Brand Related Capabilities and the Process of Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC): A Resource Based View (RBV)

Purpose – This study aims at examining the effects of the brand related capabilities on the IMC process in consumer markets of Pakistan. It will extend the acceptability of the brand orientation scale in comparison to its application in retail industry only. Design/Methodology/Approach – Both brand management and IMC related literature was thoroughly reviewed to conceptually develop the links between the individual brand related capabilities and IMC process for empirical investigation. Findings – The results of the study established significantly positive relationship between the brands related capabilities and IMC process except for the functional capability. The main contribution is conceptual theorization of distinct, value adding, symbolic and functional capabilities with the IMC process and obtaining statistically significant results for the hypothesized relationships. Originality – This study takes the position of individual capabilities in contrast to studies on aggregate effect of brand orientation on the IMC process in the context of consumer companies operating in Pakistan.


Introduction
The wider literature on Integrated Marketing Communication (IMC) has recognized the importance of IMC process and consider it an essential component of the business and corporate strategy (e.g., Duncan and Mulhern, 2004;Kitchen and Schultz, 2009;Kliatchko and Schultz, 2014;Porcu et al., 2016;Tafesse and Kitchen, 2017). These scholars defined and operationalized the IMC in different perspectives. The literature in this regard agrees upon the fact that IMC has developed into a concrete concept, management philosophy and a business and strategic process (Duncan and Mulhern, 2004;Kitchen and Burgmann, 2015;Kliatchko, 2008;Kliatchko and Schultz, 2014;Porcu et al., 2016;Tafesse and Kitchen, 2017). Based on the process based definition of IMC, Reid (2005) and more recently Luxton, Reid, and Mavondo (2015) conceptualized the IMC process as a firm level capability that combines certain marketing and non-marketing inputs of organization and transform them into market and brand related outcomes. In line with the arguments in the resource-based marketing literature (O'Cass and Weerawardena, 2010;O'Cass and Sok, 2014), IMC carries the potential to affect the market and brand related performance of a firm.

Brand Capabilities -A Comprehensive Review
Being brand oriented has been widely recognized by academic scholars in the last one decade (e.g., Balmer, 2013;Baumgarth, Merrilees, and Urde, 2013;Gromark and Melin, 2011;Urde, Baumgarth, and Merrilees, 2013). Fundamental to brand management is the importance attributed to identity of a brand i.e., the brand value ascribed (Balmer, Greyser, and Urde, 2009;Urde et al., 2013) through the brand itself or through brand related marketing communications. Brand identity undoubtedly provides a strong base to the existence of a certain brand and gives an initial direction of how and what brand related activities to be undertaken to develop certain values of a brand.
Several authors (e.g., Foley and Fahy, 2009;Hooley et al., 2005;Morgan, Vorhies, and Mason, 2009;Vorhies, Orr, and Bush, 2011) argue that firms holding certain capabilities can gain a superior advantage or outcome by utilizing the resource base of the firms -meaning that resources alone may not be getting a competitive advantage unless utilized by capabilities of the firm. In relation to marketing, branding practices are considered fundamental to competitive or superior outcome (e.g., Aaker, 1996;Keller, 2009;Keller and Lehmann, 2006;Lane Keller, 2001). For instance, it differentiates the marketing offer of a firm from its competing firms and improves the image of the products and services offered. Numerous authors (e.g., Balmer, 2013;Morgan et al., 2009;Orr, Bush, and Vorhies, 2011;Vorhies et al., 2011) argue that the RBV assists in understanding the link between marketing resource e.g., branding and a lasting value.
Consistent with the resource-based view (RBV), branding process is a market-related asset that can accrue a firm a superior performance (Buttenberg, 2015;Hooley et al., 2005;Srivastava, Fahey, and Christensen, 2001). Investigations in the marketing domain with respect to market based-assets and their role in the marketing strategies shed light on the important role of such resources and relate them to the marketing activities and market valuation (Varadarajan, Jayachandran, and White, 2001).
Firms holding a brand orientation concept, regard their brands as strategic resource of the firm (Urde, 1994(Urde, , 1997. Henceforth, it directs optimal inputs in brand related processes of the organization. Bridson and Evans (2004), conceptualized the brand orientation as a multidimensional construct comprising the values and beliefs that a firm holds and the behavior or action that a firm takes, by encapsulating both the philosophical and behavioral perspectives. However, Bridson et al. (2013), are more focused and in line with the behavioral perspective, by defining brand orientation as; 'The degree to which the organizations value their brands and its practices are orientated towards building brand capabilities'. Yet, this conceptualization was initially made to fit with the retail industry and labelled as Retail Brand Orientation (RBO). Nevertheless, it highlights the business and functional level focus on brands that offers reasonable support for relationships with all stakeholders regardless of the brand level (Bridson and Evans, 2004). It also elaborates the importance of clear brand identity and embeds an appropriate 'market-sensing system' to manage stakeholders' relationship with the brand under focus. Hence, the benefit of broader conceptualization can be utilized across sectors and contexts. To this end, this conceptualization best fit in the context of this study as it has been developed in line with the RBV perspective. This conceptualization encapsulates four distinct brand related capabilities that enable a brand to be unique, exhibit its functionality, add further value to the product or service and bear a symbolic meaning.

