The public relations contribution to IMC

Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 507–513

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Public Relations Review

The public relations contribution to IMC: Deriving

opportunities from threats and solidifying public

relations’ future

Brian G. Smith∗

Purdue University, Brian Lamb School of Communication, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 26 February 2013

Received in revised form 17 August 2013

Accepted 27 September 2013

Keywords:

IMC

Public relations

Marketing

Stakeholder

Integrated communication

iComm

a b s t r a c t

Integrated Marketing Communication (IMC) has been regarded primarily as a marketing

concept. However, as an ever more dominant context for communication management,

IMC presents opportunities for public relations scholarship’s contributions to the disci￾pline, in spite of IMC’s recognized threats. This article, which outlines the state of the fields

of IMC and public relations literature, proposes the way public relations roles in relation￾ship cultivation and organizational behavior uniquely contribute to IMC, and, at the same

time, establish management roles for public relations. This article also addresses three

challenges facing public relations research in integration by providing a better definition of

IMC, establishing relationship cultivation as a critical point in the theoretical convergence

of public relations and IMC, and providing a framework through which to conceptualize

communication structures.

© 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

In today’s ever-evolving communication environment, the walls have been taken down. The structural shift to integrate

communications under the paradigm referred to as Integrated Marketing Communication or IMC has blurred the functional

lines between public relations and marketing.

So far, the leading voice on IMC has come from marketing. As public relations scholars, we have yet to establish a voice

on IMC, or at least one as strong as marketing. Up until this point, public relations scholarship has only begun to touch on

the subject of IMC, some of which (including Smith, 2012b,c) builds on core considerations established by Caywood (1997),

Hallahan (2007), and Hutton (2010). In spite ofthese efforts,the topic remains underdeveloped, and in some cases, continues

to be derided as a threat to public relations (as was originally reported by Hallahan (2007)). Without a public relations-based

research agenda in IMC, the roles of public relations may be left to marketing to define them. Perhaps for this reason Hutton

(2010) observed: “The marketing field is reinventing itself to include or subsume much or all of public relations” (p. 509).

The purpose of this paper is to open the discussion of IMC as a legitimate context within which to study the practice of

public relations. In doing so, this paper argues that public relations may contribute in three key areas, including practitioner

acumen in advisory and counsel, the concept of stakes and stakeholders, and public relations’ differentiating approach to

relationships. Based on early research identifying public relations as the most appropriate function to lead IMC because of its

emphasis on relationships between an organization and all of its stakeholders (Caywood, 1997), it behooves public relations

scholars to develop IMC from the domain of public relations. Following an introductory section outlining the concept of IMC,

as defined in marketing scholarship, this paper suggests challenges and opportunities for public relations to contribute to

the growing body of IMC research.

∗ Tel.: +1 765 494 3321.

E-mail address: [email protected]

0363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.09.012