Perceptions of Interactivity and Consumer Control in Marketing Communication:
An Exploratory Survey of Marketing Communication Professionals
William N. Swain
University of Louisiana at Lafayette
Abstract
The literature of marketing communication in the latter half of the 1990s offers evidence that interactive marketing is a significant presence in the field of marketing communication, and that control of interactive communication in many cases is passing into the hands of consumers. Perceptions of the development of communication interactivity, and measurement of the outcomes of interactive marketing communication–both as a basis for measuring marketing success and as a basis for determining marketing communication investment and agency compensation–are therefore legitimate subjects for research inquiry. A survey was conducted among marketing communication executives and educators to investigate perceptions of the present and future status of interactive and consumer-controlled interactive marketing communication, the degree of preparation for them, preferences for their measurement, and preferences for methods of compensating agencies for interactive marketing communication services.
Introduction
Interactivity in modern marketing communication media poses challenges for practitioners in fields related to marketing communication, and the volume of research on the Internet reflects the fact that the World Wide Web is still in its formative stages, in terms of its effectiveness as a marketing medium. Published research examples report studies and models of web site effectiveness (Yoon and Kim 2001), web advertising effectiveness (Brackett and Carr 2001; Gallagher, Foster, and Parsons 2001; Shamdasani, Stanaland, and Tan 2001), web site loyalty (Holland and Baker 2001; Schultz and Bailey 2000), analysis of the marketing process (Cho, Lee, and Tharp 2001; Coviello, Milley, and Marcolin 2001; Dahlen 2001; Gatarski 2002; Stewart and Zhao 2000; Yoon and Kim 2001), and the importance of dialogue as a basis for consumer-brand relationships (Coviello, Milley, and Marcolin 2001; Kent and Taylor 1998).
Much of the research on Internet marketing is aimed at developing theory and models to explain the value of the Internet and the World Wide Web in marketing and marketing communication. However, there is no question that e-commerce is active (Belch and Belch 2001; Sellers 1997) and that the investment in Internet advertising is substantial: “Billions of dollars have been spent for advertising on the Web. Rarely does a popular site exist that does not have some form of advertising on it” (Kaye and Mendoff 2001, p. 106).
The value of theory may best be demonstrated by its application in practice, yet the body of empirical research in interactive marketing communication is largely silent on the preferences of advertising, public relations, and marketing practitioners concerning the application of three aspects of Internet and interactive communication: measurement of effects, compensation of agencies for interactive communication services, and the relationship of measurement and agency compensation. There is a need to know how Internet interactivity is perceived and applied as a marketing communication tool by practitioners in advertising, public relations, and marketing, and by those who are teaching students who aspire to be the next generation of advertising and public relations practitioners.
Measurement
Measurement in marketing communication can be classified as measures of outputs and impacts (Hendrix 2001; Macnamara 1992). Outputs are the messages distributed by an organization in the practice of advertising or public relations, creating opportunities for exposure of the message to publics and target audiences. Impacts are the effects of messages on knowledge, attitudes, and/or behaviors of the targeted publics or audiences, the latter including both behaviors responsive to marketing communication activities as well as behaviors constituting a continuing relationship between the brand and consumers. Marketers, and the managers of the businesses for which they market, ultimately are interested in impacts, the effects that, sooner or later, may support the organizational mission or yield revenues and profits on a continuing basis.
Research on the effects of Internet advertising usually focuses on outputs or on interim communication impacts. Examples of Internet outputs examined in research include clickthroughs (Cho, Lee, and Tharp 2001; Dahlen 2001; Gatarski 2002; Shamdasani, Stanaland, and Tan 2001), “retention of eyeballs” (Holland and Baker 2001), “stickiness” (Holland and Baker 2001), “conservation of visitors” (Kent and Taylor 1998), generation of return visits to web sites (Kent and Taylor 1998), amount of information available on a web site (Brackett and Carr 2001), and feedback (Schultz and Bailey 2000). Examples of researched Internet interim communication impacts include attitude toward the web site or brand (Cho, Lee, and Tharp 2001), attitude toward the Internet ad (Brackett and Carr 2001; Cho, Lee, and Tharp 2001;Yooh and Kim 2001), perceptions (Cho, Lee, and Tharp 2001), satisfaction with information (Gallagher, Foster, and Parsons 2001), or recall (Gallagher, Foster, and Parsons 2001).
