If you have questions about this paper, please contact the author directly.
If you have questions about the archives, email [log in to unmask] For
an explanation of the subject line, send email to [log in to unmask] with
just the four words, "get help info aejmc," in the body (drop the "").
(Oct 2004)
Thank you.
Elliott Parker
************************************************************************
The conceptual overlap in promotion between marketing and marketing
communications: Does it extend to an overlap in research?
Brian K. Hensel
Doctoral Student
University of Missouri School of Journalism
[log in to unmask]
H: 573-442-2483
H: 121 Aldeah Avenue
Columbia, MO 65203
Overlap 5
Abstract
This study examined the extent to which "marketing communications" journals
and general marketing journals cited each other. It found the greatest
degree of interdisciplinary citation to be between selected marketing
journals and a prominent advertising journal. The advertising journal
cited (and was cited within) marketing journals to a much greater degree
than it cited (and was cited within) selected mass communication and public
relations journals. The data suggest that advertising may conceive itself
as more within a marketing paradigm than a communications paradigm. Public
relations research, on the other hand, was found to be isolated from both
marketing and advertising research. Potential implications of the degree
of interdisciplinary citation between research in marketing, advertising,
and public relations are described and discussed.
Overlap 5
The conceptual overlap in promotion between marketing and marketing
communications: Does it extend to an overlap in research?
The most common conceptualization of marketing has it composed of "the 4
P's," product, price, place, and promotion. Business school marketing
programs use this conceptualization. The subject matter of advertising,
other marketing communications, and some of public relations fall within
the "p" of promotion; these programs are generally housed in
journalism-and-mass-communication schools.
In this article, the business school academic discipline of marketing,
comprised of all of the 4 Ps, will be termed simply "marketing." The
journalism-and-mass-communication school disciplines of advertising along
with other marketing communications, including some of public relations,
will, together, be termed "marketing communications" and treated as its own
academic discipline.
The conceptual definition of marketing includes promotion. Marketing is
taught in business schools. Marketing communications, whose conceptual
definition overlaps promotion, includes advertising and some of public
relations and is generally taught in schools of
journalism-and-mass-communication. The purpose of this research is to take
an initial, exploratory step in examining whether this conceptual overlap
extends to an overlap in research, as evidenced by cross-citation between
selected business school journals in marketing and selected
journalism-and-mass-communication school journals in subject areas
included, to varying degrees, in marketing communications – namely
advertising, public relations, and general mass communication. It is
argued that, given this conceptual overlap, there are important
implications in whether research journals in each tradition cite each
other. Thus the research questions pursued in this study include the
following: To what extent do identified business school journals in general
marketing and identified journalism-and-mass-communication school journals
in advertising, public relations, and mass communication cite each
other? What are the implications of varying degrees of such
interdisciplinary citation?
Identifying the overlap
The idea of the 4 P's of marketing mix originated with Borden (1964). He
conceptualized the elements of the marketing mix of manufacturing firms as
including the following: product planning; pricing; branding; channels of
distribution; personal selling; advertising; promotions; and fact finding
and analysis (market research). Borden wrote this article to delineate the
key components of marketing a manufactured product. In 1964, McCarthy (as
cited in Duncan & Moriarity, 1998) condensed this broader mix of elements
down to the main elements or categories of the 4 Ps.
Marketing and marketing communications can be defined according to the
component disciplines and elements that fall within each. Hutton (1996)
provides a schematic (see Figure 1 at the end of this article) showing what
elements fall within the disciplines of marketing, advertising, and public
relations and how these larger disciplines overlap with each other. In
this schematic, Hutton's circle of "marketing communication" is identified
as marketing's "p" of promotion. In this conceptualization, marketing
communication or promotion is comprised of advertising, promotional aspects
of public relations, and promotional aspects of marketing. Advertising
includes traditional mass-media advertising (f) and corporate advertising
(a) (shared with public relations) and is completely subsumed within
marketing communication. Promotional aspects of public relations within
marketing communication include corporate advertising (a) (shared with
advertising) and other PR-based promotional elements, identified in
(e). Hutton's conceptualization makes a distinction between more promotion
oriented public relations, (a) and (e), and more relationship oriented
public relations, (d). Promotional aspects of marketing within marketing
communications are identified in (b). The other three "p's" of marketing
are represented in this schematic in "c", and include product ("new product
development"), price ("pricing"), and place ("distribution" and "logistics").
