Strategic Marketing Management Assessment Brief

Strategic Marketing Management Assessment Brief

Your Task:

Write a strategic and integrated Marketing Plan for your organisation or an organisation with which you are familiar. (100% weighting of overall module mark; 3500-word count)

You are required to apply relevant and appropriate academic models, concepts and tools to demonstrate your understanding of strategic marketing and how this is applied within the organisation.

Deadline:Sunday 23.59, 11/02/2024.

How to submit:Please submit a Word Document to Turnitin on Moodle. If you submit a PDF, you will be asked to re-submit again. It is easier to check for Unfair Practice in a Word Document.

Word Count:Strictly no more than 3500 words. Cover Page, Table of Contents, In-text tables, Executive Summary, Appendices, and List of References areexcluded.

Late Submissions:If you cannot submit your assignment due to mitigating circumstances, please inform your tutor before the deadline. The decision to grant an extension is made based on the Universitys Mitigating Circumstances Policy. Please refer to this policy on Moodle. Late submission without prior approval from the module leader, if it is within a week from the deadline, is subject to the mark being capped at 50%. If the submission is later than a week, a mark of zero will be given.

Your Marketing Plan must be structured as follows:

Title Page

Executive Summary:Summarise your plan, the objectives, strategy and key findings.

In about 250-300 words.

Table of contents.

Background overview: of the organisation/company (or the business you wish to start). This section briefly explains the scope of the business, the markets it serves, and the products/services it offers.

Marketing Objectives: state the marketing objectives with SMART in mind and how the objectives will be measuredMarketing Objectives (SMART Application).

Strategy Formulation. In this section, specify the specific strategies that should be used, such as positioning, branding, communication etc. How these strategies will be implemented and measured?

Marketing Strategies -

Marketing Theory and Frameworks

Application of concepts covered in this module

Audit Analysis. In this section, a marketing audit is conducted, both external and internal analysis (SWOT) and identifies the marketing approach that should be addressed in this plan.

Marketing Audit

External and Internal Audit

SWOT analysis

Competitor analysis

Action Plan. Finally, you should specify any action plan and Contingency/Risk factors.

You must demonstrate evidence of research, so it is expected that you use references in your marketing plan, such as academic articles, newspapers, and market research websites/databases.

PLEASE NOTE: WE ARE NOT EXPECTING BUDGET FIGURES IN THIS PLAN; HOWEVER THE MARKETING AIMS AND OBJECTIVES REQUIRE BEING REASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE FOR THE PRODUCT/SERVICE AT THE CENTRE OF THIS MARKETING PLAN.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

Fail (0 - 49) Pass (50 - 59) Merit (60 - 69) Distinction (70 - 100)

Completeness, cohesiveness and presentation The plan is poorly explained or presented, it is incomplete, conflicting, impractical or unsupported in substantial areas

The plan is largely complete though it may have flaws. There is insight into the organisation and markets, but there may be gaps. The plan is complete with minimal flaws. Part a) is well constructed, and Part b) demonstrates sufficient insight to support the vision. The plan is compelling and insightful. Part b) answers almost all key questions.

Strategic vision and alignment with the organisation The strategic vision is unclear or impractical. Alignment with the organisation is markedly limited.

The strategic vision may have flaws but is largely clear and practical. The organisations strategic approach is identified with evidence and there is some alignment.

The strategic vision is clear and well-expressed. Practicality is demonstrated. It is directly aligned with the organisations (evidenced) strategic direction. The strategic vision demonstrates strong insight into the marketing mix and is resolved into an approach likely to deliver substantial value to the organisation.

Choice and justification of approach The approach is unclear or inappropriate. An approach has been used, but the application and explanation have flaws. The approach is well chosen and largely appropriate, with an explanation of the choices relevant to the organisation and substantially complete.

The approach is clear, appropriate and well-justified, possibly involving a synthesis of several prescriptions. The explanation is nuanced and context-specific.

Governance and Risk Management Assessment Brief

This module is assessed by:

Maximum 4,000 words Report (100%) DUE: 23:59, Sunday 11/02/2024.

Assessment Details:

You are provided below with a list of organisations from which you must choose one to complete your report.

For your chosen company,

How could governance and/or risk management practice be enhanced to further the development of the organisation?