When
impacts that contribute to profitability–such as sales, revenues,
intent to purchase, relationship development–are considered in
Internet marketing communication research they are often narrowly
connected, in a theoretical context, to characteristics of the audience
or web site, such as audience involvement, relevance, reputation,
forced exposure, consumer participation, business models, or dialogue
(Cho et al. 2001; Holland and Baker 2001; Kent and Taylor 1998; Schultz
and Bailey 2000; Shamdasani et al. 2001; Stewart and Zhao 2000; Yoon
and Kim 2001).
The literature of
advertising, public relations, and integrated marketing communication
identifies a number of forms of measurement that are used to assess the
value of marketing communication and which are familiar to
practitioners in advertising, public relations, and marketing. Any of
those methods of measurement might be or have been applied to marketing
communication on the Internet, and the perception of their
applicability is an appropriate topic for inquiry.
Space and time in advertising media typically are sold to advertisers
based on the degree of potential exposure they offer–circulation,
listenership, or viewership–to an audience typically identified by
demographics. Public relations practitioners, too, for decades, have
offered management measures of their output in column inches or
broadcast minutes, multiplied by circulation and sometimes by
advertising rates. Audience exposure or opportunity for exposure to
media messages, then, is an output measurement technique well known to
marketing communication practitioners.
Most early measures that served as the basis of payments for Internet
advertising have been output measures: hits on the web page where the
ad appeared, or clickthroughs to the web site advertised (Belch and
Belch 2001; Kaye and Mendoff 2001; Sellers 1997). Other determinants of
value have included return visits to the advertised web site, length of
time a click-through remains on the web site, or the number of the
site’s pages visited (Kaye and Mendoff 2001; Sellers, 1997). Such web
behaviors are deemed more predictive of ultimate impacts, though none
of them measure audience knowledge, attitudes, sense of relationship,
brand preference, purchase, or other behaviors of value to marketers.
Numerous web rating and measurement services are now available, most of
them measuring opportunities for exposure, and several organizations
now devote their attentions to establishing standards for measurement
of Internet advertising (Kaye and Mendoff 2001).
Traditional impact measurement techniques preferred, variously but not
unanimously, by advertising, public relations, and marketing
practitioners, as well as by corporate management, (Belch and Belch
2001; Kendrick 2001; Nicholson 2001-2002; Schultz and Barnes 1995)
include:
-measures of audience feedback,
-audience attitude measures,
-observations of audience behavior,
-measures of sales or revenues,
-measures of repeat sales or consumer contacts,
-measures of brand equity or loyalty,
-measures of change in attitude or behavior, and
-measures of institutional image.
To date, there is no reason to believe, in the view of seasoned marketing communication practitioners, that one or more of those measurement techniques cannot be successfully adapted to Internet advertising
Agency Compensation
A 1999 study (Spake et al.) of advertising agency compensation methods revealed a movement away from the historic and traditional media commission system of agency compensation, the sole method of choice for only 15.9% of agencies surveyed, with the majority moving in the direction of fees (36% of agencies surveyed) or a combination of fees and commissions (40% of agencies surveyed). Such a movement is consistent with the suggestions of Schultz, Tannenbaum, and Lauterborn (1993) concerning agency compensation for integrated marketing communication (IMC) services. Swain (2003), reporting on a survey of marketing communication executives, found a preference among advertising agency executives and web site developers for fee-based compensation for integrated marketing communication services. It should be noted, however, that public relations agency executives responding to Swain’s survey saw agency commissions as a more appropriate compensation method for IMC services, perhaps reflecting a view among public relations practitioners that IMC is a traditional advertising but not a public relations function. Kaye and Mendoff (2001), in their slim but effective volume on the present state of internet advertising, Just A Click Away, refer only to fees as a method of agency compensation for interactive Internet advertising services.
