Brand Management - unit guide by Elvira

FACULTY OF MEDIA AND COMMUNICATION Department of Corporate & Marketing Communications

Brand Management: Option, Level H/6 UNIT GUIDE 2016/7

BA (Hons) Advertising BSc Marketing BA (Hons) Marketing Communications BA (Hons) Public Relations

Unit Tutor: Jill Quest

Tel: (01202) 965244 Office: W427 e-mail: jquest@bournemouth.ac.uk

Disclaimer Information contained within this programme handbook is correct at the time of going to press (Sept 2015). However, some information may change and Bournemouth University reserves the right to make changes to procedures, regulations and processes subject to maintaining equivalent standards.

Contents Page No

Introduction to the Unit Brand Management Unit Overview Reading/resources Provisional Lecture Programme Assessment brief Examination Marking Criteria Exam paper 2016 Examinerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s report 2016

3 4 6 8 19 21 24 25

Appendix One BU Generic Assessment Criteria

Introduction to the Unit Brand management is always topical and becoming more challenging as we will learn. Thereâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s a diverse range of articles related to the subject, covering a number of conflicting perspectives. But despite this, there is a widely held view that brands are here to stay. Brands hold enormous equity for organisations and are an important source of competitive advantage. Hence companies increasingly have to address how best to effectively manage their brands, particularly in view of increased global competition, a dynamic political, economic and media landscape and greater consumer choice and influence. This unit will address these issues and more. In particular, given the strategic importance of brands, lectures and seminars will focus on how to develop and manage brands over the long-term. Throughout the unit we will examine a number of topics, including an overview of the branding process; what brands mean to consumers: organising for brand building; managing brands over time; managing brands over geographic boundaries; and measuring brand equity. In essence, in undertaking the unit, youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ll adopt a client perspective and develop a real insight into brand management and the current issues companies face.

Best regards and good luck for the forthcoming term. Jill Quest

Brand Management Unit Overview Credit value 20 (10 ECTS) Lecture times: 5-7pm Mondays KG03. See your individual timetables for your seminars. Rationale Effective management of a companyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s brand is central to its vitality and profitability. The brand, for many companies, represents the focal point of activity which draws together communication, media, marketing and the consumer. Linkages There are many links with other units both at level I and level H. Understanding how brands are managed and communicated is central to your studies. Unit Aims The aim of this unit is to enable students to engage critically with an appropriate body of theory on brands and their management. Students develop their analytical skills to produce and evaluate effective competitive strategies to build well-targeted and profitable brands in the light of changing market conditions Intended Learning Outcomes Having completed this unit, you are expected to: 1. critically analyse appropriate theory: 2. develop the skills and frameworks for creating competitive strategies for brands; 3. initiate brand modifications in response to market needs: 4. critically assess and review brand performance in the light of changing conditions and opportunities.

Teaching and Learning Methods There will be a range of learning and teaching strategies used to develop intellectual and cognitive skills that will enable you to meet the learning objectives. This includes lectures, seminars, student presentations, directed reading and peer review.

Lectures will introduce and develop the main issues, concepts and perspectives related to subject areas and may be supplemented by guest lectures, delivered by industry experts to ensure a balance of theory and professional application. A complementary series of interactive seminars will explore their implications and application. Indicative Content       

Past, present and future perspectives of brands, consumer and client perspectives. Brand models, brand meaning and positioning. Competitive considerations, sources of competitive advantage. Revitalising and creating new brands Managing brand extensions. Global perspectives Building and measuring brand equity

Summative Assessment This unit will be summatively assessed by a three hour (partial) open book exam which will address all learning outcomes. Formative Assessment Seminar topics will include work directly relevant to the examination assessment. You will be asked to prepare material in advance and you will receive formative feedback in seminars with assessment criteria similar to what you may expect in the examination. As preparation for the final examination students develop a portfolio of work that may be taken into the examination. This consists of peer reviewed work as a result of seminar outputs. This typically may be a half page summary or notes to an applied specific topic. This may include: Unpicking a brand using a brand model Explore current architecture Competitive analysis of destination market Brand Extension and fit into new category Positioning in new category Global perspectives Brand equity

Indicative Learning Resources - Reading List 5

Key Texts Kapferer, J., 2012. The New Strategic Brand Management. Advanced Insights and Strategic Thinking, 5th Ed. London: Kogan-Page. Keller, K.L., 2013. Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity. 4th Ed. Harlow: Harlow: Pearson. Subsidiary Academic Texts Aaker, David A., 1991, Managing Brand Equity, The Free Press, New York, NY. Aaker, David A., 1996, Building Strong Brands, The Free Press, New York, NY. Aaker David and Eric Joachimsthaler., 2000. Brand Leadership: The next level in the Brand Revolution, The Free Press, New York, NY. Aaker, David A., 2004, Brand Portfolio Strategy, The Free Press, New York, NY. Batey, M., 2012. Brand Meaning: Meaning, Myth and Mystique in Today’s Brands, 2nd ed. Abingdon: Routledge. Baskin, M. & Earls., M. (Eds) 2002. Brand New Brand Thinking. London: Kogan Page. De Chernatony, L., 2010. From Brand Vision to Brand Valuation. 3rd Edition. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann De Chernatony, L. & McDonald, M., 2011. Creating Powerful Brands, 4th Ed. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. De Mooij, M., 2014. Global Marketing and Advertising 4th Ed. London: Sage Franzen, G. & Bouwman, M., 2001. The Mental World of Brands, Mind, memory and brand success, Henley-on-Thames World Advertising Research Centre. Heding, T., Knudtzen, C. & Bjerre, M., 2009. Brand Management, Research, Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. Holt, D.B., 2003. How Brands become Icons. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Johansson, J and Carlson, K, 2015. Contemporary Brand Management, London: Sage Kendall, N., 2015. What is a 21st Century Brand? London: Kogan Page Klein, N., 2000. No Logo., London: Flamingo Laforet, S., 2010. Managing Brands, a Contemporary Perspective. Maidenhead: McGrawHill. Rosenbaum-Elliott, R.H., Percy, L., and Pervan, S., 2011.2 nd Ed. Strategic Brand Management, Oxford: Oxford University Press Schroeder, J. and Salzer–Morling, M., 2006. Brand Culture. Routledge: Abingdon. Sharp, B. 2013., How Brands Grow: What Marketers Don’t Know. Oxford: Oxford University Press Subsidiary Professional Texts Barden, P., 2013. Decoded. Chichester: Wiley. Cocoran, I., 2011. The Art of Digital Branding. New York: Allworth Press. 6

