How to build an integrated marketing communications course: a complete guide for lecturers

Central question: What makes communications genuinely integrated rather than a collection of channel activities?

Start by giving students a managerial definition of Integrated Marketing Communications. The useful test is not whether a brand uses many channels, but whether audience, objective, positioning, message, experience and measurement reinforce one another across the customer journey. This establishes IMC as a planning discipline rather than a synonym for advertising.

What this concept covers

• IMC as coordination of messages, channels and customer experience around a strategic objective.
• The customer journey and touchpoint logic from awareness through consideration, action, retention and advocacy.
• Consistency versus useful adaptation: what should remain stable and what should change by channel or stage.
• Paid, owned and earned media as different forms of access, control and credibility.
• Organisational integration across brand, media, social, PR, sales, CRM, product and agency partners.

Learning outcomes

By the end of this concept, students should be able to:

• Diagnose whether a communications plan is integrated or merely multichannel.
• Map the major touchpoints in a customer journey.
• Distinguish strategic consistency from repetitive execution.
• Explain how paid, owned and earned activity can reinforce one another.

Supports the course learning outcomes on analysis, integration and defensible communications judgement.

How to teach it

• Open with three executions from one campaign and ask what makes them feel like one system.
• Build a customer journey on the board, then assign each touchpoint an objective and channel role.
• Use a deliberately fragmented campaign and ask students to identify where the promise, evidence or call to action breaks.

Case-style example

Harbour & Pine, a fictional homeware brand, spends £180,000 on a spring launch: £70,000 paid social, £45,000 search, £35,000 creator partnerships and £30,000 email and site content. Paid ads promise “design that lasts,” creator posts emphasise low prices and email pushes weekly discounts. Students map the journey, identify three points of contradiction and recommend one integration rule. One group may prioritise message consistency; another may preserve channel-specific appeals. Students discover that integration is disciplined coordination, not identical copy everywhere.

Where students struggle

Students often equate IMC with using many media channels. Push them to identify the shared audience problem, communication objective, brand promise and evidence that make separate executions part of one campaign.

Reading and a quick check

Use Belch and Belch, Chapters 1-2, then ask students to write a one-sentence integration rule for a brand they know.

Where it leads

The next step is deciding whose behaviour the communications system is meant to change.

Central question: Which audience matters, what behaviour should change, and what evidence justifies that choice?

IMC becomes vague when “the target audience” is treated as a demographic label. This concept asks students to combine segmentation with behavioural insight: needs, motivations, barriers, context, channel habits and stage in the journey. It also introduces the distinction between a commercially attractive segment and a communications-reachable audience.

What this concept covers

• Segmentation bases: demographic, geographic, psychographic, behavioural, needs-based and value-based.
• Audience insight from research, first-party data, social listening and customer evidence.
• Target attractiveness, accessibility, profitability and strategic fit.
• Behavioural objectives and barriers to action.
• Personas and journey maps as decision tools rather than decorative artefacts.

Learning outcomes

By the end of this concept, students should be able to:

• Evaluate segment attractiveness using qualitative and quantitative evidence.
• Translate a segment definition into a specific behavioural target.
• Identify evidence gaps in a persona or audience brief.
• Select a target audience and defend the trade-offs involved.

Supports the course learning outcomes on analysis, integration and defensible communications judgement.

How to teach it

• Give teams four segments with different size, growth, margin and media habits.
• Ask them to distinguish “who buys most today” from “whose behaviour is most valuable to change.”
• Require every persona statement to cite a data point or explicitly label an assumption.

Case-style example

FitForm, a fictional fitness app, has four segments: 1.2m “Routine Builders” at 5% conversion, 800k “Performance Trackers” at 9%, 2.4m “Health Starters” at 2% and 500k “Social Challengers” at 11%. Gross margin per annual subscriber is £54, £78, £49 and £61 respectively. Students compute expected gross-margin opportunity, then choose one primary audience. Reach argues for Health Starters; economic value argues for Performance Trackers. Students discover that the largest audience is not automatically the best communications target.

Where students struggle

Students often build attractive personas without proving that the chosen segment is valuable or reachable. Make them show the numbers behind the target choice and name the behaviour the campaign must change.

