help with proj 3 disc due in 24 hours

profilecombs

attached

  • 2 years ago
  • 16
files (4)

FeedbackforProject26.docx

Feedback for Project 2: Conducting a Brand Audit

Overall Feedback

Feedback: Final Brand Analysis Report – 5.10.24

Score:  NP Does Not Meet Project Requirements

Hello:

The Project 2 score includes the Discussion posts. Your Discussion posts met the performance expectations for the assignment.

The Brand Analysis Report was a solid submission, covering and evaluating the eight brand elements with appropriate marketing information. However, the Reference List did not have the required number of reliable, non-scholarly sources, and quantitative data is needed for the brand loyalty and equity sections. Additional feedback on the competencies is provided below.

We are currently in the two-week resubmission period.  Please resubmit by May 19th by 11:59 pm (ET).

Feedback: Competencies

*To complete one page for the Executive Summary, include more highlights from your research and recommendation.

1.3 The Reference List did not have the required number of reliable, non-scholarly sources. Although 15 scholarly sources were listed, only 3 non-scholarly sources were listed, the criteria were not met; see step 5.

The April 24 Announcement for the start of week 3, stated company-based sources do not count. This means information found on the Nike and Adidas websites can be included in the Reference List, but they do not count towards the minimum of 16 reliable, non-scholarly sources. As a reminder, UMGC material are counted as course readings; UMGC information is neither scholarly nor reliable, non-scholarly sources.

To ensure you have reliable, non-scholarly sources, review and bookmark the UMGC Library pages below:

https://libguides.umgc.edu/articles

https://libguides.umgc.edu/scholarly

The Reference List needs to follow the  APA Style Guide, 7th edition. For example, sources should be listed in alphabetical order by the authors’ last name.

1.6 An acceptable level of writing was evident throughout the report.

2.5: While satisfactory research was presented for both brands, the analysis can be improved with the addition of quantitative data, particularly for the brand loyalty and equity sections. A solid recommendation was outlined well.

6.1: The external environment in which the firms operate was satisfactorily discussed, and the implications for organizational success were addressed.

6.2: The questions outlined in step 6 were sufficiently answered. A more in-depth discussion of the strategic implications for domestic and international markets was needed.

6.4: The research was adequately used to inform the recommendation to Slate. However, a deeper discussion and analysis of the brands’ sustainable competitive advantage would strengthen the report.

12.2: Generally, the brand elements were credibly evaluated. The sub-brands and brand extensions for both firms were identified and proficiently discussed.

Top of Form