Marketing Services and the Customer Experience

FACULTY OF BUSINESS AND LAW

aCADEMIC YEAR 2020/21

Coursework Assessment Brief

Module Code: UMKD6R-15-3

Module Title: Marketing Services and the Customer Experience

Submission Deadline: Tuesday 18th May 2021, 14.00

Assessment Component: Coursework

Assessment Weighting: 100 per cent of total module mark

Marking and feedback deadline (20 working days): 16th June 2021

N.B. all times are 24-hour clock, current local time (at time of submission) in the UK

Assessment Instructions

This is an individual assignment. Question 1 is a report relating to the case study below called ‘Chappell Packaging Solutions’. Question 2 is a critical reflection.

Question 1: Report. Using services marketing theory/concepts, analyse and explain Chappell’s loss of customers. Recommend how it might improve the customer experience and customer retention. Identify any potential challenges or risks associated with your recommendations.

Question 2: Critical reflection. Describe the nature and context of a service encounter (online, offline, or multi-channel) where you were the customer. Select and apply one services marketing framework/concept to analyse and evaluate the encounter. Identify strengths and limitations of your chosen framework/concept as a tool for analysing your encounter.

General Guidance

· It is your decision as to what theories/frameworks/concepts to use in Question 1. Quality of application is more important than the quantity of frameworks applied.

· Remember that the requirement in question 1 is to apply rather than describe theory. The requirement in question 2 is to apply and also critically evaluate (critique) theory.

· You may use subheadings in your answers, but avoid excessive use of bullet points.

· There is no need to reference the case study.

· Evidence of relevant reading beyond the lecture slides, with appropriate application of this reading, will be rewarded. Besides textbooks, you may want to search for relevant articles from Journal of Services Marketing, Journal of Service Research, or Service Industries Journal.

· Include a title page, contents, and references. There is no need for an abstract or executive summary. Please number your pages.

· For more guidance, see the assignment briefing video on Blackboard.

Marking Criteria

The following criteria will be used in evaluating this assessment:

