Page 1 of 5 Developed by Dr. Md. Parves Sultan, Senior Lecturer in Marketing, School of Business and Law, CQUniversity, Melbourne. Marketing Plan Fail - F (0% - 49%) Pass - P (50%—64%) Credit – C (65%—74%) Distinction - D (75%—84%) High Distinction - HD (85%—100%) Title page, table of contents and executive summary – 3 marks Not provided or very poor. Poorly presented, unstructured and inconsistent. Addressed limited discussion in summary and lacks detail in title page, table of contents and summary. Briefly provided a summary with some key issues discussed in the report. Complete title page and table of contents are provided. Clearly stated the purposes of the report in summary with great detail which ensures most areas relevant to the topic. Complete title page and table of contents are provided. The title page, table of contents and executive summary are professionally organised. The executive summary contains the purposes and structurally presents the whole report in one page and in a few paragraphs. Background – 2 marks Not provided or very poor. Poorly presented, unstructured and inconsistent. Addressed limited or no discussion about the industry, competitor and the brand. Lacks detail in terms of data, and relevant information and citations. Briefly provided some details about the industry, competitor and the brand; Provided some details about brand’s current situation and challenges, current vision, mission and marketing aims. A great detail about industry, competitor and the brand was provided, along with the challenges that the brand is facing. Current vision, mission and marketing aims are clearly presented in an understandable way. Background was presented professionally with relevant data and justification in an interesting way. Provided a great detail about the brand’s market performance in brief. Current vision, mission and marketing aims are clearly presented and in a professional way. Market summary and demand assessment – 3 marks Did not demonstrate an understanding of the relationship of study resources, and data/information obtained from relevant sources for market summary and demand assessment. Did not demonstrate how market potential is assessed for industry, competitor’s brand and the brand in concern. Did not demonstrate how to assess market share based on available data. Demonstrated a little understanding of the relationship of study resources, and data/information obtained from relevant sources for market summary and demand assessment. Poorly demonstrated how market potential is assessed for the industry, competitor’s brand and the brand in concern, including market share. Few to no resources, and often irrelevant resources are provided. Very general discussion is provided in regard to segmentation dimensions and their relevant variables, and target market. Resources for market summary and demand assessment are either incorrect or irrelevant. Briefly provided some information about market summary and demand or market potential assessment for the industry, competing brand and the brand in concern. A good discussion is provided in regard to segmentation dimensions and their relevant variables, and target market. Although some relevant resources are provided, a lack of connection/integration was observed. Although there are some relevant citations, you need to be careful in your future assessment in terms of currency, relevancy and accuracy. Demonstrated an understanding of the relationship between study materials, including relevant online sources and the assessment task. Clearly shows that the study materials are consulted to develop this section. This section provides relevant industry background, competitors’ overview and an overview about the company, organization, and/or brand in concern. This section demonstrates demand/market potential assessment for the industry, competing brand and the brand in concern with some clear data/information, graph/figure and where appropriate relevant sources, appropriate title, citations are visible. A structured discussion is provided in regard to segmentation dimensions and their relevant variables, and target market. Clearly demonstrate the ability to search for and use of relevant knowledge and skills required to critically assess/examine a market, industry, competitor, and demand for a specific product/service/brand. Demonstrates a balanced and very high level of detailed knowledge of core concepts by providing a very high level of analysis. Utilises current, appropriate and credible sources. Demonstrated an understanding of the relationship between study materials, including relevant online sources and the assessment task. Clearly shows that the study materials are consulted to develop this section. This section provides relevant industry background, competitors’ overview and an overview about the company, organization, and/or brand in concern. This section demonstrates demand/market potential assessment for the industry, competing brand and the brand in concern with some clear data/information, graph/figure and where appropriate relevant sources, appropriate title, citations are visible. A structured discussion is provided in regard to segmentation dimensions and their relevant variables, and target market. Page 2 of 5 Developed by Dr. Md. Parves Sultan, Senior Lecturer in Marketing, School of Business and Law, CQUniversity, Melbourne. Marketing Plan Fail - F (0% - 49%) Pass - P (50%—64%) Credit – C (65%—74%) Distinction - D (75%—84%) High Distinction - HD (85%—100%) Marketing environment (PEST) analysis – 2 marks Not provided or very poorly discussed with some general sentences that do not guide where the industry and competitors are heading and how these environmental forces can benefit or damage the brand in concern. Poorly presented, unstructured and inconsistent. Lacks detail in terms of data, and relevant information and citations. The