BM7004 Digital Marketing Plan
| Criteria | Ratings | Pts |
| BM7004 Digital Marketing Plan | ||
| This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeSituation Analysis: Ability to source and synthesise appropriate secondary research to provide a succinct situation analysis | 10 to >8.4 Pts Outstanding (85-100) Your work is of an exceptionally high standard. An outstanding analysis of the market, brand and its micro and macro environment to produce an exceptionally insightful context analysis. Extensive use of appropriate sources to support analysis. 8.4 to >7.4 Pts Excellent (75-84) You have shown an excellent ability in the appropriate use of the relevant methodologies, practices or tools to analyse and synthesise data at Masters level. An excellent analysis of the market, the organisation and its micro and macro environment to produce an insightful context analysis. Extensive use of appropriate sources to support analysis. 7.4 to >6.9 Pts Very Good (70-74) Your work demonstrates the ability to develop an independent and sophisticated evaluation of the market, the brand and its micro and macro environment. The analysis is consistently supported by a wide range of appropriate sources. 6.9 to >5.9 Pts Good (60-69) Your work shows evidence that you have thoroughly researched the market, the brand and its micro and macro environment and are able to construct a logical context analysis. Your work demonstrates a good ability in the appropriate use of relevant methodologies, practices or tools to analyse and synthesise data at Masters level. The analysis is mostly supported by appropriate sources but more extensive research would have improved the work. 5.9 to >4.9 Pts Satisfactory (50-59) Your work demonstrates some ability to develop an evaluation of the market, the brand and its micro and macro environment. It shows some competence in the appropriate use of methodologies, practices, or tools. The development of some ideas in your work is limited but it attempts to analyse materials critically. The analysis is somewhat supported by mostly appropriate sources. 4.9 to >4.4 Pts Marginal Fail (45-49) Your work contains some weaknesses in the analysis of the market, the brand and its micro and macro environment. Your work demonstrates some ability in the use of methodologies, practices or tools but not at Masters level. Limited use of sources to support analysis 4.4 to >0 Pts Fail (0-44) Your work is unsatisfactory. It demonstrates very limited knowledge and fails to grasp the key issues. There is little evidence of development of ideas and critical analysis is very limited. No/very limited use of sources to support analysis | 10 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeObjectives: In light of the situation analysis, set appropriate SMART objective(s) | 10 to >8.4 Pts Outstanding (85-100) Outstanding setting of SMART objectives- outstanding appreciation and knowledge of theory demonstrated. Very strong explicit links to situation analysis 8.4 to >7.4 Pts Excellent (75-84) Excellent setting of SMART objectives – detailed appreciation of knowledge and understanding of theory demonstrated. Clear links to situation analysis 7.4 to >6.9 Pts Very Good (70-74) Very good setting of SMART objectives – comprehensive and up to date knowledge and understanding of theory demonstrated. Minor errors might remain. 6.9 to >5.9 Pts Good (60-69) Good setting of SMART objectives – theory mostly understood and applied correctly but with errors remaining. 5.9 to >4.9 Pts Satisfactory (50-59) Satisfactory setting of SMART objectives – descriptive approach demonstrated. Some understanding of theory and application shown with some major errors. 4.9 to >4.4 Pts Marginal Fail (45-49) Objectives are broad/vague/ambiguous not SMART 4.4 to >0 Pts Fail (0-44) Objectives are not set/not appropriate | 10 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeStrategy: Segmentation of market and identification of target segment(s) including pen profile(s) and clear justification of chosen target segment(s) | 20 to >16.8 Pts Outstanding (85-100) Your work is of an exceptionally high standard. Exceptionally clear, well justified strategy that addresses all elements of strategy development in a logical and factual manner, based on exceptional insight gathered from research. 16.8 to >15.8 Pts Excellent (75-84) An excellent strategy that addresses all elements of strategy development. Clear rational and logic is provided for all strategic decision made, based on thorough research to inform your strategy. There is evidence of excellent understanding and application of theory. to segment the market and identify target audience(s). Strong clear justification for choice of target segment(s) based in research. Excellent pen profile developed 15.8 to >13.8 Pts Very Good (70-74) A very good strategy that addresses all elements of strategy development. Your work shows evidence of very good level of research to inform your strategy. There is evidence of very good understanding and application of theory to segment the market and identify target audience(s). Good, clear justification for choice of target segment(s) supported by research. Very good, detailed pen profile 13.8 to >11.8 Pts Good (60-69) A good strategy is proposed but with some weak sections. Your work provides good evidence that you have understood and applied the theory to segment the market and identify target audience(s). Good justification for choice of target segment(s) with some support from research. There is a lack of clarity and depth in some aspect of the proposed strategy. Good pen profile but could provide more detail/depth in places 11.8 to >9.8 Pts Satisfactory (50-59) A satisfactory strategy is proposed but with some issues and oversight. Your work provides some evidence that you have understood and applied some of the theory to segment the market and identify target audience(s). Vague justification for choice of target segment(s) with limited support by research. There is a lack of detail/depth and logical reasoning in the development of the strategy. Pen profile included but very superficial 9.8 to >8.8 Pts Marginal Fail (45-49) Your work contains some major weaknesses in the application of the theory to segment the market and identify target audience(s). The development of ideas and critical analysis is limited. Ambiguous justification for choice of target segment(s). No/ ambiguous pen profile 8.8 to >0 Pts Fail (0-44) Your work demonstrates no real knowledge of the strategy development and does not display the ability to apply the theory, required at this level. