【正文】
e the first formal, welldefined attempt to bring some understanding of the concept to the literature. Thus, most of the history of IMC thinking and discussion is generally less than seven years old. While there has been considerable debate and discussion of the subject, ., who does it, how it is done, etc., the formal presentation of research, theory development, and other materials by either practitioners or academics has been slow in ing. Given its history, much of the IMC literature and learning has focused on the explanation of IMC in the marketplace, ., 4 what it is, how it operates in the munications arena, etc., rather than on theory building or understanding of the basic principles. These points must be kept in mind, for while the literature is sparse at this point, it is apparently growing rather rapidly. Schultz (1991) formalized the IMC discussion in the United States by arguing that nothing [in the United States] had received as much publicity and discussion at learned meetings, while seeing little real activity, as had the concept of IMC in 1990. At that time most manufacturers and marketing organizations in the United States were still trying to sort out the need for and value of IMC. What is evident now, some six years later, is that the concept is still undergoing development. A special issue of the Journal of Marketing Communications devoted to IMC found virtually all the papers dealt with theory building and/or identification of key issuesin other words IMC still appeared to be in a preparadigm as opposed to a postparadigm state. This is as expected for integration is