Faculty of Business and Law Assessments Brief MKT30017 Branding, Innovation and Design OUA Study Period 3, 2016MKT30017_Assessments Brief OUA SP3 2016 Page 2 of 7 Reading list: Students are advised to refer to the below reading list for relevant theories and concepts covered in the course to complete the assignments. Course notes refer to the theories throughout the study period and content within the readings will directly inform your presentation of ideas throughout the completion of assignments. Item Reading List 1 § HOEFFLER, S. & KELLER, K. L. 2003. The marketing advantages of strong brands. Brand Management, 10, 421-445. § FOURNIER, S. 1998. Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 343-53. 2 § KELLER, K. L. 1993. Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57, 1- 22. § NANDAN, S. 2005. An exploration of the brand identity-brand image linkage: A communications perspective. Brand Management, 12, 264-278. § KELLER, K. L., STERNTHAL, B. & TYBOUT, A. M. 2002. Three questions you need to ask about your brand. Harvard Business Review, September, 3-8. 3 § KELLER, K. L. 2001. Building customer based brand equity. Marketing Management, July/August, 14-19. § VIECELI, J. & SHAW, R. N. 2006. A model of brand salience. In: UNCLES, M. D. (ed.) Perspectives on Brand Management. Australia: Tilde University Press, 122-137. § AAKER, J. L. 1997. Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 347-356. 4 § LERMAN, D. & GARBARINO, E. 2002. Recall and recognition of brand names: A comparison of word and non-word name types. Psychology and Marketing, 19, 621-639. § KOHLI, C., LEUTHESSER, L. & SURI, R. 2007. Got slogan? Guidelines for creating effective slogans. Business Horizons, 50, 415-422. § ORTH, U. R. & MALKEWITZ, K. 2008. Holistic package design and consumer brand impressions. Journal of Marketing, 72, 64-81. 5 § BRAKUS, J. J., SCHMITT, B. H. & ZARANTONELLO, L. 2009. Brand experience: What is it? How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 73, 52-68. § JOACHIMSTHALER, E. & AAKER, D. A. 1997. Building brands without mass media. Harvard Business Review, JanuaryFebruary, 39-50. § SIRIANNI, N. J., BITNER, M. J., BROWN, S. & MANDEL, N. 2013. Branded service encounters: Strategically aligning employee behaviour with the brand positioning. Journal of Marketing, 77, 108-123. 6 § ERDOGAN, B. Z. 1999. Celebrity endorsement: A literature review. Journal of Marketing Management, 15, 291-314 § VOSS, K. E. & TANSUHAJ, P. 1999. A consumer perspective on foreign market entry: Building brands through brand alliances. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 11, 39-58 § DESHPANDE, R. (2010). Why You Aren't Buying Venezuelan Chocolate. Harvard Business Review, 88(12), 25-27. 7 § AAKER, D. A. 1996. Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California Management Review, 38, 102-120 § COULTER, R. H. & ZALTMAN, G. 1994. Using the Zaltman metaphor elicitation technique to understand brand images. Advances in Consumer Research, 21, 501-507 § TILL, B. D., BAACK, D. & WATERMAN, B. 2011. Strategic brand association maps: Developing brand insights. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 20, 92-100. 8 § MICK, D.G., & FOURNIER, S. 1998. Paradoxes of technology: Consumer cognizance, emotions, and coping strategies. Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (2), 123-143. § FULLER, J., MATZLER, K. & HOPPE, M. 2008. Brand community members as a source of innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25, 608-619. § O'CASS, A. & NGO, L. V. 2007. Market orientation versus innovative culture: Two routes to superior brand performance. European Journal of Marketing, 41, 868-887 9 § AAKER, D. A. & JOACHIMSTHALER, E. 2000. The brand relationship spectrum: The key to the brand architecture challenge. California Management Review, 42, 8-90. § HILL, S., ETTENSON, R. & TYSON, D. 2005. Achieving the ideal brand portfolio. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46, 85- 90 § RITSON, M. 2009. Should you launch a fighter brand? Harvard Business Review, October, 87-94. 10 § LEE, M. S. W., MOTION, J. & CONROY, D. M. 2009. Anti-consumption and brand avoidance. Journal of Business Research, 62, 169-180. § BILGIN, I. 2012. Infidel brands: Unveiling alternative meanings of global brands at the nexus of globalization, consumer culture and Islamism. Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 663-687. § THOMPSON, C. J., RINDFLEISCH, A. & ARSEL, Z. 2006. Emotional branding and the strategic value of the Doppelganger brand image. Journal of Marketing, 70, 50-64.MKT30017_Assessments Brief OUA SP3 2016 Page 3 of 7 Assessment Overview Assessment for this unit will consist of three parts throughout the study period. The first part is an individual assignment that requires students to conduct an audit on the Apple brand and the electric car automotive market. Based on the analyses conducted in the first assessment students will then complete a second (group) assignment detailing the proposed brand strategy for Apple, as a business, to enter into the automotive market. For both part 1 and part 2, please limit your market to the Australian market in the interest of setting some realistic parameters to manage your information collection within the assessment. The third part consists of a final exam. Details of each assessment component is provided below. Assessment One: Brand and Market Audit Individual assignment. 