discussion weakly guides where the industry and competitors are heading and how these environmental forces can benefit or damage the brand in concern. Briefly provided some details about the environmental forces and how these can affect the brand in concern. Connections or integration of some recent changes and how these affect the industry, competitor and the brand in concern are missing. A general discussion has been provided and lacks relevant and updated citations. Demonstrated an understanding of marketing environment analysis with specific detail about the environmental forces and how these can affect the brand in concern. Connections/integration of some recent changes are incorporated and explained how these affect the industry, competitor and the brand in concern. This section is structured with updated citations. Demonstrated a professional knowledge and skill in developing this section. Demonstrated competency in assessing marketing environment thoroughly and succinctly with specific details with relevant and updated citations. The section clearly guides where the industry, competitors and the brand in concern are heading and how environmental changes can affect positively and negatively. Connections/integration of recent changes are incorporated and explained. Provided a structured discussion with adequate and correct citations and referencing styles. Competitor analyses – 3 marks Did not identify a specific competitor, or a brand. No or very poorly discussed comparative analysis of relevant factors or aspects of the competing brand and the brand in concern. This section is very poorly structured, and includes mostly with irrelevant and inconsistent discussion. Citation/referencing styles are poor to absent. This section has identified a specific competitor, or a competing brand. But comparative analysis of relevant factors or aspects of the competing brand and the brand in concern is weak. This section is poorly structured, and includes mostly with some inconsistent discussion. Poorly or inadequately discussed about competing brand’s marketing aims and promotional mix objectives. Need to be careful about citation/referencing. This section has identified a specific competitor, or a competing brand. Briefly provided a comparative analysis of relevant factors or aspects of the competing brand and the brand in concern. This section is poorly structured, and includes mostly with some inconsistent discussion. Competing brand’s marketing aims and promotional mix objectives are identified. Need to be careful about citation/referencing. This section has identified a specific competitor, or a competing brand. Provided a comparative analysis of relevant factors or aspects of the competing brand and the brand in concern. This section is structured, and includes mostly relevant and consistent discussion with relevant citation/referencing. Adequately explained the marketing aims and promotional mix objectives of the competing brand. Demonstrates a balanced and high level of knowledge of core concepts by providing a high level of analysis. Utilises mostly current, appropriate and credible sources. This section has identified a specific competitor, or a competing brand. Provided a comparative analysis and explanation of relevant factors or aspects of the competing brand and the brand in concern. This section is structured, and includes relevant and consistent discussion with relevant citation/referencing. Demonstrated a structured explanation of the marketing aims and promotional mix objectives of the competing brand. This section demonstrates a balanced and high level of detailed knowledge of core concepts by providing a very high level of analysis. Utilises mostly current, appropriate and credible sources. Situation analysis (SWOT) – 2 marks Not provided or very poorly discussed. Some general sentences are provided that do not guide the brand in concern in terms of its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT). Provided an unstructured, inconsistent and lengthy discussion for the SWOT analysis. There is inconsistent discussion, as compared to what has been discussed in the market summary and demand assessment, PEST analysis and competitor analysis sections. Provided a reasonably good understanding of the SWOT analysis and how it guides a company, organization or a brand. The discussion is structured, and somewhat consistent with the market summary and demand assessment, PEST analysis and competitor analysis. Provided a very good understanding of the SWOT analysis and how it guides a company, organization or a brand. Discussion is structured, succinct and specific with relevant and updated citations. An evidence of desk research is found. Consistent with the market summary and demand assessment, PEST analysis and competitor analysis. Demonstrated a professional knowledge and skills in developing the SWOT analysis and how it guides a company, organization or a brand. Discussion is structured, succinct and specific with relevant and updated citations. Proves how recent environmental changes would affect SWOT of the brand. An evidence of desk research is found. Consistent with previous sections. Page 3 of 5 Developed by Dr. Md. Parves Sultan, Senior Lecturer in Marketing, School of Business and Law, CQUniversity, Melbourne. Marketing Plan Fail - F (0% - 49%) Pass - P (50%—64%) Credit – C (65%—74%) Distinction - D (75%—84%) High Distinction - HD (85%—100%) Value and brand positioning analysis – 2 marks Not provided or very poorly discussed. Some general sentences are provided that do not guide what value the brand in concern and competing brand provide. Provided a very poor discussion in terms of value and brand positioning analyses. Demonstrates lack of desk research findings and a discussion of relevant theories. Provided a reasonable discussion in terms of value and brand positioning analyses. The