Reading and a quick check

Assign Li, Larimo and Leonidou (2021) for digital audience strategy, then ask students which evidence would make them switch target segment.

Where a simulation fits

The Go To Market Simulation fits directly after this concept. Students compare four customer segments, choose one primary target segment and two launch regions, and must justify the route with market evidence.

Where it leads

Once the audience and behavioural task are clear, students can set communication objectives and decide what position the brand must occupy.

Central question: What should communications achieve, and what strategic idea connects the objective to a differentiated position?

A strong IMC course separates business objectives, marketing objectives and communication objectives. Students learn to specify the job communications can plausibly do, define a desired audience response and build a campaign architecture that links objective, positioning, promise, reasons to believe and call to action.

What this concept covers

• Business, marketing and communications objectives and the logic connecting them.
• Hierarchy-of-effects and behavioural objectives used with caution rather than as automatic funnels.
• Positioning: frame of reference, point of difference, value proposition and reasons to believe.
• Campaign architecture: audience, problem, objective, proposition, support, tone and response.
• SMART measures and the difference between outputs, intermediate effects and commercial outcomes.

Learning outcomes

By the end of this concept, students should be able to:

• Write an assessable communications objective.
• Construct a positioning statement that makes a meaningful trade-off.
• Link objective, proposition and call to action.
• Distinguish awareness, attitude, behaviour and commercial outcomes.

Supports the course learning outcomes on analysis, integration and defensible communications judgement.

How to teach it

• Give students a vague objective such as “increase engagement” and require a measurable rewrite.
• Compare two positioning routes with the same product facts and ask what each gives up.
• Use a one-page creative brief and make every line trace back to audience evidence.

Case-style example

SolarNest, a fictional home-energy service, wants 8,000 trials in six months from 120,000 eligible homeowners. Current unaided awareness is 18%, consideration 9% and trial 2%. One team proposes an awareness objective of 35%; another proposes raising qualified trial intent to 10% by proving installation simplicity and payback. Students specify the communications objective, positioning and primary KPI. Students discover that a measurable objective is only useful when it is close enough to the intended behaviour to guide message and media decisions.

Where students struggle

Students often set objectives that are either too broad (“build the brand”) or too commercial (“increase profit”) for communications alone to own. Require a line of sight from communication task to audience response.

Reading and a quick check

Use Belch and Belch, Chapter 7, alongside Batra and Keller (2016). Quick check: can a reader tell exactly what should change, for whom and by when?

Where a simulation fits

The Go To Market Simulation reinforces this concept because students select a positioning theme, frame of reference, point of difference, value proposition and promotional message after making their target choice.

Where it leads

With objectives and positioning in place, the course can move from strategy into message and creative design.

Central question: How should the brand express one strategic idea in ways that are memorable, credible and adaptable across touchpoints?

Creative work belongs inside IMC strategy, not after it. Lecturers can use this concept to teach how brand identity, message strategy, tone, evidence and creative devices translate positioning into executions. The aim is not to train art directors. It is to train managers to judge whether creative choices make the intended strategy easier or harder for an audience to understand and remember.

What this concept covers

• Brand identity, distinctive assets, tone and category conventions.
• Informational and transformational message strategies.
• Source, message and channel factors.
• Creative briefs, propositions, reasons to believe and calls to action.
• Consistency, wear-out and controlled variation across formats.

Learning outcomes

By the end of this concept, students should be able to:

• Evaluate creative work against a strategy rather than personal taste.
• Identify which brand assets and message elements should remain consistent.
• Adapt a proposition for different touchpoints without changing its strategic meaning.
• Defend a creative route using audience and positioning evidence.

Supports the course learning outcomes on analysis, integration and defensible communications judgement.

How to teach it

• Show three concept boards and ask students to score strategic fit, distinctiveness and evidence.
• Run a “same strategy, three channels” exercise: six-second video, email subject line and PR headline.
• Make students explain every execution with a sentence beginning “This works because the target audience…”

Case-style example

ClaritySkin, a fictional skincare brand, can lead with one of two claims: “20% brighter-looking skin in four weeks” supported by a 120-person product test, or “dermatologist-inspired care for sensitive routines” supported by expert formulation credentials. A £250,000 campaign must work in short-form video, search and pharmacy displays. Students choose the lead proposition and create a message hierarchy for all three touchpoints. Both routes are defensible. Students discover that integration depends on a stable strategic promise with format-specific proof.