Brand Related Capabilities and IMC Process
Several scholarly authors in the field of IMC and brand management (e.g., Aaker, 2009;Duncan and Moriarty, 1998;Einwiller and Boenigk, 2012;Keller, 2009;Keller, Parameswaran, and Jacob, 2011;Kitchen and Schultz, 2003;Lane Keller, 2001) agree on the notion that 'overall business practices of a company reflects communication dimensions' i.e., their overall and business missions, corporate values, culture and business practices, to respond to market inquiries that affect the relationships between the market and brand. This implies that 'everything transmits or sends a message' i.e., every action of the company and brand elements themselves is means to convey the message (s) to the stakeholders. With respect to the role of the brand and its related capabilities, the following discussion elaborates the facilitating role as antecedents to the IMC process.
The four dimensions of this construct are undoubtedly presented as unique brand related capabilities. However, the utilization of these capabilities may not be restricted to specific use in the brand related activities, rather these may be utilized for other strategic purposes in an organization e.g., planning the marketing communication activities, that shall be discussed further while discussing their relationship with IMC process.

Distinctive Capability and IMC Process
Review of the brand related literature e.g. (Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2012;Bridson and Evans, 2004;Bridson et al., 2013;Evans, Bridson, and Rentschler, 2012;Keller, 2009;Kotler, 2009) witnesses that brands have the potential and hence, an ability to distinct themselves from the other brands. For instance, distinct brand elements of both tangible (name, logo, trademark etc.) and intangible nature (slogan, mantra etc.) have the ability to differentiate itself from the other competing brands (Keller et al., 2011). Thus, brands bearing distinctive capability can be further utilized in other brand related activities e.g., brand extensions, brand endorsements, strengthen brand-market associations etc. (e.g., Keller et al., 2011;Kotler, 2009). Furthermore, this can be exploited for the purpose of brand related marketing communications to enable the IMC managers to plan and execute accordingly.
In relation to the link between brand orientation and IMC, both the concepts emphasize the creation of brand identity. However, this brand distinction at consumer end can be attributed to both the inbuilt ability of the brand and/or related marketing communications made to the consumer audience. It implies that distinctive capability of a brand may make the brand unique, yet the importance of being communicated cannot be overlooked. It can be inferred that the resultant brand distinctiveness is the outcome of the amalgamation of the distinctive capability of a brand and a coherent communication campaigns planned and executed to the stakeholders. It suggests that the absence of either will result in poor outcome -meaning that a poor placement of a distinctive brand may not bring desired distinction to a brand and vice versa. It can be argued that the brand distinctive capability facilitates the planning and implementation of the IMC process by providing a premise to the whole process. Hence, this relationship can be hypothesized as following; H1. Brand distinctive capability will have a significant and positive effect on the IMC Process.