discussion of relevant theories/theory (e.g. important— performance framework) to explain brand positioning is weak. Provided a good discussion in terms of value and brand positioning analyses. Demonstrates a thorough desk research findings. The discussion and implementation of relevant theories/theory (e.g. important— performance framework) to explain brand positioning is reasonably good. Demonstrated a professional knowledge and skills in terms of value and brand positioning analyses. Demonstrated a thorough desk research findings. The discussion and implementation of relevant theories/theory (e.g. important— performance framework) to explain brand positioning was very good. Marketing aim and promotional objectives – 4 marks Not provided or very poorly discussed. Some general sentences are provided that do not guide what the marketing aim and promotional objectives are. The discussion is very poor. Some general sentences are provided in an unstructured manner. The marketing aim and promotional objectives are inconsistent with market summary, demand assessment, PEST analysis, competitor analysis, SWOT analysis and brand positioning analysis. Somewhat a structured discussion is provided. The discussion about marketing aim and promotional objectives are weak when compared with market summary, demand assessment, PEST analysis, competitor analysis, SWOT analysis and brand positioning analysis. A structured discussion is provided. The discussion about marketing aim and promotional objectives are reasonably good and demonstrate a close match with market summary, demand assessment, PEST analysis, competitor analysis, SWOT analysis and brand positioning analysis. A structured discussion is provided. Clearly demonstrates that the discussion about marketing aim and promotional objectives are consistent with market summary, demand assessment, PEST analysis, competitor analysis, SWOT analysis and brand positioning analysis. Marketing mix strategies – 5 marks Not provided or very poorly discussed. Some general sentences are provided in regard to marketing mix elements [product, price, place, promotion (4Ps), process, physical environment, people (7Ps)] that do not guide what the marketing mix strategies will be for 2018. This section does not demonstrate an integration of theories and desk research findings. An unstructured discussion has been provided with some poor presentations. Unrealistic strategies are proposed for 2018 for each of the marketing mix elements. This section demonstrates an integration of theories and desk research findings. In some cases, a structured discussion has been provided with some good presentations for each of the marketing mix elements. Some implementable strategies, including PLC, BCG matrix, and competitive strategies are proposed for 2018 and for each of the marketing mix elements. A weak integration with PEST analysis, competitor analysis, SWOT analysis, brand positioning analysis, and marketing aim and promotional objectives are found. This section demonstrates an integration of theories and desk research findings. A thorough, concise and structured discussion has been provided with some visible presentations for each of the marketing mix elements. Some implementable strategies, including PLC, BCG matrix, and competitive strategies are proposed for 2018 and for each of the marketing mix elements. Consistent with PEST analysis, competitor analysis, SWOT analysis, brand positioning analysis, and marketing aim and promotional objectives. This section demonstrates an integration of theories and desk research findings. A thorough, concise and structured discussion has been provided with some visible presentations for each of the marketing mix elements. Demonstrates competent knowledge and skills in developing a set of implementable strategies, including PLC, BCG matrix, and competitive strategies for 2018 and for each of the marketing mix elements. Consistent with PEST analysis, competitor analysis, SWOT analysis, brand positioning analysis, and marketing aim and promotional objectives. Page 4 of 5 Developed by Dr. Md. Parves Sultan, Senior Lecturer in Marketing, School of Business and Law, CQUniversity, Melbourne. Marketing Plan Fail - F (0% - 49%) Pass - P (50%—64%) Credit – C (65%—74%) Distinction - D (75%—84%) High Distinction - HD (85%—100%) Competitive strategies – 5 marks Not provided or very poorly discussed. Some general sentences are provided that do not guide what the brand’s competitive strategies will be for 2018. Provided a very poor discussion in terms of relevant theories (or theory) and its integration with the brand’s competitive strategies. Demonstrates a lack of understanding about the brand’s position in the industry and in terms competition. There is a lack of clear and specific strategies. Described relevant theories in brief (e.g. five factor theory, theory for various types of competitors). However, it lacks an integration of relevant theories (or theory) for this assessment context. A weak integration with PEST analysis, competitor analysis, SWOT analysis, brand positioning analysis, and marketing aim and promotional objectives are found. Demonstrates a weak understanding of the brand’s position in the industry and in terms competition. The proposed strategies are weak. Described relevant theories in brief (e.g. five factor theory, theory for various types of competitors). Integrated the theories in formulating competitive strategies. Demonstrated an integration of PEST analysis, competitor analysis, SWOT analysis, brand positioning analysis, and marketing aim and promotional objectives with the competitive strategies. Demonstrates reasonable understanding of the brand’s position in the industry and in terms competition. The proposed strategies are implementable. Described relevant theories in brief (e.g. five factor theory, theory for various types of