2,000 words. Assessment Weighting - 20% Task Overview Students will assume the role of brand consultants and based on the theoretical concepts covered in MKT30017, will conduct a brand and market audit to establish a better understanding of the marketing variables to be considered prior to developing a viable brand strategy proposal in the second assessment. Taking into account the firm's target market, competitive environment and previous history, students are required to collect and analyse information on Apple and the automotive market and detail the key findings from the analysis. This information will then be collated with other group members for the second assessment to develop the brand strategy. The findings will be communicated in the form of a professional 2,000-word business report detailing all considerations and findings. Task context Apple will launch an electric car for sale in 2020, which will compete directly against Tesla and other electric car manufacturers. The Apple electric car will not be automated and will still require a driver and charging at designated charging stations. Using the CBBE framework, students are required to conduct an audit of Apple's current brand strength.. Additionally, students should critique the performance of key competitors in the electric car market. Based on this analysis, students are to identify the strengths and limitations Apple is likely to face as it enters the automotive industry, as well as define the intended target segment for this product and their likely use for the car. In so doing, students will briefly identify the brand features and attributes, as well as secondary associations and wider marketing variables (such as price, distribution etc.) that Apple can leverage to appeal to the selected target segment. You may use photos/images to assist you in this task. You may also develop your own materials to bring your ideas to life. Task specific requirements • Detail Apple's current core brand strengths and weaknesses giving consideration to any brand elements, brand experiences and secondary associations. Students are encouraged to use the CBBE framework to complete this section. • Detail any potential limitations of extending the Apple brand into the automotive sector. State what these might be including any existing associations or strengths of Apple that may prevent it from establishing credibility in the industry. • Assess what impact entering the automotive segment may have on Apple's current brand strength and demonstrate how this will be considered in future strategy development. • Using the 3C's analysis framework review the Competition, Consumer and Company conventions that will have the most impact on any subsequent strategy development. • Discuss the type of consumer of Apple products and debate whether or not the attributes and profile of an Apple technology customer is likely to be similar when considering buying a new car in 2020.MKT30017_Assessments Brief OUA SP3 2016 Page 4 of 7 Assessment Parameters Submission Type: Individual Assessment. Word Limit: 2,000 words. Task weighting: Assessment 1 is graded out of 100 marks and will be weighted to reflect 20% of the total marks for this unit Formatting details: Report submissions should be typed using at least 11-point font and 1.5 spaced throughout Referencing style: Harvard Referencing style. See library for formatting specifics. § Your report should contain in-text citations § The full list of references should be included at the end of your report Due date: 23.59pm Friday 30th September 2016. Submission details: Submit your individual report in the correct folder, via the Blackboard Turnitin system. Late submissions: Refer to your unit outline Marking structure: See Assessment 1 marking guide below Brand & Market Audit Marking Guide Criteria Fail Pass Credit Distinction High Distinction Score Brand and Market Exploration (20 marks) Superficial and/or inadequate addressing of the components of the brand audit Basic components of the brand audit were addressed and mostly researched appropriately Most components of the brand audit were addressed and most researched appropriately Most components of the brand audit was addressed and appropriately researched in great depth All components of the brand strategy was addressed and appropriately researched in great depth Critical Analysis (30 marks) Limited/poor understanding of key concepts Descriptive and/or summary of key concepts Some evidence of elementary analysis and application of key concepts Evidence of analysis and application of key concepts Great depth of analysis and application of key concepts Evidence of deep and broad understanding of key concepts Recommendations, conclusions and practical implications (25 marks) Limited / poor demonstration of key findings from analysis phase Basic demonstration of practical implications form audit Most components of audit addressed and student shows ability to draw out logical and informed conclusions Recommendations are clearly made and students shows understanding of implications of thinking Student shows good appreciation of the findings and is able to make objective recommendations that are based on deep insights Integration of theories and concepts (25 marks) Course concepts are not used throughout the assignment. Course concepts and theories show limited use to support presentation of ideas. A basic understanding of the theory is evident. Theory has been used to demonstrate student's thinking in context of assignment tasks. Detailed use and integration of theory throughout assignment to provide objective views. Student shows good understanding f theory in context. Comprehensive use of theory to create detailed and objectively stated points of view. Concepts are integrated throughout to show students depth of understanding.MKT30017_Assessments Brief OUA SP3 2016 Page 5 of 7 Assessment Two: Brand Strategy development. Group assignment consisting of no more than four (4) students. 