Where students struggle

Students frequently judge creative ideas by novelty alone. Mark the fit between insight, objective, positioning, evidence and execution before rewarding originality.

Reading and a quick check

Use Belch and Belch, Chapters 5-6 and 8-9. Quick check: ask students to state the single idea that must survive if every execution is redesigned tomorrow.

Where a simulation fits

The Go To Market Simulation can follow this concept because the positioning stage requires a promotional message aligned with customer pain points, value proposition, price and pack format.

Where it leads

The message now needs a channel system that can deliver the right role at the right point in the journey.

Central question: Which channels should create reach, credibility, response and reinforcement, and how should they work together?

Paid, owned and earned media are useful only when students treat them as different mechanisms rather than a checklist. This concept focuses on channel roles, control, credibility, cost, speed, targeting, feedback and dependency. It gives students a vocabulary for designing an integrated channel system before they start allocating money.

What this concept covers

• Paid media: purchased access, targeting, scale and controllability.
• Owned media: websites, apps, email, CRM, stores, packaging and brand communities.
• Earned media: press coverage, reviews, shares, word of mouth and creator amplification not fully controlled by the brand.
• Shared and partner channels where classifications overlap.
• Channel roles by journey stage and the difference between a channel and a creative format.

Learning outcomes

By the end of this concept, students should be able to:

• Classify channel activity by control and access rather than by platform name.
• Assign a specific role to each channel in a campaign.
• Identify dependencies between paid, owned and earned activity.
• Build a channel architecture that reduces duplication and contradiction.

Supports the course learning outcomes on analysis, integration and defensible communications judgement.

How to teach it

• Give students 12 tactics and make them sort by channel role, then challenge ambiguous cases.
• Require every channel to have one primary job and one hand-off to another touchpoint.
• Use a “remove one channel” stress test to reveal which parts of the system are doing redundant work.

Case-style example

LoopBottle, a fictional reusable-drinkware brand, has £120,000 for launch. It can buy paid social at a £7 CPM, creator partnerships averaging £4,000 each, search at £1.20 per click, or invest in its own email and referral programme at a fixed £28,000 build cost. A trade journalist may cover the sustainability story if independent evidence is strong. Students design a paid-owned-earned architecture and allocate the budget. Students discover that earned reach cannot simply be purchased, while owned assets can change the economics of later paid activity.

Where students struggle

Students often call every social-media post “owned” or assume influencer activity is always earned. Ask who pays, who controls placement, who controls the message and who owns the audience relationship.

Reading and a quick check

Assign Liadeli, Sotgiu and Verlegh (2023), then ask students which owned activity should change if the campaign objective shifts from engagement to sales.

Where a simulation fits

The Go To Market Simulation establishes a target, launch regions, an access channel and promotional message. Extend the debrief with a lecturer-created paid-owned-earned allocation exercise rather than implying the simulation itself contains a full media-mix planner.

Where it leads

Once channel roles are clear, students can make the harder quantitative decision: how much reach, frequency and budget each part of the system deserves.

Central question: How should limited communications resources be allocated across audiences, channels and time?

Media planning brings quantitative discipline to IMC. Students do not need to become specialist media buyers, but they should be able to read CPM, CPC, reach, frequency, conversion and cost data, recognise duplication across channels, and defend a budget against an objective rather than against habit.

What this concept covers

• Reach, frequency, impressions, GRPs, CPM, CPC, CPA and basic efficiency measures.
• Audience duplication and incremental reach.
• Scheduling: continuity, flighting, pulsing and launch bursts.
• Budget methods and marginal allocation logic.
• Media mix, channel complementarity and the limits of platform-reported return metrics.

Learning outcomes

By the end of this concept, students should be able to:

• Calculate basic media metrics and explain what they do not measure.
• Compare channels using both efficiency and strategic fit.
• Allocate a constrained budget to meet a communications objective.
• Explain why the lowest CPA channel may not deserve the entire budget.