Haig, M., 2003. Brand Failures. London: Kogan Page. Ind, N., Fuller, C., and Trevail, C., 2012. Brand Together. London: Kogan Page. Lindstrom, M., 2002. Clicks, Bricks and Brands. London: Kogan Page. Lindstrom, M., 2005. Brand Sense. London: Kogan Page. Lindstrom, M., 2011. Brandwashed. London: Kogan Page. Rosenbaum, S., 2011.Curation Nation. USA: McGraw Hill Rowles, D. 2014. Digital Branding. London: Kogan Page. Schaefer, W and Kuehlwein, J.P. 2015. Rethinking Prestige Branding. Secrets of the Ueber-Brands. London: Kogan Page Van den Bergh, J. and Behrer, M. 2013.How Cool Brands Stay Hot. London: Kogan Page. Useful Web sites http://www.britishbrandsgroup.org.uk/ in http://www.britishbrandsgroup.org.uk/the-brands-lecture http://www.brandrepublic.co.uk/home/ http://www.interbrand.com http://trendwatching.com http://adbrands.net http://guardian.co.uk/media http://warc.com

particular

Journals: There are many useful academic journals to support specific subjects â&#x20AC;&#x201C; key references and readings are given with each lecture and there is a further, more extensive, reading list in this guide for each session (which may be useful for dissertations).

Indicative lecture and seminar schedule 7

w/c

Sept 26

Facility Week no. 12

Oct 3

Lecture description

Introduction to the Course – brand mortality Past/Contemporary Brand Thinking/Case for brands Brand Meaning Brand Modelling

Provisional Lecture Programme Seminar – Indicative activity

Meet and greet Placement discussion Report writing (examination – report format) Draf a report which unpacks a challenge facing a brand/brands today. Peer activity: decide with whom you are going to work and brainstorm ideas for brand extensions.

Oct 10

Assessment briefing Competitive Considerations

Oct 17

Competitive Considerations in Branding

Oct 24

Brand Architecture Brand Management Structures including Category Management

Oct 31

Positioning

Nov 7

Reading Week and Awards Ceremony

Brand Model activity. Formative assessment. Using a brand model (that you might adapt in the light of any criticism) unpack a brand of your choice. Choose a brand model that you’ve not tackled before. Peer activity. Consider how this can inform your examination answer: clear identification of your brand’s values that will serve as a platform for your brand positioning. Brand Model activity. Formative assessment (overflow). Using a brand model (that you might adapt in the light of any criticism) unpack a brand of your choice. Choose a brand model that you’ve not tackled before, Peer activity. Consider how this can inform your examination answer: clear identification of your brand’s values that will serve as a platform for your brand positioning. Competitive Strategy Activity: Formative assessment: Choose a strategic analytical tool for competitor analysis and apply to any brand/destination category of your choice. Peer activity: Decide the appropriate strategic analytical tools to apply in the examination. Outputs: a planned analytical approach in readiness for your examination (Subject to presentation overflow) Present your brand extension and choice of strategic models and analysis tools No contact time

Nov 14

Managing Brand Extensions

Nov 21

Brand Privacy

Nov 28

Global Branding

Dec 05

Creating a New Brand Revitalising Brands

Dec 12

Brand Equity 1 and 2

Holiday

24-26

Jan 09

Revision lecture/exam preparation

Workshop: Positioning case study. Peer activity: produce a positioning strategy for your new brand in its category, mindful of the earlier unpacked values. Produce a perceptual map and positioning statement. Outputs: position your brand in its new category Brand Extension Seminar Peer activity: check the fit Tutorials â&#x20AC;&#x201C; check your idea and structure so far. Revision seminars/assessment prep/tackling the unseen element Peer activity: Produce a structure for your examination answer to run through in readiness for the tutorial Tutorials Prepare your structure and write out your A4 sheets of notes Tutorials

As mentioned, there’s clear directed reading at the end of each lecture, however here’s some further reading for each topic. The wide selection is deliberate as this might be useful support for any dissertation reading. Facility Week Week 12

Lecture Topic Brand mortality. By the end of week 12 sessions you should be able to Understand traditional, current and future thinking on what constitutes a brand Evaluate different ways of examining brands Bonfire of the Brands, 2008 The Good Consumer, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_ut93YYZu8

Brexit: brief analysis from academic sources http://bit.ly/EUReferendumAnalysis2016_Jackson-Thorsen-and-Wring_v1 British Brands Group – The manifesto for brands http://www.britishbrandsgroup.org.uk/ Etzioni, A., 2012. You Don’t Need to Buy This. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN3z8gtDUFE&feature=plcp> Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux (useful review on YouTube FightMediocrity https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=uqXVAo7dVRU ) Week 12

How do we think about brands? De Chernatony, L. and Dall’Olmo Riley, F., 1998. Defining a 'Brand': beyond the literature with experts' interpretations. Journal of Marketing Management, 14, 417-443. Dunsdon, A., 2009. Beware the age of conversation: embrace the age of osmosis. Campaign (UK), 10 April, 2009. Franzen, G. and Bouwman, M., 2001. The Mental World of Brands, WARC Jevons, C., 2007. Towards an integrated definition of the brand. The Thought Leaders International Conference on Brand Management. April 2007 Birmingham Business School. Levy, S., 1959.Symbols for Sale. Harvard Business Review, 37(4) 117-124.

Week 13

Sharp, B. 2013. How Brands Grow: What Marketers Don’t Know. Oxford: Oxford University Press Brand Meaning – check Batey text first Bhat, S. and Rheddy, S., 1988. Symbolic and Functioning Positioning of Brands. Journal of Consumer Marketing. 15, (1) 32-43. Braun-La Tour, K., La Tour, M. and Zinkhan, G., 2007. Using childhood memories to gain insight into brand meaning. Journal of Marketing, 71 (2), 45-60

Brown, S., Kozinets, R. and Sherry, J., 2003. Teaching Old Brands New Tricks: Retro Branding and the Revival of Brand Meaning Journal of Marketing, 67 (July), 19-33. Csikszentmihalyi, M. and Rochberg-Halton, E., 1981. The Meaning of Things, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Escalas, J. E. and Bettman, J. R., 2005. Self-construal, reference groups, and brand meaning. Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (3), 378-389. Holt, D., 2004. How Brands Become Icons: The Principles of Cultural Branding, Boston, Harvard Business School Press. Kates, S. and Goh, C., 2003. Brand Morphing. Journal of Advertising, 32 (1), 59-68. Muniz, A. M., and O' Guinn, T., 2001. Brand Community. Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (March), 412-432. Zaltman, G., 2003. How Customers Think, Boston, Harvard Business Press. Week 13