Value Adding Capability and IMC Process
Value adding capability is the ability of a brand and/or organization to add value to a brand beyond its functional value (Keller and Lehmann, 2003;Keller et al., 2011;McEnally and De Chernatony, 1999). According to these authors, this ability is somewhat more than the value of utilitarian nature e.g., emotions, fun, experience, entertainment etc., by adding or associating features and attributes beyond functionality. Reid, Luxton, and Mavondo (2005) argue that value adding activities have moved farther to focus on attributes like experience, service recovery, expectations and emotions etc. Such value addition takes the brands to next level i.e., potential or augmented level (Keller and Lehmann, 2001).
Various touch points from a primary exposure or interaction of a brand with a customer to a wellplanned advertising campaigns can add value to the brand under focus (Clow, 2007;Donald and Clow, 2010). Indeed, most of these touch points are the results of the brand elements and marketing communications. Thus, it can be argued that IMC process increase the chances of interaction between a brand and customers. The value addition accrued to the inbuilt capability may further be extended if communicated properly to the target customers. Thus, it can be contended that the overall additional value of a brand is the result of the inbuilt capability of a brand and related marketing communications. likewise, this capability provides a strong base to the IMC process. In line with these arguments this relationship can be posited as; H3. Brand value capability will have a significant and positive effect on the IMC Process.

Symbolic Capability and IMC Process
Symbolic capabilities reflect the ability of a brand to associate strong emotions and symbolic meaning, appeal and expressions that reflect the personality, beliefs and values of the target market (Holt, 2003) see in (Bridson et al., 2013). This kind of additional value may be achieved through some innate characteristics of a brand (Malär et al., 2012). However, it may not stands true in the other cases, yet requiring properly planned IMC activities to be executed to produce an additional value of a brand (Auty and Elliott, 1998;Dobni and Zinkhan, 1990;Klink, 2000). For instance, numerous brands through their brand names, symbols, logos and other brand elements may inherently carry the potential of producing symbolic value. However, this value may be created sometime by associating the brand with the other brands or borrowing secondary associations and communicated through the marketing communications. However, the presence or desire to create such image must accompany proper marketing communications.
Several brand management studies (Hammerl et al., 2016;e.g., Keller et al., 2011;Van Rompay, Pruyn, and Tieke, 2009) witness the existence of such symbolic values that are attributed to inherent capability of the brands. However, many such brands are well suited examples that do create such symbolic value by borrowing secondary associations in their properly planned and executed communications (Landa, 2005;Lane Keller, 2001). Thus, it can be argued that this added value may be the result of the primary and / or secondary association that may be inherent to the brand or somewhat borrowed and communicated through the IMC programs. consistent with this reasoning, it can be posited that brand symbolic capability as a market related resource (Bridson et al., 2013) provides a base for to the IMC programs. This inter-dependent relationship can be hypothesized as under; H3: Brand symbolic capability will have a significant and positive effect on the IMC Process.

