2 pages

Case Analyses Submission Guidelines & Rubric

Case analyses should be approached as though you are a marketing manager

whose responsibility it is to assess the situation and present three long-term

strategies to the board of directors. Based on your understanding of the case

and external research on the CURRENT situation, what are the three best

strategies to revitalize and/or improve public perception to the same target

market and/or alternative markets? Please do not limit yourself to the

specifics of the case when formulating your strategies. Think ‘BIG

PICTURE’ (ethical objectives, internal/external factors, complementary

products/industries, sustainability, alternative products/services, cultural

assessment, pricing changes, etc.).

Your strategic recommendations should be 1) measurable and 2) broad

enough to encompass the direction of the brand for at least 5 years. At the

same time, analyses should explain IN DETAIL the logic and process

behind implementing such initiatives. Please do not provide vague

recommendations. Please use the critical thinking rubric below as a

guideline and checklist for your submissions.

Not Proficient

Some Proficiency

Proficient

Highly Proficient

Points Received

(10 x 5) Identified and

Explained Issues

Fails to identify,

summarize, or explain

the main problem or

question, or represents

the issues inaccurately

or inappropriately.

Identifies main

issues but does not

summarize or

explain them

clearly or

sufficiently.

Successfully

identifies and

summarizes the

main issues, but

does not explain

why/how they

are problems or

create questions.

Clearly identifies

and summarizes

main issues and

successfully and

identifies implicit

issues, addressing

their relationship to

each other.

Recognizes

Stakeholders and

Contexts

Fails to accurately

identify and explain any

context for the issues or

presents problems as

having no connections

to other contexts.

Shows some

understanding of

the influences of

theoretical

contexts on

stakeholders, but

does not identify

any specific ones

relevant to

situation at hand.

Correctly

identified all the

empirical and

most of the

theoretical

contexts

relevant to all

the main

stakeholders in

the situation.

Not only correctly

identifies all the

contexts relevant to

stakeholders, but

also finds minor

stakeholders and

contexts and shows

conflicts of interests

among them.

Takes

Intellectual

Risks

Stays strictly within the

guidelines of the

assignment.

Considers new

directions or

approaches

without going

beyond the

guidelines of the

assignment.

Incorporates

new directions

or approaches to

the assignment

in the final

product.

Actively seeks out

and follows through

on untested and

potentially risky

directions or

approaches to the

assignment in the

final product.

Evaluates

Assumptions

Fails to identify and

evaluate any of the

important assumptions

behind the

recommendations

made.

Identifies some of

the most important

assumptions, but

does not evaluate

them for

plausibility or

clarity.

Identifies and

evaluates all the

important

assumptions, but

not the ones

deeper in the

background–the

more abstract

ones.

Not only identifies

and evaluates all the

important

assumptions, but

also some the more

hidden, more

abstract ones.

Innovative

Thinking

Merely restates existing

ideas.

Experiments with

creating a novel or

unique idea,

format, or product.

Actually creates

a novel or

unique idea,

identifies a new

void, or

proposes a new

product

Extends a novel or

unique idea,

question, format, or

product to create

new knowledge or

knowledge that

crosses boundaries.