Learning Outcome/s (found in the
Subject Outline) a) Explain the concepts and basic features of integrated marketing communications
b) Link the aims of integrated marketing communications with basic marketing principles to analyse given communication problems
Assessment type (group or individual) Individual
Weighting % 25%
Word count 1000 words (+/- 10%) excluding cover and references
Due day Sunday by 11.55pm week 4
Submission type Turnitin ?
Format / Layout of Assessment
Report:
ICMS Cover Page
Table of Contents
Introduction
Analysis
Market
Competition
Consumer
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Page 1 of 5
Conclusion
Reference List
Appendices if required
?
?
Assessment instructions Choose one case study from either the selection provided by your lecturer or propose another which will need to be approved by your lecturer, then conduct further research and analyse an integrated marketing communications campaign applying the theories and concepts from the unit. Each case study includes a detailed profile of a client such as business context,
business model, marketing communication channels, and a plan to develop a new product targeting a new type of consumers, etc.
Based on the learning contents from the first 4 weeks, students are required to present a brief market analysis (approximately 1000 words +/- 10%, 1-2 pages) including the following points:
– analyse the market that your ‘client’ is facing (e.g. current market situation and evolution, growth opportunities and threats, distribution channels, etc.)
– identify the competition (e.g. main competitors, their positioning and target markets, etc.)
– understand the consumers (e.g. who are current key consumers, what are their preferences, are they satisfied with the products of the client, are there any new consumer trends, what are the main trends for this type of consumer, etc.)
The Case Study analysis needs to match the following:
• 1000 words +/- 10% excluding cover sheet and references
• Follow short report formatting • Minimum of 6 resources, 3 from academic resources at minimum.
NOTE: The chosen case study will be used in Assessment 2.
Readings for the assessment
To assist you with writing this report, use the materials found on your
• Moodle page (lecture slides, recommended and additional readings or other documents).
• Review the class content.
• Review the useful links posted on Moodle.
Complete the Module activities which are designed to support the critical tasks of this Assessment. If you have any further questions, make sure you speak to your lecturer.
Grading Criteria / Rubric See detailed marking rubric below
Page 2 of 5
Assessment 1 – Marking Rubric
Criteria HD (85-100) D (75-84) CR (65-74) PASS (50-64) FAIL (0-49)
Criteria 1.
Introduction. Brief Case Study Background.
(10 %)? Highly effective introduction including a brief company/case overview. Mostly effective introduction including a brief company/case overview. Moderately effective introduction including a brief company/case overview. Introduction included but need more elaboration / background on the case/company or the overview is too long. There is no clear introduction and does not adequately provide an overview of the chosen case/company.
Criteria 2.
Market analysis, application of theories, concepts and methods. (25%)? The analysis is coherently presented. Shows a full understanding of the topic. Theories, concepts and methods are accurately applied and used to justify rationale throughout. Shows a depth of knowledge. Includes insightful commentary and highlights high significance. Links the different theories to analyse and solve the challenges face by the firm in the market in a throughout way The analysis is coherently presented. Shows a significant understanding of the topic. Theories, concepts and methods are accurately applied and used to justify rationale in most instances. Shows a depth of knowledge in all but 1 area. Includes insightful commentary and highlights above average significance. The analysis is present, but hard to follow at times. Shows a good understanding of the topic. Theories, concepts and methods are accurately applied and used to justify the rationale, but further elaboration was needed in 2 areas. Shows a depth of knowledge in all but 2 areas. Includes multiple instances of insightful commentary and highlights average significance. The analysis is present, but hard to follow at times. Shows a basic understanding of the topic. Theories, concepts and methods are sometimes inaccurately applied when used to justify the rationale. Or, greater depth is needed in the analysis and application of the unit content. Includes somewhat insightful commentary and highlights average significance. Analysis is confused or missing. Lacks depth or shows superficial understanding. Theories, concepts and methods are inaccurately applied when used to justify the rationale. Or, greater depth is needed in the analysis and application of unit content. Does not include insightful commentary and highlights little or no significance.
Criteria 3. Competitor analysis, application of theories, concepts and
methods. (25%)
? The analysis is coherently presented. Shows a full understanding of the topic. Theories, concepts and methods are accurately applied and used to justify rationale throughout. Shows a depth of knowledge. Includes insightful commentary and highlights high significance.