This study will use Hutton's (1996) conceptualization of what is included
in marketing and what is included in marketing communications. As seen
below, some scholars conceptualize the relationships between marketing,
marketing communications, and public relations somewhat differently than
what is represented in Hutton's schematic (Figure 1).
Relationship of public relations to marketing communications or promotion
Some scholars define public relations as structurally within marketing,
including (d) in Figure 1. Marketing textbooks provide a good place to
find, in summarized form, which component disciplines or tools are included
in the "p" of promotion. Kotler and Armstrong (1999) define promotion as
comprised of advertising, personal selling, sales promotion, and public
relations. Public relations is defined as a "mass-promotion tool" that
includes "press relations or press agentry, product publicity, public
affairs, lobbying, investor relations, and development" (p. 468). This
expands Hutton's definition of promotion to include non-promotional aspects
of public relations.
In his textbook entitled "Marketing Communication," Webster (1971) defines
marketing communication's specialties and tools as including "advertising,
personal selling, packaging and branding, sales promotion (coupons, deals,
etc.) and display, public relations and publicity, and reseller promotional
efforts (p. 30)." This definition, too, expands Hutton's conceptualization
of marketing communications by including not only the tool of publicity but
also its umbrella discipline of public relations.
Kotler's (1972) three levels of "marketing consciousness" include a public
relations orientation. The first level is concerned with market
transactions – sellers selling their products to buyers. The second level
recognizes organizational-client transactions not requiring payment. This
level is particularly common in not-for-profit entities such as museums or
churches. The third level is attained when the organization develops
relationships with stakeholders beyond its immediate buyers or
clients. This third level describes functions traditionally carried out by
public relations.
The literature of integrated marketing communications (IMC) also provides
definitions of what disciplines and tools comprise marketing
communications. Burnett and Moriarity (1998) include in marketing
communication the following: advertising; public relations; sales
promotion; direct marketing; personal selling; packaging; point-of-purchase
merchandising; events, sports, and cause marketing; and trade shows. This
IMC definition subsumes public relations, at least structurally, within the
umbrella of marketing. (IMC is, of course, conceived as more than simply
the combination of disciplines and tools. The hallmark of IMC is synergy
achieved through this combination, or what Lutz (1996) calls
"complementarity.")
However, simply because scholars may structurally include public relations
within marketing does not mean that they do not differentiate between the
functions of public relations and marketing. For example, Kotler and
Mindak (1978) recognize that marketing and public relations each have
different strengths: "It may be that the best way to solve a marketing
problems would be through public relations activities. It also is possible
that the best way to solve a public relations problems might be through…
marketing [activities]" (p. 19).
Other scholars recommend that marketing and public relations be
structurally separate, even within marketing communications or
promotion. Grunig et al. (2002) argue that marketing communications and
public relations have different fundamental purposes. They define
marketing communications as concerned with managing consumers' images of
the product or service's brand. Public relations, on the other hand, is
concerned with the organization's two-way relationships with a broader
range of constituents.
Broom et al. (1991) conclude from a national symposium on public relations
and marketing that "public relations and marketing use the same techniques
to build and maintain relationships, but the relationships are different"
(p. 219). The two disciplines "draw from fundamentally different
philosophies to achieve their different missions" (p. 219). A marketing
philosophy organizes goals around exchange (selling and buying). A public
relations philosophy organizes goals around accommodation (maintaining
accord). Grondstedt (1996) views the audience of marketing communications
as "markets," and the audience of public relations as "publics."
Relationship of the other three "p's" to "promotion"
Duncan and Caywood (1996) raise the question of whether packaging is a
function of "product," and thus the responsibility of product designers, or
a function of "promotion," and thus the responsibility marketing
communicators. Work worlds are, of course, not as starkly divided as this
question implies. Nevertheless, to what degree a marketing communicator is
involved in packaging indicates the extent to which his or her company sees
its packages as "communicating" something to consumers.
