Blog

MKTG3112 2021 S2 Marketing Communication Task 3 Rubric
Assessment criteria: Important – the following criteria are NOT simply averaged to arrive at a final mark, they simply provide students information on which areas were
stronger or weaker to help you improve your work. Some sections are more important than others, but the cohesiveness of the document relies on the quality of each
section. The criteria should be read in conjunction with the assignment brief. The overall assignment score is based on the tutor’s assessment. Students’ queries/ appeals
based on questioning the ratings vs the overall mark is unlikely to be upheld.
IMPORTANT: the following criteria are NOT simply averaged to arrive at a final mark. The criteria should be read in conjunction with the assignment brief.
Task 2b: Group Written Report
Assessment Criteria
Fail
(< 50) Pass (50 – 64) Credit (65 – 74) Distinction (75 – 84) High Distinction (85 – 100) Competently critiques Teams Creative Little to no evaluation of creative (strategy &/or draft static ad) or evaluation is inadequate. No use of secondary materials. Demonstrated adequate but basic ability to evaluate aspects of the teams creative (strategy & draft static ad). Primarily descriptive. Demonstrated a sound ability to evaluate multiple aspects of the creative (strategy & draft static ad). Relevant, scholarly secondary materials used to support the communication strategy (such as text book). Elements of description with deeper (critical) analysis in places. Demonstrates good competence in evaluating the creative (strategy & draft static ad including appeals and execution and copy). Multiple, relevant, scholarly secondary materials used to support the communication strategy (text book and academic journals). Deep analysis in most places. Demonstrates excellence in evaluating the creative (Strategy & draft static ad including appeals and execution, copy and art). Discussion linked to advertising theory. Multiple, relevant, scholarly secondary materials used to support the communication strategy (primarily academic journals). Deep analysis provided in all instances. Quality of alternate Creative Strategy Develop and justify an alternate creative strategy for the campaign. Outline and discuss the selection of creative execution(s) and creative appeal(s). No creative strategy developed or creative Strategy is inadequate. Little to no connection with critique of teams creative. Demonstrated an adequate ability to identify and accurately summarise the creative appeal(s) and/or execution approach(es) proposed for the campaign. Limited use of relevant secondary materials to support decisions. Discussion is primarily descriptive. Elements of disconnect between the critique and the new creative strategy. Demonstrated a sound ability to identify and accurately summarise the creative appeal(s) and execution approach(es) proposed for the campaign. Relevant, scholarly secondary materials used (such as text book) to justify decisions. Elements of description with (supported) justification in places. Creative Strategy is logically derived and aligns with critique of teams creative. Demonstrates good competence in identifying and accurately summarising the creative appeal(s) and execution approach(es) proposed for the campaign. Multiple, relevant, scholarly secondary materials used to support the selection of appeal(s) and execution approach(es) (text book and academic journals). Most creative strategy decisions are justified utilising supporting evidence (e.g., academic journals). Creative Strategy is logically derived and aligns with critique of teams creative. Demonstrates excellence in identifying and accurately summarising the creative appeal(s) and execution approach(es) proposed for the campaign. Multiple, relevant, scholarly secondary materials used to support the selection of appeal(s) and execution approach(es) (text book and academic journals). All creative strategy decisions are justified utilising supporting evidence (e.g., academic journals). Creative Strategy is logically derived and aligns with critique of teams creative. Quality of alternate Draft Communication Materials (one static media) Develop alternate draft communication material which exemplify your communication and creative strategy decisions. Clearly linked to and delivers the Value Proposition (VP) No draft communication materials provided, or of such as basic nature to be of very limited merit. Material is unlikely to appeal to target audience Little to no connection to VP. Little to no link to campaign critique and alternate creative strategy Adequate draft communication materials provided. Material may have limited appeal to target segment Limited or basic link to VP. Target audience is unlikely to understand what was trying to be achieved. Limited link between materials and campaign's critique and alternative creative Strategy. Demonstrates competence in draft communication materials provided. Materials are likely appeal to the target segment. Solid linkage to VP. Target audience response to & understanding of the ad will possibly reflect VP In most instances there is a link between materials and campaign's critique and alternative creative Strategy. Demonstrates good competence in developing draft communication materials. Materials are clearly targeted towards the chosen audience. Good linkage and execution of the VP. Target audience response to & understanding of the ad is likely to reflect VP Materials relate to (exemplify) the stated alternate creative Strategy. Demonstrates excellence in developing draft communication materials. Excellent link and execution of the VP. Target audience response to & understanding of the ad is highly likely to reflect VP Materials are clearly targeted towards the chosen audience. Materials relate to (exemplify) the stated communication and creative Strategy. Presents an approach to evaluating campaign Whether the campaign met the communication objectives. Consider the role of both pre- and post-testing. No or very basic approach to campaign evaluation provided. Demonstrated an adequate ability to identify and accurately summarise a campaign evaluation approach. Approach to evaluation is generic and will not allow communication