Recent Question/Assignment

Assessment Task 1:
Marketing Audit
Due: Week 3
Value: 35%
Format: Report
Word length: 2000 - 2500 words
Learning outcomes: 2,3,6,7,8
Task description
Successful marketing organisations undertake comprehensive, systematic, independent and periodic examinations of the company's or business unit's marketing environment, objectives, strategies and activities. You should consider your responses to this assessment task as a partial marketing audit for your chosen organisation.
Using the Chapter Assignments detailed below in the Kotler & Keller (2016) Appendix, answer the questions as if posed for your chosen organisation (i.e. not for Sonic).
Note: Please discuss your chosen organisation (or business unit, division, brand) with your Facilitator, before commencing this assessment task.
• Chapter 3 – Collecting Information and Forecasting Demand (A8)
• Chapter 6 or Chapter 7 (depending whether B2C or B2B) – Analysing Markets (A9)
• Chapter 9 – Identifying Market Segments and Targets (A10)
• Chapter 10 – Crafting the Brand Positioning (A10)
Assessment Submission Requirements:
1. Your assessment is to be written in a business format.
2. Include reference to a minimum of 3 suitable academic journal and/or business articles in your assignment. You can search the AIM Library database, or use some of the ones provided in the Additional Resources section under each topic. You may also have to research other online industry related articles to support your research.
3. Your report must not exceed 2500 words.
Note, any executive summary, table of contents, tables and reference list are not included in the word count.
4. Appendices and tables may be used to clarify and support your arguments, but should not be used to circumvent the word count limit.
5. Submit to the Assessment section of myABS as one document.
Assessment Criteria:
Please refer to the detailed marking rubric on the next page.
Rubric: Assessment Task 1 - Marketing Audit
Fail
(0-49%) Pass (50-64%) Credit
(65-74%) Distinction (75-84%) High Distinction (85-100%)
Presentation and report format fail to meet prescribed AIM standard. Presentation and report format just meet AIM standard. Presentation and report format to prescribed AIM standard. Presentation and report format exceed prescribed AIM standard. Presentation and report format far exceed prescribed AIM standard.
Demonstration of a poor level reading and/or lacks inclusion of requisite references in Harvard reference style. Demonstration of acceptable reading and inclusion of requisite references in Harvard reference style. Demonstration of wide reading and inclusion of requisite references in Harvard reference style. Demonstration of additional reading and inclusion of requisite references in Harvard reference style. Demonstration of exemplary reading and inclusion of requisite references in exacting Harvard reference style.
Academic writing inappropriate to postgraduate level of study. Poorly articulated.
Significantly outside required word count. Academic writing just appropriate to postgraduate level of study. Basic articulation. Largely within required word count. Academic writing appropriate to postgraduate level of study. Clearly articulated. Within required word count. Academic writing at a high postgraduate level of study. Clearly articulated. Within required word count. Academic writing at a very high postgraduate level of study. Exemplary articulation. Within required word count.
Poorly structure, lacks logical flow to argument. Basic structure and flow to argument. Well structured, logical flow to argument. Very well structured, with strong flow of argument. Excellent structure and flow to argument.
Lacks knowledge of concepts. Basic knowledge of concepts.
Demonstration of knowledge of concepts. Solid demonstration of knowledge and concepts. Exemplary demonstration of knowledge and concepts.
No, or poor, use of concepts to support arguments or recommendations. Basic use of concepts to support arguments or recommendations. Concepts support the argument or recommendations being made. Concepts strongly support the argument or recommendations being made. Exceptional use of concepts support the argument or recommendations being made.
Demonstrates little or no practical application of concepts. Demonstrates basic practical application of concepts. Demonstrates practical application of concepts. Demonstrates strong practical application of concepts. Demonstrates exceptional practical application of concepts.
Little or no use of workplace-related examples to support the argument or recommendations made. Basic use of workplace-related examples to support the argument or recommendations made. Workplace-related examples support the argument or recommendations made. Strong use of workplace-related examples to support the argument or recommendations made. Exemplary use of workplace-related examples to support the argument or recommendations made.
Lacks any significant analytical thinking in relation to concepts. Basic demonstration of analytical thinking in relation to concepts. Demonstration of analytical thinking in relation to concepts. Demonstration of strong analytical thinking in relation to concepts. Demonstration of exceptional analytical thinking in relation to concepts.
Little or no evidence of analytical thinking in relation to workplace examples. Demonstration of basic analytical thinking in relation to workplace examples. Demonstration of analytical thinking in relation to workplace examples. Demonstration of strong analytical thinking in relation to workplace examples. Demonstration of exemplary analytical thinking in relation to workplace examples.
Recommendations
poorly articulated and little evidence of analysis. Recommendations
very basically; articulated and/or drawn from analysis. Recommendations
well-articulated and clearly drawn from analysis. Recommendations
strongly articulated and clearly drawn from analysis. Recommendations exceptionally well- articulated and very clearly drawn from analysis.

Looking for answers ?


Recent Questions