New Zealand Diploma in Business (Level 5)
Course Title Business Marketing
Course DBN505 Version 2
Title Assessment 2 - Report
Level 5 Credits 20 Total Marks
[Weighting] 120 marks
[60%]
Student Name
Student ID
Tutor’s Name
Week Due 10 Due Date
Questions Ex. Sum Intro New Product SWOT Porter’s 5 Forces Mrkt.Obj. Mrkt. Strategy Mrkt. Mix Conc Total
Total Marks 5 5 5 20 25 5 30 20 5 120
Marks Awarded
Assessor’s Overall Feedback
Student’s Signature: _____________________________ Date: _________________
LEARNING OUTCOMES ASSESSED
Learning Outcome Sections Mark Allocation
Percentage Allocation
LEARNING OUTCOME ONE
Use planning and problem-solving techniques in marketing to enable innovation and organisational change.
Exec. Summary
The New Product
Marketing Objectives
Marketing Strategy
Marketing Mix
Conclusion 1.25
2.5
2.5
15.0
10.0
1.25 16%
LEARNING OUTCOME TWO
Analyse the impact of internal environments on entity marketing.
Exec. Summary
Introduction
SWOT Analysis
Conclusion 1.25
5.0
10.0
1.25 9%
LEARNING OUTCOME THREE
Analyse the impact of external customer environments on organisations.
Exec. Summary
SWOT Analysis
Porter’s Five Forces
Conclusion 1.25
10.0
25
1.25 19%
LEARNING OUTCOME FOUR
Use strategies to identify and plan marketing opportunities.
Exec. Summary
The New Product
Marketing Objectives
Marketing Strategy
Marketing Mix
Conclusion 1.25
2.5
2.5
15.0
10.0
1.25 16%
Total 120 marks 60%
General Instructions:
1. “APA” 6th edition referencing and citation are compulsory.
2. Plagiarism would be dealt with zero tolerance and you would fail the assessment.
3. A soft copy of assignment must be submitted on Turnitin by the due date and a hard copy must be submitted to the lecturer on date advised by lecturer.
4. Be advised that any similarity rate 15% or above will result in zero marks as stipulated above.
5. Your work should be free of errors with respect to grammar, spellings and punctuation.

Please read and sign the declaration below:
I have understood the content and learning outcomes to be assessed.
I have been advised of the purpose and the process of the assessment.
I consent to assessment results and materials being used by my establishment.
I agree to carry out the assessment without assistance from anyone else.
___________________________________________ _____/____/____
Student’s Signature Date

Assessment 2
Read the following case study and write a report on a new product you plan to introduce to the market for The Better Drinks company.
Case Study: The Better Drinks Co.
In the late 1990s, three childhood friends, Marc, Simon and Stefan, decided all New Zealand consumers deserved fresh orange juice made from fresh oranges – not the juice on offer that was made from concentrate and full of preservatives. And these three friends knew a thing or two about fresh orange juice. Ex-All Blacks, Marc Ellis and Simon Neal already had a juicing operation catering to Auckland’s food service market. Stefan Lepionka’s own fresh juice company, Stefan’s Orange Juice, had been bought out by Frucor Beverages and Stefan had spent time in the United Kingdom trading fruit juice commodities and consulting with England’s leading fruit smoothie and fresh juice company. In 1999, the trio established Charlie’s (Charlie’s Group Limited) to bring higher-quality, not-from-concentrate juice products to New Zealand consumers. The product line quickly expanded to include a range of fruit juices such as apple and mango, sports water flavoured with fruit juice, and branded fruit such as mandarins and lemons sold to green grocers and supermarkets.