Spake et al. (1999) see fees as behavior-based compensation, representing an opposite pole from outcome-based agency compensation tied to measurable outcomes such as brand share, new users, repeat users, unaided awareness, or sales volume. Agency commissions are portrayed in the Spake et al. (1999) model as midway between behavior-based and outcome-based compensation methods. In the Spake et al. (1999) survey, outcome-based compensation, alone or in combination with other methods, was favored by a small minority of respondents. Compensation by measurable outcomes alone accounted for only 7.4% of responses, a combination of commissions and measurable outcomes less than 1%, and a combination of fees and measurable outcomes 6.2%.
Internet advertising has spawned three types of advertising service agencies: brokers (Sellers 1997), advertising agencies, and interactive agencies (Belch and Belch 2001; Kaye and Medoff 2001). The concept of placing advertising through media brokers was historically the basis for the traditional media commission compensation system and the genesis of what are today’s advertising agencies. Interactive agencies may have become involved in the Internet advertising business because of the inattention or lack of preparation of traditional media advertising agencies, or because of the strength of interactive agencies when dealing with Internet advertising (Belch and Belch 2001; Kaye and Medoff 2001). The agency commission system, based on media output measures, has found its way into the field of Internet advertising in the case of many brokers and advertising agencies.
Study Approach and Research Questions
An
exploratory survey was conducted to investigate views on developing
interactivity in marketing communication among six professional groups
associated or potentially associated with marketing communication:
executives with national advertising agencies; executives with national
public relations agencies; marketing executives with national
advertisers; public relations executives with national corporations;
academics in the field of advertising/marketing, and academics in the
field of public relations.
Invitations to executives and academics to participate in the study
were issued by e-mail, each incorporating a link to a web-based
questionnaire. The difficulty in locating executives with published
e-mail addresses made purposive sampling necessary. Accordingly, random
sampling and the testing of hypotheses was deemed impractical, making
the study exploratory in nature. Consequently, research questions were
utilized to provide a better basis for defining the investigation and
for practical analysis of responses. The research questions that were
constructed focus on the degree of consensus available on the
development of interactivity in marketing communication. They also
explore consumer initiation and control of interactive communication,
considered as a practical concept with which to govern decisions and
practices in the fields of advertising and public relations, or
marketing communication.
Key Definitions
To pose survey questions that distinguished between the concept of
interactivity in modern media and the concept of consumer initiation
and control of interactive communications, it was necessary to define
those terms for survey participants, and the distinction between those
concepts was also a consideration in the formulation of research
questions for the study.
Interactive
marketing communication was defined, for the study, as marketing
communication activity that provides for some form of instant audience
feedback. For purposes of the study, interactive marketing
communication was differentiated, as a concept, from
consumer-controlled interactive marketing communication, which may take
place when a consumer uses media technology that allows the consumer to
initiate and control communication with a marketer and allows the
consumer to control what marketing messages are received.
Research Questions
RQ1:
What are the perceptions of responding communication professionals and
academics concerning the present status and future development and
impacts of both interactive marketing communication, and
consumer-controlled interactive marketing communication?
RQ2:
What are the preferences of responding communication professionals and
academics, and differences in preference, for methods of measuring the
success of both interactive marketing communication, and
consumer-controlled interactive marketing communication? Both
agreements and differences between the participating groups will be
considered in seeking an answer to this question.
RQ3: What are the preferences of responding communication professionals and academics, and differences in preference, for methods of compensating agencies for both interactive marketing communication services, and consumer-controlled interactive marketing communication services?
RQ4: What relationship is there between preferences for measurement and preferences for agency compensation methods?
The objective of this study was to construct a profile of the state of
mind of responding professionals concerning the identified interactive
communication issues, from survey response findings, as they constitute
answers to those research questions.
Methodology
The survey was conducted via self-administered questionnaires with
mostly single-choice pull-down response menus on World Wide Web sites.
The questionnaire was pretested with practitioners in advertising and
public relations, and academics, and minor adjustments were made based
on the tests. Participation in the study was by invitation extended by
individual e-mail. Only one follow-up invitation was used with each
group to minimize e-mail intrusiveness. Invitees in each of the
professional groups were directed to a separate web-based questionnaire
to preserve group identity and to provide appropriate demographic
answer options to invitees in each group.
