MARKETING

Page 1 of 7

ARUMBAMM004

Marketing Management

Assignment

Date for Submission: 18 th

April 2016 (13:59 BST)

Page 2 of 7

Assignment Brief

As part of the formal assessment for the programme you are required to submit a

Marketing Management assignment. Please refer to your Student Handbook for full details

of the programme assessment scheme and general information on preparing and

submitting assignments.

Learning Outcomes:

After completing the module you should be able to:

1. Critically evaluate and analyse the resources available to a marketer and establish how different environments influence the resources mix;

2. Explain and evaluate how insight into buyer behaviour can enhance the effective use of marketing resources;

3. Critically evaluate the role recent marketing developments, such as relationship marketing, e-business, sustainability marketing and ethical concerns, play in an organisation’s evolution.

4. Develop and implement marketing plans for a product or service and critically reflect on the appropriateness of these.

Your assignment should include: a title page containing your student number, the module name, the submission deadline and a word count; the appendices if relevant; and a reference list in Bournemouth University (BU) Harvard format. You should address all the elements of the assignment task listed below. Please note that tutors will use the assessment criteria set out below in assessing your work.

Page 3 of 7

Assignment Task

In your role as a Marketing Consultant, you have been asked by Wiggo*: a fictitious European supermarket (food retailer) chain (similar to Aldi and Lidl) to research and report on the feasibility of them launching in a new international market (this can be a country or economic zone of your choice and/or one you are familiar with). *Please note Wiggo is a fictitious company and no use will be served by searching for them on the Internet. Note: Approximately 6 weeks into the study period you will be allocated into a team .Teams will comprise either 4 or 5 individuals. Team Task

1. Produce a team-agreed amalgamation of the individual marketing plans to be presented via a PowerPoint presentation. This should take the form of an imagined face-to-face ‘pitch’ to the client to support and promote your bid for this consulting contract. A maximum number of 12 slides for a 20-minute presentation (you will not be required to undertake the actual presentation).

2. You should accompany each slide with written notes (NOT an embedded voiceover) that simulate the face-to-face pitch PowerPoint lets you type note in beneath each slide when in the ‘normal’ mode).

Word Limit: Maximum of 1000 words

Weighting: 40% of the total grade

This task should be submitted via ‘Submit Team Work’ portal

Page 4 of 7

Individual Tasks – To be submitted as one single clearly labelled submission

Task a

1. Prepare a marketing plan for Wiggo. This should include the following:

a) An executive summary. b) Situational analysis (this should refer to the country/economic zone you have selected). c) Marketing objectives (using the SMART format). d) Marketing plan (strategy and tactical details). To include: segmentation, targeting and

positioning analysis; buyer behaviour; marketing mix analysis. Digital marketing and social media should be taken into consideration. In addition your plan should reflect ethical, sustainable marketing and corporate social responsibility considerations.

e) Marketing budget. f) Conclusions, recommendations and summary.

Word Limit: 2000 words

Weighting: 50% of the total grade

Task b

a) A critical appraisal of what you have learned in undertaking the team project and your recommendations of what you would do differently for similar future assignments.

b) A record of all contacts made between team members c) An analysis of the individual contributions d) An evaluation of the overall success of the project

Word Limit: 500 words

Weighting: 10% of the total grade

Tasks a and b should be submitted as one file via ‘Submit Individual Work’ portal

Formative Feedback

You have the opportunity to submit a one-page summary of your assignment to receive formative feedback. The feedback is designed to help you develop areas of your work and it helps you develop your skills as an independent learner. Your work must be submitted to the module tutor’s email address two weeks prior to the submission deadline. This is to allow time for you to reflect on the feedback and draft your final submission.

Formative feedback will not be given to work submitted after the above date. Guidelines:

Page 5 of 7

You MUST underpin your analysis and evaluation of the key issues with appropriate and wide ranging academic research and ensure this is referenced using the Harvard system. The My Study Skills Area contains the following useful resources; Study Skills Guide (containing a Harvard Referencing section) and a Harvard Referencing Interactive Tutorial. You must use the Harvard Referencing method in your assignment. Additional notes: Students are required to indicate the exact word count on the title page of the assessment. The word count excludes the title page, executive summary, reference list and appendices. Where assessment questions have been reprinted from the assessment brief these will also be excluded from the word count. ALL other printed words ARE included in the word count. Printed words include those contained within charts and tables. See ‘Word Count Policy’ on the homepage of this module for more information. Assignments submitted late will not be accepted and will be marked as a 0% fail. Your assessment should be submitted as a single Word (MS Word) or PDF file. For more information please see the “Guide to Submitting an Assignment” document available on the module page on iLearn. You must ensure that the submitted assignment is all your own work and that all sources used are correctly attributed. Penalties apply to assignments which show evidence of academic unfair practice. (See the Student Handbook which is on the homepage of your module and also in the Induction Area).

