer the “why?” portion as follows:

To answer the “how” portion of the question, Walther et al. assert that “an article-length overview of this field could not do it justice,” and refer their reader to recent books for a thorough examination, since “…largely due to the Internet, the field of communication, as communication technology, can be said to be as large and broad as the field of communication, as communication technology has touched in real ways phenomena in each of the discipline’s subfields or professional association divisions” (2005, p. 633). That said, they go on to provide a thorough overview of current literature, revisiting five “defining qualities” of the internet first suggested by Newhagen and Rafaeli (1996) as the most fruitful areas for research, including multimedia, hypertextuality, interactivity, packet switching, and synchronicity.

Multimedia

There are multiple meanings associated with the term “multimedia,” but three dimensions have been the focus of Web-based research: the ability to embed or link information in various forms in a single communication, digitization leading to simplified storage/alteration of different mediums, thus facilitating their convergence into a single “product,” and efforts to move beyond text-based messages to transmission of voice and body messages. Studies representative of the first area include those that demonstrate that learning is enhanced with the use of visual information (Quealy & Langan-Fox, 1998) and may enhance recall or the learning of physical tasks (Krull, 2001). The explosive growth in web-based education, distance-learning and real-time technical support all exemplify this trend. Walther et al. (2005) document the controversy surrounding the need for physical proximity for optimal communication, specifically “social presence theory” (Rice & Case, 1983), but conclude with the more relative position that face-to-face interactions are not required for effective communication. They elaborate on the lack of information regarding the functional transmission of cues through computer-mediated communication (CMC), highlighting advantages and disadvantages of the absence of multimedia cues, such as distraction or antagonism (Walther, 1996a). Further, they explore the social identification model of deindividuation, demonstrating that in some cases visual anonymity promotes stronger group ties and group-normative responses (Postmes, Spears, & Lea, 2000). The “hyperpersonal” side of CMC refers to the potential for the “senders, receivers, channel, feedback” model to exceed what would occur in face-to-face contexts, depicting the often “exaggerated relational processes frequently observed online, such as increased levels of affinity and intimacy” (Walther et al., 2005, p. 637). Online social support sites, such as those connecting individuals with common medical, societal or political interests, have revealed a rapid development of intimate relationships and disclosures (Wallace, 1999), and exhibit clearly defined social norms and group dynamics (Turner, Grube, & Meyer, 2001). These phenomena are also evident in the shared communication of videoconferencing, whether for instructional or work-related purposes (Fussell, Kraut, & Siegel, 2000).

Interactivity

Studying interactivity is not limited to “new media” as early debates about TV versus classroom learning will attest. Walther et al. (2005) point out that one’s view of interactivity often reflects a personal bias towards communication “happening” in a particular way. They suggest that mass media researchers view the Internet as highly interactive, compared to those who study interpersonal communication, where face-to-face communication is the gold standard. The use of internet communication research to build a “bridge” between these two perspectives has been suggested by several authors (Hawkins et al. and Rafaeli in Walther et al., 2005), and the ability to achieve interactivity entirely independently of the medium is considered a coup for both groups. One example of research in this area is an investigation that measured “threads” within online groups, but there is relatively little work that provides theoretical understanding (in Walther et al., 2005). Burgoon et al (2002) have attempted to study the interactivity construct to classify/analyze any type of communication episode, and it is this type of research that will help provide an understanding of media characteristics across traditional and “new” communication mediums. The current interest in “personalization of content delivery” is rooted in interactivity and will be the focus of research over the next decade, particularly in areas like health communications where the need for behavior change is often linked to identifiable user characteristics.

Hypertextuality

Walther et al. (2005) point out that research in this area is comparatively scant, deferring to the fields of composition and rhetoric for a greater depth of understanding. They do, however, identify several studies involving changes in cognitive structures and perceptual processing associated with context sensitive help. Malone et al (1987), for example, predicted greater resonance within areas involved in information processing, such as e-commerce, because of potential economic impact to the system. Their vision of networked information technologies affecting outsourcing costs, immediacy of comparative pricing and the emergence of “electronic brokers” are familiar concepts to all who search for deals on airline tickets or appliances.

