Individual Assignment Brief MMIP 2022

Master of Business
Administration
Marketing Management in Practice
Individual Assignment Brief
Lecturer
Mr. Haritha Indeepa
lunes, 27 de junio de 2011

Universidad Católica San Antonio de Murcia - Tlf: (+34) 968 27 88 00 [email protected] - www.ucam.edu
Assignment
Assessment Types and Weightings
Assessment Type Weighting Remarks

Group Assessment 60% of the total marks 60% for the group presentation
40% for the group report
Individual Assessment 40% of the total marks 100% for the report
Individual Assessment brief

Module code and title Marketing Management in Practice (MMIP)
Lecturer Name & Contact Mr. Haritha Indeepa
details [email protected]
Assessment type Individual Assignment
Submission date of the Five weeks from the last lecture date
individual report
Assessment limits Individual report: Maximum 2,000 words (excluding reference
list & appendixes).
Word count must not exceed the limit by more than 10%.
Assessment weighting
40% of the total marks
This assessment is testing the module learning results
LR 1: Evaluate marketing opportunities in an organization.

LR 2: Design and evaluate a framework for an integrated strategic marketing plan for an organization.
LR 3: Design and evaluate a marketing campaign for an organization.
LR 4: Identify and select new customer product or service ideas and apply appropriate tools and
techniques wherever relevant
2
Nombre del profesor - Tlf: (+34) 968 27 88 00 - [email protected]
Assignment
Total marks are allocated in accordance with below criteria.
✓ In-depth Knowledge of the Topics 25% marks

✓ Application of theories in to the selected brand 50% marks
✓ Application of local/ global examples to selected brand 10% marks
✓ Referencing material and professional presentation 15% marks
Referencing and Professionalism

A professional approach to assignment is expected from all candidates. You must therefore identify
and acknowledge ALL sources or/and an appropriate referencing system to achieve this. Please
ensure you don’t ‘cut and paste’ from other people’s work. You are advised to refer the annual
reports/web sites or any other valid document and write in your own word. If you fail to do so, will
be considered as a plagiarism. You are expected to carry out a professional report format (No
pictures please). Pictures and supporting documents can be attached to as annexures to the report.
INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT BRIEF
• Select a brand of your choice. Better if the selected brand is a global/ local brand with the
information access relating to their digital marketing (social media platforms etc)
• Assignment tasks:
1. Prepare a report to the Board of Directors of the selected brand assuming that you are the
Digital Marketing Consultant for the selected brand.
2. Please cover the below elements
• Background for the selected brand (Maximum of one side of A4 sheet and can be added to
the word count)
• Digital marketing audit for the selected brand (can use own/ earned and paid media model
with examples)
3
Assignment
• Conduct a digital marketing competitor analysis and state the how each brand justifies their
digital marketing presence (Use 1-10 rating for each brand)
• Apply SOSTAC model for digital marketing planning for next year
• Develop an audience persona for the selected brand and justify why did you select this type of
audience persona
• Recommend digital marketing activities that the selected brand can be used to achieve its
marketing objectives.
• Identify the digital touch points for the selected brand for a potential consumer throughout
his/ her purchasing journey. Illustrate with visibility/ engagement and performance elements.
• Identify and evaluate five key social media KPIs to measure the performance of selected
brands’ digital objectives.
3. It should cover all key elements as illustrated above and can add any other key areas relevant
to digital marketing application. No theory explanations will be expected, and all contents
should be applied to the selected brand.
4. Wherever required, you are supposed to build up scenarios/ assumptions and those should be
clearly mentioned separately as an annexure.
Individual Report:
• Maximum of 2,000 words are expected for the group report. Only 10% extra is allowed and if
it exceeds the 10% limit there will be penalty marks.
• You can produce required contents as annexures at the end of the report.
• In report writing, you have to follow Harvard or APA referencing as professional writing is
expected.
• Consistency of report in terms of fonts, font sizes, layout should be maintained.
• Font sizes for main headings 14 points (bold) subheadings 12 points (bold). Contents can be
in 12 points.
• Font should be Times New Roman and please use the same throughout the report.
• The deadline for the individual report – Five weeks from the last day of the lecture.
Assessment performance Indicators
The pass rate at Masters Level = 50%

