Assessment 3 Information
Assessment Title: Weighting:
Due Date: MKT303
Assessment 3 – Global Marketing Report (1500 words)
PDF file due Week 13, Tuesday, 3.55 pm AEST
Assessment Description. Global marketing plan
Learning outcomes to demonstrate are LO 1, 3 & 4 found in the subject outline.
You are to pretend to be the International Marketing Manager of Boost Juice. The Boost Juice team have decided to re-enter the Chinese market. As the marketing manager you have been asked to provide an analysis on how you think the brand can succeed in China and devise a global marketing report. In preparation for this report, you need to apply the following the following concepts and theories:
• Hofstede's cultural dimensions;
• Market segmentation, targeting, positioning;
• Marketing mix;
• Porter’s Diamond Model;
• Porter’s Five Forces.
Provide insight into the Boost Juice brand and evaluate the success of the brand in Australia.
1. Outline the marketing techniques used by the brand in Australia
2. Discuss which marketing techniques used in Australia would work in China.
3. Discuss cultural differences that influence marketing decisions in both Australia and China.
4. Provide recommendations as to how the Boost Juice brand can succeed in the Chinese market.
• Submit a 1500-word global marketing report that address the tasks;
• Minimum of 5 credible sources including websites, journal articles, books and supporting industry/professional references.
• References from lecture and tutorial slides not considered credible references.
This file must be submitted as a ‘PDF’ or ‘Word’ document to avoid any technical issues that may occur from incorrect file format upload. Uploaded files with a virus will not be considered as a legitimate submission. Turnitin will notify you if there is any issue with the submitted file. In this case, you must contact your lecturer via email and provide a brief description of the issue and a screen shot of the Turnitin error message.
You are also encouraged to submit your work well in advance of the deadline to avoid any possible delay with the Turnitin similarity report or any other technical difficulties that may occur.
Late assignment submission penalties
Penalties will be imposed on late assignment submissions in accordance with Kaplan Business School’s “late assignment submission penalties” policy.
Number of days Penalty
1* - 9 days 5% per day for each calendar day late deducted from the total marks available
10 - 14 days 50% deducted from the total marks available.
After 14 days Assignments that are submitted more than 14 calendar days after the due date will not be accepted and the student will receive a mark of zero for the assignment(s).
Note Notwithstanding the above penalty rules, assignments will also be given a mark of zero if they are submitted after assignments have been returned to students
*Assignments submitted at any stage within the first 24 hours after deadline will be considered to be one day late and therefore subject to the associated penalty
For more information please read the full policy via
Important Study Information
Academic Integrity Policy
KBS values academic integrity. All students must understand the meaning and consequences of cheating, plagiarism and other academic offences under the Academic Integrity and Conduct Policy.
For details on academic integrity policies and penalties, the reassessment process, and the appeals process, please refer to http://www.kbs.edu.au/current-students/student-policies/.
Word Limits for Written Assessments
Submissions that exceed the word count by more than 10% will cease to be marked from the point at which that limit is exceeded.
Students may seek study assistance from their local Academic Success Centre representative or refer to the study help on the MyKBS Academic Success Centre page. You can find this by clicking on the top page toolbar:
My Services Academic Success Centre Study Support Resources
Assessment Report Marking Rubrics
Criteria Fail Pass Credit Distinction High Distinction
Introduction (20%) Does not state aims or scope Brief outline of aims or scope Solid outline of aims and scope Sufficiently detailed statement of aims and scope Comprehensive
statement of aims and scope.
Research and Analytical
(30%) -Analysis lacks depth, and interpretation lacking or irrelevant. -Analysis does not identify, define or apply relevant theories and concepts.
-Research is either absent or lacks focus due to unsuitable choice of sources. -Analyses business specific information to a limited degree.
-Analysis identifies, defines and applies limited relevant theories and concepts. -Research effort limited however evident; both intext referencing and reference list employed. -Analyses business specific information to a good working knowledge.
-Good working knowledge of relevant theories and concepts. -Research is focused, drawn from an appropriate range of scholarly sources, however could be more extensive in nature. -Analyses and interprets business specific information to a high level of understanding. -Analysis convincingly identifies, defines and applies relevant theories and concepts.
-High degree of research effort evident; quality selection and range of scholarly sources employed. -Critically analyses and interprets business specific information to an excellent level of understanding. -Analysis clearly identifies, defines and applies relevant theories and concepts.
-Extensive research is evident; quality selection and range of scholarly sources employed
-Does not draw together the key findings of the analysis.
-No real conclusion apparent. -Draws together the findings of the analysis in an acceptable manner. -Acceptable conclusions with limited recommendations. -Draws together the key findings of the analysis in a well-written manner.
-Good conclusions with several reasonable recommendations -Draws together the key findings of the analysis comprehensively.
-Very good conclusions with many credible recommendations. -Draws together the key findings of the analysis comprehensively and convincingly.
-Excellent evaluations with succinct & highly developed recommendations
Report Structure and
(20%) -Writing mostly disjointed,
demonstrating little or no structure. Spelling and/or grammar impact on flow and readability. -No evidence of critical thinking. Format chosen lacks structure and cohesion. In-text referencing and/or referencing list missing and/or incorrect. -Writing is understandable but infrequently cohesive. Grammar and spelling contain some errors. -Critical thinking shows limitations.-Format chosen is good enough but requires improvement. In-text referencing and reference list are acceptable but errors are obvious throughout. -Writing is easily readable but not always cohesive. Grammar and spelling are very good. Ideas/themes developed, but connections not always obvious.
-Flow and readability have opportunity for improvement. Format chosen is mostly appropriate. In-text referencing and reference list are very good but there are some errors. -Writing is cohesive and of high academic and professional standard. Grammar and spelling are of excellent quality throughout the report.
-Logical and rational flow between discussion points and sections. Formatting is well presented with only minor errors. In-text referencing and reference list are mostly correct. -Writing is consistently cohesive and of excellent academic and professional standard. Grammar and spelling are flawless (or close enough) throughout the report. Seamless flow between discussion points and sections. -
-Report is professionally presented to required formatting standards. In-text referencing and reference list are correct