Assignment Cover sheet

Programme

MSc Management

Module name

Markets and Marketing

Schedule Term

Dec 2014

Student Reference Number (SRN)

Report/Assignment Title
Date of Submission
(Please attach the confirmation of
any extension received)

Mitigating Circumstances:
I have read the published guidance available on the student intranet (VLE- Academic Registry) outlining
BPPs Mitigating Circumstances policy and I confirm I am not aware of any medical or other mitigating
circumstances that may have impaired my completion and/or submission of this assessment.
Student Reference Number: xxxxxx

Date: xx/xx/xxxx

Declaration of Original Work:

I hereby declare that I have read and understood BPPs on plagiarism and that this is my original work,
researched, undertaken, completed and submitted in accordance with the requirements of BPP Business
School. The word count, excluding contents table, bibliography and appendices, is ___ words.

Student Reference Number: xxxxxx

Date: xx/xx/xxxx

By submitting this coursework you agree to all rules and regulations of BPP regarding
assessments and awards for programmes.
BPP Business School

MSc Management

Module: Markets and Marketing

CourseworkAssessment Brief
(MKT7049)
Dec 2014

Submission deadline: 19th Dec 2014

Submission mode: Turnitin online access

General assessment
guidance

Your summative

assessment must be
th

submitted by 4pm on 19
Dec 2014

You are required to submit your assessment via Turnitin online access. Only submissions made via the specified
mode will be accepted and hard copies or any other digital form of submissions (like via email or pen drive etc.)
will not be accepted. When you submit your work onto Turnitin you MUST use your SRN as the name of your
report

For coursework, the submission word limit is 2,500 words, excluding references and appendices. You must
comply with the word count guidelines. Tables, diagrams and headings are NOT included within wordcount
calculations. You must specify total wordcount on the front page of your report

For coursework, please use font size 11 for body text and the typeface (font) should be Arial or Calibri with 1.5
spacing. For headers and titles, please use font size 14. Your submission must have standard margins and page
numbers.

Please use English (UK) as your language in the submission.

Do not put your name or contact details anywhere on your submission. You should only put your student
identification number (SRN) which will ensure your submission is recognised in the marking process.

A total of 100 marks are available for this module assessment and you are required to achieve minimum 50% to
pass this module.

You are required to use only Harvard Referencing System in your submission. Any content which is already
published by other author(s) and is not referenced will be considered as a case of plagiarism.
You can find further information on Harvard Referencing in the online library on the VLE. You can use the following
link to access this
information:https://bpp.blackboard.com/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_90_1

The University College has a very strict policy regarding plagiarism and in proven instances of plagiarism or
collusion, severe punishment will be imposed on offenders. You are advised to read the rules and regulations
regarding plagiarism and collusion in the GAR and MOPP which are available on VLE in the Academic registry
section.

Extensions: In accordance with BPP General Academic Regulations, any course work handed in late without good
cause will receive a zero (0) grade. Course work submitted for assessment, without prior approval, after the
stated deadline will be accepted within the first five days following the deadline, but shall be penalised by having
five per cent of the total available marks for the assignment deducted for each 24 hour period (or part thereof)
following the deadline.

Students who are unable to hand work in on time for valid reasons may be given approval for the late submission
of assessed course work in accordance with the Extension of Deadline Date for Assessments Procedure (published
online, in the assessment manual and student programme handbook. It is recommended students meet with
their module leader and/or Director of Programmes to discuss this course of action.

BPP MSc Management Dec 2014

Markets and Marketing Module(MKT7049)
Assessment title:
A critical assessment of the marketing challenges
facing an organisation of your choice and the
development of Customer Value
Assessment aims and objectives:
This module is focused on developing your understanding of the marketing function in terms of the
market and the consumer. This module will train you to critically evaluate business situations
the tools and techniques you learn will help guide you through the practice of business
management, focusing on improving your decision-making skills as it draws links between
economics, regulations and marketing in addressing the needs of the consumer BPP Course
Outline

Student brief:
You are a marketing consultant and have been hired by an organisation of your choice to carry out
an analysis of their business and to make marketing recommendations to address the challenges
you have identified. (The organisation you chose should be large enough to enable you to carry out
the depth of analysis required but not so large that you are not able to provide the level of depth
and detail expected. If you choose a large organisation you are advised to concentrate on a
specific product range and country).

