| Assessment Title: | Individual Report |
| Module Leader: | |
| Distribution Date: | |
| Submission Deadline: | |
| Feedback by : | 20 working days from the deadline |
| Contribution to overall module assessment: | 100% |
| Indicative student time working on assessment: | 40 Hours |
| Word or Page Limit (if applicable): | 2,500 words |
| Assessment Type (individual or group): | Individual |
Main Objective of the reassessment
• Assess your knowledge and understanding of the interrelationships of the key components of corporate branding.
• Assess your ability to analyse and evaluate any challenges managers face throughout the course of corporate brand management.
• Challenge your knowledge and understanding of corporate branding theories to provide a creative, appropriate course of actions for a given
company.
• Develop your writing skills to effectively present your analysis and arguments in a professional and persuasive manner.
Description of the reassessment
Imagine that you have been appointed a corporate brand manager of a large organization from the electrical goods market segment. You are expected to analyse and assess the value and components of this organization corporate brand and offer strategic recommendations to effectively develop and manage a strong, favourable corporate brand.
Important: you must select a different company from the one you used on your first and or second submission.
Your report will be 2,500 words long and needs to contain the following elements:
1. Executive summary for busy executives who may not have time to read the entire report (not included in the word count)
2. Report which should have the following sections:
a. Introduction
b. Literature review on corporate branding and corporate brand architecture
c. Brief background of chosen organisation
d. Evaluation of its corporate brand management
e. Critical analysis of its brand architecture
f. Strategic recommendations for the organisation
g. Conclusion
h. References (not included in the word count).
j. Appendices (not included in the word count).
Submission Instructions
Coursework must be submitted electronically via the University’s Blackboard Learn system. The required file format for this report is [insert required format]. Your student ID number must be used as the file name (e.g. 0123456.docx).
Below are the marking criteria for this module’s group presentation assessment:
PG grades and grade point bands [Senate Regulation 3 (2013 starters onwards)] are: A++ (17), A+ (16), A (15), A- (14), B+ (13), B (12), B- (11), C+ (10), C (9), C- (8), D+ (7), D (6), D- (5), E+ (4), E (3), E- (2), F (1)
| Criteria | Grade descriptors | |||||
| Literature Review (30% weighting) | A++ to A- Clear demonstration of a sophisticated, critical and thorough understanding of corporate branding, values, architecture, and its component, with solid evidence of wider reading. | B+ to B-Clear demonstration of a well-developed, critical and comprehensive understanding of corporate branding, values, architecture, and its component with evidence of appropriate wider reading. | C+ to C- Demonstration of a critical and substantial understanding of corporate branding, values, architecture, and its component with limited evidence of wider reading. | D+ to D-Evidence of descriptive understanding of corporate branding, values, architecture, and its component with insufficient evidence of wider reading. | E+ to E-Evidence of superficial and disjointed understanding of corporate branding, values, architecture, and its component with insufficient evidence of wider reading. | FLimited or no evidence of understanding of corporate branding, values, architecture, and its component with little evidence of wider reading. |
| Evidence of secondary research and analysis(30% weighting) | A++ to A- Clear evidence of extensive research on the industry, market and chosen company. Critical analysis of market and information with logical connection with the case company. | B+ to B- Clear evidence of research on the industry, market and chosen company. Sound analysis of market and information with good connection with the case company. | C+ to C-Some evidence of research on the industry, market and chosen company. Mostly descriptive discussion with limited evidence of analysis and connection with the case company. | D+ to D-Limited evidence of research, descriptive and hypothetical discussion, weak interpretation of the information, with incoherent connection with the case company. | E+ to E- Limited evidence of research, descriptive and hypothetical discussion, no interpretation of the information with no connection with the case company. | FNo evidence of research or analysis |
| Analytical Skills (30% weighting) | A++ to A- The assignment demonstrates excellence in integrating the understanding of the marketing theories, corporate branding literature and the secondary data to analyse the case company from the corporate branding perspective, and derive into insightful, realistic, and creative recommendations. Conclusions are solidly grounded on the convincing evidence. | B+ to B-The assignment demonstrates effective competence in integrating the understanding of the marketing theories, corporate branding literature and the secondary data to analyse the case company from the corporate branding perspective, and derive into strategic and realistic recommendations. Conclusions are grounded on the evidence. | C+ to C-The assignment demonstrates satisfactory competence in integrating understanding of the marketing theories, corporate branding literature and/or the secondary data to analyse the case company from the corporate branding perspective, and derive into substantial recommendations. Conclusions are grounded on the evidence. | D+ to D-The assignment demonstrates some competence in integrating understanding of the marketing theories, corporate branding literature and/or the secondary data to analyse the case company from the corporate branding perspective, and derive into some recommendations that are not well thought through. Conclusions have limited link to the evidence. | E+ to E-The assignment demonstrates limited competence in integrating understanding of the marketing theories, corporate branding literature or the secondary data to analyse the case company from the corporate branding perspective, and derive into some recommendations that are vague and arbitrary. Conclusions have superficial or no link to the evidence. | FThe assignment demonstrates no competence in integrating understanding of the marketing theories, corporate branding literature nor the secondary data to analyse the case company from the corporate branding perspective. Recommendations are arbitrary and unrealistic.Conclusions have no link to the evidence. |
| Overall Structure (10% weighting) | A++ to A- The assignment is presented in a professional format, meeting all the requirements identified in the guidelines; there is a logical flow between the sections, making it very easy to follow the arguments. The level of grammar and spelling is excellent. Thorough and good referencing. Word count is within ±10% of 2,500. | B+ to B-The assignment is presented in the appropriate format, meeting all the requirements identified in the guidelines; there is a fairly logical flow between the sections, making it quite easy to follow the arguments. The level of grammar and spelling is very good. Adequate level of referencing with completeness. Word count is within ±10% of 2,500. | C+ to C-The assignment is presented in a report format, meeting all the requirements identified in the guidelines; there maybe a few limitations in the logical flow between the sections, making parts of the arguments less easy to follow. The level of grammar and spelling is acceptable. Referencing is good, but there may be a few errors or incomplete. Word count is more or less than 10% of 2,500. | D+ to D-The assignment is presented in a basic format, meeting some of the requirements identified in the guidelines; there are limitations in the logical flow between the sections, making parts of the arguments less easy to follow. Some referencing with some errors. Some level of grammatical errors, and typos. Word count is more or less than 20% of 2,500. | E+ to E- The assignment is presented in a basic format, failing to meet the requirements identified in the guidelines; there are strong limitations in the logical flow between the sections, making several parts of the arguments less easy to follow. The level of grammar and spelling is seriously compromised. Little of no referencing. Word count is more or less than 30% of 2,500. | FThe assignment is not presented in a report format and does not meet most or all of the requirements identified in the guidelines; there are serious flaws in terms of its structure and logical flow between the sections, making it very difficult to follow the arguments. The level of grammar and spelling is unacceptable. Little of no referencing. Word count is more or less than 30% of 2,500. |
Academic Misconduct, Plagiarism and Collusion
Any coursework or examined submission for assessment where plagiarism, collusion or any form of cheating is suspected will be dealt with according to the University processes which are detailed in Senate Regulation 6.
You can access information about plagiarism here.
The University regulations on plagiarism apply to published as well as unpublished work, collusion and the plagiarism of the work of other students.
Please ensure that you fully understand what constitutes plagiarism before you submit your work.
Late Coursework
Please refer to the College’s Student Handbook for information on submitting late, penalties applied and procedures in the case of mitigating circumstances.