This work is outstanding and is of a standard which could be considered for
90%-100% future publication in a professional journal. The work demonstrates engagement
4
Assignment
in a focused academic debate which presents a range of evidence underpinning a

deep understanding of all the issues studied and a totally justified position. The
work demonstrates a high level of originality with challenges to current theory
and/or practice and specific, focused examples of contestability. There is
evidence of a high level of synthesis of theoretical exemplars, underpinning
principles and practical interpretation. No obvious errors in referencing or
grammar or syntax as appropriate.
80%-89% The work is of an excellent standard and has the potential for future publication
in a professional context. The work demonstrates engagement in an academic
debate which presents clear evidence of a considered understanding of the
professional issues studied, the approach adopted and the position taken. The
work enhances current theory and/or practice and displays a range of examples
of contestability. There is evidence of clear synthesis of theoretical issues and
practice. A critical analysis of theoretical models and/or practical applications
has resulted in a distinct level of originality. Very few errors in referencing or
grammar or syntax as appropriate.
70%-79% There is evidence of analysis and critique of concepts, models of key authors,
rival theories, and major debates together with some evidence of synthesis. The
work fully considers the complexity of the context in which it is situated and the
impinging external factors; it takes cognizance of differing perspectives and
interpretations and recognizes dilemmas. Ideas are presented in a succinct
manner and conclusions are well reasoned. The work shows an ability to critique
the underlying assumptions upon which current views are based and to challenge
received opinion. Few errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.
60%-69% The work demonstrates a capacity to express views based on sound argument
and solid evidence in an articulate and concise way, and, where relevant, to put
forward and make use of criteria for the judgement of theories and issues. There
is evidence of effective engagement in a critical dialogue relating to professional
practice, a clearly presented overview of an area of concern, and a comparative
review of key authors, rival theories and major debates. The work demonstrates
a willingness to question and to explore issues and to synthesize theoretical
perspectives and practical application within a given professional context. Some
small repeated errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.
The structure and focus are evident and relevant to the assignment task. There is
50%-59% evidence of engagement with pertinent issues. Key authors and major debates
are clearly presented and there is evidence of suitable basic reading. The work
explores and analyses issues, but is not strong on presenting synthesis or
evaluations. The work is mainly descriptive, but has achieved all the learning
outcomes.
Some repeated errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.
Whilst some of the characteristics of a pass have been demonstrated, the work
40%-49% does not address each of the outcomes for the specified assessment task. There
may be little evidence of an ability to apply the principles of the module to a
wider context. The work may be an overly descriptive account demonstrating
only minimal interpretation, and very limited evidence of analysis, synthesis or
evaluation. No counterarguments or alternative frames of reference are generated
5
Assignment
or considered.
There is evidence of sufficient grasp of the module’s learning outcomes to
suggest that the participant will be able to retrieve the module on resubmission.
Grading Scale – Master Level Postgraduate Qualification

Marks Grade
90-100 Distinction
70-89 Merit
50-69 Pass
40-49 Fail with Re-sit
0-39 Fail with Re-take
6

Individual Assignment Brief MMIP 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Individual Assignment Brief MMIP 2022

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Individual Assignment Brief MMIP 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Master of Business

Individual Assignment Brief

Mr. Haritha Indeepa

lunes, 27 de junio de 2011

Assessment Types and Weightings

Assessment Type Weighting Remarks

Individual Assessment brief

This assessment is testing the module learning results

LR 1: Evaluate marketing opportunities in an organization.

Total marks are allocated in accordance with below criteria.

✓ In-depth Knowledge of the Topics 25% marks

Referencing and Professionalism

INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT BRIEF

Assessment performance Indicators

The pass rate at Masters Level = 50%

in a focused academic debate which presents a range of evidence underpinning a

Grading Scale – Master Level Postgraduate Qualification

You might also like