Task One: Marketing Analysis (25 marks)

Use appropriate models and frameworks to critically analyse the organisations marketing
environment to identify the key marketing challenges negatively impacting upon the customer
value experience of the organisation and prioritise one issue, with justification

Task Two: Improving Customer Value (40 marks)

4

Critically evaluate the different approaches to addressing this key marketing challenge in order to
enhance Customer Value and explore the underlying concepts. You should draw upon a range of
different credible viewpoints in order to provide appropriate depth to your assessment and support
your arguments with examples from both your chosen organisation and the wider marketing
environment.

Task Three: Strategic Recommendations (25 marks)

Based upon the critical analysis conducted in task one, and the discussion in task two, consider
the options available to the organisation for improving the organisations current market position
and make a clear recommendation.

Presentation and formatting(10 marks):

The report should include professional presentation and tone-of-voice and a clear structure,
including correct application of the Harvard Referencing System. The report should be expressed
with clarity and precision.Recommended structure:

Assignment Cover Sheet

Report Title page

Executive summary (max 500 words and not included within word count)

Marketing Report

Marketing analysis

Improving Customer Value

Strategic Recommendations

Appendix:
o

Bibliography

Appendices

Marking Guide
5

Assignment Part

Mark

Task One: Marketing Analysis (25 marks)

Does the student employ a range of

relevant models thus

demonstrating their ability to use and apply models?

o

PESTEL (3 marks)

Portfolio Model (3 marks)

Competitive comparison (3 marks)

Marketing Mix (5 marks)

25%

Additional analysis (5 marks)

Does the audit show evidence of research and the ability to gather
information from different sources? (3 marks)

Is the student able to draw together information from a number of

different sources and reach credible conclusions?(3 marks)

Task Two: Improving Customer Value (40 marks)

The student should be able to demonstrate a sound understanding of

the chosen concept by drawing upon a range of credible opinions. (10
marks)

40%

Does the student compare and contrast those different viewpoints and
not just explain them? (10 marks)

Does the student link this discussion with reference to the

organisations current marketing strategy? (10 marks)

Is the student able to provide examples from the wider marketing

environment in order to support their arguments? (10 marks)

Task Three: Strategic recommendations (25 marks)

Does the student present realistic, non-ambiguous and relevant

recommendations? (5 marks)

Are they based on the outcomes from the previous analysis i.e. is there
a thread that runs through the recommendations linking back to earlier
work? (5 marks)
6

25%

Does the student consider a number of different options? (5 marks)

Is the preferred recommendationjustified by a comprehensive rationale,

supported by relevant concepts and theories? (5 marks)

Are they the result of thinking that shows synthesis skills? (5 marks)

Presentation (10 marks)

Structure (2 marks)

Executive summary (2 marks)

Harvard Referencing (2 marks)

Professional tone of voice (2 marks)

Evidence of broader reading, knowledge, creative thinking, originality (2

marks)

Grade Descriptors:
The Grade Descriptors below are used by examiners as part of the marking process, comprising evaluation,
application, concept and presentation. The weightings of these elements are used to inform grades within a
level and differentiate between levels. To maximise marks, candidates need to consider the weighting of
the four elements at the relevant level
Criteria

Knowledge
&
Understandi
ng
(a)
Systematic
Understandin
g
(b) Emerging
Thought

Argument
(a) Analysis,
Synthesis &
Evaluation
(b) Numerical
Analysis
(c)
Argumentatio
n
(d)
Independent
Research

Distinction

Merit

Pass

Fail

Fail

70-+%

60-69%

50-59%

40-49%

0-39%

The work displays:

The work displays:

The work displays:

The work displays:

The work displays:

(a) Clear evidence

of a comprehensive
and systematic
understanding of a
considerable variety
of issues, concepts,
theories and
research

(a) Clear evidence

of a comprehensive
and systematic
understanding of all
major - and some
minor - issues,
concepts, theories
and research

(a) Evidence of a
systematic
understanding,
which may contain
some gaps, of all
major - and some
minor - issues,
concepts, theories
and research

(a) Evidence of an
understanding of an
appropriate range of
issues, concepts,
theories and
research but has
significant gaps or
misunderstandings.

(a) Evidence of a
limited
understanding of
issues, concepts,
theories and
research either
major and/or minor.

(b) Precise and welljudged application

of thoughts and
practices at the
forefront of the
discipline

(b) Some clear

evidence of the
application of
thoughts and
practices at the
forefront of the
discipline

(b) Clear evidence

of an understanding
of thoughts and
practices at the
forefront of the
discipline.