Functional Capability and IMC Process
Functionality of a brand refers to the extent it satisfies the basic needs of a target market (Park, Jaworski, and Maclnnis, 1986). Several scholars (Bridson and Evans, 2004;Bridson et al., 2013;Evans et al., 2012) agree with the underlying ability of a brand to relate functionality of a brand with the rational needs and wants of the target customers. This dimension has also gained strong support and agreement of the scholarly authors (e.g., Aaker, 2009;Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2012;De Chernatony, 2010;Keller et al., 2011) in the brand management field.
In relation to the IMC process, brands may be capable of being functional or carrying functional utility, however, they may not be successfully perceived as desired. For instance, brands may be able to provide functional utility, yet fails to receive a desired functional image due to absence of consumer interaction or proper communication that could create such image in the minds of consumers. Furthermore, many products may be providing similar level of utility resulting in parity like situations for consumers. Yet, achieving a distinctive position in the eyes of consumers may be attributed to the communication process that makes it different. It implies that this distinctive image is based on functionality of the brand that was communicated to consumer audience in different manners. For instance, (Moriarty et al., 2014) are of the view that 'how you say' is important in parallel to 'what you say'. One specific brand may communicate the same functional benefits with a different advertising appeal that may be clicked and liked by consumer audience in relation to competitive brands (Donald and Clow, 2010). It implies that IMC managers require brand related inputs to plan and execute IMC campaigns.
These arguments pose a scenario where the functional capability of a brand can directly affect the IMC process. One can contend that IMC process takes into account the existing capabilities of a brand, related business and corporate objectives and other factors while planning and implementing marketing communications activities. Moreover, it is vital for the IMC process to create cohesive and consistent messages (e.g., Kliatchko, 2008;Porcu et al., 2016;Tafesse and Kitchen, 2017) that in the absence of such functional capabilities may weaken the claims of the communicated messages (Keller, 2009). Thus, the relationship between brand's functional capability and IMC process can be posited as below; H4. Brand Functional capability will have a significant and positive effect on the IMC Process.
Extending these arguments, it can be argued, whether it is an inherent characteristic of a brand or a borrowed association, it requires to be leveraged through well planned and coordinated IMC programs to earn a superior or competitive outcome. Consistent with the RBV perspective, IMC being a process and hence, a capability of planning and implementing communication activities, requires to be developed to combine all brand related capabilities to materialize the associated benefits.

Sample and Data Collection
A list of consumer companies was generated using the media monitoring reports to reach the actual product and service providers who are involved in most of the promotional activities. A total of 102 survey forms were collected from the managers with brand related communication responsibilities. The unit of analysis in this study is the primary brands under the direct control of the respondents. With respect to survey questionnaire, minor revisions were incorporated in the survey items after discussing with several managers and academicians of the field. Following two-three reminders, the final response rate was 29% usable survey forms. The high response rate can be attributed to several reminders and self-administration of the survey. The final responses comprised several business areas including both goods and service; targeted to final consumers (refer Table 1). The final set is a good representative of the consumer companies operating in Pakistan, with an almost 39.2% of different services and 61% of the goods market. The involvement of the companies in the multiple marketing communications activities was ensured with demographic related information in the survey questionnaire. Most of the responding managers were employed for more than 3-4 years in the same organizations.

Measurement of Variables
Preexisting construct measures have been used in this study. Brand related capabilities are based on the brand orientation construct developed by (Bridson and Evans, 2004;Bridson et al., 2013). Distinctive capability is reflective measure with 4-items. Functional and value adding capabilities were

Data Analysis Process
Partial Least Square -Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) was used to estimate the proposed theoretical model, with the help of SmartPLS V. 3.2.8 (Ringle, Wende, and Becker, 2015). Statistical significance of the path coefficients was determined through the use of bootstrapped procedure with a re-sample of 1000. Several scholars (e.g., Hair et al., 2012;Hair Jr et al., 2016;Reinartz, Haenlein, and Henseler, 2009) argue that PLS is used as a statistical tool for analysis for the last 30 years, offering several benefits to the researchers. It poses no distributional assumptions (Chin, 1998) and relaxes the stringent criteria of normality with cautions (Hair Jr et al., 2016, p. 20). With respect to minimum sample size, this study adopts the recommended approach (Hair Jr et al., 2016, p. 21), using G*Power tool for determining the minimum sample size. The results obtained for the total sample size was observed as 85 (for details refer to G*Power calculations in Annexure A). The usable and complete survey forms (102) are well above the required sample size.
Since the survey data were collected from a single source, Common Method Variance (CMV) could be a possible issue. To rule out the presence of CMV, Harman's single factor test was run with all items loaded in SPSS V.21 for Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). They were assessed through unrotated factor solution, extracting 8 factors with a total variance of 66.7%. The first factor's variance was observed to be 29.39% of the total variance (Annexure B for details). It suggests that no single factor contributes most of the variance (MacKenzie and Podsakoff, 2012), indicating no threat of CMV. Table 2 summarizes the descriptive statistics, measurement constructs and the reliability of all the constructs used in the model. As exhibited in Figure 1 all the four brand related capabilities were measured as first order reflective measures. IMC capability was modelled to a higher order construct with five reflective dimensions.