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeTactics: appropriateness of tactics selected; justification for selection supported by appropriate sources Application of selected tactics i.e. description of how tactics will be applied, with detailed screenshots/examples where appropriate | 40 to >33.6 Pts Outstanding (85-100) An outstanding section containing extremely original ideas and suggestions. Your work demonstrates a sophisticated and comprehensive knowledge of the subject area. You have shown an exceptional ability in the appropriate use of the relevant literature, theory, methodologies, practices and tools to determine an appropriate mix of tactics, supported by very good example/screenshot. Very strong links to strategy 33.6 to >29.6 Pts Excellent (75-84) An excellent and very clear section including strong justification for the selection and excellent applications of tactics supported consistently by very good screenshot/examples illustrating very good understanding and use of relevant tools. Clear and very strong links to proposed strategies. Some original idea and suggestions. Critical approach and reasoned arguments is evident in the decision making. Viable, realistic, and grounded in thorough research and logic. 29.6 to >27.6 Pts Very Good (70-74) A very good, clear section including strong justification for the selection and very good applications of tactics supported consistently by very good screenshot/examples illustrating use of relevant tools. Strong and clear links to proposed strategy, appears viable and grounded in accurate research and information. 27.6 to >23.6 Pts Good (60-69) Good tactics. Proposed tactics are described but more depth is needed. Good applications of tactics, but with some errors, supported by some screenshot/examples illustrating use of relevant tools. Links quite well with proposed strategy, appears viable and mostly grounded in research and information. 23.6 to >19.6 Pts Satisfactory (50-59) A satisfactory section with some information on your proposed tactics, satisfactory justification for the selection and satisfactory applications of tactics. Some links to strategies, suggested tactics appear viable and mostly grounded in research and information. 19.6 to >17.6 Pts Marginal Fail (45-49) Some consideration of tactic but with major weaknesses. There is limited understanding of tactics, limited/no justification for choice of tactics and application. No screenshots/examples. Limited links to strategy 17.6 to >0 Pts Fail (0-44) Vague and ambiguous. Poor section demonstrating little understanding and application of tactics. | 40 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeAction & Control Campaign Schedule Appropriateness of recommended KPIs | 10 to >8.4 Pts Outstanding (85-100) An outstanding section that includes a detailed, viable campaign plan and demonstrated a mature and highly developed critical approach and very well reasoned arguments to the identification of appropriate KPIs Outstanding links to objectives and tactics grounded in research and information. Methods for evaluations and measurement are thoroughly considered and clearly explained 8.4 to >7.4 Pts Excellent (75-84) An excellent section that includes a detailed, viable campaign plan and demonstrates a solid critical approach and reasoned arguments to the identification of appropriate KPIs Excellent links to objectives and tactics and very well grounded in research and information. 7.4 to >6.9 Pts Very Good (70-74) A very good section that includes a viable campaign plan and demonstrates a critical approach and reasoned arguments to the identification and selection of appropriate KPIs. Sound and consistent links to objectives/tactics and grounded in research and information. 6.9 to >5.9 Pts Good (60-69) A good section that includes a campaign plan but that lack details and may not be completely viable/realistic Identifies mostly appropriate KPIs. Mostly clear links to objectives/tactics and grounded in some research and information. 5.9 to >4.9 Pts Satisfactory (50-59) A satisfactory section that contains a satisfactory campaign plan and identifies some appropriate KPIs Some links to objectives/tactics and grounded in research and information. 4.9 to >4.4 Pts Marginal Fail (45-49) Vague and ambiguous with unsatisfactory campaign plan and identification of KPIs 4.4 to >0 Pts Fail (0-44) Vague and ambiguous. No KPIs identified or KPIs are not appropriate demonstrating little understanding of control concepts. | 10 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeOverall structure of the report Written report containing executive summary, appropriate structure, writing style, referenced sources, tables and graphs | 10 to >8.4 Pts Outstanding (85-100) Consistently outstanding throughout with clear written style and structure, citations and referencing, presentation format and very clear, accurate English 8.4 to >7.4 Pts Excellent (75-84) Excellent written style and structure citations and referencing, presentation format and clear, accurate English 7.4 to >6.9 Pts Very Good (70-74) Very good written style and structure, citations and referencing, presentation format and clear, accurate English 6.9 to >5.9 Pts Good (60-69) Good. Minimal flaws /errors in terms of citations and referencing, presentation format and clear, accurate English, structuring 5.9 to >4.9 Pts Satisfactory (50-59) Satisfactory, but with flaws /errors remaining in terms of citations and referencing, presentation format and clear, accurate English, structuring 4.9 to >4.4 Pts Marginal Fail (45-49) Unsatisfactory with a number of flaws /errors remaining in terms of citations and referencing, presentation format and clear, accurate English, structuring 4.4 to >0 Pts Fail (0-44) Extremely poor overall with significant issues in terms of English and academic practice. Structure is confusing and lacks coherence. | 10 pts |
| Total points: 100 |
AssignmentTutorOnline
- Assignment status: Already Solved By Our Experts
- (USA, AUS, UK & CA PhD. Writers)
- CLICK HERE TO GET A PROFESSIONAL WRITER TO WORK ON THIS PAPER AND OTHER SIMILAR PAPERS, GET A NON PLAGIARIZED PAPER FROM OUR EXPERTS
