LO1 Demonstrate knowledge of contemporary strategic marketing theory and practices

Activity

Hours

Overall percentage of total

Scheduled teaching

22

15%

Guided Independent Study

178

85%

Placement / Year Abroad

0

Total

200

100%

November Autumn Term

Week

Session Theme and Description

Seminar Activity/

Reading or tasks to complete/prepare (if relevant)

1

Induction To Marketing Strategy & Planning

Discussion on the value of strategy

2

The key aspects of strategy & Planning

SWOT & PESTLE

3

Value Proposition & Strategy

What is Value Proposition?

4

Customer Analysis

What is Segmentation?

5

Marketing Information and Research

The marketing environment

6

The Marketing Mix

How to deliver value with 6 Ps.

7

Promotion: Integrated marketing communication

Communication as key of success

8

FORMATIVE

FORMATIVE & 1-2-1

9

Consumer Behaviour

What is changing today

10

Different strategic approaches

Case study

11

Recap & Q&A pre - submission

1-2-1

Recommended Reading

Essential

Kotler, P, Armstrong, G, Wong, V, Saunders,J. and BurkWood, M.  (2017) Principles of Marketing (7th European Ed).  FT/Prentice Hall

Lovelock, Christopher H. (2011) Services marketing : people, technology, strategy Harlow : Pearson

Szmigin, Isabelle (2018) Consumer behaviour Oxford University Press

Recommended

Jobber, D. (2009) Principles and Practice of Marketing (6th Ed).  McGraw-Hill

Jim, B., (2009) Principles and Practice of Marketing (2nd edition). Cengage Learning EMEA Publishing

Assessment Title

Weight towards final grade %

Length

Due Date

Anticipated Return Date

Individual Market Report

100%

3000

16-02-2021

WC 08-03-2021

CRITERION

There should be at least one criteria              against each learning outcome for the unit

MAPS TO LEARNING OUTCOME

Knowledge of

Strategic thinking and strategic planning within a marketing and business context

LO1

Understanding Through application of:

Analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of a range of case studies and strategic models, research sources and methodologies

LO2

Technical and professional applied skills

Professional skills through written academic conventions 

LO3

Banding

Knowledge and Understanding

(30%)

Analysis, Evaluation and Application of Theory

(30%)

Quality of Research

(20%)

Academic Writing

(20%)

90-100%

Exceptional knowledge base exploring, analysing, and evaluating the discipline and its theory with extraordinary originality and autonomy. You are required to focus on one chosen brand, and to conduct research into the market sector within the fashion industry that is relevant to the chosen brand. You will need to utilize sufficient breadth and depth of research to enable you to produce 3000 words repor

Demonstrates an exceptional grasp of relevant analytical techniques, and the ability to apply these to new and/or abstract information and situations. Shows a highly developed appreciation of the limits and/or appropriate uses of analytical and evaluative approaches. Knowledge and understanding of theory, where relevant, is highly detailed. Exceptional appreciation of the limits of theory demonstrated throughout all assessment outcomes. Approach to assessment task is theoretically informed to an exceptional standard.

Exceptional exploration of wider academic sources with a high degree of independent learning which exceeds the assessment brief. Sources have been accurately interpreted and integrated with flawless synthesis, leading to innovative and interesting ideas. With some adjustments, work may be considered for internal publication.

Exceptional answer with coherent and logical presentation of ideas. The answer exhibits a clear argument/line of reasoning with flair and originality. Discipline specific vocabulary used with precision and academic style applied well throughout. No language errors present and referencing in the CU version of Harvard has been employed in an accurate manner. With some adjustments, work may be considered for internal publication.

80-89%

Outstanding knowledge base exploring, analysing and evaluating the discipline and its theory with clear originality and autonomy.

Demonstrates an outstanding grasp of relevant analytical and/or evaluative techniques. Shows a developed appreciation of the limits and/or appropriate uses of analytical and/or evaluative approaches. Knowledge and understanding of theory, where relevant, is detailed and sophisticated. Appreciation of the limits of theory demonstrated throughout the work. Approach to assessment task is clearly and appropriately theoretically informed.

Outstanding exploration of wider academic sources with a high degree of independent learning which exceeds the assignment brief. Sources have been accurately interpreted and integrated with a high degree of synthesis, leading to innovative and interesting ideas. LO1 Demonstrate knowledge of contemporary strategic marketing theory and practices

Outstanding answer with coherent and logical presentation of ideas. The answer exhibits a clear argument/line of reasoning with flair and originality. Discipline specific vocabulary used with precision and academic style applied throughout. No language errors present. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard has been employed in an accurate manner. 

