Subject Title Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC)
Subject Code MKT201A
Assessment Title Report
Graduate Capabilities
a) Explain the concepts and basic features of integrated marketing communications
b) Link the aims of integrated marketing communications with basic marketing principles to analyse given communication problems
c) Recommend appropriate IMC tools for various communication environments
Learning Outcome/s (found in the Subject Outline) a b & c
Assessment type (group or individual) Individual
Weighting % 40%
Word count 1000 words +/- 10% excluding cover, references
Due day Sunday by 11.55pm week 7
Submission type Turnitin ?
Format / Layout of Assessment
Report:
ICMS Cover Page
Introduction (Brief Case Background and summary of previous analysis)
Analysis— Current IMC strategies
Conclusion
Reference List
?
?
?
?
?
Page 1 of 5
Assessment instructions Using the same case study from Assessment 1, students continue developing an individual report using their knowledge learnt up to week 6
(approximately 1,000 words +/- 10%). The report will focus on analysis of current IMC strategies of the client (Strength, Weakness, Opportunities and Threats), specifically
• Business performance
• Products (packaging design, range composition)
• Customers and market share
• Positioning and image
• Mix strategies (price, sale promotion, broadcast media, etc.)
• The communication strategy focused on public relations and sponsorship
• Opportunity to develop a new product or product range domestically or internationally or both.
The Report analysis needs to match the following:
• 1000 words +/- 10%
• Follow short report formatting
• Minimum of 6 resources [3 from academic resources at minimum]
Readings for the assessment To assist you with writing this report, use the materials found on your
• Moodle page (lecture slides, recommended and additional readings or other documents). • Class content.
• Useful links posted on Moodle.
Complete the Module activities which are designed to support the critical tasks of this Assessment.
Grading Criteria / Rubric See below
Page 2 of 5
Assessment 2 – Report – Marking Rubric
Criteria High Distinction
(85-100) Distinction
(75-84) Credit (65-74) Pass (50-64) Fail
(0-49)
Introduction—Brief
Case Background &
Summary of Previous
Findings
15% Effective introduction including a brief
company/case overview and concise summary of findings from previous analysis in Assessment 1. Mostly effective introduction including a brief company/case
overview and mostly concise
summary of findings from previous analysis in Assessment 1. Moderately effective introduction including a brief company/case overview and
a summary of findings from previous analysis in
Assessment 1 but not overly concise. Introduction included but need more elaboration / background on the
case/company or summary of previous analysis findings OR the overview/summary is too long. There is no clear introduction and does not adequately
provide an overview of the chosen case/company OR
lacks a summary of previous analysis findings.
Current IMC Strategy Analysis—Application of theories, concepts and methods in the analysis
35% The analysis is coherently presented. Shows a full understanding of the topic
Theories, concepts and methods are accurately applied and used to justify rationale throughout. Shows a depth of knowledge.
Includes insightful commentary and highlights high significance. The analysis is coherently presented. Shows a significant understanding of the topic.
Theories, concepts and methods are accurately applied and used to justify rationale in most instances. Shows a depth of knowledge in all but 1 area.
Includes insightful commentary and highlights above average significance.
The analysis is present, but hard to follow at times.
Shows a good understanding of the topic.
Theories, concepts and methods are accurately applied and used to justify rationale, but further elaboration was needed in 2 areas. Shows a depth of knowledge in all but 2 area.
Includes multiple instance insightful commentary and highlights average significance. The analysis is present, but hard to follow at times. Shows a basic understanding of the topic.
Theories, concepts and methods are sometimes inaccurately applied when used to justify rationale. Or greater depth is needed in the analysis and application of unit content.
Includes somewhat insightful commentary and highlights average significance. Analysis is confused or missing. Lacks depth or shows superficial understanding.
Theories, concepts and methods are inaccurately applied when used to justify rationale. Or greater depth is needed in the analysis and application of unit content.
Does not include insightful commentary and highlights little or no significance.
SWOT Analysis
30% Clearly identifies the internal strengths and weaknesses, and the external opportunities and threats. Each SWOT Analysis included all 4 categories, each category included at least 3 items SWOT Analysis included all 4 categories, each category included at least 2 items that SWOT Analysis omitted 1 category or included all 4 categories but included only 1 item in at least one category. SWOT Analysis omitted 1 or more categories or included all 4 categories but included
category included 4 or more items that are relevant to findings in the situational analysis.
The SWOT analysis is thorough, with reasoning for each individual points provided. No major points are missing or incorrectly categorised that are relevant to findings in the situational analysis.
The SWOT analysis is mostly thorough, with reasoning for most individual points provided. One major points are missing or incorrectly categorised are relevant to findings in the situational analysis.
Two major points may be missing or incorrectly categorised. Or
Little justification or rationale provided for the individual points 1-2 categories.
Or
More than two major point are missing or incorrectly categorised. only 1 item 2 or more categories.
And/Or
No justification or rationale provided for the individual points in more than 2 categories.
And/Or
More than two major point are missing or incorrectly categorised.
Conclusion
5%
Thorough conclusion that summarises effectively. Mostly thorough conclusion that summarises effectively. Somewhat thorough conclusion that summarises adequately. Minimal conclusion that summarises averagely but lacks depth in some areas. Conclusion present but does not summarise and is not effective. Or conclusion missing.
Presentation, Referencing and structure
15% Professional presentation and effective communication of analysis and evaluation, fully supported with evidence. Outstanding report structure and communication of ideas enhances readability. Free of errors and logical flow, appropriate sections.
At least 6 resources from reliable sources, with at least 3 being from academic sources… e.g.
journals, company Well-structured presentation and communication of analysis and evaluation, supported with evidence that closely correspond to the elements of the report. Very good report structure, free of errors and has a logical flow, appropriate sections.
5 resources from reliable sources, e.g. journals, company websites, trustworthy articles.
OR
1 source not reliable. Appropriate presentation and communication of analysis and evaluation, supported with some evidence. Good report structure, free of errors and has a logical flow, appropriate sections.
4 resources from reliable sources, e.g. journals, company websites, trustworthy articles.
OR
2 sources not reliable. Presentation that shows some evidence of report structure, but errors may detract from communication of the analysis and evaluation. There are some evidence used but they may not correspond to the elements and sometimes detract from readability. Basic report structure, some errors and hard to follow, some sections are missing.
3 resources from reliable sources, e.g. journals, company websites, trustworthy articles. Lacks evidence of a structured presentation with limited analysis and evaluations. The few pieces of evidence used do not correspond to the key elements. Missing appropriate report structure, contains errors and hard to follow, appropriate sections are missing.
2 resources, OR less than 3 from academic reliable sources e.g. journals, company websites, trustworthy articles.
websites, trustworthy articles. OR
2 sources not reliable. OR
4 or more not from reliable sources.