4,000 words. Assessment Weighting - 30% Task Overview Based on the analysis of the current Apple core brand (i.e., Assignment 1), students are to propose a brand strategy for how to position the new Apple Car in 2020. Consideration will need to be given to how the product will need to live up to Apple's current core brand values, yet also consider how viable it is for the Apple brand to extend into automotive products. Task specific requirements In engaging in this task, you should incorporate and draw upon the collective findings uncovered through the analysis of assessment one. In other words, key findings from each group member's first assessment should be pooled to create a knowledge base to draw upon to inform the second assessment. The report should explicitly detail the overarching brand strategy recommended for Apple to enter the automotive market (ie. Endorser brand, brand extension, development of an entirely new brand, etc.) The branding strategy should also include a series of recommendations pertaining to: o The positioning of the Apple Car in the market. o The design elements (i.e., brand elements, brand experiences, and secondary sources of brand equity) that Apple should consider when attempting to launch a new product in a new industry under the brand. o Consideration of wider marketing variables required to effectively support the launch of the product to market. It is recommended that you use the Brand Resonance model as a guiding framework and provide clear justifications for your recommendations. When engaging in this task, it is expected that you will conduct additional background research, and paraphrase the contents of the Assignment 1 report. It is up to the team to decide the best way to present the findings of your analysis, and what headings/sub-headings that should be used. It is recommended however, that in your report, you focus your efforts on clearly articulating the target segment, relevant competitors and the key points pertaining to your recommended branding strategy. The written report should go into each point discussed in more detail. Assessment Parameters Submission type: Group submission (maximum four students) Word Limit: 4,000 words. Task weighting: Assessment 2 is graded out of 100 marks and will be weight to reflect 30% of the total marks for this unit Formatting details: Written reports should be typed using at least 11-point font, and 1.5 spaced throughout Referencing style: Harvard Referencing Style § Your report should contain in-text citations § The full list of references should be included at the end of your reportMKT30017_Assessments Brief OUA SP3 2016 Page 6 of 7 Submission details: Submit your individual report in the correct folder, via the Blackboard Turnitin system. Due date: 23.59pm Friday 18th November 2016 Late submissions: Refer to your unit outline Marking structure: See Assessment 2 marking guide below Brand Strategy (Written Report Marking Rubric) Criteria Fail Pass Credit Distinction High Distinction Score Critical Analysis and demonstration of key knowledge (30 marks) Limited/poor understanding of key concepts Initial knowledge developed from first assignment not leveraged Descriptive and/or summary of key concepts Some integration of key brand understanding Some evidence of elementary analysis and application of key concepts Good integration of key findings to inform direction for further strategy development Evidence of analysis and application of key concepts Base line understanding leveraged effectively with limited additional research required to develop viable strategies Great depth of analysis and application of key concepts Evidence of deep and broad understanding of key concepts Strategic intent is well informed Strategy Development and recommendations (45 marks) Limited / poor demonstration of key findings from analysis phase Lack of reflection within proposals to test viability Tends to be subjectively based without objective support Basic demonstration of practical implications form audit Information is integrated to develop initial thoughts on brand strategy Significant room for further development of ideas and proposals Most components of strategic requirements addressed and student shows ability to draw out logical and informed conclusions Strategy shows some parameters and limitations in recommendations Recommendations are clearly made and students shows understanding of implications of thinking Parameters of recommendations are clear. Strategy shows consideration to limitations and contingency options Student shows good appreciation of the findings and is able to make objective recommendations that are based on deep insights Strategic intent is clear and highly articulated Contingency thinking is addressed and holistic presentation of ideas is made in context of business dynamic Integration of theories and concepts Structure of presentation (25 marks) Course concepts are not used throughout the assignment. Presentation of ideas show limited structure that allows the reader to follow students recommendations Course concepts and theories show limited use to support presentation of ideas. A basic understanding of the theory is evident. Loose structure with room to improve information delivery Theory has been used to demonstrate student's thinking in context of assignment tasks. Structure shows logical sequence Detailed use and integration of theory throughout assignment to provide objective views. Student shows good understanding f theory in context. Structure follows logical sequence that enables findings to be leveraged with presentation of new ideas able to be clearly made Comprehensive use of theory to create detailed and objectively stated points of view. Concepts are integrated throughout to show students depth of understanding. Structure provides students with additional opportunities to demonstrating their understanding of the concept in contextMKT30017_Assessments Brief OUA SP3 2016 Page 7 of 7 Assessment 3: Examination (50%) Overview of Examination The final examination requires you to demonstrate your understanding of the unit by explaining concepts and theories during the course of the Semester. This is a closed book exam. This means you may not consult your learning materials. More details of the final examination will be provided in Week 13. Assessment Parameters Task weighting: The final examination is worth 50% Due date: Formal examination period Additional information: Materials permitted in examination room § Writing materials (e.g., pens, pencils, highlighters, erasers, correction fluid, ruler) Materials not permitted in examination room § No dictionaries of any sort § No electronic devices (including e-dictionaries, calculators, etc.) § No notes or papers