Brand Models Aaker, David A., 1991, Managing Brand Equity, The Free Press, New York, NY. Aaker, David A., 1996, Building Strong Brands, The Free Press, New York, NY. Batey, M., 2012. Brand Meaning: Meaning, Myth and Mystique in Today’s Brands, 2nd ed. Abingdon: Routledge. De Chernatony, L. and McEnally, M., 1999 The Evolving Nature of Branding: Academy of Marketing Science Review. De Chernatony, L., 2001. A model for strategically building brands. Journal of Brand Management, 9 (1), 32. De Chernatony, L. and Dall’Olmo Riley, F., 1998. Modelling the components of the brand. European Journal of Marketing. 32(11/12): 1074-1090 De Chernatony, L., 1993. Understanding the dynamics of brands as molecules. Admap. De Chernatony, L., Harris, F., and Dall’Olmo Riley, F., 2000. Added Value: its nature, roles and sustainability. European Journal of Marketing, 34 (1/2), 39-56. De Chernatony, L. and McDonald, M., 2003. Creating powerful brands in consumer, service and industrial markets, Oxford, Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. Lannon, J., and Cooper, P., 1983. Humanistic Advertising, a Holistic Cultural Perspective. International Journal of Advertising. 2,195-213

McEnally, M., and de Chernatony, L., 1999. The Evolving Nature of Branding. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 2 (1), 1-26. Kapferer, J., 2012. The New Strategic Brand Management. Advanced Insights and Strategic Thinking, 5th Ed. London: Kogan-Page. Keller, K.L., 2013. Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity. 4th Ed. Harlow: Harlow: Pearson. Week 14/15

Check any professional references too. Competitive Considerations in Branding Aaker, D. 2005 Strategic Market Management. New York: John Wiley & Sons Ch 4/5 Adcock, D. 2002 Marketing Strategies for Competitive Advantage. New York John Wiley & Sons. Chapters 8, 11, 12. Chaffey, D., Ellis-Chadwick., 2012. Digital Marketing. Harlow: Pearson. Hooley, G, Saunders, J and Piercy, N. 2012 Market Strategy and Competitive Positioning. 5th Ed. Harlow: Pearson Johnson, G and Scholes, K. 2012. Exploring Corporate Strategy 7th Ed. 2010. Harlow: Pearson Porter, M.E. 1980. Competitive Strategy. New York: The Free Press Porter, M.E. 1985. Competitive Advantage. New York: The Free Press Porter, M.E. 1987. From Competitive Advantage to Corporate Strategy. Harvard Business Review, 74 (6) 61-7 Reeves, M. et al. 2014. BCG classics revisited: the growth share matrix. Available at https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/corporate_strategy_portfolio_manageme nt_strategic_planning_growth_share_matrix_bcg_classics_revisited Wilson, R and Gilligan C. 2005. Strategic Marketing Management Oxford: Elsevier

Week 16

Brand Architecture – see key texts Balmer, J.M.T., 2006. Corporate brand cultures and communities. In: Schroeder, J. E. and Salzer-Morling, M. ed. Brand culture. New York: Routledge Hedley, B. 1977. Strategy and the “business portfolio”. Long Range Planning, 10 (1), 9–15. Keller, K.L., 2014. Designing and implementing brand architecture strategies. Journal of Brand Management. 21, 702-715 Laforet, S. and Saunders, J. 2005. Managing Brand Portfolios: How Strategies Have Changed. Journal of Advertising Research, 45 (3) 314–327

Muzellec, L & Lambkin, M. 2008. Corporate Rebranding and the Implications for Brand Architecture Management: The Case of Guinness (Diageo) Ireland Journal of Strategic Marketing. 16, (4), 283–299 Petromilli, M., Morrison, D. and Million, M. 2002 Brand architecture: building brand portfolio value, Strategy & Leadership, 30, 5, pp. 22–28. Pierce, A. and Moukanas, H. 2002. Portfolio power: harnessing a group of brands to drive profitable growth, Strategy & Leadership, 30, 5, pp. 15–21. Riezebos, B. 2003. Brand Management. Harlow: Pearson Education

Week 16

Uggla, H., 2006 The Corporate Brand Association Base European Journal of Marketing 40, 7/8, pp 742-760 Brand Management Practice Rawlinson, R. 2007. Beyond Brand Management - the anatomy of the 21 st century marketing professional. Market Leader, 34, (Autumn) 41-46

Week 16

Category Management Bardin, L. 2015. Chief value officer: Reframing marketers' central role in the organisation. WARC. Available at http://www.warc.com/Content/ContentViewer.aspx? MasterContentRef=701469fc-5c9d-453f-adeeb511968c6c51&utm_source=WarcNews&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WarcNews20 150925&CID=A105475&PUB=MKT Euromonitor 2016. The growing sophistication of online shopping. Available from WARC Gooner, R, Morgan, N, & Perreault, W 2011, 'Is Retail Category Management Worth the Effort (and Does a Category Captain Help or Hinder)?', Journal Of Marketing, 75, (5)18-33 Hong, S, Misra, K, & Vilcassim, N 2016, The Perils of Category Management: The Effect of Product Assortment on Multi-category Purchase Incidence, Journal Of Marketing, 80, (5) 3410, Iyengar, S., and Lepper, M. 2000. When Choice is Demotivating: Can One Desire Too Much of a Good Thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 6) 995-1006 Needal, S.P. 2007. What’s the future http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ss8Dn8_BZu0

Week 17

category

management?

Positioning Blankson, C. & Kalafatis S., 2007.Congruence between Positioning and Brand Advertising Journal of Advertising Research, 47, (1) 79-94 Blankson, C., Kalafatis S., Cheng, J, Hadjicharalambous, C., 2008 13

Impact of Positioning Strategies on Corporate Performance. Journal of Advertising Research, 48, (1) 106-122 Bhat, S. and Reddy, S., 1998.Symbolic and functional positioning of brands, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 15, (1) 32 - 43 Doyle, P.,1975. Brand Positioning Using Multi-Dimensional Scaling. European Journal of Marketing 9 (1) 20-34 Doyle, P., 2008. Value Based Marketing. 2nd Ed. Chichester: John Wiley and Son Elliott, R., and Percy, L., 2011. Strategic Brand Management. 2 nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (and check out their strategic advertising text) Lannon, J. & Cooper, P., 1983 Humanistic Advertising A Holistic Cultural Perspective International Journal of Advertising 2 195-213 Ries, A., 1986. Positioning: the battle for your mind: London. McGraw-Hill Puddick, M. 2012.How to write positioning statements. WARC Best Practice â&#x20AC;&#x201C; available on WARC Week 22

