Marketing Strategy

MKT – 306

Assignment Guide – 2011 -12

Module Leader: Sudipta Das

Email: sudipta.das@sunderland.ac.uk

Introduction to the
Assignment:

Please
read all instructions and information carefully. You are required to submit your work under the
University Infringement of Assessment Regulations. Your assignment must be
submitted to your Study Centre in hard copy with an accurately and clearly
completed Assignment Cover Sheet and an electronic copy on CD in an envelope [hole
punched or safely secured into your plastic file or assignment wallet]. Please
do not include a plastic CD case/box and remember to write your student code
and assignment code clearly onto the disc and envelope.

All
your assignments must be submitted in conjunction with a Turnitin© report.

You
will need to achieve an overall mark of
40% in order to successfully complete this module.

Sudipta Das

Module Leader – MKT 306

Assignment:

Mode of Assessment:	Individual Report
Weighting:	100%
Module Assessor:	Sudipta Das
Issue Date:
Submission Date:	Tuesday 10th April 2012
Word Count:	3000 words (+/- 10%)

Assignment Brief:

Fast-food Restaurant Chainsare
one of the most versatile and resilient businesses facing direct challenges
from today’s economic downturn and transforming global economy. From viral
marketing to advanced retail and brand management, the fundamental aspects of
marketing strategy govern the way this industry flourishes and operate. The
recent changes in consumer confidence and geo-demographical target markets in
this industry certainly make it an interesting sector to investigate as part of
this assignment. The task is divided into two
parts (Part 1 & Part 2) and
candidates are expected to address both of them.

Your
task is to identify an appropriate Multinational
Fast-food Restaurant chain; and then analyse, evaluate and prepare an
individual report (3000 words) addressing the following issues…

n Part
1:

• Using
  appropriate sources, identify their existing marketing strategy and value
  creation process

·
Research, analyse and
evaluate the key strengths and weaknesses of their existing marketing strategy

n Part
2:

·
Using appropriate theories
(and real-life/academic case studies) suggest alternative strategic approaches for
increasing their market share, profitability, value creation, and
sustainability

You can choose a designated Multinational Fast-food Restaurant chain
from the list given on Page 6 or you can choose a Multinational Fast-food Restaurant
chain of your choice.

Your
arguments, findings and recommendations should be supported by theories, facts
and figures published within academic books, journal articles, recognised
business magazines and market intelligence reports.

N.B. Please note the maximum
word count of 3000 excludes Appendix and
References.

Submission Policies:

1. You
are required to submit your work within the bounds of the University Infringement
of Assessment Regulations.

2. Your
assignment must be submitted to your Study Centre in hard copy with an
accurately and clearly completed Assignment Cover Sheet and an electronic copy
on CD put into an envelope, hole punched or safely secured into your plastic
file or assignment wallet.

3. Please
do not include the plastic CD case/box and remember to write your student code
and assignment code clearly onto the disc and envelope.

4. All Students must submit a
Turnitin© report along with their assignments. If under
any circumstances assignments are submitted without this, the final mark will
be withheld and there will be potential delays.

5. All
works submitted MUST be original. If under any circumstances a
student is found to be violating any of the ‘Academic Integrity’ rules, the university deserves the right to
take legal and disciplinary actions against the individual.

List of Companies

1.
McDonalds

2. Burger King

3. KFC

4. Pizza Hut

5. Dominos

6. Subway

7. Taco Bell

8. Popeye’s Louisiana Kitchen

9. Fat Burger

10. Dairy Queen

* This is not an all inclusive list. Candidates are free to choose a
multinational fast-food
restaurant chain of their choice outside this list.

Assignment Structure:

This
is an individual assignment as a single report in two parts, and it may
contain the following sections:

n Title
page

n Executive
Summary

n Table
of contents

n Introduction

n Methodology

n Situational
Analysis – current strategies

n Segmentation
Targeting & Positioning (STP)

n Differential
advantages/weaknesses (USP) (SWOT) (PESTLE)

n Recommended
objectives and goals (SMART)

n Recommended
Marketing Strategies and Programmes

n Conclusion

n Bibliography
(with references)

n An
electronic copy on CD

n A
receipt from TurnItIn©

Please
remember that this is only a rough guideline and candidates are encouraged to structure
their report according to their own preferences.