70-79%

Excellent knowledge base that supports analysis and/or evaluation and problem-solving in theory and/or practice within the discipline, with considerable originality.

Demonstrates a detailed, accurate, theoretical understanding. Appropriately selected theoretical knowledge is applied to the individual learning outcomes. Makes excellent use of established techniques of analysis and/or evaluation relevant to the discipline and applies these effectively. Shows developed ability to appraise alternative theories and/or analytic approaches, where relevant.

Excellent exploration of wider academic sources with evidence of independent learning which may exceed the assignment brief. Sources have been accurately interpreted and integrated with an attempt made at synthesis, leading to interesting ideas.

Excellent answer with coherent and logical presentation of ideas. The answer is entirely relevant and focused with a clear argument/line of reasoning throughout. Discipline specific vocabulary used with precision and academic writing style applied throughout. No language errors present. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard has been employed in an accurate manner. 

60-69%

Very good knowledge base that supports analysis and/or evaluation and problem-solving in theory and/or practice within the discipline, with some originality displayed.

Makes very good use of established techniques of analysis and/or evaluation relevant to the discipline. Shows developing ability to compare alternative theories and/or analytic approaches, where relevant.

Very good evidence of wider academic reading and independent learning. Sources have been accurately interpreted and integrated with some evidence of synthesis.

Very good answer with coherent and logical presentation of ideas. The answer is relevant and focused. Discipline specific vocabulary is used and academic writing style applied. Minimal language errors may be present but do not impact on clarity of expression. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard is accurate.  

50-59%

Good knowledge base that supports some analysis and/or evaluation and problem-solving in theory and/or practice within the discipline.

Makes good use of established techniques of analysis and/or evaluation, relevant to the discipline. Sound descriptive knowledge of key theories with some appropriate application.

Good evidence of academic reading, with attempt at moving beyond the recommended texts. Interpretation of sources is acceptable with evidence of integration.

Good answer with coherent and logical presentation. The answer is largely relevant but lacks focus at points. There is an attempt at using discipline specific vocabulary and academic writing style. Some language errors are present which impacts on clarity at times. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard is mostly accurate.

40-49%

Satisfactory knowledge base demonstrating comprehension and formulation of basic knowledge with some omissions at the level of theoretical understanding.

Limited ability to discuss theory and solve problems within the discipline.

Makes satisfactory but limited use of established techniques of analysis and/or evaluation, relevant to the discipline. Selection of theory, if relevant to the assessment outcomes is satisfactory but application and/or understanding is limited.

Satisfactory evidence of academic reading, with minimal attempt to move beyond the recommended texts. Interpretation of sources is acceptable, but there may be some instances of misunderstanding.

Satisfactory answer with some attempt at coherence and logical presentation. The answer contains some irrelevant material and lacks focus at points. There is minimal use of discipline specific vocabulary and academic writing style is inconsistently applied. Some language errors may be present which impacts on clarity at times. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard is mostly accurate but with some errors.

35-39%

(Marginal Fail)

Outcomes not or only partially met. Restricted knowledge base demonstrated.  Limited understanding of discipline. Difficulty with linking theory and problem solving within the discipline.

Attempts at analysis and/or evaluation ineffective and/or uninformed by the discipline. Knowledge of theory inaccurate and/or incomplete. Choice of theory inappropriate. Application and/or understanding very limited.

Limited evidence of reading at an academic level. Sources used may be inappropriate and interpreted poorly. Little evidence of integration.

Answer is attempted but limited. Lack of coherence and logical presentation. The answer contains mainly irrelevant material and lacks focus throughout. Language errors are present and impact on clarity of expression. Academic writing style is not adhered to. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard is inconsistent.

0 – 34%

Little or no evidence of knowledge base. Little evidence of understanding of discipline. Significant difficulty with theory and problem solving within the discipline.

Absence of relevant theoretical content and/or use of theory, where relevant. Lacks any analysis and/or evaluation.

Inadequate or no evidence of reading at an academic level with poor application of sources and ideas. Answer is likely to include inappropriate references which are misunderstood and not integrated. Possibility of plagiarism OR no evidence of academic research. Answer may not be research based.

Answer is inadequate with serious flaws in coherence and presentation. Poorly structured with multiple language errors which impact on clarity. Weak application of CU version of Harvard referencing style.