White, R. 2006. Brand Positioning Best Practice, WARC Creating a New Brand Baskins, M. & Earls, M., 2002 Brand New Brand Thinking, Kogan Page, Chapters 8, 9 & 10. Contis, N., 2013. Brands: What's in a name? WARC De Chernatony, L. and McDonald, M. 2003 Creating Powerful Brands. 3rd Ed. ButterworthHeinemann. Doyle, P., 1990. Building Successful Brands: The Strategic Options: Journal of Consumer Marketing 7 (2) Edwards, H & Day, D., 2005. Creating Passion Brands. London: Kogan Page Haig, M. 2003. Brand Failures London: Kogan Page Klink, R. 2001 Creating New Brand Names: Effects of Relevance, Connotation and Pronunciation. Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, Spring 9 (2) Kapferer, J.N. 2012 The New Strategic Brand Management. London: Kogan Page. (and older editions) Stokes, M., Jenkins, S & Nolan, M 2007. Magners Irish Cider â&#x20AC;&#x201C; The Magners Effect: how Magners single-handedly re-invigorated the cider category WARC

Week 22

Revitalising Brands Aaker, D. 1991. Managing Brand Equity. The free press. P238-262. Aaker, D. 1996. Building Strong Brands. The free press. Chapter 7. Beverland, M. and Ewing, M. 2005. Slowing the adoption and diffusion process to enhance brand repositioning: the consumer repositioning of Dunlop Volley. Business Horizon, 48, 385391. Brown, S., Kozinets, R. & Sherry, J. 2003. Teaching Old Brands New Tricks: Retro Branding and the Revival of Brand Meaning Journal of Marketing, 67, 19-33. Haig, M. 2003. Brand Failures, Kogan Page, Chapters 1 & 10. Kapferer, J., 2001. (Re)Inventing the Brand. London: Kogan Page: Lehu, J. 2006. Brand Rejuvenation Kogan Page Dowen, C., Smith, N., Binet, L and Carter, S. 2012. Gü: Give in to the power of TV. Give in to Gü. IPA, WARC http://www.warc.com/Content/ContentViewer.aspx?ID=9175068e-fe3c-438f-92b62dacfebbbb14&MasterContentRef=9175068e-fe3c-438f-92b6-2dacfebbbb14 60 Signs Your Brand Is Dying by Mark Di Somma http://www.brandingstrategyinsider.com/2013/11/60-signs-your-brand-isdying.html#.UonRf51FBaR

Week 19

See WARC for good case studies Managing Brand Extensions Ch 12 Kapferer Balachander, S. & Ghose, S., 2003. Reciprocal spillover effects: A strategic benefit of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing, 67(1), 4-13 Bhat, S and Rheddy, S., 2001.The impact of parent brand attribute associations and affect on brand extension evaluation. Journal of Business Research. 53, (3) 111–122 Blichfeldt, B., 2005. On the development of brand and line extensions Brand Management. 12 (3) 177-190 Bottomley, P.A. and Holden, S.J.S., 2001. Do We Really Know How Consumers Evaluate Brand Extensions? Empirical Generalizations Based on Secondary Analysis of Eight Studies. Journal of Marketing Research [online], 38 (4), 494-500. Dall’Olmo Riley, F., Pina, J.M. and Bravo, R., 2011. Step-Down Vertical Brand Extensions of Luxury and Prestige Car Brands: Exploratory Results [online]. London: Kingston University Research Repository. Available from: http://eprints.kingston.ac.uk/19799/1/Riley-F-D19799.pdf Kim, C.K. and Lavack, A.M., 1996. Vertical brand extensions: current research and managerial

implications. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 5 (6), 24-37. Kim, H. and Kim, W.G., 2005. The relationship between brand equity and firms’ performance in luxury hotels and chain restaurants. Tourism Management [online], 26 (1), 549-560. Kim, C.K., Lavack, A.M. & Smith, M., 2001. Consumer evaluation of vertical brand extensions and core brands. Journal of Business Research. 52 (3), 211-222. Kim, H. and John, D.R., 2008. Consumer response to brand extensions: Construal level as a moderator of the importance of perceived fit. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18 (2), 116126. Martin, I., Stewart, D. & Matta, S. 2005, Branding Strategies, Marketing Communication, and Perceived Brand Meaning: The Transfer of Purposive, Goal-Oriented Brand Meaning to Brand Extensions Journal of The Academy Of Marketing Science, 33, 275-294 Nijssen, E.J. and Agustin, C., 2005. Brand extensions: A manager’s perspective. Journal of Brand Management, 13 (1), 33-49. Reddy, S.K., Holak, S.L. and Bhat, S., 1994. To Extend or Not to Extend: Success Determinants of Line Extensions. Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (2), 241-262. Shine, B.C., Park, J. & Wyer Jr., R.S., 2007. Brand synergy effects in multiple brand extensions. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(4), 663-670 Sharp, B. 1991. The Marketing Value of Brand Extension. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 9 (7) 9 – 13 Tauber. E.,1981. Brand franchise extension: new product benefits from existing brand names. Brand Horizons 24, (2) 36-41 Völckner, F. and Sattler, H., 2006. Drivers of Brand Extension Success. Journal of Marketing, 70 (2), 18-34. Wing, H., 2005. Risk! How to win in the game of brand extension. Admap, Nov 2005

Week 21

Zhang, L. & Taylor, R.D., 2009. Exploring the reciprocal effect of negative information of brand extensions on parent brand. Marketing Management Journal, 19(1), 1-15 Global Branding Baker, M & Sterenberg, G., 2003. Presentation Paper: “Managing Global Brands to meet Consumer Expectations”. WARC website Czinkota, M.R. & Ronkainen I.A. 2003. International Marketing. 7 ed. US: Thomson Chang, P. & Chieng, M. 2006. Building consumer–brand relationship: A cross-cultural experiential view. Psychology & Marketing, 23, 927-959

