STP report

MKW 1120 MARKETING THEORY AND PRACTICE SEMESTER 1, 2021

Assessment 3: Marking Rubric (100%)

N P C D HD

Introduction (10m)

0-4 5-6 7 8-10

Missing or inappropriate

Introduction is rather generic, a copy and paste from various sources.

Unique facts of the company are introduced but not all are relevant to the report. Introduction sets the boundary of the report i.e. brand/product level

Unique facts of the company are introduced and relevant to the report. Introduction sets the boundary of the report i.e. brand/product level

Segmentation and targeting (15m)

0-8 9-10 11 12-15

Segmentation table is absent. Target market is briefly explained. Evidence is missing.

Some variables are used for segmentation but not appropriate. Target market is briefly explained. Some evidence is missing.

Variables are used for segmentation, but some important variables are missing. Target market is described with relevant evidence.

Appropriate variables are used for segmentation. Target market is well- described, and evidence are well- documented.

Values demanded (10m)

0-4 5 6 7 8-10

Missing or inappropriate

Product features are listed instead of values demanded

List of values demanded are provided but not all matches the target market

List of values demanded are provided and matches the target market but some significant ones are missing, not consistent.

A meaningful list of values demanded by the target market

Positioning and perceptual map (20m)

0-9 10-11 12-13 14-15 16-20

Missing or inappropriate

The perceptual map lacks focus, and positioning is not clear.

Perceptual map is generic. Dimensions either not explained or is generic. The discussion on the unique position of the brand/product relative to its competitors either missing or generic. Evidence is either lacking or minimal.

Appropriate plotting of the perceptual map. Relevant competitors are well-captured. Dimensions are rationalised. The unique position of the brand/product relative to its competitors lacks depth. Evidence is somewhat provided.

Appropriate plotting of the perceptual map. Relevant competitors are well- captured. Dimensions are rationalised. The unique position of the brand/product relative to its competitors in well-discussed (have depth). Significant evidence is documented.

Differentiation (product/image) (20m)

0-9 10-13 14-15 16-20

Missing or inappropriate

Explanation is generic. The brand/product lacks differentiation. Product attributes are explained instead of a differentiating attribute. Evidence is either lacking or minimal.

The explanation on product/image differentiation is explained but lacks focus. Well-documented with evidence.

The explanation on product/image differentiation is clear and focus. Well- documented with evidence.

Recommendation (10m)

0-4 5 6 7-10

Missing or inappropriate Recommendation is generic and does not relate to the report

Recommendation is generic but relates to the report

Recommendation is focus and insightful because it relates to the report.

Presentation of ideas and clarity of arguments (10m)

0-5 6 7 8-10

The report is hard to follow, off-topic, concepts are unclear, errors in grammar, spelling and punctuation

The report is somewhat structure and sections are not clear in explanation. Occasional errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation

The report is structured but sections are not consistent. Minimal errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation

The report is focus and consistent in explanation, demonstrated clear understanding of concepts, with little to almost no errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation.

Format and references (5m)

0-2 3-4 5

Major error in report format and in 6th APA referencing

Minor error in report format and in 6th APA referencing.

No error in report format and 6th APA referencing.