Packet switching

The packet switching structure of the Internet refers to the mechanism where encoded bits, digitized with metainformation about file location and assembly instructions, travel through an “invisible” route to a final destination. While an initial motivation in creating a packet switching network were defensive in nature (i.e. military emergency purposes), other related policy issues have developed as there is no central “highway” that can be controlled and monitored. One such problem is the inability to effectively regulate pornography, and the resultant negative consequences affecting individuals and society (Simon, 1998), The legal and corporate concerns with multimedia file sharing and peer-to-peer networking are also grounded in the packet switching function of the internet. Walther et al. (2005) suggest that ongoing debates about ownership, copyright, storage, and distribution will continue to engage the industry and lead to the development of new business models such as Napster and Itunes.

Synchronicity

Email and computer conferencing are examples of asynchronous CMC, and there is little direct research comparing it with synchronous forms (i.e. CMC chat, face to face meetings, etc.) (Honeycutt, 2001; Walther, 1996b). There have been numerous studies looking at the recreational nature of synchronous CMC, such as chat rooms or role playing scenarios (e.g. Jacobson, 2001; Parks & Roberts, 1998; Utz, 2000), and Caplan (2003) notes that offline communication skills may decline in response to high volumes of online interactions. Instant messaging (IM) has become an increasingly prevalent example of synchronous communication, and raises a specter of (generally younger) employees attempting to IM their way through the workday, regardless of meetings or presentations, without any concern about the impact on work quality or common courtesy. Hembrooke and Gay (2003) have shown that IMing or web surfing, common in college classrooms, can lead to improved learning and course grades if students are involved with course-relevant material. As any college professor will attest, the “split attention” deficit identified by Hembrooke and Gay is significantly positively correlated to a “focus/involvement” deficit and inversely related to course grades! Although there is tremendous potential to utilize new technology in a learning environment (i.e. downloading informative podcasts as “reading” material), the inability to monitor usage is forcing many to completely ban the use of computers and phones during scheduled class time.

There has always been a “generation gap” when it comes to “new” things, whether media, music, clothes or hair style. Walther et al. (2005) conclude that this newness is one of the key reasons to study Internet communication, asserting that:

Media planning: an oxymoron?

Carlin (2005) presents A vision of media planning in 2010 by painting a picture of a Tokyo cross-walk to capture the essence of the mix we have been documenting for both the consumer and company alike:

Breaking through the clutter

While I have only begun to venture into the mayhem of this media traffic, before leaving this trip to the “future of communications” we will briefly examine some of the ways the new media has attempted to break through the “clutter” of communications.

Mobile communications: service or surveillance?

The development of mobile services has expanded the use of phones beyond calls and messages to enable everything from trading stock, making any type of reservation, to on-site bargain alerts or restaurant proximity. While there have been calls for research to address this area (Yadav & Varadaraian, 2005), these services are so new and changing so rapidly that there is more discussion than published research available. Sullivan-Mort and Drennan (2007) have conducted a study of factors influencing consumer use of mobile services, following their previous work, which presented mobile user services as quite intricate, describing them as providing a service that represents "delivery of individualized/customized, relationship based, timely and location specific" information (Sullivan-Mort & Drennan, 2002, p. 17). They cite a Forrester report on the “Net-powered generation” that has enabled young consumers to internalize technology (mobile devices, e-commerce, Internet, etc.), which could either empower or handicap the user (2007, p. 303). To further explore this topic, Sullivan-Mort and Drennan (2007) developed a model of the system of relationships that depict the use of mobile services. They found that involvement and innovativeness, but not self-efficacy, significantly affect the use of mobile services, in the context of existing relationships with mobile devices. They investigated a number of mobile services (i.e. personalized shopping alerts, email, coupons, etc.) and found them to be highly relevant in that consumers responded to value propositions by organizing product/service perceptions in meaningful, personally relevant ways that impacted behavior. They conclude with specific recommendations for companies, such as suggesting exploration of direct-response advertising targeted within a “specific geographic locality identified through the geo-positioning function of advanced mobile devices” (Sullivan-Mort & Drennan, 2007, p. 310), and other equally Orwellian advice.