(b) Unclear or
imprecise
understanding of
thoughts and
practices at the
forefront of the
discipline.

(b) Significant gaps

in the understanding
of the debates at the
forefront of the
discipline.

(a) Consistently
precise, accurate
and reasoned
analysis, synthesis
and/or evaluation
addressing all
issues, some with
creativity

(a) Precision,
accuracy and clear
reasoning
throughout the
analysis, synthesis
and/or evaluation
addressing all
issues appropriately

(a) Broad levels of

precision, accuracy
and reasoning in
analysis, synthesis
and/or evaluation,
and addresses all
key issues

(a) Errors which

affect the
consistency of the
analysis, synthesis
or evaluation and/or
key gaps in the
issues addressed

(a) A lack of
precision, accuracy
or reasoning in
analysis, synthesis
or evaluation with
significant gaps in
the issues
addressed

(b) Numeric analysis

that is complete and
mostly free from
errors with fluent
and appropriate
application of
methods.

(b) Numeric analysis

that is complete and
mostly free from
errors with relevant
and effective
application of
methods.

(b) Numeric analysis

that is mostly
complete and free
from significant or
critical errors with
appropriate
application of
methods.

(b) Numeric analysis

that is mostly
complete but
contains errors with
significant effect, or
methods that are
applied
inappropriately

(b) Numeric analysis

that is incomplete or
contains errors
which have critical
effect, or methods
that are applied
inappropriately

(c) Extremely strong

and consistent
argument that
convincingly
addresses issues
including
uncertainties and
conflicts. Excellent
use of information
gathered which to
support and further
the argument

(c) Evidence of an
argument that is
generally convincing
with a good internal
consistency and
addresses most
issues. Very good
use of information
gathered to support
the argument.

(c) Evidence of an
overall convincing
argument but may
have weaknesses,
gaps or
inconsistencies.
Clear use of
information
gathered but may
have some
weaknesses in the
integration into the
argument.

(c) Evidence of a
consistent argument
but may have
weaknesses,
significant gaps or
be unconvincing.
Clear use of
information
gathered but may
not be sufficient to
sustain the
argument.

(c) Lack of
consistency or
structure in the
argument. Serious
weaknesses in the
integration of
evidence and/or no
awareness of the
limitations or
weaknesses of the
research.

Criteria
(Continued)

Argument
(continued)
(d)
Independent
Research

Presentation
(a) Structure
(b)
Referencing
(c) Use of
Language

Distinction

Merit

Pass

Fail

Fail

70+%

60-69%

50-59%

40-49%

0-39%

The work displays:

The work displays:

The work displays:

The work displays:

The work displays:

(d) Substantial
research and
evidence of an
innovative use of a
wide range of
personal research
with clear and
consistent critical
evaluation both
conceptually and
methodologically

(d) Clear evidence

of considerable
personal research
and the use of a
diverse range of
appropriate sources
but may contain
problems with
consistency in the
conceptual and
methodological
critical evaluation

(d) Appropriate use

of a wide range of
personal research
which is critically
evaluated for key
conceptual and
methodological
issues although this
may not be
consistent
throughout

(d) Evidence of a
range of personal
research but
evidence of
methodological or
conceptual
evaluation may be
limited, inconsistent
or inappropriate

(d) Over reliance on

very restricted
range of personal or
secondary research
much of which may
not be evaluated
and may not be
directly related to
the question or area

(a) Excellent
structure and
presentation

(a) Good structure

and presentation

(a) Adequate
structure and
presentation

(a) Adequate
structure and
presentation

(a) Poor structure

and presentation

(b) Precise, full and

appropriate
references and
notes.

(b) Full and

appropriate
references and
notes with minor or
insignificant errors

(b) Good references

and notes with
minor or
insignificant errors
or omissions

(b) Competent
references and
notes but may
contain
inconsistencies,
errors or omissions

(b) Poor references

and notes with
multiple
inconsistencies,
errors or omissions

(c) Precise use of

language
expressing complex
thought with clarity,
accuracy and
precision which
furthers and
enhances the
argument

(c) Clear and

precise use of
language allowing a
complex argument
to be easily
understood and
followed

(c) Generally clear

use of language
sufficient for
arguments to be
readily understood
and followed

(c) Generally
understandable use
of language but
significant errors in
expression affecting
overall clarity

(c) Serious errors in

the use of language
which makes
meaning unclear or
imprecise