Waterschoot and Van den Bulte (as cited in Duncan & Moriarity, 1998)
expand greatly the role of communications in the marketing mix,
conceptualizing persuasion as the "common denominator" across all four
Ps. They argue that persuasion is implicit in products (e.g., two-for
packaging), in pricing (e.g., deals), and in place (e.g., trade
incentives). Duncan and Moriarity (1998) agree that every element of the
marketing mix sends messages. But they disagree with Waterschoot and Van
den Bulte that all of these messages can be characterized as persuasion.
Even recognizing ways that some scholars' conceptualizations differ
concerning the relationships between marketing, marketing communications,
and public relations, Hutton's description in Figure 1 is still generally
supported. Discussion now turns to the potential implications of an
overlap in research topics between business school marketing scholars and
journalism-and-mass-communication school marketing communications scholars.
Implications for research in marketing and in marketing communications
An area of study within the sociology of science literature is
interdisciplinary relationships in academia. There is literature within
this area that deals specifically with the social sciences. This
literature provided the theoretical framework within which to examine
potential implications of, and an explanation for, the presence or absence
of interdisciplinary overlap in research. It also provided one model for
addressing predicted problems where such overlap is present.
Sherif and Sherif (1969) propose the existence of a "core problem" to be
addressed for an efficient and effective interdisciplinary relationship:
"The core problem of interdisciplinary relationship for a particular
science is to determine what findings and what concepts it has to borrow
and in what matters its has to be in transaction with other disciplines in
order to stand firmly on its own feet, with all the supporting evidence
that it needs to insure the validity of its formulations" (p. 8). They
note that valid theory allows prediction and control: if A, then B. Valid
theory accurately describes relationships between variables and thus
explains phenomena. Sherif and Sherif state that, "[v]ery crudely, we mean
by validity 'being right'" (p. 7).
The predictive validity of a theory is established when what the theory
says will happen under stated conditions actually happens under those
conditions. There are other ways to assess validity. Face validity is
determined when the constructs and the theorized relationships between them
(including predicted effects), appear, on their face, to make logical
sense. If constructs are defined differently between disciplines, the
interdisciplinary face validity of a theory may not be agreed
upon. Concurrent validity is established when different
operationalizations of constructs in theorized relationships yield similar
findings supportive of the theory. Separate studies, within or between
disciplines, may establish concurrent validity. However, even though such
studies operationalize and measure constructs differently, they must define
their underlying constructs similarly in order to establish concurrent
validity. They are measuring the same constructs, only in different ways.
Sherif and Sherif (1969) caution against a validity check of simply
identifying common or related problems being researched in different
disciplines and then comparing findings. Different social science
disciplines often approach common problems at different levels of
analysis. For example, psychology takes the individual as its unit of
analysis; sociology takes the group or society.
Additionally, Sherif and Sherif caution that, when studying social
phenomena, the qualities of the "stimulus situation" must also be
considered. "[S]ocial stimuli…include other individuals…individuals in
groups…other groups, social organizations, institutions, cultural objects,
social norms, language systems, technological objects, and values" (p.
9). An evaluation of validity that examines similar research across
disciplines must take these questions of level and stimuli situation into
consideration.
Campbell (1969), like Sherif and Sherif, is concerned with
interdisciplinary relationships and how they affect social science. He too
identifies the problem of disciplines unknowingly researching the same
questions, a phenomenon he portrays pictorially as circles stacked on top
of each other. These circles (disciplines) are not stacked in exact
alignment, symbolizing that only parts of a given social science
discipline's research are examining the same problems as other
disciplines. The stacking of one discipline atop another is to symbolize
Campbell's observation that too often disciplines are unaware of where
their research overlaps with others. In this way, Campbell views
disciplines as operating on "independent planes," without even recognizing
overlaps in research. They are thus prevented from following Sherif and
Sherif's advice to borrow from, or be in transaction with, similar research
in other disciplines.
Campbell's solution is embodied in his "fish-scale model of
omniscience." This model is concerned with how interdisciplinary knowledge
and research can effectively and efficiently operate across the social
sciences. Campbell is cognizant that mastering an area of research
literature in one discipline is difficult enough, let alone in two. He
warns against what he calls "the Leonardesque aspiration": "the goal of
creating current-day Leonardo's who are competent in all of science" (p.