	Analysis, Q1. (35%)	Recommendations, Q1. (35%)	Structure, presentation, referencing, Q1/2. (10%)	Critical reflection, Q2. (20%)
80-100 PASS Exceptional	Insightful analysis with originality of thought. Identifies underlying issue(s). Excellent application of theory. Excellent integration of relevant literature from outside reading list.	Highly appropriate, with originality of thought. Consistent with analysis. Exceptional clarity and detail. Supported where possible by theory and literature. Highlights potential challenges/risks.	Exceptional organization and flow of material with excellent connections between ideas. Exceptional standard of literacy and presentation. Near faultless referencing.	Identifies significant aspects of the encounter. Insightful analysis/evaluation with appropriate framework. Excellent contextualised critique of framework with suggestions for improvement.
70-79 PASS Excellent	Insightful analysis. Identifies underlying issue(s). Excellent application of theory. Excellent integration of relevant literature from outside reading list.	Excellent and appropriate, with some originality of thought. Consistent with analysis. Excellent clarity and detail. Supported where possible by theory and literature. Highlights potential challenges/risks.	Excellent organization and flow of material. Ideas are well connected. Excellent standard of literacy and presentation. Referencing is excellent but with one or two slips.	Identifies significant aspects of the encounter. Excellent analysis/evaluation with appropriate framework. Excellent contextualised critique of framework with suggestions for improvement.
60-69 PASS Very good / good	Good analysis. Identifies underlying issue(s) but may not discuss in depth. Good application of theory. Good integration of relevant literature, some from outside reading list.	Good and mostly appropriate. Largely consistent with analysis. Good clarity and detail. Good theoretical support. Acknowledges some challenges/risks.	Good organization and flow of material with ideas that are mostly well connected. Good standard of literacy and presentation. Just a few errors. Referencing is good, but with a few errors or omissions.	Identifies relevant aspects of the encounter. Good analysis/evaluation with appropriate framework. Good, mostly contextualised critique of framework. May suggest improvements.
50-59 PASS Competent	Competent analysis. May miss underlying issue(s). Reasonable application of theory though not always systematic or accurate. Evidence of reading beyond the lecture slides.	Competent and generally appropriate. Some inconsistency with analysis. Lack of clarity and detail in places. Some theoretical support. Limited reference to challenges/risks.	Competent organization of material but flow may not always be logical. Ideas not always connected. Competent standard of literacy and presentation. Referencing is competent but there may be several errors or omissions.	Identifies some relevant aspects of the encounter. Competent analysis/evaluation. Largely appropriate framework. Competent but generic critique of framework. May not suggest improvements.
40-49 PASS Adequate	Adequate analysis. Misses underlying issue(s). Adequate but unsystematic application of theory and a lack of understanding in places. No evidence of reading beyond lecture slides.	Adequate, though not all appropriate. A lack of consistency with analysis. A substantial lack of clarity and detail. Limited theoretical support. No reference to challenges/risks.	Some attempt to structure the report but not always effective. Ideas often unconnected. Adequate literacy and presentation but with several areas of weakness. Many instances of incorrect/missing references.	Vague description of encounter. Limited analysis/evaluation. Framework has limited relevance. Limited and generic critique of theory. No suggestions for improvement.
35-39 FAIL Inadequate	Superficial analysis. Misses underlying issue(s). Limited and unsystematic application of theory, demonstrating a lack of understanding. No evidence of reading beyond lecture slides.	Inadequate, with limited appropriateness. A lack of consistency with analysis. A substantial lack of clarity and detail. Little or no theoretical support. No reference to challenges/risks	Vague structure. Limited logic to the flow of material. Ideas unconnected. Inadequate literacy and presentation with substantial areas of weakness. Many incorrect/missing references. Significantly under/over word count.	Superficial description of encounter. Very little analysis/evaluation. Framework is inappropriate with very little critique. No suggestions for improvement.
0-34 FAIL Poor	Poor analysis. Misses underlying issue(s). Very limited and unsystematic application of theory, demonstrating a lack of understanding. No evidence of reading beyond lecture slides.	Very few, and largely inappropriate. A lack of consistency with analysis. A substantial lack of clarity and detail. Little or no theoretical support. No reference to challenges/risks.	Disorganized, with no logic to the flow of material. Poor connections between ideas. Poor literacy and presentation. Many instances of incorrect/missing references. Significantly under/over word count.	Poor description of encounter. Little or no analysis/evaluation. Framework is inappropriate with little or no critique. No suggestions for improvement.

Formative feedback and support during the module

Formative feedback provides opportunities to reflect on your ongoing work and preparation for your assignment. You will work on a variety of tasks throughout the module which will provide the opportunity to apply theory to analyse and evaluate scenarios, and receive formative feedback. Specific tutorials have been set aside to answer questions on the assignment. There is an assignment briefing video on Blackboard.

Formatting

Please use the following file format: Microsoft Word file. We cannot ensure that other formats are compatible with markers’ software and cannot guarantee to mark incorrect formats.

All work should be word processed in 12-point font Times New Roman or Arial and single spaced.

The first page of your coursework must include:

· Your student number

· The module name and number

· Your word count

Word Limit

The maximum word limit for this coursework is 2,500 words for Question 1 and 700 words for Question 2.

· There is no +/- 10% on word count and anything after the maximum word count will not be marked, in line with UWE Bristol’s Word Count Policy.

· In line with UWE policy, this word count includes everything in the main body of the text (including headings, tables, citations, quotes, lists, etc.).

· The references, bibliography and footnotes (provided footnotes only include references) are NOT included in this word count.

Referencing and Assessment Offences

Please ensure you reference all sources used when developing your assessment, using UWE Harvard. Failure to properly reference your work to original source material can be grounds for the assessment offence of plagiarism and may result in failure of the assessment or more serious implications. Further guidance on correct referencing is available on UWE’s Study Skills referencing pages.

UWE’s Assessment Offences Policy outlines potential offences and it is your responsibility to understand this policy and avoid potential offences. Details of what constitutes plagiarism and how to avoid it can be found on UWE’s Study Skills pages about avoiding plagiarism.

