Marketing homework help.
COURSEWORK 1 (reproduced from the Module Guide)
5.2.1 CW1 Formative assessment: Project proposal (group presentation week 6 seminar)
In the week 6 seminar your group is required to present a flipchart, Powerpoint or Prezi poster, outlining your work-plan and team processes ‘so far’ for the CW1 Group project (see 5.2.2 below)
As a group you should demonstrate:
- that you have chosen a viable company as the focus for your group project
- that you have understood the CW1 Group project brief (see 5.2.2 below) and its intended outcomes
You should also evidence:
- what specific secondary/primary research you have carried out during weeks 2-6 in preparation for the CW1 report
- how you have been collaborating as a team in the 5 areas described by Salas et al. (see session plan, week 2 reading)
Finally, you should state:
- how you will use the seminar time in weeks 7-9 will be used to complete the CW1 Group project
The intended outcome of this assessment is that you:
- will be ready to complete CW1 during weeks 7 – 9
- will have sufficient evidence to complete CW2. You will need to refer to the project poster in your assessed individual reflection at the end of the course.
5.2.2 CW1 Report Project, group brief (2000-2500 words)
Background:
Word-of-mouth is a powerful thing. It can affect a company’s reputation, boosting sales, or causing consumers to stay away. Before the internet existed ‘word-of-mouth’ happened through face-to-face interaction. Nowadays, consumers can post online reviews about goods and services they buy at the click of a mouse: on Facebook, Twitter, on dedicated review sites, or even on the company’s own website. These online reviews are known collectively as ‘consumer-generated media’, while ‘Word-of-mouth’ has now become known as ‘E-word of mouth’ (E-WOM).
Online reviews are, without doubt, valuable and democratic tools, guiding consumers in their everyday purchasing decisions. However, they must guard against ‘fake reviews’, employed by companies to boost sales themselves, or damage the reputation of rivals. This also raises a number of questions around review ‘trustworthiness’:
- How trustworthy is the information contained in the reviews?
- To what extent are consumers able to recognize fake reviews? Are they gullible or suspicious? What features help them decide if a review is fake or not?
- How can companies and dedicated review sites verify reviews posted?
Many reputable companies have an Online Review Management Strategy (ORMS) in place. This is a strategy to monitor and manage reviews which appear online (on whichever platform), whether positive or negative. ORMS come in a variety of forms but often include the following actions:
- Formulate some kind of response to the consumer review (a word of thanks, promise to act, questioning the veracity of the review)
- Use the information in negative reviews to change what the company produces (goods) or the way it behaves (services)
- Somehow ‘bury’ or demote negative reviews
Task Objective:
Your group is acting as a team of consultants. You are required to produce a report with the purpose of recommending a suitable Online Review Management Strategy (ORMS) for a client company. Your ‘client’ can be any existing company which provides a service, or produces goods, and which is likely to receive online reviews.
Your report should:
- persuade the client of the need for an ORMS by citing research (around E-WOM, reputation, trustworthiness or online consumer behaviour)
- identify and analyse the online reviews which the company receives (through primary research)
- make recommendations for a suitable ORMS for the client, based on the findings in a) and b), but also citing secondary research on ORMS in general.
Guidance Notes CW1:
- the company – your ‘client’ – must be real
- the company you choose should not include companies based on the ‘sharing economy’ (e.g. Uber, Airbnb). If in doubt, check with your tutor.
- in a) above, if the company already has an ORMS, then you are persuading the company how they can improve. If the company is known to you personally (e.g. restaurant or bar where you work, or family business) and you can arrange access, you may use an interview to discover what kind of ORMS is currently being used.
- In a) above, sources of secondary research: RULDiscovery (business articles and academic papers)
- In a) above, ‘persuade’ should not be interpreted as using ‘emphatic sales language’, rather your approach should be to make the case using research-based data.
- in a) and b) above, sources of primary research: interviews, observation of online reviews
- in b) above, ‘identify’ should be interpreted as ‘discover on which platforms the reviews appear’, including:
- social networking sites (Twitter/Facebook etc)
- dedicated review site (Trustpilot/Tripadvisor/Reevoo etc)
- company’s own website (e.g. Dell allows customers to post reviews on the Dell website)
- in b) above ‘analyse’ should be interpreted as any or all of the following:
- discover what review criteria are used (e.g. ‘cleanliness’ ‘value for money’). These may be explicit or implicit.