Sampling Criteria
The list of invitees was both a purposive and a convenience sample, and
therefore not a random sample of the defined populations. The criteria
for selection of advertising agency executives were that they be listed
in the Red Book, the Standard Directory of Advertising Agencies, as an
executive with a firm of some size, as measured by billings and/or
employment, and that their personal e-mail address be included in the
listing. Similar criteria were applied to select marketing executives
from the Standard Directory of Advertisers Red Book. Public relations
practitioners, both agency and corporate, were selected in a similar
manner from the current membership directory of the Public Relations
Society of America. Academics in advertising and public relations and
their e-mail addresses were found listed on the web sites of colleges
and universities with active student chapters of the American
Advertising Federation. The existence of an AAF chapter was used to
select institutions from which to draw a sample of academics because
those institutions were believed to be likely to have public relations
as well as advertising instruction, whereas the existence of a chapter
of the Public Relations Student Society of America would not be as
likely to indicate the existence of advertising instruction at the
institution.
Because professors in advertising and public relations sometimes teach
both subjects and have backgrounds in both, no attempt was made to
invite participation in equal numbers from advertising professors and
public relations professors; nevertheless, when asked to identify an
area of specialty, the participants identified themselves as
advertising professors and public relations professors in very nearly
equal numbers, each group constituting about 8% of the sample of
academics invited to participate, approximately the average group
response rate.
Characteristics of Respondents
Analyses of responses to questions about respondents’ positions of responsibility, years associated with marketing or marketing communication, and geographic scope of employing organizations suggest that respondents did conform to the selection criteria described above. Some 94% of practitioner (non-academic) respondents reported holding a management position, and a high rate of management respondents held true across the four practitioner groups: advertising agency respondents, 97%; public relations agency respondents, 86%; corporate marketing respondents, 90%; corporate public relations respondents, 95%.
More than 80% of all respondents reported an association of more than 10 years with marketing and/or marketing communication, and 34% reported a marketing/communication association of more than 25 years. Across the six groups in the study, respondents reporting more than 10 years of experience ranged from 67% and 68%, respectively the corporate marketing and public relations groups, to 98% for advertising agency respondents and 88% for advertising/marketing academics. Almost half of the advertising agency respondents reported more than 25 years’ experience, and approximately a third of respondents from the public relations agency group, the corporate marketing group, and the advertising/marketing academic group reported more than 25 years’ experience.
The
geographic scope of the employing organizations was regional, national,
international or global for 87% of practitioner respondents and 81%
with academic respondents included. The geographic scope was national,
international, or global for 68% of practitioner respondents and 59%
with academic respondents included. Three of four advertising agency
respondents who said their organizations operate locally are located in
cities among the 50 largest in the United States: Chicago, Washington,
and Miami.
Participation
Participants in the study numbered 185, and included 38 advertising agency executives, 40 public relations agency practitioners, 22 corporate marketing executives, 22 corporate public relations executives, and 63 advertising, marketing and public relations professors. Of the 63 academics, 27 identified themselves as advertising professors, 26 as public relations professors, and four as marketing professors. Because of differences known to researchers in points of view concerning marketing communication issues between public relations academics on one hand, and advertising and marketing professors on the other hand, the marketing and advertising professors were grouped together in the statistical analyses.
Findings, Evaluation of Research Questions, and Discussion
The practical findings from the survey are reported in this section of this article.
RQ1: Status, Development, and Impact of Interactivity
Concerning the present and future development of interactive and consumer-controlled interactive marketing communication, responses to this question suggest that there is acknowledgement of the advent of interactivity. Differences in response statistics pertaining to the concepts of interactive marketing communication vis-a-vis consumer-controlled interactive marketing communication indicate that respondents recognized and understood a difference between those two concepts. Although there were a substantial number who doubted that interactivity would dominate marketing communication, the majority of respondents believe it would within 10 years, especially those in corporate marketing/public relations.