De Mooij, M. 2014. Global Marketing and Advertising: Understanding cultural paradoxes 4th Ed. London: Sage Dinnie, K. 2005. 21st-Century perspectives on global brands. Journal of Brand Management, 12 (5) 316-318. Doole I. & Lowe R., 2005. Strategic Marketing Decisions in Global Markets Markets Thomson Learning Ch 8 Eckhardt, G. & Houston, M., 2002. Cultural paradoxes reflected in brand meaning: McDonald's in Shanghai, China. Journal of International Marketing, 10, 68-82. Gilligan, C. & Hird, M. 1985. International Marketing. London: Routledge Harrell, G.D. & Keifer, R.D. 1993 Multinational Market Portfolio in Global Strategy Development International Marketing Review 10 (1) Halliburton & Hunerberg 1993. ‘Pan-European Marketing - Myth or Reality?’ Journal of International Marketing (Summer), 77-92 Hofstede, G. 2000 Cultural Consequences 3rd Ed. London:Sage Johansson, J. and Ronkainen, I., 2005. The esteem of global brands. Journal of Brand Management, 12 (5) 339-354 (good links with brand equity) Kapferer, J. 2005. The post-global brand. Journal of Brand Management, 12(5) 319-324. Levitt, T. 1983. The Globalisation of Markets Harvard Business Review May/June. Matthiesen, I. 2005. The 'HUGO BOSS' connection: Achieving global brand consistency across countries. Journal of Brand Management, 12 (5) 325-338. Philip M. Parker (Insead) 1998. Choosing where to go global: How to Prioritise Markets, Mastering Marketing 21st Century Marketing (FT) Siu, W. & Au A.K. 1997. Women in Advertising comparison of television advertisements in China and Singapore Marketing Intelligence and Planning 15 (5) Walker Smith, J., and Curry, A. 2013. New World Order for Global Brands. WARC http://www.warc.com/Content/ContentViewer.aspx?ID=7d701ab7-5e15-4155-a2871539a2b9ebee&MasterContentRef=7d701ab7-5e15-4155-a287-1539a2b9ebee

Week 23

Zhang, Y. & Neelankavil, J.P. 1997. The influence of culture on advertising effectiveness in China and the USA: a cross cultural study. European Journal of Management 31 (2) 134-49 Measuring Brand Equity – see Keller text Aaker, D., 1991. Managing Brand Equity, The Free Press. 17

Aaker, D., 1996.Building Strong Brands, The Free Press Aaker, D. & Joachimsthaler, E.,2000. Brand Leadership, The Free Press Chandon, P., 2003. Note on Measuring Brand Awareness, Brand Image, Brand Equity and Brand Value INSEAD http://library.nyenrode.nl/INSEAD/2003/2003-019.pdf Farquhar, P. 1989. Managing Brand Equity Marketing Research 1 pp1-11 Haxthausen, O., 2009. Valuing Brands and Brand Investments: Key leanings and future expectations. Brand Management. 17 (1) 18-25 Jones, R., 2005. Finding sources of brand value: Developing a stakeholder model of brand equity. Journal of Brand Management, 13 (1)10-32 Keller, K. 2003. Brand Synthesis: the multidimensionality of brand knowledge. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 595-600. Keller, K & Lehmann D. 2006. Brands and Branding. Research and Future Priorities. Marketing Science 25 (6) 740-759 Kish, P., Riskey, D. & Kerin, R., 2001. Measurement and tracking of brand equity in the global marketplace â&#x20AC;&#x201C; The PepsiCo experience International marketing Review 18 (1) 91 Lieberman, M. 2010. Measure brand equity with structural equations modelling Admap, January, 46-47. Raggio, R. & Robert, P. 2007. The theoretical separation of brand equity and brand value: Managerial implications for strategic planning. Journal of Brand Management, May 2007, 14 (5) 380-395

Brand Management Assessment

Faculty of Media and Communication

2016/2017

Coursework Assignment Brief

BA Advertising and Marketing, BA Marketing Communications, BA Public Relations, BSc Marketing Level H/6 Brand Management

Title of Brief: Three-hour examination (partial open book)

This assignment is a formal element of coursework worth 100% of the overall unit mark

THE BRIEF The assessment for this unit comprises of a three-hour open book examination. You will be required to write a report within this time frame. The nature of this report will be a brand extension case study and you will be preparing for this during the seminars and within your peer review sessions. You need to consider the following in context for the question: You are to develop an understanding of the role of a senior brand manager, in particular key strategic decision-making responsibilities. You will undertake the following tasks. You will gain an insight into a specific brand from the client perspective. You will undertake secondary research into a current brand, the market and product portfolio, and on that basis decide how it should be developed. You are responsible for managing a brand of your choice (this may be a product or a service). Objective - You are to make recommendations as to how this brand could enter a new category. In order to consider how this might be achieved, it will be necessary to critically analyse:

a) b)

The current brand and its existing portfolio The marketing environment of the destination category

In order to complete this section of the task you will need to conduct some research. (45% of marks) Having researched the brand, its portfolio and destination marketing environment, you will then need to decide how to extend the brand in order to meet the objectives of the task. Whatever your decision, you must ensure that you have sufficient information with regard to the new category you wish to enter in order to make a rational decision. For example, if having considered the brand Tango and you believe that there is an opportunity to extend the brand to include a new Tango ice cream, you would also need to analyse the ice cream market in order to test the feasibility of this decision. On the basis of your decision you should then consider the planning, implementation and evaluation of this extension. You should be mindful of how the marketing mix should be constructed across the traditional four Ps. You may make assumptions as to available marketing communications budget. It is essential that you clearly justify your answer based upon your analysis. (35% of marks) The final assignment is written up under examination conditions. Youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ll be given a brief summary of this task together with an additional unseen task that must be completed. (20% of marks). The brand you choose should be different to that chosen for your any other final year module assessment. Integration of ILOs: You will employ the learning from ILOs 1-4 within the analysis, planning, implementation and control stages. 1. critically analyse appropriate theory: 2. develop the skills and frameworks for creating competitive strategies for brands; 3. initiate brand modifications in response to market needs: 4. critically assess and review brand performance in the light of changing conditions and opportunities. Formative Details You will be expected to present in two seminars and receive formative feedback based on marking criteria similar to that used for the examination. This will take place facility weeks 14, 15, 16 and 18. This is an individual piece of work. However, you are expected to work with a peer partner alternate weeks to prepare your portfolio of progress towards developing your 20

brand extension. The syllabus is designed to help you work through the requirements of the examination. By selecting a partner with whom you should conduct your peer review work you will be well placed with your examination preparation. In exceptional cases it may be possible to work in a three. You should spend at least two hours per fortnight working with one another.

Specific Examination Marking Criteria

First: 70% and higher

Good answer (2:1): 60-69%

Reasonable answer (2:2):50-59%

Weak answer (3rd) 40-49%

Fail: below 40%

Comprehension and interpretation of additional task.

Demonstrates excellent handling of the new information and structures this well within the report.

Demonstrates good handling of the new information and good attempt to work this into the report.

Some attention paid to the new information and it may be fragmented within the rest of the answer.

Little or no attention paid to the new information. No real evidence of this being dealt with in the answer.