330). Quite to the contrary, Campbell identifies "the myth of
unidisciplinary competence," which argues that the total literature within
even a single discipline cannot be kept up with. His solution is an even
narrower (than current-day) array of specialists who, each, overlap with
"adjacent" (in terms of research problems) specialists. In this way
"interdisciplinarians" are created. "Each narrow specialty is in this
analogy a 'fish-scale'…. Our only hope of a comprehensive social science,
or other multiscience, lies in a continuous texture of narrow specialties
which overlap with other narrow specialties (p. 328)."
Campbell goes on to explain, in part, how, even when common research
questions are posed, isolation between disciplines can
persist. Disciplines are housed in university departments; and even in
cases where there is clear interdisciplinary overlap in subject matter,
such disciplines are usually separated physically on campus. Departments
aggregate within larger boundaries that denote separate "schools" (of,
e.g., business or journalism and mass communication). Business schools
include, for example, departments of accounting, finance, organizational
behavior, and marketing. Each department may be further divided into
specialty areas, such as, for marketing, along the lines of the 4 Ps.
What scholars read in research journals, as well as the research they
themselves pursue, makes its way into the college classroom. The
discussion now turns to implications of a presence or absence of
interdisciplinary research for what is taught in business school marketing
courses and in journalism-and-mass-communication school marketing
communications courses.
Implications for education of professionals in marketing and marketing
communications
The discipline of marketing emerged from that of economics. Bartels (as
cited in Buzzell, 1963) describes how the discipline of marketing developed
in response to the inability of economics to account for the efforts (and
their effects) of producers to create or "adjust" to, not just respond to,
marketplace demand. Kuhn's (1962) model of scientific achievement states
that a discipline or field's paradigm, for a time, "set[s] guidelines for
research. After a period of 'normal science' during which the implications
of the paradigm are explored, facts that the paradigm cannot explain become
inescapable. The field then goes through a 'crisis' during which a new
paradigm is proposed and eventually accepted" (Crane, 1972, p. 6). Bartels
description of marketing's emergence from economics fits this model.
Chaffee (1993) observes that a discipline's basic language – its "primitive
terms" – comes from its paradigm. Evidence that the paradigm of marketing
emerged from that of economics can be seen in its language and its
approaches to problems. Even within promotion, marketing solutions to
promoting a product or service may include improving distribution (e.g., a
new location for a retail store) or lowering prices.
On the other hand, marketing communications taught within schools of
journalism-and-mass-communication is grounded in the language of
disciplines that include communication and media studies. The precise
message and the medium used are emphasized. Clearly, marketing and
marketing communications each have their own foci. Moreover, even within
their shared areas of overlap, marketing and marketing communications may
each have their own "primitive terms." However, if each discipline is in
transaction with the other through research, potential language differences
are lessened. In this way, the language of the other discipline is
presumably brought into the classroom, providing future professionals with
language and a framework to better work with graduates from the other
discipline.
Transaction with research from the other discipline may also affect
perceptions and attitudes. Pincus et al.. (1994) found that MBA programs
and their graduates see public relations as "soft" in terms of "business"
skills. Pincus found that MBA programs did not recognize a need for
greater public relations content in their curricula. This, despite a shift
from the solely numbers-oriented "rational" model of management, to a more
"people" and "relationship" oriented model. Public relations programs,
conversely, saw a greater need for MBA coursework in their curricula.
A profession's literature also contributes to defining professional
roles. A substantial amount of the IMC literature reviewed is concerned
with how IMC should be implemented and who should take the
lead. Significant changes in the work roles between business school
marketing graduates and journalism-and-mass-communication school marketing
communications graduates would lead to changes in teaching and research in
these areas. Stewart (1996) argues that the main responsibility for IMC
needs to reside in the distribution channel, with general managers who are
close to the product and the customer. General management skills, general
business knowledge, and IMC knowledge are all required under this model.