2005 was a big year for Charlie’s when the company listed on the New Zealand stock exchange in July – a mere six years after launch. In September, Charlie’s began its ‘Honest’ campaign, overhauling the brand, naming, packaging and promotion to reflect the company’s key differentiating feature of being fresh squeezed, promising Kiwi consumers ‘the juice, the whole juice and nothing but the juice’. In December, Charlie’s purchased Phoenix Organics, an Auckland-based company started in 1986 by three mates determined to produce organic juices, sparkling drinks and water that were good for consumers and made using sustainable methods that were good for the planet. The two companies represented a good strategic and philosophical fit, and when the Charlie’s and Phoenix Organics’ distribution networks were combined, Charlie’s became New Zealand’s most widely distributed fresh drinks company.
In addition to the Charlie’s and Phoenix Organics brands, an additional brand was created called Juicy Lucy, producing juice products specifically designed for both supermarkets and the food service industry, e.g. hotels, bars and restaurants. The Charlie’s brand has continued to expand and now includes five product ranges: juice, fruit smoothies (e.g. berry with acai), quenchers (e.g. lemonade), coconut coolers and water (in an eco-bottle made entirely from plants).
To compete in the not-from-concentrate segment, Charlie’s needs a controlled high-volume supply of fresh fruit that New Zealand’s comparatively small citrus industry is unable to provide. Unlike competitors who produced their juices using concentrate sourced from around the world, Charlie’s chose to import its fresh juice from third party contract bottlers in Australia. In 2007, Charlie’s acquired its own manufacturing plant in South Australia in the middle of a citrus orchard with exclusive rights to the orchard’s output, giving it increased control over product quality and improving profit margins. When Charlie’s acquired Phoenix Organics they acquired more than just a new product line. Phoenix Organics was already exporting to Australia and the Asia-Pacific region, so Charlie’s also acquired crucial market knowledge and exporting experience. This knowledge and experience, coupled with a measured, strategic approach, has resulted in Charlie’s securing deals in 2010 and 2011 with major Australian supermarket chains Coles and Woolworths, and a six-month trial with BP Australia. These deals gave Charlie’s access to Australia’s 20 million consumers and its annual AUS$1 billion beverage market. Interestingly, it’s Charlie’s Old Fashioned Lemon Quencher that’s now the company’s ‘hero product’, accounting for some 70 per cent of the Australian volume.
While Charlie’s advertising may still be humorous or even controversial (think firecrackers and sunbathing), reflecting the personalities of its founders, the company has well and truly grown up, with sales expected to top NZ$50 million in 2011. Charlie’s brands are now sold in 16 countries, and in New Zealand the company successfully competes in a market dominated by multinationals Coca-Cola Amatil, Danone-owned Frucor and other brands as follows:

In a move designed to drive continuous improvement in everything the business does, iconic New Zealand beverage company Charlie’s changed its name to The Better Drinks Co Limited. The change represents far more than simply a new name, says The Better Drinks Co. CEO, Craig Cotton. Consumers can expect to welcome new products and new brands which, like Phoenix and Charlie’s, will all have something ‘better’ about them. Trade customers are promised the business will be better than its competitors at listening and responding to their needs.
“Better” is a challenge and a promise that gives us something to live up to,” Cotton says. “Better range, better choice and being better at everything we do from sourcing, manufacturing and final delivery via our customers to our consumers. We simply want to start by being better listeners to our staff, to our customers, consumers and partners.” Cotton says the ‘honest’ values that set Charlie’s apart from its competitors remain. “Our aim is to build a strong New Zealand company that’s winning at home and overseas, while retaining the Charlie’s values of honesty and integrity. We’re thinking big but acting small.”
The change of corporate name doesn’t affect the well known and loved Charlie’s and Phoenix brand names, Cotton says. “The separation of corporate and brand identities gives us the freedom to drive greater brand innovation and that is one of the prime goals of the move.”
For more information on the company, visit:
http://www.betterdrinks.co.nz/
Case study adapted from:
Solomon, M., Marshall, G., & Stuart, E. (2012). Marketing: Real people. Real choices (2nd ed). Auckland: Pearson New Zealand.
Scoop Media. (2013). Charlie’s grows into the Better Drinks Co. Retrieved from http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1306/S00003/charlies-grows-into-the-better-drinks-co.htm

Instructions for individual assignment - Report
Based on your analysis from the case study, write a report on a new product you plan to introduce to the market for The Better Drinks company.