Your critical analysis must focus on the main theories, concepts, and tools we have discussed in our sessions and how these are applied (and not applied) correctly at your chosen organisation. You must substantiate all of your claims with either academic or practitioner sources that support your claims. You must cover all fields of corporate governance and risk management in your report.

You are welcome to decide which areas of these fields to explore; for instance, you could consider the firm generally/overall in respect of its corporate governance, or you may explore a particular/focussed aspect of its corporate governance more in-depth (this is useful when the organisation is doing something particularly well or poorly as we explore in the session tasks).

The organisations chosen have a range of publicly available/published company documents - you must use these to help substantiate your analysis, e.g., annual reports, financial and non-financial reports, strategy reports and even turnover, profits, and market share statistics, etc.

However, it is also likely that you will have limited access to some more private internal company information, so you will need to make some inferences or informed assumptions about how the company operates using publicly-available information.

For instance, whilst you are unlikely to have access to the firms risk register, you could brainstorm likely risks to the firm (based on usual risks in the market), create a risk heat map (based on examples found), and suggest appropriate risk responses.

Please ensure that your work is no longer than 4,000 words (maximum), excluding the list of references. You must use Harvard referencing.

You are required to use the academic writing style.

You must read the below Marking Criteria carefully, as this will give you the best understanding of the Assessment requirements and what you need to do to achieve a good grade.

Organisations list:

(you must choose one of the following companies as the case study of your report)

Barclays PLC (or Barclays Bank PLC/Barclays Bank UK PLC)

Tata Group PLC

Unilever Group PLC

Associated British Foods PLC

Intercontinental Hotels Group

Assessment Submission Instructions:

By the due date, submit a PDF or Word document copy of your assignment through the Turnitin link in the Assessments section of this modules Minerva site.

You do NOT need to submit a paper copy of your assignment.

PLEASE NOTE: submission through TURNITIN constitutes your agreement to abide by the University's Academic Misconduct (unfair practice) Policy.

BM7037: GOVERNANCE, ETHICS AND RISK MANAGEMENT

MARKING CRITERIA

Fail

0 - 49% Pass

50 - 59% Merit

60 - 69% Distinction

70 - 100%

Knowledge demonstrated & use of resources Mostly inappropriate resources (e.g. websites; non-peer-reviewed articles).

Key theories or authors missing.

No attempt to critique resources. Mainly good-quality resources.

Some key theories and authors considered.

Little evaluation of resources quality. Only good-quality resources are used;Most key theories and authors considered;Some critical evaluation of resources quality.

Knowledge at/near the forefront of discipline;A critical, comprehensive evaluation of resources.

Analysis, synthesis, cogency and persuasiveness One of the key themes of the module (governance, ethics, risk management) missing. The organisation is not from the list provided.

Core, foundational concepts/principles missing throughout.

Entirely descriptive or explanatory work.

Little to no underpinning of assertions.

All themes of the module are covered. The organisation from the list provided.

Core, foundational concepts/principles missing in limited places.

Some demonstration of systematic knowledge.

Evidence of criticality in analysis. Analysis cogent and focussed.

Some assertions underpinned. 1 - 2 original arguments advanced. Substantial coverage of core, foundational concepts/principles;Substantial demonstration of systematic knowledge;Analysis deep in parts, and exploratory;Most assertions are evaluative and underpinned. Several original arguments advanced. Near or complete coverage of core, foundational concepts/principles;A comprehensive demonstration of systematic knowledge;Analysis fully (and therefore deeply throughout) explores the area of investigation in a fully critical fashion;All assertions are underpinned. Original arguments advanced throughout.

English Much incomprehensible.

Written in the first person. Comprehensible. Minimal grammatical, spelling & syntax errors. Proper paragraphs.

Some structure.

Written in the third person. No errors;Concisely written;The structure is evident throughout. Varied, engaging prose;The structure is evident at the sentence level & substantially aids clarity.

Referencing Neither the in-text nor postscript list of references is correct (in convention used and/or format), or substantial errors with both types. Either the in-text or postscript list of references is entirely correct, or both are substantially correct.

List of references alphabetised.

Referencing is wholly correct except for pinpointing and multiple papers from a single year dealt with correctly. Referencing doesnt interfere with the flow of prose;Pinpointing throughout and multiple papers from a single year dealt with correctly.

Qualities for sound, good, excellent and outstanding classifications include all lower classification qualities.