Supports the course learning outcomes on analysis, integration and defensible communications judgement.

How to teach it

• Give students a media worksheet with costs, reach and overlap rather than a blank budget.
• Ask one team to optimise short-term response and another to optimise category reach.
• Use sensitivity analysis on CPM, conversion and duplication assumptions.

Case-style example

UrbanCycle has £500,000 for a city launch. Connected TV reaches 420,000 target consumers at £18 CPM, online video 310,000 at £11 CPM, paid social 260,000 at £7 CPM and search converts at 6% from a £1.40 CPC. Audience duplication between online video and paid social is estimated at 45%. Students calculate indicative cost and incremental-reach trade-offs, then recommend a mix. Performance-first and reach-first allocations can both be defended. Students discover why channel synergy and duplication make simple ranking by CPM misleading.

Where students struggle

Students often compare channels on one metric. Force them to state whether each metric is an exposure measure, an intermediate response or a commercial outcome, and where attribution uncertainty remains.

Reading and a quick check

Assign Bell, Thomaz and Stephen (2025) on complex channel synergies. Quick check: ask why a channel with a higher CPM could still improve the whole plan.

Where it leads

The course can now examine how digital, social and creator channels change message distribution and audience participation.

Central question: How should brands design communications when audiences can respond, remix, recommend and publicly challenge the message?

Digital and social communications are not a separate universe from IMC. They introduce faster feedback, platform-specific formats, creator intermediaries, community dynamics and more granular data. The teaching goal is to connect these features back to the same questions of audience, objective, message, channel role and evidence.

What this concept covers

• Social-media strategy and platform role by objective.
• Content systems: themes, formats, cadence and editorial governance.
• Influencer selection, fit, sponsor salience, disclosure and measurement.
• User-generated content, community management and social listening.
• Paid social, organic social and creator work as distinct but interacting activities.

Learning outcomes

By the end of this concept, students should be able to:

• Design a digital content system around a communication objective.
• Evaluate influencer fit beyond follower count.
• Separate organic engagement metrics from commercial evidence.
• Identify when disclosure, authenticity and brand control create trade-offs.

Supports the course learning outcomes on analysis, integration and defensible communications judgement.

How to teach it

• Compare one creator brief with one brand-owned content brief for the same objective.
• Ask students to select influencers from a data table containing reach, engagement, audience fit, fees and brand-fit evidence.
• Debate whether the brand should respond to a critical viral post and under what tone.

Case-style example

EmberTech has £90,000 for a creator-led launch. Creator A has 1.8m followers, 1.2% engagement and charges £24,000; Creator B has 320,000 followers, 5.8% engagement and charges £11,000; Creator C has 95,000 followers, 9.1% engagement and charges £4,500. Audience-fit scores are 54%, 83% and 91%. Students build a creator portfolio and disclosure approach, then defend whether scale or fit matters more. Students discover that effectiveness is shaped by sender, audience and message together, not by follower count alone.

Where students struggle

Students can become platform-led and tactical. Keep bringing them back to the communication objective, the audience evidence and the role this activity plays beside paid, owned and earned touchpoints.

Reading and a quick check

Assign Leung et al. (2022) and Waltenrath (2024). Quick check: what would make a high-engagement creator a poor IMC choice?

Where it leads

Students next broaden from digital channels to the full promotional mix and learn when CRM, promotion and publicity are more appropriate than another ad.

Central question: How should short-term response tools and longer-term brand communications reinforce rather than undermine one another?

IMC is especially useful when students confront tools with different time horizons. Advertising can build mental availability and meaning; promotion can accelerate response; direct and CRM communications can personalise timing and offers. The manager must decide when those mechanisms complement one another and when they train customers to wait for a deal.

What this concept covers

• Advertising roles across brand building and activation.
• Consumer and trade sales promotion.
• Direct response, email, CRM, lifecycle messaging and personalisation.
• Offer design, promotional depth and reference-price effects.
• Retention, reactivation and the hand-off from acquisition to customer communications.

Learning outcomes

By the end of this concept, students should be able to:

• Choose promotional tools based on audience behaviour and objective.
• Evaluate the long-term risk of repeated price promotion.
• Design acquisition-to-retention message continuity.
• Use basic response data without confusing correlation with incrementality.