20%

Level of critical analysis and evaluation. You need to show a real understanding of the brand and a thorough analysis of the appropriate environment. Sound arguments to be constructed defending your rationale. (ILO 1,2, 3)

Demonstrates very high level of judgement in selection and synthesis of data. Work is cogently argued/reasoned using a body of evidence, which is very well, collated and presented. Applied to a clear conceptual framework with an excellent structure

Highly appropriate selection of literature from which to build and support valid arguments with strong logic and debate. Work is well evidenced throughout. Strong supporting theoretical rationale/framework applied and well structured.

Work is mainly descriptive and fails to go beyond ideas from lectures. Some evidence of discussion and evidence of ideas that have some support. Theory warrants greater attention as dose structure.

Work is descriptive, with no arguments Few or no ideas which are poorly thought through. Unsupported generalisations made. Very little evidence of theory and poorly structured.

45%

Viability and appropriateness of recommendations. To be based upon the secondary and any primary analysis undertaken. To reflect Planning, Implementation and Control issues. Work should consider the wider business issues that may have an impact on or affect the ability to implement the recommendations. SMART objectives, coherent positioning linked to earlier brand analysis, well documented and supported Pâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s and considered evaluation linked to objectives.

Recommendations are thoroughly grounded in an understanding of the brand and key issues identified in section one of the report. Recommendations are clearly viable and insightful, given the status, scope and current resources of the brand. Recommendations have been carefully considered and fully justified. There is evidence to suggest that the recommendations are highly plausible.

Recommendations are grounded in an understanding of the brand and key issues identified earlier. Recommendations are viable and have been considered and justified.

Demonstrates reasonable handling of the new information and reasonable attempt to craft this into the report. Work shows some analysis. Ideas from lectures and the literature are discussed and debated in the context of the review. Evidence is provided to support assumptions and conclusions. Reasonable understanding of theory and application and reasonable structure. Recommendati ons are detailed, but not always consistently linked to the issues identified or adequately supported. Recommendati ons are viable, but need more detailed consideration in places.

Recommendati ons made but rationale needs further clarification they need further support. The recommendatio ns only partly take into consideration the issues outlined in section one of the report. From a wider business perspective, the recommendatio ns need more attention to be made viable or desirable.

Poor recommendatio ns made with little or no rationale and little or no support. The recommendatio ns fail to take into consideration the issues outlined in section one of the report. From a wider business perspective, the recommendatio ns are clearly not viable or desirable

35%

(ILO 1,2,3 and 4)

Included in appendix one are BUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s generic assessment criteria for level 6 as further reference. SUBMISSION DETAILS Examinations will take place between the 16 th and 27th January 2017. Location tba.

You will be able to take 2 x A4 pieces of paper (4 sides of notes) in with you (not 4 separate pieces of paper written on one side). These should be handed in with your answer. This can be hand written or diagrammatic. No restriction on font size or margins but no magnifying glasses allowed. These should not contain any pre-prepared answers but should be in note form. DEADLINE Examinations will take place between the 16 th and 27th January 2016. Location tba. Your feedback and mark for this assignment will be provided within 3 weeks of the examination date. HELP AND SUPPORT There is a timetabled assessment briefing on 10 October 2016 during the scheduled lecture slot. There will be a seminar dedicated to the unseen part of the examination w/c 5th December 2016. There will be tutorials held in the last two weeks of term (w/c 12 th December 2016 and w/c 9th January 2017). There will be a revision/examination preparation lecture/session on 12 th December 2016 during the scheduled lecture slot. Formative feedback within seminars will take place facility weeks 14,15 and 16. 

Plagiarism and Self-Plagiarism: You must acknowledge your source every time you refer to others’ work or work that you have previously submitted and been assessed on, using the Harvard Referencing system (Author/Date method). Failure to do so amounts to plagiarism or self-plagiarism which is against University regulations. Please refer to http://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/library/how-to/plagiarism.html for further details of this and to https://www1.bournemouth.ac.uk/discover/library/using-library/how-guides/how-cite-references for the University’s guide to citation in the Harvard style. Students must ensure that they do not commit any type of Academic Offence. For further information please see: https://www1.bournemouth.ac.uk/discover/library/using-library/how-guides/how-avoidacademic-offences Plagiarism regulations extend to audio visual materials and work in other media. Archive or other material not generated by yourself or crew must be appropriately captioned when on screen and an acknowledgement to the source of the material included in the end credits or equivalent part of any online material. Failure to do so amounts to plagiarism or self-plagiarism, which is against University regulations.

 Students with Additional Learning Needs may contact Learning Support on 

http://studentportal.bournemouth.ac.uk/learning/als/index.html General academic support is available via the Academic Skills community on myBU.

 Additional support for Faculty of Media and Communication students only is provided by a small team of Learning Development Tutors. Please contact FMCLearningDevelopment@bournemouth.ac.uk to make an appointment. Please note: The Faculty of Media and Communication has a dedicated Learning Development Team to support you in your academic work. The team consists of Marian Mayer, Janie Jones, Camila DevisRozental and Steph Allen who are all academic lecturers/tutors and they support both postgraduate and undergraduate students throughout the academic year. They are located in WG08 and you can make an appointment with any one of them by emailing directly to FMCLearningdevelopment@bournemouth.ac.uk If you have any valid mitigating circumstances that mean you cannot meet an assignment submission deadline and you wish to request an extension, you will need to complete and submit the Mitigating Circumstances Form for consideration to your Administrator together with appropriate supporting evidence (e.g., GP note) normally before the coursework deadline. Further details on the procedure and the mitigating circumstances form can be found at www.bournemouth.ac.uk/student/mitigating. Please make sure you read these documents carefully before submitting anything for consideration.

Disclaimer: The information provided in this assignment brief is correct at time of publication. In the unlikely event that any changes are deemed necessary, they will be communicated clearly via e-mail and myBU and a new version of this assignment brief will be circulated. Version: 1 (updated Sept 2016)

Brand Management Examination: January 2016

Exam Name:

Brand Management:

INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATES You are expected to support your answer with reference to academic theory. You may make reference to 2 x A4 pieces of paper (4 sides of notes) which should be handed in with your answer. Answer all the questions.

Use a separate answer book for each section/question

As a senior brand manager with key strategic decision-making responsibilities, your board of directors has now requested that you prepare a report to justify a suitable brand extension into a new destination category. In addition to the requirements below, your board would like you to consider one other potential geographic market for this extension. You are asked to provide an additional section of your report which deals with this request. (20% of marks). Your report should: 1. Critically analyse the current brand and its existing portfolio together with the marketing environment of the destination category. This should be underpinned by research. (45% of marks). 2. On the basis of your analysis consider the planning, implementation and evaluation of this extension. You may be mindful of how the marketing mix should be constructed across the traditional four Ps. You may make assumptions as to the size of the available marketing communications budget. (35% of marks)

Examinerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s report 2016

This is the sixth year of the three-hour open book examination and overall an improvement on last yearâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s performance.