objectives to be measured. Demonstrated a sound ability to identify and accurately summarise a campaign evaluation approach. In most instances, approach will allow the measurement of communication objectives. Demonstrates good competence in identifying and accurately summarising a campaign evaluation approach. Approach to evaluation enables communication objectives to be measured. Consideration is also given to pre-testing. Relevant, scholarly secondary materials (such as text book) used to support the evaluation approach. Demonstrates excellence in identifying and accurately summarising a clearly feasible campaign evaluation approach. Approach to evaluation allows for communication objectives to be measured. Consideration is also given to pre-testing. Multiple, relevant, scholarly secondary materials used to support evaluation approach (text book and academic journals). Quality of personal reflection Includes; Depth of thought What do I think Systematically explains how your Demonstrates basic or no understanding of reflective writing technique. Content is primarily descriptive or superficial. Demonstrates a basic understanding of reflective writing technique. Content has many elements of description and limited analysis. Tends to be somewhat superficial. Demonstrates a solid understanding of reflective writing practice. Content has both description but also elements of analysis. Uses examples from the course to support discussion with some Demonstrates a thoughtful understanding of reflective writing practice. Content is analysed in systemic manner. Use relevant examples from the course and personal experience Demonstrates a conscious and very thorough understanding of reflective writing practice. Content is analysed in an systemic and insightful manner Use specific and convincing examples from the course and personal experience understanding has developed Links to IMC theory and uses literature to analyse and explain Discusses how this will informs future practice. What lessons have I learned What action will I take No examples from the course are used and claims made in your own writing are unsupported and largely irrelevant to the issues discussed No indication there has been a difference to own practice as a marketer Uses incomplete or vaguely developed examples from the course to only partially support discussion with no connections made between the issues. Unable to say if there is a difference to own practice as a marketer. connections made between the issues. Understands there has been a difference to own practice as a marketer to support claims in your own writing, making applicable connections between the issues. Understands what has made a difference to own practice as a marketer. to support claims in your own writing, making insightful and applicable connections between issues. Fully comprehends and has insight into what has made a difference to own practice and makes effective links to changes that have positively influenced own practice as a marketer. The vividness of personal reflections Includes; Goes beyond description to explore How do I feel Appropriate & convincing Creative & original Use language that is unsuitable for the audience and purpose, with little or no awareness of sentence structure. Language is impersonal, bland and fails to engage the reader Use language that is vague or imprecise for the audience or purpose, with little sense of voice, and a limited awareness of how to vary sentence structure. Language is functional. Uses basic but appropriate language, with a basic sense of voice, some awareness of audience and purpose and some attempt to vary sentence structure. Language is competent and interesting Use language that is fluent and original, with evident a sense of voice, awareness of audience and purpose, and the ability to vary sentence structure. Language is vivid and emotive Use sophisticated language that is precise and engaging, with notable sense of voice, awareness of audience and purpose, and varied sentence structure. Language is vivid, emotive and arresting. Format and Referencing Provide a clear report structure. Organise information so it is easily accessible to the reader. Demonstrate an appropriate (e.g., APA) and consistent approach to referencing both in-text and as part of the final reference list. No consistent style or structure. Limited or evidence of appropriate referencing in-text and/or no reference list. Report reflects minimal structural flaws. Information has been organised to convey meaning to the reader. Some in- text referencing errors evident (no page number/s for direct quotes or similar). A reference list provided; some references omitted. APA referencing style followed. The report reflects consistent structure. Information is organised and sequenced to convey the intended meaning to the reader. Appropriate and consistent referencing provided with minimal errors. Both in-text referencing and reference list follow APA style. The report is well structured. Information is logically organised and sequenced to convey the intended meaning to the reader allowing ease of reading. Appropriate and consistent referencing provided with no errors (APA style). The report is very well structured. Information is very well organised and easily accessible to the reader. Appropriate and consistent referencing provided with no errors (APA style). Logic, Argument & Clarity of thought Provide a logical discussion that utilises discipline terminology. Synthesise and integrate a range of appropriate secondary sources into discussion to form a strong argument. Discussion is not logical. Inappropriate use of discipline terminology. Discussion is mostly logical, but is primarily descriptive. Limited use of discipline terminology and/or minor inaccuracies. Discussion is logical with some evidence of critical evaluation. The extent and use of discipline terminology is adequate. Discussion is logical. Secondary sources critically integrated to form a critical evaluation. Use of discipline terminology is extensive and largely correct Discussion is logical. A range of secondary sources are synthesised and critically integrated to form a coherent (supported) evaluation. Use of discipline terminology is correct in all instances.