MKTG7501 Semester 1, 2022 Assessment 3 Guidelines – Case evaluation report Page 1 of 5 Weight: 45% Submission: Word document (.docx is preferable) Word limit: 2,000 words maximum. Any content submitted beyond the limit is ineligible for marking. Referencing: APA (6th or 7th) Scenario: Your team conducted an analysis of a brand in Assessment 2, and your new task is to continue with this brand and now individually examine the marketing mix for the specific product. The information garnered from the STP task provides the background for this task. Approach this stage as you have been hired as a Marketing consultant for an external company and your job is to assess current marketing performance by conducting an audit and analysis of current marketing efforts, in relation to the marketing mix. This involves finding evidence of marketing, analysing that evidence using theoretical frameworks and evaluating the effectiveness of the marketing. Additionally, you then need to evaluate the marketing mix performance as a whole. The aim of this assessment is to increase learner knowledge of the marketing mix and it’s connection to the target/position, by applying knowledge of the marketing mix to critically evaluate a real-life business. To perform well, learners will need to actively participate in all class activities, as well as complete the assigned readings each week. Learners will also need to conduct research into relevant theory, as well as researching the marketing and industry evidence. Evaluation is a crucial component of this task, using theory to support conclusions. Please ensure you consult the full marking criteria. The case for this semester is Bose SoundLink Micro Bluetooth speaker You are expected to conduct research to find evidence to identify, analyse and the company’s marketing effort. Further, the application of evidence against theoretical foundations and frameworks are imperative for completing this assessment. You have been provided a template to follow, it includes the headings, you need to address all of the detail but can add in further subheadings. You do not need to add a cover sheet. You are to work through the identified topics, addressing all areas in the written report. You should provide relevant evidence and theory, evaluating company’s current marketing strategies. The basic structure of the task includes an introduction, which includes the positioning statement to reflect the firms current strategy. The 4Ps will then be examined and each is to be evaluated with a score out of 5, providing justification for this score. Following this, the overall marketing mix will be evaluated with a score out of 5, with justification. A brief conclusion wraps up the assessment. Report requirements The report should include a full marketing mix evaluation, working through the content from each topic, evaluating the current evidence to determine the effectiveness of the strategy, with support from marketing theory. Please note this is an individual assessment, so this report will be your own work and backed by your own evidence and evaluation. Please ensure you consult the marking criteria for full details of expectations. Notably, students will not just list evidence but will consider and evaluate the marketing. The report should follow the template provided and be a maximum of 2,000 words, excluding reference list (everything else including tables, figures, heading, captions, etc are included in the word count). There are no appendices for this task, so all content must fit into the word limit. MKTG7501 Semester 1, 2022 Assessment 3 Guidelines – Case evaluation report Page 2 of 5 APA 6th or 7th Referencing is required (use the Library style guide). The report should include a mix of quality peer reviewed scholarly sources to discuss theory, industry reports to establish the context, and websites which host firm details and competitor insights. There is no specific number of sources required. Reports which do not include evidence and theory will lack rigour and will not perform well. Where should I start This report requires in-depth analysis and evaluation which takes time. Please start this early so you have time to thoroughly work through all areas. There are many places to start but some ideas for you include… Ensure you’ve watched the approach to assessment video in the Assessment folder Watch the A3 overview video – in A3 folder Refer to the final outcomes of A2 to note the positioning statement Review BRAND overview details and evidence provided in Assessment 3 folder and start to conduct some of your own research Watch the library video on how to conduct research – accessed via Library Guide Look at industry reports and some possible statistics, accessed via Library (the Library Guide details how to locate these) Look up scholarly articles about the topics. You can start in your textbook and the additional readings provided in the Learning Resources. You can conduct further key word research in the library, and follow leads from the textbook. Start making some notes in your template to see where you have gaps in your knowledge. Activities developed in tutorials give you important information on how to apply theory to practice. Active participation on these activities facilitates the replication of knowledge in your assessment. Other important guidelines This evaluation is in relation to the Australian market only. The full report must be submitted electronically through the Blackboard. All students MUST follow the specific submission instructions and follow the template provided. References should be included for ALL works used – don’t forget information relating to the company, any theory, industry, trade, competitors and news materials. Under no circumstances should students contact the business