Notes Pages and Marking Criteria

1. The students could take in two A 4 pieces of paper (4 sides of notes). A couple of students took in in four separate pages (one sided) of notes but this fortunately did not cause a problem with the invigilators. 2. The analysis section has a weighting of 45% and the planning, implementation and control section has 35%. The new information section has the remaining 20%. 3. There was some confusion regarding the labelling of the questions as central examination administration had requested that all questions be numbered/labelled. For the resit we have reverted back to the previous format where just the analysis is labelled (a) and the planning implementation and control is labelled (b). This enables the students to work in the additional curved ball element where appropriate and not concern themselves that this has to be on a separate page. 4. Again this year students generally produced notes and there was the odd fully written out answer. This can lead to students missing out chunks of useful material as they copy across. By writing notes students are actively engaged when writing their answers. The examiners will continue to encourage students to practice time management with possibly planning and writing their answer in advance but to take notes into the examination rather than a ready crafted answer.

Student Performance

5. As encouraged, fewer students created both an executive summary and a signposted introduction but concentrated on the latter avoiding some repetition. For reference executive summaries summarise the entire report (past tense) and contain some findings from the report such as the important brand values to be transferred to the destination category and reference to the additional question. Good signposted introductions give clear direction (future tense) and

demonstrate authority including the intention to use theory to deepen the analysis. Students can avoid scant summaries containing background information or defining a brand extension. 6. In general students were better prepared for the various elements of the examination than last year but not all. There is a correlation with course engagement with the quality of preparation. Time management was a lot better this year but there is still evidence that students rush the second section and give insufficient time to the additional question. It is critical for students to consider their time management and rehearse for the exam. Students must appreciate the skills needed to select the appropriate material and craft their answer within the time frame. 7. Bennie (2000) was heavily overused to define brand architecture which demonstrates a lack of wider reading. 8. year.

Some answers still need to pay attention to structure but this was generally good this

9. Students need to consider that this isn’t just a list of frameworks that need working through but a crafted argument supported by the models and frameworks but this was a little better this year. Poorer answers tended to bounce from framework to framework without any linkage or showing how the analysis supported their argument. This was evident in weaker students’ answers this year. 10. There were a few similar brands covered such as Innocent and the frozen yoghurt category continues to be popular. Students are encouraged to be more creative. 11. Not such a problem this year but beware of spending too long at the beginning of the answer context setting. Ensure if you do draw on the current market it adds to the argument (i.e. declining market). Good practice is to thoroughly unpack the brand meaning using just one model (which may be adapted) underpinned with some research evidence although this wasn’t always apparent. Better answers tended to refer to their primary research, giving details of methods used and profile of respondents, to assist with this section and there was some good engagement here this year. 12. SWOT and PEST didn’t make such strong appearances this year which was an improvement and much of this information can be conveyed within the arguments without overrelying on too many frameworks. Ensure that the new category is carefully defined and use partitioning further here. Porter’s 5 forces model still trips up students. Students need to demonstrate they understand this model and can deal with it succinctly. Better answers countered any concerns raised by drawing upon sources of competitive advantage (Value Chain) but this still needs some further thought. More work needs to be done on this Five Forces model showing how it can underpin the attractiveness of the market and seeing how this can further support the overall argument. Take care that you have the necessary ammunition to take on P&G or Unilever.

13. Many students can better summarise section one showing the transferability of the brand values to the new extension and culminate with a stronger summary of their argument here. 14. Some better objectives this year nicely linking to brand equity but do ensure they are SMART as this facilitates measurement in the evaluation section. Flanking strategies were a little weak however as the weak flank areas to attack weren’t necessarily identified. 15. Many students still need to consider positioning further, particularly perceptual mapping. Despite warnings a few students still fell back on “price” and/or “quality” for their perceptual maps which shows a lack of linkage to the previous analysis. Students have unpacked the brand values in the earlier analysis section. This is a great way to get clear space between the focus brand and the competition. Also there continues to be a fixation on target audiences under 35 assuming that anyone older would not appreciate the extension. A very narrow viewpoint. 16. Some students lost marks as they weren’t particularly rigorous with the 4 or 7 P’s. Poorer answers were vague in this area. This is evidence possibly of poor time management or reducing levels of engagement. 17. In general students were anticipating that the additional (curved ball) question would be on brand equity. Hence there were some really long control sections within the answers which were out of balance with the previous planning and implementation sections. It’s a good idea to link brand equity to any earlier CBBE model if previously used in the analysis. 18. There were some good attempts with the global additional question although it still can seem a little rushed so students can try to improve time management on this section. 20. The highest mark this year was 80% and this was achieved by an Advertising student, and also a Marketing Communications student plus a PR student! So this was a better year this year with some good calibre scripts. Those students that have done well have been consistently engaged well across the semester with good attendance for both lectures and seminars. It is always a good idea to consider planning the brand extension early in the autumn. In addition those students planning their detailed answer over the Christmas period were better able to use the sessions at the beginning of January and as they had more focused questions to ask. There are three phases of learning with this approach: a) formative feedback and peer learning earlier within the semester - a really valuable way to cement your ideas. b) engagement with detailed planning and preparation of notes over the Christmas period, with time taken considering planning and time management of the answer.

c) the demands of the examination itself, selecting the appropriate material (this is the critical analysis part and together with crafting your argument) dealing with the additional task and completing the report under examination conditions. Stress is considerably reduced with good preparation beforehand.