Petrison and Wang (1996) differentiate between executional (or message)
integration and planning integration. Both are necessary to successful
IMC. Planning integration calls for bringing the multiple internal
stakeholders together for consensus-driven strategic planning. This will
necessitate a strong knowledge base in IMC, along with solid project
management skills. Petrison and Wang argue that MBA-trained managers "will
have to become more familiar with all aspects of the communications
mix. Although adding specialty courses to MBA programs may help, it may
also be useful for companies to encourage marketing managers to divert from
the brand management fast track to gain more hands-on experience in a
variety of disciplines (p. 160)."
Of course, an additional factor in IMC management is the client-agency
relationship. Lutz (1996) observes that, because of agency incentives in
the client-agency relationship, it may be easier to achieve client-agency
coordination than intra-client coordination.
Method
The journals chosen to represent marketing communications were selected
based on several factors, including their presence among current journals
in a library within a journalism school where marketing communications is
taught; circulation figures cited within the Iowa Guide (1998); and my
knowledge as a doctoral student of key journals in this area. The journals
chosen to represent general marketing were selected based on their presence
among current marketing journals at the main library at a university where
marketing is taught within the business school; circulations figures as
cited within Cabell's Directory of Publishing Opportunities in Marketing
(2000); and advice from a university marketing professor. Journals
identified as marketing communications journals for this study include the
Journal of Advertising, Public Relations Review, Journalism & Mass
Communication Quarterly, and the Journal of Communication. Journals
identified as general marketing journals include the Journal of Marketing,
the Journal of Marketing Research, and the Journal of Consumer
Research. Journals in each of these groups were searched via internet
databases to determine to what extent they cited journals in the other group.
The data in Tables 1, 2, and 3 at the end of this article were gathered via
the internet using the DIALOG database service. Within DIALOG, the
SciSearch, Social SciSearch, and Arts & Humanities Citation Index databases
were searched. Table 1 shows, for each possible pairing between the two
groups, the frequency and percentage of articles in the marketing "source"
journal in which the marketing communications journal was cited at least
once. Table 2 shows the same with marketing communications journals as the
source journal and marketing journals as the cited journal. Table 3
provides some within group data of the same type.
The data in these three tables show the number of articles the source
journal published from the beginning of 1993 through the end of 2003, an
eleven-year period. Prevalence of the cited journals within the source
journals was calculated for each pairing, in raw frequency and as a
percentage of total source journal articles, as the number of articles of
the source journal with at least one cite from the cited journal. These
data represent numbers of articles, not numbers of citations. Thus, if a
journal is cited more than once in a source journal, this is still counted
as only "one."
Findings
Table 1 shows to what extend the identified mass communications journals
were cited in the marketing journals. The only mass communications journal
cited in the marketing journals with any sizable frequency was the Journal
of Advertising. It was cited at least once in 42 Journal of Marketing
articles over the eleven years between 1993 and 2004. These 42 articles
represent 9% of the articles published in the Journal of Marketing over
this time frame. The Journal of Advertising was similarly cited 35 times
(6%) in the Journal of Marketing Research, and 62 times (14%) in the
Journal of Consumer Research.
Table 2 shows to what extend the marketing journals were cited in the mass
communications journals. Each of the three marketing journals was cited in
1% of the Public Relations Review articles over these eleven years. This
represents 6, 6, and 10 Public Relations Review articles in which each
marketing journal, respectively, was cited at least once. Each of the
three marketing journals was cited in 2% of the Journalism & Mass
Communication Quarterly articles. This represents 26, 28, and 30 J&MCQ
articles with at least one citation from the respective marketing
journals. Each of the three marketing journals was cited in 1% or less of
the Journal of Communication articles. This represents 2, 6, and 12
articles citing the respective marketing journal at least once.
Only the Journal of Advertising cited the marketing journals in a sizable
number of its articles. The Journal of Advertising cited the Journal of
Marketing at least once in 201 (61%) of its articles; the Journal of
Marketing Research at least once in 187 (57%) of its articles; and the
Journal of Consumer Research at least once in 220 (67%) of its
articles. The Journal of Advertising was the only marketing communications
journal to cite the marketing journals in a sizable percentage of its
articles. Table 1 shows this relationship to be somewhat reciprocal. The
Journal of Advertising was the only marketing communication journal to be
cited in the marketing journals with any substantial frequency.