Social marketing: should they or shouldn’t they? (Voight, October 18, 2007)

While most media recognizes that social marketing can be a powerful tool to reach consumers, it can also be a two-edged sword. Both Wal-Mart and McDonalds have been “maimed” by attempts to use the social marketing site Facebook, primarily because they are not able to control the content generated by the 46 million site users, one-half of whom are college students. Wal-Mart has been praised for allowing posts (many strongly negative and completely unrelated to the site) to continue, but McDonalds shut down posting and discussion options, a move that was met by immediate and extensive vitriol in the web-world. Target had a completely different experience, reporting a 6.1% increase in August sales attributed to their back-to-school campaigns, not least of which was their first Facebook page created by AKQA. Unlike other mega-companies, Target presented a “dorm survival guide” for “life in a box,” which resonated with college students who seemed to appreciate the lack of taglines and ads on the page, as it reflected the visual style and language of the medium.

Pay for play: who is playing (and paying)?

Lauren Fritts, Assistant Marketing Manager for The Gatorade Company, describes this scenario, which she calls the “Rise of Pay for Play,” where companies move beyond “advertorials” to paid advocacy that is part of programming content:

In related comments, Fritts also mentions the need to seek new influencers, echoing concerns shared earlier by other practitioners:

Just Do It

Nike, always a leader in consumer innovation, is changing the rules again. A recent article describes how Nike has changed their tactics, this time with “Nike+,” a small sensor inside running shoes that track progress on an Apple iPod. One runner describes finishing a workout and then logging onto his computer to post details of his run on the Nike+ Web site. There, he says he has made friends with other runners around the world who post running routes, meet up in the real world and encourage one another on the site (Story, October 14, 2007). She captures the wide-ranging implications of Nike “just doing it” very differently:

The Google machine: response to “reader comments”

This summer, when Google announced it would expand Google News by offering individuals or companies mentioned in stories the chance to comment, the virtual world exploded with questions about whether this trial balloon will “fly,” create “News 2.0” and forever change the roles of journalists, editors and sources, according to Jim Motzer, Senior Vice President of Fleishman-Hillard in Chicago (October 31, 2007). He raises a number of issues that become practical matters in day to day dealings with clients, such as knowing when and how to comment, in addition to the economic realities of monitoring and engaging in this type of dialogue. Basically, Google’s offering will function like a “letters to the editor page,” sans editor, as there don’t appear to be any constraints placed on comments, and they need not be germane to the story. While some might view this as a way to “extend” a story and get a message out, one major concern expressed is that there will not be any “vetting” of identities or verifying sources. While there is continued debate about the future of this “news” feature, Google’s success in everything digital certainly garnered attention and kept the blogosphere blogging for weeks.

The future is now

Thus ends this “crystal ball gaze” into the future of the field, which, for all intents and purposes is “now.” There are certainly many other forms of mediated communication that have not been discussed in this paper, i.e. global communications issues (de Mooij, 2003; Lee, Monge, Bar, & Matei, 2007), generational marketing, such as 3G (Robins, 2003), or the “participation gap” created by media convergence (Jenkins, 2006), to name just a few. I have attempted to provide an overview of research, theory and practice as a foundation for understanding where the field might head, a “sampler platter” from the vast buffet, if you will. For my final prognostications, I will rely on others with much greater wisdom, representing many years of successfully “doing” the business of communication. The first of these is Liener Temerlin, advertising legend and co-founder of Temerlin McClain (now Chairman Emeritus), who speaks, stream of consciousness in response to a question about advertising today: “…principle changes, tsunami changes, the Internet, websites, getting a message right, youth, big markets, succinct and powerful messages, more opportunistic possibilities to get the message across….” (November 19, 2007). In the next breath, we get his provocative take on IMC, which he declares is “nothing new – it’s always been around,” and then in his own, inimitable way, describes the entire scenario in a single sentence: “IMC is just what’s in the soup pot right now…there might be a few more items in the mix…but it’s still soup!”

Temerlin has always been a tough act to follow, but I will leave you with the thoughts of another practitioner who has boldly predicted outcomes for 2010, concluding with his insighful comments:

Pass the soup, please!

References