Supports the course learning outcomes on analysis, integration and defensible communications judgement.

How to teach it

• Give students the same campaign objective and force one group to solve it without discounts.
• Map the message a customer receives before, during and after purchase.
• Compare a high-conversion promotion with a lower-conversion brand-led route and ask what each teaches the customer.

Case-style example

MeadowBite, a fictional meal-kit company, has 60,000 inactive customers. A 25% voucher historically reactivates 14% but cuts first-month contribution by £18 per customer. A personalised email series costs £0.12 per contact and reactivates 5%; paid retargeting costs £9 per reactivated customer and reaches only 40% of the file. Students design a £45,000 reactivation plan and estimate contribution. One route maximises immediate volume; another protects margin and brand habit. Students discover why response rate alone can reward expensive behaviour.

Where students struggle

Students frequently treat promotions as “extra communications” rather than pricing and behavioural interventions. Make them calculate what the customer learns from the incentive and what happens when it disappears.

Reading and a quick check

Use Belch and Belch, Chapters 14 and 16, or Clow and Baack, Chapters 11-12. Quick check: what outcome would reveal that a promotion stole future demand rather than created it?

Where it leads

The remaining promotional tools add third-party credibility, stakeholder influence and event-based attention to the integrated plan.

Central question: How can communications create credibility and stakeholder support when the organisation does not fully control the message?

PR and sponsorship help students see why integration cannot be reduced to media buying. These tools involve newsworthiness, stakeholder relationships, reputation, partnerships and public interpretation. The teaching emphasis should be on objectives and evidence, not on writing a press release for its own sake.

What this concept covers

• Public relations, publicity and corporate communications.
• Media relations, thought leadership and issues management.
• Events, experiences and sponsorship as communication platforms.
• Earned credibility, third-party validation and the limits of message control.
• Integration of PR with paid amplification, owned content and executive channels.

Learning outcomes

By the end of this concept, students should be able to:

• Evaluate whether an activity has genuine news or stakeholder value.
• Design a PR role inside a broader campaign architecture.
• Assess sponsorship fit and activation rather than logo exposure.
• Plan for message variation when third parties interpret the story.

Supports the course learning outcomes on analysis, integration and defensible communications judgement.

How to teach it

• Give students a weak “news” announcement and ask them to make the stakeholder value explicit.
• Compare sponsorship opportunities on audience fit, property meaning, activation rights and cost.
• Run a short issues-response exercise in which facts emerge in stages.

Case-style example

Northbridge Museum is launching a £12m climate-design exhibition. It can spend £160,000 sponsoring a city ideas festival with 75,000 attendees, £110,000 on paid media, or £70,000 on a research-led PR programme with academic partners and no guaranteed coverage. The board wants 45,000 exhibition visits and stronger reputation for public education. Students allocate the budget and define evidence of success. Event-led and PR-led routes can both be defended. Students discover that earned credibility has strategic value but cannot be booked like impressions.

Where students struggle

Students often measure PR only by volume of mentions or estimated reach. Require them to connect stakeholder, message, quality of coverage and downstream action.

Reading and a quick check

Use Belch and Belch, Chapter 17, then ask students to distinguish paid amplification from earned validation in one real campaign.

Where it leads

After students know the tools, the course can focus on the managerial task of orchestrating them into one executable campaign.

Central question: How do managers turn an IMC strategy into a coordinated operating plan with clear roles, timing and hand-offs?

This is the point where the course stops being a set of channel chapters. Students bring audience, objective, positioning, creative idea, channel roles, budget and timing into one plan. Operational integration matters: ownership, agency briefs, content dependencies, launch sequence, decision rights and escalation paths can strengthen or destroy strategic coherence.

What this concept covers

• Campaign phasing, sequencing and channel hand-offs.
• Integrated calendars, dependency maps and content reuse.
• Agency and internal-team roles, briefing and approval.
• Decision rights, brand governance and version control.
• Contingency planning when performance or external conditions change.