competitors). Integrated the theories in formulating competitive strategies. Demonstrated an integration of PEST analysis, competitor analysis, SWOT analysis, brand positioning analysis, and marketing aim and promotional objectives with the competitive strategies. Demonstrates a very good understanding of the brand’s position in the industry and in terms competition. The proposed strategies are effective and implementable. Media and budget allocation – 5 marks Not provided or very poorly discussed about the yearly promotional mix elements’ objectives, media details and budget allocation. There is no justification of choosing media and budget. Provided a poor discussion of relevant theories along with its justification for media and budget allocation. The media and budget allocation is very general. Absence of an unstructured and unmapped media and budget allocation against the promotional mix elements’ objectives was found. The discussion is inconsistent with the PEST analysis, competitor analysis, SWOT analysis, brand positioning analysis, and marketing aim and promotional objectives, PLC, BCG matrix and competitive strategies. Provided a good discussion of relevant theories along with its justification for media and budget allocation. The media and budget allocation is general. The discussion is somewhat consistent with the PEST analysis, competitor analysis, SWOT analysis, brand positioning analysis, and marketing aim and promotional objectives, PLC, BCG matrix and competitive strategies. Provided a very good discussion of relevant theories along with its justification for media and budget allocation. The media and budget allocation is structured and mapped. The discussion is somewhat consistent with the PEST analysis, competitor analysis, SWOT analysis, brand positioning analysis, and marketing aim and promotional objectives, PLC, BCG matrix and competitive strategies. Demonstrated a structured and brilliant discussion of relevant theories along with its justification for media and budget allocation. The media and budget allocation is structured and mapped against the promotional mix elements’ objectives. The discussion is consistent, succinct and specific with the PEST analysis, competitor analysis, SWOT analysis, brand positioning analysis, and marketing aim and promotional objectives, PLC, BCG matrix and competitive strategies. Page 5 of 5 Developed by Dr. Md. Parves Sultan, Senior Lecturer in Marketing, School of Business and Law, CQUniversity, Melbourne. Marketing Plan Fail - F (0% - 49%) Pass - P (50%—64%) Credit – C (65%—74%) Distinction - D (75%—84%) High Distinction - HD (85%—100%) Expected outcome and conclusion – 2 marks Not provided or very poorly discussed about the expected outcome of this one- year marketing plan. Conclusion does not summarise the key points/discussion of the whole report. Overall, the assessment fails to provide any clear evidence of the ideas presented; drawing no clear conclusions. Somewhat the expected outcomes are provided but these are not very consistent. The assessment provides limited detail with no clear summary of the ideas presented; drawing limited conclusions. The expected outcomes are briefly addressed. The assessment presents a somewhat detailed and focused summary of the ideas presented; providing some evidence of conclusions. Demonstrates an understanding of the expected outcomes, and relevant measures and marketing control variables are discussed. The assessment presents a fairly detailed and focused summary of the ideas presented; drawing fairly clear and well thought-out conclusions. An in-depth understanding of the expected outcomes, and relevant measures and marketing control variables are discussed. The assessment presents a detailed and focused summary of the ideas presented; drawing clear and well thought-out conclusions. Citation, language, format and references – 2 marks Quality of writing is at a very poor standard so barely understandable (i.e., limited or no introduction included, paragraphs are not linked or are poorly structured). Many spelling mistakes. Little or no evidence of proof reading. Formatting, citation and referencing styles are poor. Some problems exist with sentence structure and presentation (i.e., an introduction is included however brief and at times irrelevant to the subject matter, frequent inconsistencies from one paragraph to the next, lacks detail and/or irrelevant information, used more words to make a sentence, etc.) Frequent grammar, punctuation and spelling mistakes. Use of inappropriate language. Formatting, citation and referencing styles are somewhat okay. Quality of writing is of a good standard (i.e., an introduction is provided however some areas omitted which are included in the document, providing guidance to the document however some minor inconsistencies in relation to linked paragraphs, a mostly clear and concise concluding summary of the area of interest is provided for each section). Few grammar, spelling and punctuation mistakes. Formatting, citation and referencing styles are good, except a few mistakes. Quality of writing is of a high standard (i.e., a mostly well thought-out though some minor inconsistencies exist, mostly clear guidance through linked and cohesive paragraphs has been provided, and a mostly clear and concise concluding summary of the area of interest is provided for each section). Few grammar, spelling and punctuation mistakes. Formatting, citation and referencing styles are good. Quality of writing is at a very high standard (i.e., a mostly well thought-out though some minor inconsistencies exist, mostly clear guidance through linked and cohesive paragraphs has been provided, and a mostly clear and concise concluding summary of the area of interest is provided for each section). Correct grammar, spelling and punctuation. Formatting, citation and referencing styles are at a very high standard.