Text-matching software (e.g. SafeAssign) is used to check every submission against other submissions made at the same time, previous submissions to UWE and other universities, and internet sources. We may also manually search for matches. When submitting your work, you will be required to confirm that the work is your own.

It is an assessment offence to:

· copy work from any source, including your own previous assessments, and present it as your own work for this assessment, or to provide your own work to others

· to work with others on the assessment in any way, or for anyone to make amends on your work (including proofreaders, who may highlight issues but not edit the work)

· change individual words but keep, essentially, the same sentences and/or structures from other sources: this will be detected by text-matching software. Please write in your own words and style to convey your own learning.

Instructions for submission

You must submit your assignment before the stated deadline by electronic submission through Blackboard. Notification that the electronic submission portal is open for your assignment is displayed (usually two weeks before the submission date) in the Coursework tab in myUWE, the Coursework tab in Blackboard and via an announcement in the Blackboard course.

Please allow sufficient time to upload your assignment, as the system becomes busier and slower as the deadline approaches. Only your final upload will be counted. Ensure all your information is submitted at one attempt to avoid overwriting your intended submission. Always check and retain your receipts.

Late submission in the 24 hours following the deadline will be accepted but the assignment mark will be capped at a pass. Submissions after 24 hours will not be accepted. For full guidance on online submission through Blackboard, see UWE’s Academic Advice pages on Assignments.

Submissions of coursework by any other method (including a paper copy, on disk or by email) are NOT permissible for this module unless specifically agreed in advance of the submission date.

Before submitting your work, please ensure that:

· You have proof read you work thoroughly to ensure your work is presented appropriately

· You have addressed all the required elements of the assessment

· You have referenced in accordance with the guidance provided

· You have addressed each of the marking criterion

· The submission is in the correct format

Final feedback and marks release

Students will normally receive marks and feedback on their submission within 20 working days of the submission deadline (not including public holidays or university closure days). Any delay in returning students’ work will be communicated by the module leader via Blackboard.

Feedback on this module is not limited to the written comments you will receive on individual written assessment submissions.

Feedback and marks for this module will be available by 16th June 2021. For further guidance on feedback, please refer to the module handbook.

Further guidance and support

There are a number of sources of support to improve your study skills, including:

· The UWE Library Study Skills pages – for online support and bookable workshops

· The Faculty of Business and Law’s Academic Success Centre for bookable workshops

· Guidance on using UWE’s Library.

Specific study skills pages relating to this module include:

· How to plan and structure your writing

· Writing skills

· Further research skills / techniques

· Report writing

· Reflective writing

· How to write critically

· English language support

For further guidance on UWE assessment regulations and terminology see UWE’s Academic Advice pages.

Personal Circumstances

If you are experiencing difficulties in completing a piece of assessment on time due to unexpected circumstances (for example illness, accident, bereavement), seek advice from a Student Support Adviser at the earliest opportunity. Appointments can be made via an Information Point or online via the Student Support Pages.

Student Support Advisers can advise as to whether you should submit an application for ‘Personal Circumstances (PCs)’, how to do so and what evidence is required to support the application. Further details on PCs can be found on the Student Support Pages.

The module leader cannot grant personal circumstances or extensions.

Chappell Packaging Solutions (CPS) Ltd

Chappell is a UK engineering firm. It designs, manufactures, and installs state-of-the-art food packaging machines. Its customers are growers of fruit and vegetables who pack their produce before dispatching it for sale in supermarkets. Until recently, fruit and vegetable packing was a time-consuming and labour-intensive manual task. However, innovation in artificial intelligence, scanning, and sensing, pioneered by Chappell, means that robots now do much of the packing in a warehouse, with greater speed, fewer errors, and less damage to the produce. However, machines break down occasionally!