Table 1. Frequencies: Dominant form of marketing communication in more or less than 10 years
Table
2. ANOVA contrasts
How soon will interactivity or consumer control be dominant in marketing communication?
Current
Interactive Work. Respondents acknowledged that interactivity is a part
of their marketing communication work, but for the majority of them,
it’s a small part: 5%-20% interactive marketing communication, and
5%-10% consumer-controlled interactive marketing communication. Those
respondents whose work was more interactive expected interactivity to
dominate marketing communication sooner.
Table
3. Frequencies: Percentage of Present Work involving Interactive
Marketing Communication, and Consumer Controlled Interactive Marketing
Communication?
Five-Year Trend of Interactivity in Work. Almost none of the
respondents said they believed the role of interactive communication
and consumer-controlled interactive communication in their work would
decrease in the next five years. The majority expected that the roles
would increase: 78.3% for interactive communication, 52.6% for consumer
controlled interactive communication.
Table
4. Frequencies: Five-year Trend of Work Involvement in Interactive
Marketing Communication and Consumer Controlled Interactive Marketing
Communication
Planning for Interactivity and Consumer Control. A substantial number of respondents were planning for a transition to interactivity: almost two-thirds for interactive marketing communication, and one-third for consumer-controlled interactive marketing communication. Planning is proceeding most among those whose marketing communication work now incorporates interactivity, among those who expect interactivity to dominate marketing communication sooner, among agency executives, and among advertising and marketing executives more than public relations executives.
Table 5. Frequencies: Actively Involved in Planning for Transition to Interactive
Marketing Communication or to Consumer-Controlled Interactive Marketing Communication?
Table 6. ANOVA contrasts
To what extent are respondent groups engaged in planning for a
transition to Interactive Marketing Communication or
Consumer-Controlled Interactive Marketing Communication?
Effects
of Interactivity on Future Marketing Communication Activities. A
substantial number of respondents expected advertising activity to
decrease, and both public relations and sales promotion activity to
increase in a consumer-controlled interactive communication
environment. Respondents also expected advertising agency business to
decrease more than public relations agency, marketing agency, or sales
promotion agency business, and they expected public relations and
marketing agency business to increase in a consumer-controlled
interactive communication environment.
Table 7. Frequencies: If consumer controlled interactive marketing communication, were dominant…:
Table 8. ANOVA contrasts, p
What will be the effect on advertising, public relations, or sales
promotion functions and agencies of dominance of Consumer Control
Interactive Marketing Communication?
Effects of Consumer Controlled Interactive Communication on Traditional Media. Respondents were asked to say whether certain current and traditional marketing communication media would decline in importance, remain as important as they are, or become more important in marketing communication if consumers were empowered by technology and market forces to initiate and control the marketing communication relationship. The media thus evaluated included newspapers, magazines, television, radio, billboards, telephone, special events, brochures and print media, speeches, video and films, and the Internet and World Wide Web. Only the Internet was seen by a majority of respondents (87.4%) as likely to become more important in an environment of consumer-controlled communication. Nearly half of respondents said special events would become more important when consumers control the marketing communication relationship. Traditional media were not expected to decline in importance, however, the majority of respondents said each of the media choices would remain as important or assume increased importance when consumers initiate and control communications.
Relationship
of Interactivity to Integrated Marketing Communication. Swain (2004)
has reported perceptions of marketing communication professionals on
issues related to the parallel development of the paradigm known as
Integrated Marketing Communication (IMC) and has suggested that
computer-based interactive media may provide the ideal environment for
IMC. To investigate any perceived relationship between interactive
communication and IMC, as the respondent defines it, two questions were
posed in the survey reported here. To the question of whether IMC and
interactivity are incompatible, most respondents (89.5%) said the two
are not incompatible. A separate question asked whether IMC and
interactivity are essential to one another, and the majority (63.6%)
said the two are essential to one another. It appears that marketing
communication professionals perceive a strong potential relationship
between IMC and interactivity in marketing communication.
