Select one GLOBAL organisation in either Consumer or Business to business market.
For the selected company you are required to do the following:
1. Critically analyse and evaluate the current marketing communications strategy within the UK. Your evaluation must include an assessment of how successfully social networks have been used as part of its integrated marketing communications effort. (40 marks)
You have been appointed Marketing Communications Manager for a new children’s charity whose main focus is to use digital technologies to raise funds and increase the number of donors.
2. Prepare an integrated marketing communication plan to enable them to launch the charity in June 2020. (60 marks)
(100 MARKS TOTAL)
The word count should be 3000 words (+/- 10%)
You may include appropriate graphics to support your points if you consider they will add value to your answer
This is not to be written as an ‘essay’
Cover page, Exec Summary, Bibliography and Appendices are NOT included in the word count)
You must use academic theory and other robust sources to support your text, and any theory used should be applied to the context of the scenario
You must use in-text citations to evidence your work, in addition to producing a full list of references in the bibliography. All of these should conform to Harvard Referencing format.
The bulk of this text should be your own original work, and should not be excessively paraphrased.
Marks will be awarded as follows:
A poor answer (39% and below (Fail) misses the point of the task and fails to address the requirements listed in the brief, either entirely or to a significant degree. Expression is simplistic and vague. The answer is unstructured and also fail to use any academic support, with no citations or reference list in evidence. Answer demonstrates no analysis question and is simply a templated solution taken from other sources. Answer lacks significant originality
A basic answer (40 – 49%) addresses some of the issues and demonstrate limited knowledge of appropriate theory, but at a superficial level. It demonstrates difficulties with structure and contains some gaps in understanding. Expression lacks maturity and use of professional terminology. The material is not arranged in a user friendly, logical format. The delivery system of the programme is be unclear and there are minor inaccuracies in any financial information
A satisfactory answer (50-59%) addresses a large amount of the questions and demonstrate a sound, basic knowledge of theory, but with some minor omissions in content and minor inaccuracies in expression. Structure is largely logical. There is an attempt to analyse and evidence that the solution has been tailored to a fair degree. Use of theory and evidence is reasonably good but with room left to strengthen the credibility.
A good answer (60-69%) adopts a logical structure and address almost all of the questions using virtually all appropriate theory that relates. Knowledge appears be sound. The report is
supported by a good variety of robust academic and industry sources. Omissions and inaccuracies are minor. Analysis and evaluation is done well, but lacks some depth, detail and sophistication.
An excellent/outstanding answer (70%+) identifies all the key issues within the question and make extensive use of appropriate theory in providing a credible solution. Structures is logical and the proposal easy to follow and digest. Relevant theory and industry practice are used to produce well-supported recommendations. Grammar and academic skills are of a high standard, and analysis and evaluation are consistently delivered throughout, with sophisticated use of materials. An extensive range of sources have been uses in a highly sophisticated manner.
An exceptional answer (80%+) Faultless work in terms of presentation and academic skills, and the overall credibility of the proposal is extremely high, to the extent that it might be used as a template for a future industry document. The level of detail included in the plans and schematics is exceptional without being overcrowded or confusing