Since its beginnings in the late 1980s, IMC has been looked upon by traditional agencies as a threat. When effectively done, IMC moves most of the strategic marketing communications upstream and into the organization. Many agencies have struggled with this.

Although I've vever worked for an agency before, I can see why traditional agencies view IMC as a threat. If IMC is practiced effectively by the organizaion - the agencies role changes dramatically. And in doing so, it takes a lot of cash out of their pockets. Agencies of yesteryear were focused on single-minded specialization - on such things as media-placement and creative/executional aspects of an organization's needs. If they were good, they could create more revenue via more creative and more media placement. With things moving upstream more and more now - into the organization - these activities may not carry as much weight overall. While they are still extremely important, spending is becoming increasingly more targeted, and hence suggest the utilization of a myriad of providers.

Beyond the strictly monetary (financial) concerns agencies have, IMC does effectively take the smoke and mirrors out of the whole process, at least from the organization's perspective. To counter this, agencies are being forced to truly understand the businesses and industries of their clients. Can they effectively and profitably do this? And as measurement becomes more and more critical, it puts agencies in an awkward position of not only having to 'know' but also to map their ideas to effective strategies. This is a good thing - both for agencies and for organizations.

As IMC grows into the norm at large and small companies alike, measuring the retuns and value it provides becomes increasingly critical. And with a greater portion of this process being driven by front-line managers, the role of external vendors and their impacts will be under the microscope.

From the agencies perspective, they are somewhat limited as to what they can do to carry out an IMC program. IMC represents a holistic, encompassing, and strategic process. As a result, it requires a long-term committment on the part of management and on the part of other key stakeholders in the process. It represents a process that changes the traditional marcom paradigm by looking for answers and solutions externally to customers, rather than internally to management.

Due to its nature, an external provider like an agency can be somewhat limited in delivering effective IMC. Since many of the tactical decisions in IMC need to be based on interpretation of data (qualitative/quantitative), there is also the issue of information access. The organization may be averse to this.

Another factor is this whole 'management buy-in' factor. I think an agency - regardless of how effective their last campaign was - will always be considered an outsider. As such, as their reconmmendations approach the more strategic level, there's less trust on the part of decision makers to implement their suggestions. What's important to realize about IMC is that it runs deeper than tactical executions that agencies are skilled at implementing. This requires a committment by managerial decision makers. This aspect would certainly limit an agency as far as planning a program.

Many would also consider the number of media forms and outlets a factor as well. Increasingly, however, I am having trouble with this. I think agencies are actually better positioned to understand how/when to use each particular media relative to the organization. Since all forms require functional skills and knowledge, I believe the agency is the better route. Communications production and execution is what they do. What's the most important in this process, however, is that the agency be given clear direction on what needs to be communicated. This comes from the client; the agency executes. Without clear guidance, organizations will rely on the agency and its judgements.