involved. Penalties will apply. I am not interested in the firm’s perspective, we are looking for your analysis and learning so there are no advantages to contacting the firm, rather it will be detrimental. Format: Line spacing 1.5, font Arial, font size 11pt, standard margins The word count includes ALL content (except reference list). Any tables/figure/captions are all included. Therefore, it is your task to prioritise which information is critical and which is not. Any content over the maximum word limit provided will not be assessed and penalties will apply. Make sure your reference list follows APA 6 (or 7), specifically in alphabetical order. MKTG7501 Semester 1, 2022 Assessment 3 Guidelines – Case evaluation report Page 3 of 5 A template document has been provided for you to complete. Working with the template, the following identifies the specific analysis expected within the template. Where you are asked to ‘identify’ this involves reviewing the evidence from market, then considering and analysing the evidence and theory to determine the most logically aligned conclusions. You need to explain how you come to the conclusion, not just list it. You need to evaluate the effectiveness of the approach, considering (using theory to support you) whether this is a good or bad marketing approach, scoring out of 5. Justification of the score is essential. The following excerpt is for illustrative purposes only and discusses the pricing strategy used by a fictional company. (…) a competition based pricing strategy was identified, more specifically lower-price approach (include reference for pricing theory), as is evident by the proactive note of ‘we beat competitors prices’ found on the company’s website (www.companywebpage.com, 2021). Competition based pricing is based on (discuss theory, include references) and as such has the following advantages for this company… Template Explained Remember, for all elements of this report – this is not a new proposal but your informed view and evaluation of their current approach. Introduction Brief introduction to the report/company Identify a close direct competitor (explaining why they are an important competitor) Include the positioning statement (which identifies target and position) – this can be drawn directly from A2, or can be updated based on feedback and improvement Product Identify and detail the product levels (core, actual and augmented) – a visual figure might be useful in addition to the discussion Identify the type of consumer good (convenience, shopping, specialty or unsought) Evaluate the effectiveness of the product marketing strategy, justifying your score out of 5. Price Identify and evaluate actual price (relative a close competitor) Identify the dominant price approach influence (cost, competitor or customer) Evaluate the effectiveness of the price marketing strategy, justifying your score out of 5. Placement Identify the distribution channels (a visual figure might be useful) o Including direct and Indirect Identify the nature of distribution (intensive, exclusive or selective) Evaluate the effectiveness of the placement marketing strategy, justifying your score out of 5. MKTG7501 Semester 1, 2022 Assessment 3 Guidelines – Case evaluation report Page 4 of 5 Promotion (IMC) Identify the key IMC message strategy Identify which areas of promotion mix are used, detailing their use (advertising, sales promotion, personal selling, public relations, direct/digital marketing) Evaluate the effectiveness of the promotion marketing strategy, justifying your score out of 5. Marketing mix evaluation Evaluate the cohesion of the overall mix – Explain how the Ps interact (or not) in a cohesive manner. Evaluate the alignment of the mix to the positioning statement – Explain how the Ps support (or do not support) brand positioning Evaluate the effectiveness of the overall marketing mix strategy and implementation, justifying your score out of 5 Conclusion Brief final note. Reference list Follow the APA guide from the library (APA 6th or 7th) Page 5 of 5 Criteria Exceptional Advanced Proficient Functional Unsatisfactory Background 5 marks Exceptionally succinct and expert introduction, accurately justifying highly relevant competition and detailing a clear positioning statement. Clear and well considered introduction, with highly relevant competition justified and a clear positioning statement. Accurate detail of competitor and positioning statement, but with limited or less precise justification. Fair positioning statement and competitor noted, but with limited or unconvincing justification. Lacking specific detail and/or justification of competitor and/or positioning statement. Product 15 marks Detailed identification and analysis of product evidence across all required areas, accurately using all specific theoretical frameworks. Fully justified evaluation, supported by systematic application of theorical support. Detailed identification and evaluation of product evidence, across all required areas accurately using all specific theoretical frameworks. Strong justification of evaluation, supported by theory but could be more rigorous at times. Identification of product evidence across all required areas, with some analysis being precise while others being descriptive in parts. Some supporting theoretical basis at times, although scope for more precise theoretical support in justification of evaluation. Mostly accurate description of the main product evidence with some basic analysis but lacking all required specific detail and needing more justification from specific applied theory in evaluation. Lacking or inaccurate identification and analysis of key product evidence in relation to required topic areas and with irrelevant or insufficient evaluation and justification