Your Report should include the following:
Assignment cover page Include the assignment cover page as the first page of your report.
Report cover page Showing the subject code, subject name, student names and ID numbers, assignment title and word count.
Executive Summary A brief summary of the Report.
Table of contents A list of headings and sub-headings used with corresponding page numbers.
Main sections Comprising introduction, contents/Body, and conclusion
List of references The reference style used should be APA 6th edition.
Report (120 marks)
Detailed Guide for your Report:
Sections LO Total Marks
Executive summary (100-150 words)
Provide a brief summary of the following topics highlighting only the key points
(5 marks)
(Notes: Please refer to the rubric, below, for marking criteria and scale)
1, 2, 3, 4 5
Table of content N/A N/A
1. Introduction (100-150 words)
Based on the case study and your own research, provide a brief overview of The Better Drinks company:
• Brief history
• Type of business
• Location
• Vision/mission statement
(5 marks)
(Notes: Please refer to the rubric, below, for marking criteria and scale) 2 5
2. SWOT Analysis (400-450 words)
Conduct a SWOT analysis on The Better Drinks company. Discuss three (3) points for each SWOT factor. (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats).
(4 factors X 5 marks each = 20 marks)
(Notes: Please refer to the rubric, below, for marking criteria and scale)
2 & 3 20
3. Porter’s Five Forces Analysis (450-500 words)
Conduct a Porter’s Five Forces analysis on The Better Drinks company. In your analysis, do indicate if the level of threat is low, medium or high.
(5 factors X 5 marks each = 25 marks)
(Notes: Please refer to the rubric, below, for marking criteria and scale) 3 25
4. The New Product (100-150 words)
Provide a brief description the new product that will be introduced to the market.
(5 marks)
(Notes: Please refer to the rubric, below, for marking criteria and scale) 1 & 4 5
5. Marketing Objectives (100-150 words)
Discuss three (3) objectives for your new product to be offered in the market. Objectives should be written in SMART terms.
(5 marks)
(Notes: Please refer to the rubric, below, for marking criteria and scale)
1 & 4 5
6. Marketing Strategy
Based on the case study and your own research, analyse the market segments, target market and positioning of your new product offering for The Better Drinks company.
6.1 Market segment (350-400 words)
(Geographic, Demographic, Psychographic & Behavioural)
(4 segments X 5 marks each = 20 marks)
(Notes: Please refer to the rubric, below, for marking criteria and scale)
6.2 Targeting strategy (100-150 words) (5 marks)
(Notes: Please refer to the rubric, below, for marking criteria and scale)
6.3 Positioning - Unique selling proposition (USP) (100-150 words) (5 marks)
(Notes: Please refer to the rubric, below, for marking criteria and scale)
1 & 4 30
7. Marketing Mix (350-400 words)
Conduct a marketing mix (4P’s) analysis on the new product that will be introduced. (Product, Price, Place & Promotion)
(5 marks X 4 Ps =20 marks)
(Notes: Please refer to the rubric, below, for marking criteria and scale)
1 & 4 20
8. Conclusion (100-150 words)
Give a conclusion, highlighting the key points in your report
(5 marks)
(Notes: Please refer to the rubric, below, for marking criteria and scale)
1, 2, 3, 4 5
Referencing
The reference style used should be APA 6th edition.
Not Applicable
Total marks
120

Marking Rubric
Marks 0 1 2 3 4 5
Assessment Criteria
Knowledge & understanding of subject
Major gaps in knowledge and understanding. Significant inaccuracies. Gaps in knowledge and superficial understanding. Some inaccuracies. Broadly accurate knowledge and understanding of the material. Some elements missing and flaws evident. Sound, routine knowledge and understanding of the material, main concepts and key theories. Some flaws may be evident. Good, consistent knowledge and understanding of the material, main concepts and key theories at this level. Highly detailed knowledge and understanding of material, concepts and theories at this level. Awareness of the ambiguities and limitations of knowledge.