Detailed Explanation of Individual
Sections:

You’re
aiming for a 2700-3000 word report following the given structure…

Title:In a short report this may
simply be the front cover. In a long one it could also include Terms of
Reference, Table of Contents and so on.

Executive Summary: Give a clear and very
concise account of the main points, main conclusions and main recommendations.
Keep it very short, about a page or a few % of the total length.
Some people, especially senior managers, may not read anything else so write as
if it were a short stand-alone document. It isn’t but for some people it might
as well be. Keep it brief and free from jargon so that anyone can understand it
and get the main points. WRITE IT LAST, but do not copy and paste from the
report itself; that rarely works well.

Introduction: This is the first part of
the report proper. Use it to paint the background to ‘the problem’ and to show
the reader why the report is important to them. Give your terms of reference
(if not in the Title Section) and explain how the details that follow are
arranged. Write it in plain English.

Current
Situation: This is where you report the
facts as they are now. It will probably have several sections or sub-sections
each with its own subtitle. It is unique to your report and will describe what
you discovered about ‘the problem’. Take care to answer the exact question
which has been set – if you write about retail outlets when the question is
about a specific brand you will lose valuable marks and possibly fail. If in
any doubt ask your tutor!

These sections are most likely to be read by experts so you can
use some appropriate jargon but explain it as you introduce it. You are supposed to be demonstrating your
understanding of the topic so this is a great opportunity to arrange the information
logically, putting things in order of priority — most important first. In fact, follow that advice in every section
of your report. You may choose to include a Discussion in which you explain the
significance of your findings but remember to use a report style structure
throughout your work.

Recommendations:This is the heart of your report. What do you suggest should be
done? Don’t be shy; you did the work so state your recommendations in order of
priority, and in plain English. Again it will probably have several sections or
sub-sections each with its own subtitle

Conclusions:Present the
logical conclusions of your investigation of ‘the problem’. Bring it all
together and maybe offer options for the way forward. Many people will read
this section. Write it in plain English. If you have included a discussion then
this section may be quite short.

Appendices:Put the heavy
details here, the information that only specialists are likely to want to see.
As a guide, if some detail is essential to your argument then include it in the
main body, if it merely supports the argument then it could go in an appendix.
Make sure you signpost this information in the main body of your report.

Marking Scheme

1st (70+%)

An
excellent assignment. It demonstrates a
high level of understanding of the learning outcomes. The report provides evidence of significant
understanding of marketing strategy theory/techniques and its application to
the selected organisation. All decisions
are logical, coherent, fully justified, explained succinctly and coherently,
but also demonstrates a high level of insight and originality. The presentation is of a very high standard
demonstrating a professional approach which is generally free of errors.

2:1
(60-69%)

A very good assignment. It demonstrates a
reasonably high level of understanding of the learning outcomes. The assignment
provides evidence ofunderstanding of marketing strategy
theory/techniques and its application to the selected organisation. All
decisions are logical, justified and explained however are less strong in terms
of insight and originality. The
presentation is of a high standard and predominantly free from errors.

2.2
(50-59%)

A good assignment. It demonstrates a sound
understanding of the learning outcomes.
The report provides evidence ofunderstanding
of marketing strategy theory/techniques and its application to the selected
organisation, though this may
be somewhat limited. Most decisions are
appropriate however are less strong in terms of insight, logic and
originality. The presentation is
adequate.

3^rd
(40-49%)

A satisfactory assignment. It demonstrates an
understanding of the learning outcomes.
The report provides evidence ofunderstanding
of marketing strategy theory/techniques and its application to the selected
organisation, although this
is limited. Decisions are appropriate however lack coherence, insight and
logic. The presentation is adequate, but
lacks cohesion.

Grade F
(<40%)

An unsatisfactory
assignment which demonstrates a lack of understanding of the learning outcomes
and has not answered the question. It contains some elements of marketing strategy/techniques
applied to the context however is not wholly appropriate. The assignment lacks
logic, coherence, originality and insight.
The presentation is poor with a number of errors.