Table 3 shows a number of intra-group citations. Within marketing
communications, the Journal of Advertising and Public Relations Review cite
each other very minimally, in only 1% of their respective articles. On the
other hand, the Journal of Consumer Research cites the other marketing
journals at least once in a substantial portion of its articles: the
Journal of Marketing was cited at least once in 219 articles (50%); the
Journal Marketing Research, in 316 articles (72%); and the Journal of
Consumer Research cited itself at least once in 411 articles (93%).
Discussion
This study examines interdisciplinary citation of academic journals at a
broad and general level. Specific topic areas of articles cited between
disciplines are not identified. Implications can thus be suggested only
from knowledge of the general subject focus of the journals – i.e.,
marketing, advertising, public relations, and mass
communications. Nonetheless, even given this limitation, general patterns
in interdisciplinary citation are identified and potential implications are
discussed.
Only two clear linkages in cross-citation were found. The Journal of
Advertising and the three general marketing journals cited each other to a
substantial degree. Also, the degree to which the Journal of Consumer
Research cited the other two marketing journals suggests a high level of
cross-citation within the group of marketing journals.
The data suggest that the Journal of Advertising and the marketing
journals are in transaction with, possibly borrowing from, each other to a
significant degree. The Journal of Advertising to cites the marketing
journals to a greater extent than the marketing journals cite the Journal
of Advertising. Promotion is only one area of general marketing, thus the
percentages of articles in the respective marketing journals articles with
at least one citation of the Journal of Advertising seem reasonably large,
at 9%, 6%, and 14%. This potentially bodes well for the discipline of
marketing in terms of the validity of its research in marketing
communications, at least in its research on advertising. Face validity of
theory in this shared area is potentially enhanced because constructs are
more likely to be defined similarly and similar relationships are more
likely to be theorized and tested. When two disciplines test the same
relationships, operationalized differently, concurrent validity is put to
the test, strengthening or calling into question the validity of the
theories thus tested. This degree of citation of an advertising journal
within these marketing journals may also be a good sign for college
marketing classes that include the topic of advertising. Because the
marketing scholars are in transaction with advertising in their research,
they may be more likely to use terms and perceive work roles in a way that
is consistent with what is taught in advertising programs in schools of
journalism-and-mass-communication.
The strongest linkage is seen in the high percentage of Journal of
Advertising articles with at least one citation from each of the marketing
journals, 61%, 57%, and 67%, respectively. The same potential benefits in
research validity just described apply to research in the Journal of
Advertising that overlaps with that in the marketing journals. The same
potential benefits in the classroom apply as well - i.e.,
journalism-and-mass-communication advertising students are exposed to the
language and professional role conceptions of future professional
colleagues from business school marketing programs. The data suggest that
advertising researchers are "interdisciplinarians" in their significant
transaction with research in general marketing journals.
The data also suggest that advertising may see itself as more within a
marketing paradigm than a communications paradigm. Only 2 Journal of
Advertising articles included at least one citation from Public Relations
Review. Clearly, these two disciplines have different foci, and their
overlap in Hutton's schematic is limited. Even so, the data suggest that
the Journal of Advertising does not pursue research within an IMC
perspective that includes public relations.
Public Relations Review similarly isolates itself from the Journal of
Advertising. Only 6 (1%) of Public Relations Review articles had at least
one citation of the Journal of Advertising. The same holds for the
marketing journals in Public Relations Review. Each marketing journal,
respectively, is cited at least once in only 1% of Public Relations Review
articles. The marketing journals cite Public Relations Review to an even
more negligible extent. This isolation of public relations may simply
represent an efficient division of labor in research. Since public
relations is different from marketing and advertising in the problems it
addresses, there should be minimal cross-citation between it and these
other disciplines. Problems arise, though, if public relations and these
other disciplines are researching and teaching similar topics. Then this
lack of transaction raises questions about cross-disciplinary validity in
research and cross-disciplinary differences in terminology used and in
perceptions of professional roles.