RQ2: Preferences for Measuring Success of Interactive/Consumer Controlled Communication
Concerning options for measuring the success of interactive and consumer controlled marketing communication, respondents viewed all nine options in the survey positively:
-Message exposure,
-Feedback,
-Audience observation,
-Attitudes,
-Revenues,
-Repeat sales,
-Brand equity,
-Changes in response rate, and
-Corporate image.
Table 9. Frequency distribution of all survey responses to degree of appropriateness of options for measuring the success of interactive marketing communication, and consumer controlled interactive marketing communication
Respondents made little discrimination between measures for interactive marketing communication and measures for consumer controlled interactive marketing communication, expressing similar preferences for traditional measures of successful communication whether interactivity is controlled or initiated by marketers or by consumers. Feedback and audience observation were preferred most. Least preferred were revenues, repeat sales, and institutional image. Few respondents saw a need for a new measure of communication success. Each interactive marketing communication measurement option correlated well with the same option under consumer controlled interactive marketing communication, but there was little correlation of any measurement option with any other measurement option. Respondents apparently did not see changes in interactivity and consumer control of marketing communication as creating a need for a different measure of marketing communication success.
Group
measurement preference differences were along traditional marketing
communication function lines, corporate executives preferring repeat
business and revenue measures, and public relations agency executives
preferring measures of attitudes. Corporate executive respondents saw
more need for new measures of both interactive marketing communication
and consumer controlled interactive marketing communication than other
groups.
Table 10. ANOVA contrasts, p Appropriateness of Options for Measuring the Success of Interactive
Marketing Communication and Consumer-Controlled Interactive Marketing
Communication
RQ3: Preferences for Agency Compensation
Concerning preferences for methods of compensating agencies for
interactive communication services, respondents reported substantial
differences among compensation options, among participant groups, and
between the two modes of interactive communication under study. The
differences suggest, again, that respondents could distinguish
effectively between interactive marketing communication and consumer
controlled interactive marketing communication. The differences may
also suggest that respondents are prepared to put more thought into
agency compensation for interactive communication services than into
measures of the success of interactive communication.
Table
11. Frequency Distribution of all Survey Responses to Degree of
Appropriateness of Options for Agency Compensation for Interactive
Marketing Communication Services, and for Consumer-Controlled
Interactive Marketing Communication Services
All four compensation basis options offered in the study–commissions, fees, response outcomes, and sales–were preferred more for interactive marketing communication than for consumer controlled interactive marketing communication, but a new method of compensation was also preferred more for interactive marketing communication than for consumer controlled interactive marketing communication. The project or hourly fees option was the most preferred method, followed by communication outcomes. Placement commissions and a formula tied to client sales or revenues were less preferred, although commissions were preferred more than a sales formula for interactive marketing communication, and a sales formula was preferred more than commissions for consumer controlled interactive marketing communication.
Group
differences also emerged: Fees were preferred by agency executives more
than by corporate executives, and by advertising agency executives more
than by corporate public relations executives.
Commissions on
media placement were preferred more by corporate marketing executives
and, curiously, more by public relations agency executives than by
advertising agency executives. A formula based on communication
outcomes was preferred by corporate executives more than by agency
executives, and was also true of a formula tied to client sales or
revenues.
Table
12. ANOVA contrasts
As with measurement options, each interactive marketing communication
agency compensation option correlated well with the same option under
consumer-controlled interactive marketing communication, but there was
little correlation of any compensation option with any other
compensation option.
RQ4: Relationship between Measures of Success and Agency Compensation Preferences
There were no strong correlations between preferences for measures of interactive communication success and methods of agency compensation for interactive communication services, and the only moderate correlations that appeared were between sales or revenues as a measure of interactive communication success and agency compensation by a formula tied to client sales or revenues. Those findings indicate no strong relationships between measures of interactive communication success and methods of agency compensation for interactive marketing communication services.