Until recently, Chappell focused solely on manufacturing. In 2010, it extended its offering to include after-sales repairs. Then, in 2015, with competition in the sector increasing, it decided to introduce a service contract to its customers. This would provide mutual benefits. For Chappell, not only would it build recurring revenue into each sale of machinery, but by offering an integrated solution (physical product and service contract), it would hopefully encourage greater customer loyalty. For the customer, the key benefit was reassurance. Given the firm’s manufacturing expertise and familiarity with its own products, it was confident purchasers of its systems would opt for a service contract rather than go to a third party. In its marketing communications, Chappell told customers that its machines would be serviced and repaired by the technicians that built them, reinforcing the message that the work would be carried out by experts who fit genuine spare parts.

The contract, which lasted for two years and could be renewed thereafter, comprised twice-yearly visits (called ‘audits’) by technicians to inspect the system and carry out any required maintenance and replacement of parts. In addition, customers could call, when necessary, for emergency repairs. Chappell promised to get machines working within 24 hours of notification of a problem.

Initially, many customers signed up for a service contract. They were pleased to have their system maintained by the firm that had manufactured it. However, during 2017, a worrying trend developed. Customers seemed reluctant to renew their service contracts.

In order to find out the reason why, Chappell conducted a survey. The results of the survey suggested that customers were dissatisfied with the service they were receiving. The firm could not understand why, because it knew its systems were among the best and that its technicians were highly skilled and understood everything there was to know about maintaining and repairing packaging systems. The firm ran a marketing communications campaign to remind existing and prospective customers that it was one of the UK’s leading manufacturers of packaging systems. It adopted a tagline which appeared in all its communications material: ‘Chappell: Fully integrated solutions that never let you down’. Yet, 12 months later, the problem persisted – more customers failed to renew their contracts.

In an effort to ‘dig deeper’, Chappell decided to conduct interviews with some of the customers whose service contracts had terminated. Below is an edited transcript of one respondent. The sentiments expressed here are typical of the general feeling among lapsed customers of the service contract:

I realise that you manufacture high quality packaging systems, and that you have skilled technicians. In fact, I recently discovered that many of your service technicians are actually the engineers from your manufacturing factory. While I find it reassuring to know that my system is being cared for by the people that built it, I am sorry to say I am not happy with the way in which you carry out your servicing. Up to now, I have resisted complaining, but since you are asking my opinion, I will tell you what I think.

You are often vague about when your technicians will arrive. Even when you commit to a time, you often do not arrive when expected. I also find that you have restricted appointment times. You do not seem to appreciate that my system operates 24/7 [24 hours a day, seven days a week] and that every hour that my system is down means I am late fulfilling orders for my customers and risk losing a supply contract.

Whenever I call to make an appointment, I find I am ‘on hold’ for several minutes before I get to speak to one of your customer service representatives. Then, when I finally get through to a representative, they ask me questions about the system that I cannot answer, such as the machine serial number, the software version we are running, the error message on the LED display, and so on. This usually means having to end the call, find the information (which is difficult and time-consuming to locate), and call back, only to be put on hold again.

My contract states I am entitled to two maintenance audits per year. However, I find that it is up to me to instigate these visits. I have never had a call from you to say it is time to book my audit. Furthermore, I was under the impression that I had paid upfront for these visits when I signed up to the service contract, and yet I receive an invoice for work carried out which I then have to query.

Although a small number of your technicians are attentive, many are rather dismissive and seem unconcerned about arriving late to an appointment. There are times when technicians leave partway through a job without telling me why. I used to think they were taking long coffee breaks. Later I discovered that they left to return to your factory to get tools or parts required for the repairs. This clearly lengthens the time required to finish the work.

While working on the repairs, technicians often receive calls from your office. From what I can deduce, they are being asked when they will finish the job and when they will arrive at their next appointment. I find this rather concerning and irritating. Will they rush the repairs to my system to get to the next appointment?

Each time I have a problem, you send a new technician that I have never met before. Sometimes I do not even recognise them as your employees. Do you subcontract work? I also find I have to repeat all the information about a problem that I told the customer service representative. This is annoying and makes me wonder if you talk to each other. I have been a customer of yours for several years, but I do not feel this is reflected in how I am treated. I don’t doubt your expertise in designing and manufacturing packaging systems, but as for service…

Although Chappell is a pseudonym, the scenario described in the case study is real.

9