Less can be suggested from the data for the general communication journals
– Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly and the Journal of
Communication. These journals address a broad range of topics in
communication and journalism. While still small as percentages, the
greatest area of transaction is seen in the number of Journalism & Mass
Communication Quarterly articles that cited the respective marketing
journals - 26 (2%), 28 (2%), and 30 (2%).
Conclusion
Findings suggest a relatively strong interdisciplinary relationship
between the research literatures of advertising and marketing. This
suggests that advertising scholars within schools of
journalism-and-mass-communication are following research published in
general marketing journals. Marketing scholars are apparently also
following research published in advertising journals. Sociology of science
theory suggests that theoretical validity is enhanced by this relationship
in areas where research interests overlap. This article also argues that
the professional education of both marketing and advertising majors is
enhanced by such interdisciplinary research.
The findings further suggest that public relations is relatively isolated
from both marketing and advertising, at least in its research. This may be
the case simply because public relations' paradigm (including its tools and
techniques) is very different from those of marketing and advertising. On
the other hand, this may indicate potential problems of validity in
research if these different disciplines are each examining similar public
relations publics in isolation. Other potential risks include professional
language barriers because of unshared specialized terminology and
inaccurate perceptions of the professional roles and responsibilities of
the other disciplines.
Overlap 5
References
Overlap 5
Table 1
Source journals: Marketing; Cited journals: marketing communications; 1993
to 2004 (11 years)
Source journal
# of articles in
source journal
# of source journal articles with at least one cite from cited journal
% of source journal articles with at least one cite from cited journal
Cited journal
Journal of Marketing
472
42
9%
Journal of Advertising
1
0%
Public Relations Review
0
0%
Journalism & Mass Comm. Quarterly
6
1%
Journal of Communication
Journal of Marketing Research
587
35
6%
Journal of Advertising
2
0%
Public Relations Review
0
0%
Journalism & Mass Comm. Quarterly
2
0%
Journal of Communication
Journal of Consumer Research
441
62
14%
Journal of Advertising
1
0%
Public Relations Review
0
0%
Journalism & Mass Comm. Quarterly
10
2%
Journal of Communication
Table 2
Source journals: Marketing; Cited journals: marketing communications; 1993
to 2004 (11 years)
Source journal
# of articles in
source journal
# of source journal articles with at least one cite from cited journal
% of source journal articles with at least one cite from cited journal
Cited journal
Journal of Advertising
327
201
61%
Journal of Marketing
187
57%
Journal of Marketing Research
220
67%
Journal of Consumer Research
Public Relations Review
669
10
1%
Journal of Marketing
6
1%
Journal of Marketing Research
6
1%
Journal of Consumer Research
Journalism & Mass Comm. Quarterly
1,374
26
2%
Journal of Marketing
28
2%
Journal of Marketing Research
30
2%
Journal of Consumer Research
Journal of Communication
1,349
2
0%
Journal of Marketing
6
0%
Journal of Marketing Research
12
1%
Journal of Consumer Research
Overlap 5
Table 3
Source journals: marketing communications; Cited journals: marketing
communications; 1993 to 2004 (11 years)
Source journal: Marketing; Cited journals: Marketing; 1993 to 2004 (11 years)
Source journal
# of articles in
source journal
# of source journal articles with at least one cite from cited journal
% of source journal articles with at least one cite from cited journal
Cited journal
Journal of Advertising
327
2
1%
Public Relations Review
Public Relations Review
669
6
1%
Journal of Advertising
Journal of Consumer Research
441
219
50%
Journal of Marketing
316
72%
Journal of Marketing Research
411
93%
Journal of Consumer Research
Figure 1 (Hutton, 1996)
Relationships among marketing, advertising, marketing communication or
promotion, and public relations
Marketing Communication
or
Promotion
Public Relations
(a) corporate advertising
(b) sales force and channel communications, trade shows, packaging, direct
marketing, sales promotions, etc.
(c) distribution, logistics, pricing, new-product development, etc.
(d) investor relations, community relations, crisis communications and
corporate identity, executive communications, charitable contributions, etc.
(e) product publicity, brochures other collateral materials, parts of media
relations, crisis communication and corporate identity, sponsorship, etc.
(f) traditional mass-media advertising
Marketing
(f)
(c)
(b)
(e)
(d)
(a)
Advertising
|