Limitations of the Study, and Opportunities for Future Research
This study has undertaken to survey groups that have not been distinguished from one another in prior studies, and to approach them through the Internet. While these differences in technique are strengths of the study, they carry with them inherent weaknesses. The need for large invitation samples and the necessity for e-mail addresses required the use of convenience and/or purposive samples, restricting the ability to generalize results of the study scientifically. A response rate averaging 8% across the six professional groups in the study also limits external validity, and for that reason, too, the survey may be regarded as exploratory. Lack of randomness in the sampling makes hypothesis writing and hypothesis testing problematic and forces the researcher to rely on more broadly based research questions. Inability to infer scientifically that the responses of the samples in this study represent the opinions of members of the professional classes from which the samples were drawn invites further research with a study design that permits causal inference to investigate perceptions concerning interactivity in marketing communication.
There is also a need for research to develop interactive marketing communication theoretical propositions and models that develop as the technological capacity for consumer control of interactive marketing communication further develops. The impact of developing interactivity and consumer control of communication on traditional media and the developing paradigm of Integrated Marketing Communication should be further explored. Effective use by marketing communication professionals of techniques of interactivity and of interactive media as they develop is also a fertile field for practical investigation.
Conclusion
The findings of this survey research report suggest that respondents–agency and corporate executives in advertising/marketing and public relations, academics in advertising/marketing, and academics in public relations–are aware of the advent of interactivity and the need to plan for it. Respondents anticipated an increase in the importance of the Internet and they perceived a positive relationship between interactivity in communication and the Integrated Marketing Communication paradigm. They anticipated an increase in the importance of special events when consumer-controlled interactivity dominates, but they apparently did not envision an impact on traditional media when consumers can control reception of messages, including the advertising that supports those media.
Respondents anticipated an impact of interactivity and consumer control on marketing communication activity and on the agencies that perform functions related to marketing communication. They perceived that advertising and advertising agencies will experience a decline as consumer control of interactive communication increases, and that public relations and promotional activity and agencies that perform those tasks will increase in importance. That may suggest that advertisers should continue to develop ways and means of being prepared to communicate interactively at the consumer’s convenience.
Consumer control of marketing communication relationships may be presumed to be in its infancy in such forms as the consumer relationship with web marketing sites and the use of technologies such as TiVo to skip commercials during program viewing. The response of advertisers to consumer control is likely also in its early stages, in such forms as instant database response to a repeat visitor to a marketing web site, for example, Amazon.com. It is reasonable to speculate that, as consumer control over initiation and maintenance of interactive communication with marketers increases, the consumer-marketer relationship based on the marketer’s reputation and fit in the consumer’s lifestyle will increase in importance. Swain (2003) has suggested, with regard to the Integrated Marketing Communication paradigm, especially in an interactive communication environment, that the relationship of the consumer with the brand is the mission of a marketing organization. New and traditional techniques of keeping the marketer’s identity before the prospective consumer where the consumer lives may also need development beyond such simplistic creative techniques as the use of stickers on bananas to promote AskJeeves and AskJeevesKids. In-store promotions, brand placements in web sites or entertainment programs, event or entertainment sponsorships, public service participation, and word-of-mouth advertising may all play a role in enticing prospective consumers to interactive communication with the marketer.
Respondents appeared to be able to identify perceptions and preferences about measures of successful interactive communication and about agency compensation for interactive communication services, although some of that thinking, based on traditional marketing communication functions, may be somewhat parochial or regressive. As a basis for agency compensation–and presumably for budgeting and media decisions–respondents appeared still to be thinking in terms of traditional marketing communication measures. They appear not to have differentiated new database, Internet-based or other consumer-performance-based measures of the success of interactive and consumer-controlled interactive marketing communication that would directly support profitability and the organizational mission. They also appeared not to have related agency compensation to measures of interactive communication success.
Responses to this survey suggest that marketing communication professionals accept the near-term advent of computer-based interactive communication and consumer control of the interactive marketing communication relationship. It may therefore be appropriate to invest more time, energy, and research in planning effective outcomes-based measures of interactive marketing communication and appropriate measurement-based methods of agency compensation, and in developing relationship-based goals and techniques for enhancing the consumer-marketer relationship and motivating voluntary consumer participation in interactive marketing communication.
References
Belch, George E. and Michael A. Belch (2001), Advertising and Promotion, New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Brackett, Lana K. and Benjamin N. Carr, Jr. (2001), “Cyberspace Advertising vs. Other Media: Consumer vs. Mature Student Attitudes,” Journal of Advertising Research, 41 (5), 23-32.