Page 6 of 7

Assessment Criteria (Learning objectives covered - all)

Level 7 is characterised by an expectation of students’ expertise in their specialism. Students are semi-autonomous, demonstrating

independence in the negotiation of assessment tasks (including the major project) and the ability to evaluate, challenge, mod ify and develop theory and practice. Students are expected to demonstrate an ability to isolate and focus on the significant features of problems and to offer synthetic and coherent solutions, with some students producing original or innovative work in their specialism that is worthy of publication or public performance or display.

Mark Bands Outcome

Generic Learning Outcomes (GLOs) (Academic Regulations, Section 2)

Knowledge & Understanding Intellectual (thinking), Practical, Affective and Transferable Skills

C h

a ra

c te

ri s ti

c s

o f

S tu

d e n

t A

c h

ie v

e m

e n

t b

y M

a rk

in g

B a n

d

90-100%

Achieves module outcome(s) related to GLO at this level

Exceptional analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics with very clear originality and autonomy. Exceptional development of conceptual structures and argument making an exceptional use of scholarly conventions. Demonstrates independence of thought and a very high level of intellectual rigour and consistency. Work pushes the boundaries of the discipline and may be considered for external publication

Exceptional analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics. Exceptional development of conceptual structures and argument, making consistent use of scholarly conventions. Exceptional research skills, independence of thought, an extremely high level of intellectual rigour and consistency, exceptional expressive/professional skills, and substantial creativity and originality. Exceptional academic/intellectual skills. Work pushes the boundaries of the discipline and may be considered for external publication

80-89%

Outstanding analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics with clear originality and autonomy. Outstanding development of conceptual structures and argument making an exemplary use of scholarly conventions. Demonstrates independence of thought and a very high level of intellectual rigour and consistency

Outstanding analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics. Very high level development of conceptual structures and argument, making consistent use of scholarly conventions. Outstanding research skills, independence of thought, a high level of intellectual rigour and consistency, outstanding expressive/professional skills, and considerable creativity and originality. Exemplary academic/intellectual skills

70-79%

Excellent analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics. Excellent development of conceptual structures and argument making excellent use of scholarly conventions. Demonstrates independence of thought and a high level of intellectual rigour and consistency

Excellent analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics. High level development of conceptual structures and argument, making consistent use of scholarly conventions. Excellent research skills, independence of thought, a high level of intellectual rigour and consistency, excellent expressive/ professional skills, and considerable creativity and originality. Excellent academic/intellectual skills, and considerable creativity and originality

60-69% Good analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics. Development of conceptual structures and argument making consistent use of scholarly conventions

Good analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics. Development of conceptual structures and argument, making consistent use of scholarly conventions

50-59%

Satisfactory knowledge of key issues/ concepts/ethics in discipline. Descriptive in parts but some ability to synthesise scholarship and argument. Minor lapses in use of scholarly conventions

Satisfactory knowledge of key issues/ concepts/ethics in discipline. Descriptive in parts but some ability to synthesise scholarship and argument. Minor lapses in use of scholarly conventions

40-49%

A marginal pass in module outcome(s) related to GLO at this level

Basic knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in discipline. Generally descriptive, with restricted synthesis of existing scholarship and little argument. Use of scholarly conventions inconsistent

Basic knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in discipline. Generally descriptive, with restricted synthesis of existing scholarship and little argument. Use of scholarly conventions inconsistent.

30-39%

A marginal fail in module

outcome(s) related to GLO at this level. Satisfies qualifying mark

Limited knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in discipline. Largely descriptive, with restricted synthesis of existing scholarship and limited argument. Limited use of scholarly conventions.

Limited research skills impede use of learning resources and problem solving. Significant problems with structure/accuracy in expression. Team/Practical/ Professional skills not yet secure. Weak academic/ intellectual skills. Limited use of scholarly conventions

20-29% Fails to achieve module outcome(s) related to this GLO. Qualifying mark not satisfied. No compensation available

Little evidence of knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in discipline. Largely descriptive, with little synthesis of existing scholarship and little evidence of argument. Little evidence of use of scholarly conventions.

Little evidence of research skills, use of learning resources and problem solving. Major problems with structure/ accuracy in expression. Team/Practical/Professional skills virtually absent. Very weak academic/intellectual skills. Little evidence of use of scholarly conventions

10-19%

Inadequate knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in discipline. Wholly descriptive, with inadequate synthesis of existing scholarship and inadequate argument. Inadequate use of scholarly conventions.

Inadequate use of research skills, learning resources and problem solving. Major problems with structure/accuracy in expression. Team/Practical/Professional skills absent. Extremely weak academic/intellectual skills. Inadequate use of scholarly conventions

Page 7 of 7

1-9%

No evidence of knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in discipline. Incoherent and completely but poorly descriptive, with no evidence of synthesis of existing scholarship and no argument whatsoever. No evidence of use of scholarly conventions.

No evidence of use of research skills, learning resources and problem solving. Incoherent structure/accuracy in expression. Team/Practical/Professional skills non- existent. No evidence of academic/intellectual skills. No evidence of use of scholarly conventions

0% Awarded for: (i) non-submission; (ii) dangerous practice and; (iii) in situations where the student fails to address the

assignment brief (eg: answers the wrong question) and/or related learning outcomes