Appendix One BU Generic Assessment Criteria

Level 6 Grade Range

Subject knowledge and understanding

Intellectual skills - including analysis, evaluation, and critical judgement

The work demonstrates a very high level of critical appraisal and judgement in 80% + analysis, evaluation and synthesis of data and abstractions. The work Exceptional demonstrates a wide range of work techniques of analysis and a very high overall level of awareness of limitations and contradictions. The work is cogently argued/reasoned using a body of evidence which is very well selected, collated and presented. Feedforward Future work could offer even further Future work could offer an even deeper broader and deeper understanding. and more extensive approach Transferable skills - critical including Level 6 Grade Range Subject-specific skills - including with extended analysis, synthesis and applications and problem solving communication and presentation evaluation. First Feedback The work demonstrates a very The work demonstrates a highis level of High First Feedback The work demonstrates an ability tothorough diagnose Presentation and organisation of a very knowledge and understanding of the subject critical appraisal and judgment in and apply appropriate and selective conceptual high standard, likely to be highly stimulating 70 - 79% through reading. Significant up-to-date analysis, and 80% + knowledge towide a practical problem/situation to and at the evaluation upper limits of synthesis what mayofbe sources have been effectively explored. information. A wide range of analysis produce valid, creative/original solutions which expected at undergraduate level. Conceptual understanding is highly are demonstrated with a Exceptional are logical, meaningful and effective. The work Atechniques tightly structured, rigorous argument Excellent developed. high level of awareness of limitations work shows exceptional evidence of critically showing flow and progression is presented. work and contradictions. It is clearly argued overall evaluating the existing view of the subject and overall or reasoned using a well selected, synthesis of ideas. Exemplary problem solving collated and presented body of skills are evident. and evidence. Feedforward Future work could demonstrate even more Future work could offer even further wellFeedforward In future work a deeper analytical and Future work could offer more critical innovation and insights. structured arguments. critical approach will help to develop the appraisal and judgement in the analysis, conceptual understanding further. evaluation and synthesis of information. First Feedback The work demonstrates a high level of ability to The presentation and organisation of work is Upper Feedback diagnose The work demonstrates a very work demonstrates a very and apply appropriate andgood selective ofThe a very high standard, likely to good be 70 - Second 79% knowledge and understanding the subject conceptualshowing understanding with good conceptual knowledge to a practicalof problem or stimulating, a high level of academic through wider and or upskills oforiginality. critical appraisal and evaluation situation in order toreading. produceSignificant valid, creative skill and 60 - 69% to-date sources have identified and ideas.structured, A range ofrigorous techniques of original solutions which arebeen logical, meaningful Aof tightly argument Excellent used effectively. analysisflow is applied with a goodis and effective and which demonstrate synthesis showing and progression workVery good awareness of limitations and of ideas. demonstrated. work overall contradictions, and evidence of highly Feedforward Future work could demonstrate a higher level of Future work could begood developed to be overall independent ability in problem solving, with higher level of stimulating andthinking original.and synthesis of ideas. creativity and originality. FeedforwardThe work Future work shouldademonstrate widerto Future more showing detailed flow Upper Feedback demonstrates very good ability The workwork has ashould logicaloffer structure reading more developed understanding analysis, synthesis and criticality Second diagnose andand apply conceptual knowledge to a and progression. Presentation andwith using further up-to-date sources. clearly expressed reasoning. new practical problem or situation and generate organisation of work is likely to show few 60 - Lower 69% Feedback responses The work demonstrates themeaningful development The work a fair ability to which are logical and andof mistakes ordemonstrates limitations. The appropriate Second sometogood of and the subject or academic analyse and the significance are likely offerunderstanding some originality creativity. styleevaluate is demonstrated. Very good discipline. Reading of key texts may be and meaning of information and its work50 - 59% Feedforward limited. The ability to reviewmore and relevance the argument. Someadditional Future work should demonstrate Future worktoshould demonstrate overall consolidate basic knowledge base is evidence of synthesiswell of ideas and synthesis, deeperainsight and innovative flow and progression, developed Good work present. independence of thought and some responses to problems. sentence structure and accurate referencing. overall awareness of limitations and contradictions shown. Lower Feedback The work demonstrates a reasonably sound There is an overall structure evident but it FeedforwardabilityFuture work should demonstrate wideof Future more flow and Second to apply diagnostic skills to a range does notwork offershould strong contain or consistent reading of more to date and a clearly developed arguments practical situations butupdoes not sources demonstrate progression. Presentation styleand andmore grammar 50 - 59% moreand developed understanding. critical analysis, backed up with creativity innovation. Problem solving is still may show limitations. references from the literature. stronger when applied to routine or standard GoodThird work Feedback problems The work demonstrates a sufficient The work demonstrates some critical previously encountered. overall Class knowledge basedemonstrate of the subject/discipline. appraisal and evaluation Feedforward Future work should a more Future work should containofanew clearer Some importantoforknowledge current writings and information, thoughflow withand limited detailed application to other structure, consistent development 40 - 49% issues have not been explored. The work techniques of analysis, limited and contexts, with creativity and innovation. along with more accurateand references presents a limited depth of awareness of any limitations and sentence structure. A basic knowledge/understanding in an area of contradictions. Unsubstantiated level of specialisation. opinionsof may be is evident with limited Third Feedback The work may show limited applications and a Structure work weak or inconsistent. work logical development of an Classoverall limited ability to apply diagnostic and creative Presentation details may beargument. basic and show Feedforwardskills In extended reading of key In future work it is important to provide tofuture a rangework of practical situations. Problem limitations, for example sentence structure 40 - 49% sources is needed in order develop more clearly require developed analysis and solving is more successful whento applied to and grammar development. subject knowledge and understanding, critical appraisal, backed up with routine or standard problems, previously and A basic to present theories concepts in more references from the literature. encountered. Logical andand effective novel level of detail. solutions are not present. workFail Feedback In future The work shows an insufficient level of workstructure is too descriptive, needsalong Feedforward more clearly developed links AThe clearer is needed and in future overall factual and and conceptual to demonstrate critical backed between theory practiceunderstanding are required. of the with a more accurate useanalysis, of the conventions 30-39% subject. There is little or no evidence of with the use of appropriate ofup English. Developing further the skills in reading or research. literature. is strongly recommended. referencing Insufficient level of Feedforward In future work significant further reading In future work analysis and critical work and research is needed. appraisal, backed up with references overall from the literature, is required. High First

Feedback

The work demonstrates outstanding knowledge and understanding of the subject through wide reading. Significant up-to-date sources have been explored analytically. Conceptual understanding is highly developed, showing deep insight. The work is advanced, very original and imaginative.

Poor Fail

Feedback

The work shows limited or no evidence of factual and conceptual understanding, or of

The work shows no evidence of appropriate analysis. Unsubstantiated

Feedback

The link between theory and practice is poor or absent and the work needs to make stronger links between the two.

Insufficient level of work overall

The structure is weak and/or inconsistent with mistakes in grammar or sentence structure. References are poorly or inconsistently presented.

Feedforward

In future work links between theory and practice are required.

A much clearer structure is needed, along with a more accurate use of English. Developing skills in referencing is strongly recommended.

Poor Fail

Feedback

The work shows little or no evidence of relating theory to practice.

Feedforward

Future work needs to demonstrate at least basic links between theory and practice.

The work is poorly structured using poor English and/or an inappropriate style. References may be presented inaccurately or missing. The work may be incomplete or too brief. In future work a much clearer structure is needed, along with a much more accurate use English. Developing skills in referencing is strongly recommended.

Fail 30-39%

0-29% A very insufficient level of work overall