Learning outcomes

By the end of this concept, students should be able to:

• Build an integrated campaign calendar with explicit dependencies.
• Translate strategy into accountable workstreams.
• Identify operational points where message coherence may fail.
• Adapt a campaign without losing the central positioning.

Supports the course learning outcomes on analysis, integration and defensible communications judgement.

How to teach it

• Give students a launch date and force them to work backward from dependencies.
• Assign functional roles and introduce a last-minute change in stock, regulation or competitor behaviour.
• Assess the hand-offs between paid acquisition, owned landing pages, PR, CRM and sales teams.

Case-style example

Coastline Bank launches a student account on 1 September. Paid social starts 20 August, campus partnerships 25 August, PR 28 August and CRM 1 September. The app onboarding message still promises a £50 incentive that legal has reduced to £30, while campus posters were printed with the old offer. Students build a critical-path recovery plan within a £35,000 contingency budget and decide what to pause, replace or explain. Students discover that operational governance is part of IMC strategy because inconsistent execution changes the customer promise.

Where students struggle

Students often produce beautiful campaign calendars with no dependency logic. Ask what must happen first, who owns the decision, what can be changed quickly and where inconsistency would create consumer harm.

Reading and a quick check

Assign Kliatchko and Uttamchandani (2024) on IMC planning. Quick check: identify the one cross-functional dependency most likely to break the campaign.

Where a simulation fits

The Startup Creation Simulation can extend this concept in a longer course. Startup teams connect customer segments, value proposition, channels and business model, then turn the venture into a pitch. For IMC teaching, require a separate branding and communications appendix around the simulation outputs.

Where it leads

Execution creates data. The next concept asks how to interpret that data without rewarding vanity metrics or false attribution.

Central question: What evidence is strong enough to say communications worked, and what should change next?

Measurement should be taught as an inference problem. Students need a hierarchy from exposure and attention to attitude, behaviour and commercial outcome, plus an appreciation of incrementality, attribution and noise. This prevents a common mistake: reporting every available dashboard metric while avoiding the question of causality.

What this concept covers

• KPI trees linking communications objectives to evidence.
• Brand measures, reach and attention, engagement, leads, sales, retention and contribution.
• Attribution models and their assumptions.
• Experiments, holdouts, matched markets and incrementality.
• Optimisation cycles, learning agendas and decision thresholds.

Learning outcomes

By the end of this concept, students should be able to:

• Build a KPI hierarchy around a communications objective.
• Distinguish attribution from causal evidence.
• Interpret platform metrics with appropriate caveats.
• Recommend an experiment or holdout that would reduce decision uncertainty.

Supports the course learning outcomes on analysis, integration and defensible communications judgement.

How to teach it

• Give students an overfilled dashboard and ask them to delete half the metrics.
• Compare last-click attribution with an experimental lift result.
• Require a “decision rule” stating what result would trigger more spend, less spend or a change in creative.

Case-style example

BrightBox runs a £240,000 campaign across search, paid social, online video and email. Last-click data assigns 62% of conversions to search, but a two-city holdout shows search generates only 18% incremental lift when brand demand is controlled. Online video appears in just 6% of last clicks but raises branded-search volume by 22%. Students recommend the next £100,000 allocation and specify one follow-up experiment. Students discover that attribution describes a path under a model, while incrementality asks what would have happened without the communication.

Where students struggle

Students often treat dashboards as objective truth. Make them identify who produced the metric, what comparison it uses, what it excludes and whether it answers the decision question.

Reading and a quick check

Assign Tao et al. (2024, published online; 2025 issue) on multi-touch attribution, then ask students to explain why no attribution model removes the need for causal testing.

Where a simulation fits

Use the Go To Market Simulation debrief as supporting evidence practice: students interpret score, rank, final strategy and cohort patterns, but should defend the reasoning rather than treat the platform outcome as an automatic grade.

Where it leads

The final concept asks how AI, privacy, regulation and global context change what responsible integrated communications look like.

Central question: How should an organisation preserve trust and strategic coherence when communications are automated, personalised and adapted across markets?

A contemporary IMC course should close with governance because communications decisions now combine creative judgement, data use, automation, generative AI, disclosure obligations and global variation. The lecturer does not need to teach every jurisdiction. Students should learn to identify the relevant rule, disclose uncertainty, protect consumer trust and establish approval controls.