Cognitive/ Intellectual Skills
(e.g. logic and argument; organisation and communication of ideas and evidence)
Brief and irrelevant. Descriptive. Only personal views offered. Unsubstantiated generalisations. Little or no attempt to draw conclusions.
For the most part descriptive. Views/ findings sometimes illogical or contradictory. Generalisations/ statements made with scant evidence. Conclusions lack relevance and/or validity. Some awareness of issues. Sense of argument emerging though not completely coherent. Some evidence to support views, but not always consistent. Some relevant conclusions. Issues identified within given areas. An emerging awareness of different views and ability to use evidence to support a coherent argument. Broadly valid conclusions. Arguments generally logical, coherently expressed, well organised and supported. Acknowledgement of views of others. Sound conclusions. Logical and persuasive points made throughout the work within a highly coherent argument. Carefully selected evidence, drawn from relevant research. Convincing conclusions.
Use of research informed-literature
(including referencing, appropriate academic conventions and academic honesty)
No evidence of reading. Views are unsupported and non- authoritative. Academic conventions largely ignored. Evidence of little reading appropriate for the level of study, and/or random use of sources. Academic conventions used weakly.
Some evidence of reading, with superficial linking to given text(s). Some academic conventions evident and largely consistent, but with some weaknesses. Knowledge of literature beyond core text(s). Literature used accurately but descriptively. Academic skills generally sound. Knowledge of the field of literature appropriately used to support views. Research-informed literature integrated into the work. Good use of academic conventions.
Exceptionally wide range of relevant literature used to discuss argument, balance discussion and/or inform problem-solving. Consistently accurate and assured use of academic conventions.
Use of professional English No evidence of professional word choice.
Many sentence fragments and therefore answer is unclear.
Answer is lost in poor construction or loss of it.
No paragraphs or an incomplete paragraph.
Many spelling, capitalisation and punctuation errors.
Too many grammar and usage errors.
Word choice is unprofessional.
More than 2 sentence fragments.
Meaning is lost in poor construction.
Awkward paragraph
construction clouds the writing.
Spelling, capitalization, or punctuation errors make answer unclear.
Grammar & usage errors make writing unclear. Word choice is inappropriate and sometimes uses action verbs and passive voice.
Sometimes uses complete simple sentences but lacks complexity and variety.
Writing has paragraphs but underdeveloped.
3-4 spelling, capitalization, or punctuation errors.
3 – 4 grammar & usage errors. Word choice is generally appropriate and uses action verbs and passive voice with two or three errors. Generally uses complete sentences of varied length and complexity. Writing displays some effective paragraph divisions and the number of paragraphs is generally matches the required format/task. Generally main purpose of task is clear and coherent mostly. Minor spelling, capitalisation or punctuation errors. Minor grammar and English usage errors. Word choice is mostly appropriate and uses action verbs and passive voice appropriately. Mostly uses complete sentences of varied length and complexity. Writing displays some effective paragraph divisions and the number of paragraphs is appropriate to the required format/task. Main purpose of task is clear and coherent mostly. 1-2 spelling, capitalisation or punctuation errors. 1-2 grammar and English usage errors. Word choice is appropriate and uses action verbs and passive voice appropriately. Uses complete sentences of varied length and complexity. Writing displays effective paragraph divisions and the number of paragraphs is appropriate to the required format/task. Main purpose of task is clear and coherent. No spelling, capitalisation or punctuation errors. Excellent use of grammar and English usage
Note: If a tutor perceives that a student has done sufficiently more work to be awarded a mark higher than the lower grade boundary but not enough to award a mark at the higher grade boundary, then a tutor may award a ½ mark between grade boundaries. If done so, it is done at a lecturer’s discretion. For certain criteria, this means that marks of 0.5, 1.5, 2.5 … 4.5 inclusive may be awarded.
End of Assessment 2