Cho, Chang-Hoan, Jung-Gyo Lee, and Marye Tharp (2001), “Different Forced-Exposure Levels to Banner Advertisements,” Journal of Advertising Research, 41 (4), 45-56.
Coviello, Nicole, Roger Milley, and Barbara Marcolin (2001), “Understanding IT-Enabled Interactivity in Contemporary Marketing,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15 (4), 18-33.
Dahlen, Micael (2001), “Banner Advertisements through a New Lens,” Journal of Advertising Research, 41 (4), 23-30.
Gallagher, Katherine, K. Dale Foster, and Jeffrey Parsons (2001), “The Medium Is Not the Message: Advertising Effectiveness and Content Evaluation in Print and on the Web,” Journal of Advertising Research, 41 (4), 57-70.
Gatarski, Richard (2002), “Breed Better Banners: Design Automation Through On-Line Interaction,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 16 (1), 2-13.
Hendrix, Jerry A. (2001), Public Relations Cases, 5th ed., Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Holland, Jonna and Stacey Menzel Baker (2001), “Customer Participation in Creating Site Brand Loyalty,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15 (4), 34-45.
Kaye, Barbara K. and Norman J. Mendoff (2001), Just A Click Away, Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Kendrick, Alice (2001), “Evaluation & Integration,” in Advertising & The Business of Brands, Chicago: The Copy Workshop.
Kent, Michael L. and Maureen Taylor (1998), “Building Dialogic Relationships through the World Wide Web,” Public Relations Review, 24 (3), 321-344.
Macnamara, Jim R. (1992), “Evaluation of Public Relations, the Achilles Heel of the PR Profession,” International Public Relations Review, 15 (4).
Nicholson, Tom (2001-2002), “What Every CEO Wants To Hear from Communications: Objective Measures Essential to More Effective Communications Planning,” Journal of Integrated Communication, 3-10.
Schultz, Don E. Scott E. Bailey (2000), “Customer/Brand Loyalty in an Interactive Marketplace,” Journal of Advertising Research, 40 (3), 41-52.
Schultz, Don. E. and Beth E. Barnes (1995), Strategic Advertising Campaigns, Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Publishing.
Schultz, Don. E., Stanley I. Tannenbaum, and Robert F. Lauterborn (1993), Integrated Marketing Communication, Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Publishing.
Sellers, Don (1997), Getting Hits, Berkeley, CA: Peachpit Press.
Shamdasani, Prem N., Andrea J. S. Stanaland, and Juliana Tan (2001), “Location, Location, Location: Insights for Advertising Placement on the Web,” Journal of Advertising Research, 41 (4), 7-21.
Spake, Deborah F., Giles D’Souza, Tommy Neal Crutchfield, and Robert M. Morgan (1999), “Advertising Agency Compensation: An Agency Theory Explanation,” Journal of Advertising, 28 (3), 53-72.
Stewart, David. W. and Qin Zhao (2000), “Internet Marketing, Business Models, and Public Policy,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 19 (2), 287-296.
Swain, William N. (2003), “An Exploratory Assessment of the IMC Paradigm: Where are We, and Where Do We Go from Here?,” Integrated Marketing Communication Research Journal, 8, 3-11.
Swain, William N. (2004), “Perceptions of IMC After a Decade of Development: Who’s at the Wheel, and How Can We Measure Success?,” Journal of Advertising Research, 44 (1), 46-65.
Yoon, Sung-Joon. and Joo-Ho Kim (2001), “Is the Internet More Effective than Traditional Media? Factors Affecting the Choice of Media,” Journal of Advertising Research, 41 (6), 53-60.
About the Authors
William N. Swain (Ph.D., University of Alabama), APR, is an associate professor and coordinator of the Advertising Sequence in the Department of Communication at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. He teaches and conducts research in the areas of advertising and public relations. His research interests include marketing communication uses and effects of developing interactive media as well as developments in the Integrated Marketing Communication paradigm. He previously worked in advertising, public relations and journalism for 25 years, including 15 years in marketing communication agency management.
