PR-Bridge

Mark Weiner, the author of Unleashing the Power of PR, discusses Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC) at Bulldog Reporter’s Daily Dog. He outlines why communicators have not put IMC into practical use: ”aligned for the optimal customer experience.” He broadly defines “customer” to include both internal and external audiences.

Weiner correctly pins the lack of integration on executives who “know that truly integrated marketing can only be derived from a truly integrated organization.” He continues, “Genuinely aligning an organization extends beyond most marketers’ sphere of influence and oversight. The unwillingness of the organization to become more fully integrated in its thoughts and actions can be an insurmountable obstacle.”

I think Weiner is absolutely right on the money in identifying this breakdown. IMC cannot happen if “integrated” isn’t part of the equation. The integration must happen across a company, which means some execs in HR, IT, Finance, etc. have to be willing to let communicators do their work. In my professional experience this is always a sticking point, because the chief of HR, IT, etc. wants to retain this power within their division.

“Thoughts and Actions”

Weiner identifies that an organization must integrate its “thoughts and actions” to truly conduct IMC. The disconnect that I see in the corporate world begins at a really basic level. Too many communications execs think IMC means giving up their power the entity the CEO values the most — usually “Marketing.”

As such, what I hear (with scorn and derision) from my public relations friends is that if they integrate, then they in some way surrender to marketing. The truth is that IMC does not mean that a marketing executive suddenly becomes an expert in PR, advertising, design, or vice versa. IMC means that the different functions align their resources to fulfill the CEO’s goals and aspirations.

The “thought” part of IMC is getting leaders of different parts of the communications team together and building their strategic plans as one, so when a new product launched or a new service introduced, the different fingers come together as a fist.

The “actions” segment is twofold. First, a company must create an organizational structure that enables and promotes this kind of interaction. This means that non-communications leaders have to give their colleagues the power to do their jobs without the short leash that many have in the current corporate world. Second, the communications leaders must set a tactical agenda across teams that provides the power to the fist.

IMC holds phenomenal potential, but as Weiner indicates, it is 15 years later and we’re still having the debate over whether or not to integrate. The reason IMC isn’t more universally used (or used correctly) is at its core a people problem.

What we have learned in the 15 years of attempting to integrate is that executives are not willing to put aside personal power for the good of the organization. Fiefdoms are as pervasive now as at any time in the past. What always shocked me in the business world is that people within the different communications functions treated their colleagues in another function with such disregard, often more like competitors than teammates. Usually, these individuals were taking their cues from their bosses, who saw their leadership as a land-grab. Until the people at the top of the ladder (from the CEO down) learn to plan and implement together, then IMC is doomed.