What this concept covers

• Generative AI for research synthesis, ideation, copy variation and media operations.
• Human accountability for claims, evidence, bias and brand voice.
• Privacy, consent, targeting and first-party data governance.
• Disclosure and transparency in sponsored or synthetic content.
• Global adaptation: language, culture, media systems, regulation and local stakeholder expectations.

Learning outcomes

By the end of this concept, students should be able to:

• Evaluate an AI-assisted communication for evidence, bias and brand risk.
• Design a permitted-use and approval process for generative tools.
• Identify privacy and disclosure questions that need specialist verification.
• Adapt a global campaign while preserving the core strategic idea.

Supports the course learning outcomes on analysis, integration and defensible communications judgement.

How to teach it

• Give students an AI-generated campaign containing invented consumer statistics and ask them to audit every claim.
• Compare two market adaptations and ask which elements should remain globally consistent.
• Run a governance workshop: who approves claims, targeting, creator disclosure and crisis responses?

Case-style example

CareCloud plans a multilingual wellness campaign in the UK, Germany and Singapore. An AI tool generates 60 ad variants using customer CRM fields and claims “clinically proven to reduce stress by 35%,” although the source study only measured self-reported relaxation in 80 volunteers. The team can launch in 48 hours. Students identify which claims, data uses and adaptations must be paused, verified or rewritten, then design an approval workflow. Students discover that speed and personalisation increase the value of governance rather than reduce it.

Where students struggle

Students can treat ethics as a final discussion detached from campaign design. Make them show where evidence, consent, disclosure and approval change the actual message, targeting, channel choice or measurement plan.

Reading and a quick check

Use Waltenrath (2024) for disclosure and the ethics/regulation chapters of the core textbook. Quick check: what is the highest-risk unverified claim in the campaign and who should own the decision?

Where a simulation fits

The Startup Creation Simulation can support a final reflection on how branding and marketing strategy should remain credible when founders are pitching under pressure. Add an individual governance memo outside the platform.

Where it leads

Students are now ready to defend an integrated campaign as a coherent managerial decision, not just present a set of creative assets.

10-week course structure

A 10-session version should compress tools without losing the planning lifecycle. Combine foundations with audience insight, combine PR with promotional tools, and integrate AI governance into the final measurement and defence session.

14-week course structure

A 14-session version creates space for deeper creative work, a full media workshop, more simulation reflection and a separate campaign-presentation session. Use the extra time to increase judgement and feedback, not merely add channels.

The Go To Market Simulation is a 1.5-2 hour individual and competitive simulation in which each student acts as the founder of a protein-bar company entering the US market. Students work through segmentation, targeting and positioning, choosing a primary segment, two launch regions, an access channel and a market-entry posture before aligning the positioning theme, frame of reference, point of difference, value proposition, price, pack format and promotional message.

Why it fits here

By Session 5, students already know how audience evidence, objectives, positioning and message strategy fit together. The simulation makes those choices concrete and comparable. It is especially useful for showing that a strong individual choice can weaken the overall route if it conflicts with the rest of the strategy.

What students do

• Review the company mission, defined product, launch constraints and US market context.
• Analyse customer motivations, buying behaviour, benefits sought and evidence quality to segment the market.
• Compare segment economics, region fit, accessibility and competition.
• Select one primary target segment, two launch regions, a targeting approach, an access channel and market-entry posture.
• Choose a positioning theme, frame of reference, point of difference, value proposition, price, pack format and promotional message.
• Submit written reasons for strategic choices, then review score, rank, final strategy and cohort patterns in Reflection.

Recommended course placement

• At the end of Session 5 after STP, positioning and message teaching.
• Inside one two-hour class, or divided across shorter windows using the pause/resume delivery options.
• Before a media-planning session so the debrief can ask how the chosen target and access route translate into paid, owned and earned communications.
• Before the group campaign plan so individual simulation evidence can be converted into a wider communications rationale.

Knowledge students should have before the simulation

• No formal prerequisite is required by the product page.
• Basic familiarity with segmentation, targeting and positioning is advantageous.
• For this course placement, students should also know the difference between positioning, promotional message and channel role.