Measurement Model Analysis
To establish convergent validity as recommended by (Hair et al., 2012;Hair Jr et al., 2016, p. 105), Factor Loadings, Composite Reliability (CR) and Average Variance extracted (AVE) were used. All the loadings for the final model were above 0.6 except two items of the IMC-planning and evaluation dimension and 1-item for IMC-organizational infrastructure dimension that were recorded below 0.4 and subsequently removed one by one to attain the quality of data. All the retained items were observed to have loading scores ranged from 0.652 to a maximum of 0.928. Furthermore, all the construct measures met the criteria of AVE > 0.5 ranging from 0.567 to 0.836. To establish internal consistency, the CR values were assessed to meet the threshold of 0.7 (Chin, 2010;Hair Jr et al., 2016). All the CR values are well above the threshold which ranged from 0.839 to 0.928.
Once the convergent validity was established, the discriminant validity was assessed through the well-known Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion. Both the higher and lower-order factors met the criterion by comparing the AVE scores with the squared correlations. All the scores were observed to be higher than the squared correlations exhibited in Table 3. To be in line with the recently introduced criterion of heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations (Henseler, Ringle, and Sarstedt, 2015), this study further assessed the measurement constructs for HTMT ratio to establish discriminant validity.

Structural Model
To assess the predictive power of the structural model, the R 2 value was calculated. The value of R 2 indicates the total variance contributed by the exogenous variables in the endogenous variable (Barclay, Higgins, and Thompson, 1995). All the four brand related capabilities posited in this study, explain 62% of the variance. The bootstrapping procedure with a resample of 1000 was followed to determine path estimates and t-statistics for the proposed structural paths.   Figure 2 and Table 4 presents the results obtained from the structural model analysis with the bootstrapped procedure in PLS-SEM. Distinctive brand capability was found to have a significant and positive association with the IMC process (H1: β =0.221, t=2.991 at p<0.05). It supports the hypothesized relationship that link the two in a positively significant relationship. The value adding capability of a brand was found to have statistically significant positive relationship with the firms IMC process (H2: β =0.426, t=5.461 at p<0.05) supporting the proposition that value adding capability works as an antecedent or facilitation to the IMC process of planning and implementing marketing communications.   Brand bearing symbolic capability was also found to have a direct positive and statistically significant relationship with the firm IMC process (H3: β =0.326, t=0.4.808 at p<0.05). Unexpectedly, brand's functional capability could not prove its statistically significant positive relation with the IMC process (H4: β =0.082, t=1.129 at p<0.05), straddling a zero in between the confidence intervals.

Discussion and Conclusion
The results clearly delineate that brand related capabilities plays an important role of facilitating the IMC process of planning and implementation. As formerly mentioned, this study utilized the RBV perspective (Vorhies, Morgan, and Autry, 2009;Vorhies et al., 2011) to underpin the whole process of leveraging brand related capabilities towards the IMC process. All the brand related capabilities tested in this study proved to be positively related to the IMC process. The brand functional capability among the other hypothesized relationships could not prove statistically significant. However, its positive link implies that it may also come true if the sample size is increased or these capabilities are seen in the presence of certain other factors e.g., customer orientation, competitor orientation that serve as a precipitate (Urde, 1994;Urde et al., 2013) to the brand oriented capabilities. These brand related capabilities provide a solid base to the brand and IMC managers to build the IMC programs in alignment to the existing capabilities of the brand. The resultant IMC effectiveness can also be posited in the future studies to seek an insight of the role played by these capabilities in the brand and IMC related performance outcomes. The results obtained partially substantiate the brand-IMC related studies that evaluated the aggregate brand orientation or brand capabilities and related it with the IMC process (Luxton et al., 2017;Reid et al., 2005). In addition, it encourages the applicability of the brand related capabilities to empirically test in other domains of marketing and corporate process.