The analysis is coherently presented. Shows a significant understanding of the topic. Theories, concepts and methods are accurately applied and used to justify rationale in most instances. Shows a depth of knowledge in all but 1 area. Includes insightful commentary and highlights above average significance. The analysis is present, but hard to follow at times. Shows a good understanding of the topic. Theories, concepts and methods are accurately applied and used to justify the rationale, but further elaboration was needed in 2 areas. Shows a depth of knowledge in all but 2 areas. Includes multiple instances of insightful The analysis is present, but hard to follow at times. Shows a basic understanding of the topic. Theories, concepts and methods are sometimes inaccurately applied when used to justify the rationale. Or, greater depth is needed in the analysis and application of the unit content. Includes somewhat insightful Analysis is confused or missing. Lacks depth or shows superficial understanding. Theories, concepts and methods are inaccurately applied when used to justify the rationale. Or, greater depth is needed in the analysis and application of unit content. Does not include insightful commentary and highlights little or no significance.
commentary and highlights average significance. commentary and highlights average significance.
Criteria 4.
Consumer
analysis, application of theories, concepts and
methods. (25%)?
The analysis is coherently presented. Shows a full understanding of the topic. Theories, concepts and methods are accurately applied and used to justify rationale throughout. Shows a depth of knowledge. Includes insightful commentary and highlights high significance.
The analysis is coherently presented. Shows a significant understanding of the topic. Theories, concepts and methods are accurately applied and used to justify rationale in most instances. Shows a depth of knowledge in all but 1 area. Includes insightful commentary and highlights above average significance.
The analysis is present, but hard to follow at times. Shows a good understanding of the topic. Theories, concepts and methods are accurately applied and used to justify the rationale, but further elaboration was needed in 2 areas. Shows a depth of knowledge in all but 2 area. Includes multiple instances of insightful commentary and highlights average significance.
The analysis is present, but hard to follow at times. Shows a basic understanding of the topic. Theories, concepts and methods are sometimes inaccurately applied when used to justify the rationale. Or, greater depth is needed in the analysis and application of the unit content. Includes somewhat insightful commentary and highlights average significance.
Analysis is confused or missing. Lacks depth or shows superficial understanding. Theories, concepts and methods are inaccurately applied when used to justify the rationale. Or, greater depth is needed in the analysis and application of unit content. Does not include insightful commentary and highlights little or no significance.
Criteria 4.
Conclusion. (5%)? Thorough conclusion that summarises effectively. Mostly thorough conclusion that summarises effectively. Somewhat thorough conclusion that summarises adequately. Minimal conclusion that summarises averagely but lacks depth in some areas. Conclusion present but does not summarise and is not effective. Or conclusion missing.
Criteria 5.
Presentation, referencing and structure (10%)? Professional presentation and effective communication of analysis and evaluation, fully supported with evidence. Outstanding report structure and communication of ideas enhances readability. Free of errors and logical flow, appropriate sections. At least 6 resources from reliable sources, with at least 3 being from academic sources… e.g., journals, company websites, trustworthy articles. Well-structured presentation and communication of analysis and evaluation, supported with evidence that closely correspond to the elements of the report. Very good report structure, free of errors and has a logical flow, appropriate sections. 5 resources from reliable
sources, e.g., journals, company websites, trustworthy articles.
OR
1 source not reliable.
Appropriate presentation and communication of analysis and evaluation, supported with some evidence. Good report structure, free of errors and has a logical flow with appropriate sections. 4 resources from reliable
sources, e.g., journals, company websites, trustworthy articles.
OR
2 sources not reliable.
Presentation that shows some evidence of report structure, but errors may detract from the communication of the analysis and evaluation.
There is some evidence used but it may not correspond to the elements and sometimes detract from the readability. Basic report structure, some errors and is hard to follow, some sections are missing. 3 resources from reliable
sources, e.g., journals, company websites, trustworthy articles.
OR
2 sources not reliable Lacks evidence of a structured presentation with limited analysis and evaluations. The few pieces of evidence used do not correspond to the key elements. Missing appropriate report structure, contains errors and hard to follow, appropriate sections are missing. 2 resources, OR less than 3 from reliable sources e.g., journals, company websites, trustworthy articles.
OR
4 or more not from reliable sources.
Looking for answers ?