- categorise recurring themes and patterns in the reviews e.g. ‘satisfaction’/’dissatisfaction’ or indicators of ‘trustworthiness’ in the language
- compile and present these in an attractive, transparent form
Format of the report:
| Section | Notes/requirements | Word count indication | |
| Title Page | Appropriate title, appropriate picture, name of ‘client’, name of seminar tutor, module code, name of module, date, word count. | Not included in word count | |
| Contents page | Use automatic contents function in Word. Must contain section numbers and page numbers (use header’ footer to insert page numbers throughout report | Not included in word count | |
| 1.0 | Terms of Reference | ‘What is the report about? What is the purpose? Who is it for? When is it due? What level of detail? (scope) |
50-100 words |
| 2.0 | Introduction | A brief introduction to the themes and structure of the report, without giving away the findings (see section 4) | 100-150 words |
| 3.0 | Procedure | How and where the data was collected: · secondary (RULDiscovery, etc) · primary (interviews, systematic observation), How big the sample (e.g. ‘x online reviews were examined…’) How the data was categorized and organized |
100-150 words |
| 4.0 | Findings | Organise using numbered sub-sections (4.1./4.2/4.3 etc)…and if necessary subsections of subsections (4.1.1. 4.1.2 etc) Use automatic headings function in Word for professional look and automatically format/update ‘contents’ page as you go along Appropriately titled sections should correspond to a) and b) of ‘Task Objective’ above Any graphs/charts tables, clearly labelled and numbered Screenshots of reviews can be included as long as they do not break up the ‘flow’ of the written findings. Otherwise, consider including these in an Appendix, but clearly cross-referenced. |
(tables, charts, screenshots not included in word count) 1350 – 1500 |
| 5.0 | Recommendations | Like the ‘Findings’ section, use numbered subsections, not bullet points Secondary research should be cited in this section too. |
400-600 |
| 6.0 | References | In Harvard style only, arranged alphabetically, formatted in same font | Not included in word count |
| 6.1 | Appendices | Again use numbering if several appendices used. Note: Singular = ‘Appendix’ Plural = ‘Appendices’ |
Not included in word count |
| Total word count (combined group): 2000-2500 words |
5.2.3 CW1 Group Report marking criteria
| Distinction Grade 70+ | 60-69 | 50-59 | 40-49 | Fail >40% | |
| Common Assessment Scale 6-8 | Common Assessment Scale 5 | Common Assessment Scale 4 | Common Assessment Scale 3 | Common Assessment Scale 0-2 | |
| Task fulfilment/quality of analysis (30%) |
‘Client brief’ fulfilled to an excellent/outstanding/exceptional standard, reflected in the overall ‘professional credibility’ of report, its findings and recommendations. Showing an excellent/outstanding/exceptional level of critical thinking and analysis |
A very good attempt to address the ‘client brief’, producing a mostly credible report The majority of the work contains a very good level of analysis, with relevant ideas. |
A good attempt to address the ‘client brief’, but displaying some gaps in knowledge around the topic and/or limited critical thinking | An adequate attempt to address the ‘client brief, with limited critical thinking | Insufficient task fulfilment, based on lack of completion, and/or minimal scrutiny of ideas. |
| Quality of research (40%) |
Work shows excellent/outstanding/exceptional resourcefulness in primary and secondary research which are both applied in an effective way. Secondary research is relevant, extensive, well-synthesised, with an emphasis on academic papers and business articles sourced from RULDiscovery | Very good application of primary and secondary research; the secondary research is for the most part well synthesized, using a wide number of sources from RULDiscovery and/ or reliable sources from the wider internet | Good application of primary and secondary research. Task is completed with several secondary resources, mostly sourced outside RULDiscovery |
Adequate application of primary and secondary research Less consideration given to reliability origin of sources. |
Inadequate secondary and primary research conducted. Lacking credibility through lack of audit trail and/or unclear origin |
| Quality of report-writing (30%) |
Excellent/outstanding/exceptional presentation: appropriately interpreted report sections, auto-formatted headings and section numbering; attractive presentation of data. Organization and communication are transparent with accuracy of writing within sections. Correspondingly high level of Harvard referencing |
Very good presentation of data, with report sections interpreted correctly for most part. Mostly logical organization within sections, clearly expressed ideas and accuracy in writing. Mostly appropriate and accurate use of Harvard referencing |
Good presentation. Report findings needed further, logical ordering or clearer expression of ideas. A good attempt to organize ideas within sections, with combination of clearly and unclearly expressed ideas. Reasonable accuracy in Harvard referencing |
Adequate presentation. Report headings misinterpreted or absent in places, with findings needing more logical ordering, and/or clearer expression of ideas. Limited accuracy in Harvard referencing. |
Little or no effort to follow report format or produce a cohesive report progression. Ideas within individual sections randomly organized and/or incoherently expressed. Little or no attempt to reference. |