Generic
Assessment Criteria – Undergraduate

These
should be interpreted according to the level at which you are working and
related to the assessment criteria for the module

	Categories
	Grade	Relevance	Knowledge	Analysis	Argument and Structure	Critical Evaluation	Presentation	Reference to Literature
Pass	86 – 100%	The work examined is exemplary and provides clear evidence of a complete grasp of the knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. There is also ample excellent evidence showing that all the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are fully satisfied. At this level it is expected that the work will be exemplary in all the categories cited above. It will demonstrate a particularly compelling evaluation, originality, and elegance of argument, interpretation or discourse.
76-85%	The work examined is outstanding and demonstrates comprehensive knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. There is also excellent evidence showing that all the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that level are fully satisfied. At this level it is expected that the work will be outstanding in the majority of the categories cited above or by demonstrating particularly compelling evaluation and elegance of argument, interpretation or discourse.
70 – 75%	The work examined is excellent and is evidence of comprehensive knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. There is also excellent evidence showing that all the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that level are satisfied At this level it is expected that the work will be excellent in the majority of the categories cited above or by demonstrating particularly compelling evaluation and elegance of argument, interpretation or discourse.
60 – 69%	Directly relevant to the requirements of the assessment	A substantial knowledge of relevant material, showing a clear grasp of themes, questions and issues therein	Good analysis, clear and orderly	Generally coherent and logically structured, using an appropriate mode of argument and/or theoretical mode(s)	May contain some distinctive or independent thinking; may begin to formulate an independent position in relation to theory and/or practice.	Well written, with standard spelling and grammar, in a readable style with acceptable format	Critical appraisal of up-to-date and/or appropriate literature. Recognition of different perspectives. Very good use of source material. Uses a range of sources
50 – 59%	Some attempt to address the requirements of the assessment: may drift away from this in less focused passages	Adequate knowledge of a fair range of relevant material, with intermittent evidence of an appreciation of its significance	Some analytical treatment, but may be prone to description, or to narrative, which lacks clear analytical purpose	Some attempt to construct a coherent argument, but may suffer loss of focus and consistency, with issues at stake stated only vaguely, or theoretical mode(s) couched in simplistic terms	Sound work which expresses a coherent position only in broad terms and in uncritical conformity to one or more standard views of the topic	Competently written, with only minor lapses from standard grammar, with acceptable format	Uses a variety of literature which includes some recent texts and/or appropriate literature, though not necessarily including a substantive amount beyond library texts. Competent use of source material.
40 – 49%	Some correlation with the requirements of the assessment but there is a significant degree of irrelevance	Basic understanding of the subject but addressing a limited range of material	Largely descriptive or narrative, with little evidence of analysis	A basic argument is evident, but mainly supported by assertion and there may be a lack of clarity and coherence	Some evidence of a view starting to be formed but mainly derivative.	A simple basic style but with significant deficiencies in expression or format that may pose obstacles for the reader	Some up-to-date and/or appropriate literature used. Goes beyond the material tutor has provided. Limited use of sources to support a point. Weak use of source material.
Fail	35 – 39%	Relevance to the requirements of the assessment may be very intermittent, and may be reduced to its vaguest and least challenging terms	A limited understanding of a narrow range of material	Heavy dependence on description, and/or on paraphrase, is common	Little evidence of coherent argument: lacks development and may be repetitive or thin	Almost wholly derivative: the writer’s contribution rarely goes beyond simplifying paraphrase	Numerous deficiencies in expression and presentation; the writer may achieve clarity (if at all) only by using a simplistic or repetitious style	Barely adequate use of literature. Over reliance on material provided by the tutor.
The evidence provided shows that the majority of the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are satisfied.
30 – 34%	The work examined provides insufficient evidence of the knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. The evidence provided shows that some of the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are satisfied. The work will be weak in some of the indicators.
15-29%	The work examined is unacceptable and provides little evidence of the knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. The evidence shows that few of the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are satisfied. The work will be weak in several of the indicators.
0-14%	The work examined is unacceptable and provides almost no evidence of the knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. The evidence fails to show that any of the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are satisfied. The work will be weak in the majority or all of the indicators.

Ver 1.3 13/02/2008 SJS