Marketing

Marking scheme

MARKING FEEDBACK

It was a pleasure to read many reports that were not only showing a superb understanding of the

AC4ID Test, but also presented interesting and well-substantiated findings in a creative and

professional way. These very best reports typically presented the different identity dimensions of

the AC4ID Test framework as they applied to the chosen organisation as a corporate brand in a

very detailed and structured fashion, supported by a great variety of relevant empirical evidence and

data. These reports also identified and discussed key (mis)alignments in depth and elaborated

theoretical and practical reasons and implications for the organisation and its corporate brand.

These reports were also outlining very specific and apposite recommendations for what managers

of the corporate brand should do about it. Reports marked as excellent usually had a very clear

structure, a great variety and quality of sources used, and an overall tidy and diligent presentation

of the work.

Works with marks in the 2.1 range usually showed greater limitations in one or two of these

dimensions but the reports were still very good overall and solid enough to warrant an upper second.

These limitations were either regarding a limited or sporadic use of the academic literature for

discussing the findings and justifying the recommendations or because students presented the

various identity dimensions of the AC4ID Test in a more superficial way (and/or with less evidence

to back it up).

Next, 27% of works were marked in the Lower Second (2.2) range (see figure 1). Although, many

of these reports often showed a good or even very good understanding of the AC4ID Test in

principle, most works in this range struggled with clearly showing that the discussed aspects of the

chosen organisation were clearly derived from a student’s independent and original analysis of their

corporate brand. As such, the identity dimensions were presented only in a vague and rather

superficial fashion, often lacking detail and evidence while the discussion of (mis)alignments was

too general or without obvious link to the AC4ID test. The same can be said about the

recommendations. With a little more effort, many of these works could have easily been improved

and resulted in a better mark.

There are seven reports that only received a mark in the Third (3) range, I am afraid (see figure 2).

These reports usually showed multiple limitations and applied the AC4ID Test in a superficial and

only partial way; exhibiting a lack of understanding and engagement with the task. With a little more

time devoted to thinking about the coursework question and what is required in general, these

students could have done better, I am sure. This is a shame really, as I believe I provided ample of

guidance for this task and opportunities for all of you to ask questions.