Economy

1

Sensitivity: Internal

Marketing across Cultures: CW1 Assignment Brief Submission deadline Thursday 18th November 2021 by 23.59 hrs. The module is assessed by 100% Coursework with two component parts; CW1 is worth 30% of the mark. It is an individual 1500 words (+/- 10%) critical, structured business report focusing on the cross-cultural analysis component of the module, and its application to an organisation of the student’s choice The assignment is detailed as follows: Taking the role of an international marketing consultant, commissioned by a company (marketing an organisation’s product or service of your choice), prepare a business report, aimed at the organisation’s marketing director, which recognises the impact culture can have on international marketing, and recommends It is suggested that the following structure is used for the first report:

• An introductory explanation regarding the purpose and value of conducting a cross-cultural analysis, in the context of international marketing, with also a brief outline of the organisation/ home country of your choice (100/200 words approx.) (15%) Deliver an explanation (and therefore deliver a clear understanding) of the the role, objective, value and relevance to any organisation of a CCA.

• An overview and comparison of two or three key cross-cultural analysis approaches that are available for consideration – e.g. Hofstede (2010), Hall and Hall (1997), Trompenaars (1993), Lewis (1992). (700/800 words approx). (30%) This section requires you to review and discuss critically 2 classic CCA techniques such as Hofstede, Hall and Hall, Wills et al, Schwartz, Lewis. Reviewing means to briefly cover the key points of the theories. Discuss critically means comparing these techniques (for ex. on how they approach differently a) the issue of culture; b) how they apply to the context of internationalisation; c) the advantages/disadvantages of using these different approaches in international marketing/business management).

• Briefly justify the Choice of a cross-cultural analysis approach, and use this technique to

highlight the cultural differences between the two very culturally-different countries that you are using for your case study (home country and internationalisation country) (600/700 words approx.).(35%) You should justify the CCA method that you will use for carrying out the comparison, particularly in light of the type of company and HQ/internationalisation countries; you should then conduct an in-depth analysis into the specific cultural differences of the two countries chosen (home country and internationalisation country); you can add some initial indications on how these differences might influence the new marketing mix (note: this will be focus of Report 2 but you can start here highlighting few points).

The Output

o Word count 1500 words +/- 10% o Format/ SUGGESTED CONTENT TABLE

SECTION 1 - Introduction of the report – (100/200 words) SECTION 2 - Comparison of 2 techniques Critical evaluation (task 1) (700/800 words) SECTION 3 – CCA Analysis of two countries of your choice (home and international countries) (600/700 words)

2

Sensitivity: Internal

o References must be to the Harvard Referencing System. (10%) o Appropriate presentation/quality of the report (10%) o Find in Assessment folder CW1 some specific reading materials on CCA, to use as references.

3

Sensitivity: Internal

4

Sensitivity: Internal

90-100% 80-89% 70-79% 60-69% 50-59% 40-49% 35-39% 5-34% 0-4% Demonstrated understanding of the role and value of a cross-cultural analysis, and their application to a correct context (15%)

Outstanding; an exceptional standard. Trivial or very minor errors

Outstanding; an excellent standard. Trivial or very minor errors

Outstanding; an extremely good standard. Trivial or very minor errors

Very good standard. Minor errors only

A good standard. Some evidence of misunderstanding s

A sound standard. Some significant misunderstandings and errors but satisfactory overall

Marginally unsatisfactory. Not well researched. Ideas unclear and incoherent. Some significant misunderstandings and errors. Marginal fail.

Well below the pass standard. Poorly researched. Ideas confused and incoherent. Serious misunderstandings and errors. A clear fail.

Nothing or hardly anything of merit. NS notation applies if no work submitted

Demonstrated understanding of cross-cultural analysis theories and concepts (30%)

Outstanding; an exceptional standard. Trivial or very minor errors

Outstanding; an excellent standard. Trivial or very minor errors

Outstanding; an extremely good standard. Trivial or very minor errors

Very good standard. Minor errors only

A good standard. Some evidence of misunderstanding s

A sound standard. Some significant misunderstandings and errors but satisfactory overall

Marginally unsatisfactory. Not well researched. Ideas unclear and incoherent. Some significant misunderstandings and errors. Marginal fail.

Well below the pass standard. Poorly researched. Ideas confused and incoherent. Serious misunderstandings and errors. A clear fail.

Nothing or hardly anything of merit. NS notation applies if no work submitted

Contextualisati on of the selected cross- cultural analysis technique for the selected organisation and cultures (35%)

Outstanding; an exceptional standard. Trivial or very minor errors

Outstanding; an excellent standard. Trivial or very minor errors

Outstanding; an extremely good standard. Trivial or very minor errors

Very good standard. Minor errors only

A good standard. Some evidence of misunderstanding s

A sound standard. Some significant misunderstandings and errors but satisfactory overall

Marginally unsatisfactory. Not well researched. Ideas unclear and incoherent. Some significant misunderstandings and errors. Marginal fail.

Well below the pass standard. Poorly researched. Ideas confused and incoherent. Serious misunderstandings and errors. A clear fail.

Nothing or hardly anything of merit. NS notation applies if no work submitted

References (10%)

Outstanding; an exceptional standard. Trivial or very minor errors

Outstanding; an excellent standard. Trivial or very minor errors

Outstanding; an extremely good standard. Trivial or very minor errors

Very good standard. Minor errors only

A good standard. Some evidence of misunderstanding s

A sound standard. Some significant misunderstandings and errors but satisfactory overall

Marginally unsatisfactory. Not well researched. Ideas unclear and incoherent. Some significant misunderstandings and errors. Marginal fail.

Well below the pass standard. Poorly researched. Ideas confused and incoherent. Serious misunderstandings and errors. A clear fail.

Nothing or hardly anything of merit. NS notation applies if no work submitted

Presentation quality (10%)

Outstanding; an exceptional standard.

Outstanding; an excellent standard. Trivial or

Outstanding; an extremely good standard.

Very good standard. Minor

A good standard. Some evidence of misunderstanding s

A sound standard. Some significant misunderstandings and errors but

Marginally unsatisfactory. Not well researched. Ideas

Well below the pass standard. Poorly researched. Ideas confused and

Nothing or hardly anything of merit. NS

5

Sensitivity: Internal

Trivial or very minor errors

very minor errors

Trivial or very minor errors

errors only

satisfactory overall unclear and incoherent.

incoherent. Serious misunderstandings and errors. A clear fail.

notation applies if no work submitted