Delivery format

Suggested debrief questions

• Which target choice created the most important downstream constraint?
• Where did a good individual decision conflict with the full STP route?
• What evidence would make you switch segment or launch region?
• How should the selected access channel change the communications mix?
• Which parts of the promotional message should remain stable across paid, owned and earned touchpoints?
• Why should score and rank be read alongside the submitted rationale?

The Startup Creation Simulation is a 6-10 hour team-based experience with a live two-sided funding market. Around 70% of teams operate as startups and 30% as venture capital teams. Startup teams identify an opportunity, define the customer problem, solution and value proposition, size TAM/SAM/SOM and complete a Business Model Canvas covering customer segments and channels before turning the venture into a live investor pitch. VC teams define an investment thesis and criteria, review competing ventures and negotiate investment amount and ownership.

Why it fits here

The simulation is broader than IMC, which is why it belongs late or in a longer version of the course. By this point students can take the verified customer-segment, value-proposition and channel outputs and add a professor-defined communications appendix: brand promise, message architecture, launch touchpoints, evidence and measurement. The live product materials also explicitly include developing branding and marketing strategies to attract the target audience.

What students do

• Receive role-specific objectives as Startup or Venture Capital teams.
• Startup teams define opportunity, customer problem, solution, value proposition, market size, Business Model Canvas, unit economics and use of funds.
• VC teams write an investment thesis, set screening criteria and build an Investment Process Document.
• Startup teams build and submit a pitch covering problem, solution, market size, business model, use of funds and raise.
• VC teams review competing pitches, prepare questions and decide which ventures fit their criteria.
• Teams pitch live and negotiate investment amount and equity ownership, producing implied post-money valuations.
• In Reflection, the class compares funding, ownership and valuation outcomes across the market.

Recommended course placement

• As an optional multi-session strand after students have learned channel planning and campaign execution.
• Across Sessions 10-12 in a blended course, or Sessions 12-13 in a 14-session version.
• With an IMC appendix outside the platform so the broad startup outputs are converted into a focused communications recommendation.
• Before a final group presentation, with an individual reflection or defence to create attributable evidence.

Knowledge students should have before the simulation

• The simulation itself is beginner accessible and requires no prior startup or venture-capital experience.
• For IMC use, students should already know audience insight, value proposition, positioning, channel roles and campaign planning.

Delivery format

Suggested debrief questions

• Did the venture's customer segment and value proposition survive investor questioning?
• What would the startup need to communicate differently to customers and investors?
• Which channel choices in the Business Model Canvas imply the largest communications dependency?
• Does the brand promise match the economics and capabilities of the venture?
• What would you add to the simulation outputs before approving a market launch?
• How did team dynamics affect the quality of the final recommendation?

Grading with the Go To Market Simulation

The verified simulation is individual and records the student's sequence of STP and launch decisions, written reasons, score, rank and final strategy summary. Lecturers may assess the quality of the reasoning around the outcome rather than the rank itself.

• Coherence between segmentation basis, target segment, launch regions and access channel.
• Fit between customer evidence, positioning, value proposition, price, pack format and promotional message.
• Quality of the written rationale and recognition of trade-offs.
• Ability to translate the simulation route into a broader paid-owned-earned communications plan.
• Reflection on what evidence would justify a different choice.

The platform score and ranking should support academic judgement rather than automatically replace it.

Grading with the Startup Creation Simulation

Startup Creation is team-based. The platform provides team submissions, negotiated terms and comparative funding, ownership and valuation outcomes. For an IMC course, grade the communications extension that the lecturer defines around the verified startup outputs rather than pretending the core simulation is an advertising campaign simulator.

• Quality of customer-segment and value-proposition analysis.
• Coherence between value proposition, channels and the wider business model.
• Brand and marketing strategy developed to attract the target audience.
• Pitch clarity and consistency between customer promise and investor story.
• Professor-defined IMC appendix covering message architecture, launch touchpoints and evidence.
• Individual reflection or oral defence to address team free-riding.

The platform records team submissions, negotiated terms and comparative outcomes across groups. That evidence supports academic judgement; it does not replace it, and it does not establish which individual student made which argument.