from theory. Price 15 marks Detailed identification and analysis of price evidence across all required areas, accurately using all specific theoretical frameworks. Fully justified evaluation, supported by systematic application of theorical support. Detailed identification and evaluation of price evidence, across all required areas accurately using all specific theoretical frameworks. Strong justification of evaluation, supported by theory but could be more rigorous at times. Identification of price evidence across all required areas, with some analysis being precise while others being descriptive in parts. Some supporting theoretical basis at times, although scope for more precise theoretical support in justification of evaluation. Mostly accurate description of the main price evidence with some basic analysis but lacking all required specific detail and needing more justification from specific applied theory in evaluation. Lacking or inaccurate identification and analysis of key price evidence in relation to required topic areas and with irrelevant or insufficient evaluation and justification from theory. Placement 15 marks Detailed identification and analysis of placement evidence across all required areas, accurately using all specific theoretical frameworks. Fully justified evaluation, supported by systematic application of theorical support. Detailed identification and evaluation of placement evidence, across all required areas accurately using all specific theoretical frameworks. Strong justification of evaluation, supported by theory but could be more rigorous at times. Identification of placement evidence across all required areas, with some analysis being precise while others being descriptive in parts. Some supporting theoretical basis at times, although scope for more precise theoretical support in justification of evaluation. Mostly accurate description of the main placement evidence with some basic analysis but lacking all required specific detail and needing more justification from specific applied theory in evaluation. Lacking or inaccurate identification and analysis of key placement evidence in relation to required topic areas and with irrelevant or insufficient evaluation and justification from theory. Promotion 15 marks Detailed identification and analysis of promotion evidence across all required areas, accurately using all specific theoretical frameworks. Fully justified evaluation, supported by systematic application of theorical support. Detailed identification and evaluation of promotion evidence, across all required areas accurately using all specific theoretical frameworks. Strong justification of evaluation, supported by theory but could be more rigorous at times. Identification of promotion evidence across all required areas, with some analysis being precise while others being descriptive in parts. Some supporting theoretical basis at times, although scope for more precise theoretical support in justification of evaluation. Mostly accurate description of the main promotion evidence with some basic analysis but lacking all required specific detail and needing more justification from specific applied theory in evaluation. Lacking or inaccurate identification and analysis of key promotion evidence in relation to required topic areas and with irrelevant or insufficient evaluation and justification from theory. Marketing mix 15 marks Rigorous and fully justified evaluation of the overall marketing mix in relation to the cohesive connection to target and position, supported by systematic application of theory. Thorough and justified evaluation of the overall marketing mix in relation to the cohesive connection to target and position, supported by theory but could be more rigorous in justification at times. Sound analysis of the overall marketing mix in relation to the cohesive connection to target and position, with some supporting theoretical basis at times, although less convincing evaluation at times. Some analysis of the overall marketing mix in relation to the cohesive connection to target and position but lacking specific detail and needing more justification from specific applied theory, with some minor inaccuracies at times. Inaccurate and/or irrelevant analysis of the overall marketing mix, repeating the previous discussion rather than considering the cohesive connection to target and position, with irrelevant or insufficient evaluation and justification from theory. Informed evaluation 10 marks Use of high-quality literature and evidence throughout the entire report to support evaluations and strengthen justification. Use of quality literature and evidence at times in the report to support evaluations and add to justification. Broad use of literature and evidence throughout the report, with some instances of support of justification and/or with some less valuable sources. Accurate but descriptive use of literature and evidence, with limited use of justification and with some less valuable sources at times. Insufficient or inaccurate use of literature or evidence, and/or with poor sources. Communication (including style, spelling, grammar and referencing). 10 marks Communicates meaning with absolute confidence, clarity and fluency, with no errors in grammar, spelling and referencing. Communicates meaning with clarity and fluency, with minimal errors in grammar, spelling and referencing. Communicates meaning with some clarity but with several errors in grammar, spelling, word limits and/or referencing. Mostly communicates meaning, but with some issues in grammar, spelling and referencing and word limits which interrupt communication and flow at times. Major issues in communicating meaning, with poor use of language, grammar, spelling, word limits and/or referencing style.
