AMB211 – Brand Management Criteria Sheet – Brand Positioning Analysis

Name: _____________________________________________ Tutor: ________________________________ Result: ______%

7
100%-85%
6
84%-75%
5
74%-65%
4
64%-50%
3-1
49%-0%
Frame of
Reference
Analysis
30%

Target
Market
The target analysis is of a high
standard. You provide a
detailed and well researched
Target Market including
demographics, psychographics,
and behavioural descriptors.
The analysis includes key
insights into the psychology of
the target market and outline
consumer’s brand knowledge
structure which includes most
important brand associations.
Your target audience analysis is of
a good standard and you provide a
well-researched Target Market
including demographics,
psychographics, and behavioural
descriptors.
The analysis fails to include key
insights or the correct insights into
the psychology of the target market.
You partially outline consumer’s
brand knowledge structure
containing main associations.
Your target market analysis is
average. Although, descriptors
are provided, some items are
missing or not explored.
The analysis fails to include
key insights or the correct
insights into the psychology of
the target market. You do not
outline consumer’s brand
knowledge structure containing
main associations.

Your target market analysis is
poor and based mostly on
demographics as target
descriptors.
The analysis fails to include key
consumer insights and an
understanding about
consumers’ brand knowledge
structure and associations.
You fail to
establish a frame
of reference.
There is little
information about
the target and/or
the nature of
competition and
how they together
form a frame of
reference for
brand positioning.
Competitors

The nature of competition is
also established providing great
detail on the shares of main
competitors and level of
competition involved. You
outline how and where your
product is positioned within this
frame.
You provide an outline how and
where your product is positioned
but some detail about competitors
and the nature of competition might
be missing.
You provide a summary and
analysis of competitors and
outline how and where your
product is positioned.
You provide a concise
summary of competitors with
little or no analysis. There may
be an outline of how and where
your product is positioned but it
is merely descriptive.
Positioning
Statement
A clear positioning statement is
established with the
understanding of both target
and competitors.
A positioning statement is
established but more understanding
of the target and the competition is
needed.
A positioning statement is
partially established but more
understanding of the target
and the competition is needed.
There is confusion about what
the positioning statement is.
More understanding of the
target and the competition is
needed.
Points of Parity (POP) and
Points of Difference (POD)
30%

Discussion of POPs and
PODs must be made against
specific competitors.

All key points of parity and
points of difference are
analyzed thoughtfully and
thoroughly considered. There is
a clear understanding of what
must be met if consumers are to
perceive your product as a
legitimate and credible player
within the frame of reference
and you analyze the basis of
which differentiation is made
Most key points of parity and points
of difference are analyzed and
considered but some key points are
not mentioned. There is an
understanding of what must be met
if consumers are to perceive your
product as a legitimate and credible
player within the frame of reference
and you analyze the basis of which
differentiation is made. You also
Some key points of parity and
points of difference are
identified and analyzed.
There is confusion about what
must be met if consumers are
to perceive your product as a
legitimate and credible player
within the frame of reference.
You discuss how PODs meet
criteria of desirability,
deliverability, and
Few points of parity and points
of difference are mentioned and
analyzed. There is confusion
about what must be met if
consumers are to perceive your
product as a legitimate and
credible player within the frame
of reference. Many details of
how PODs meet criteria of
desirability, deliverability, and
differentiation are missing.
No analysis is
offered. Points of
Parity are
repeated without
scrutiny.
and you clearly show how these
meet criteria of desirability and
deliverability.
discuss how these meet criteria of
desirability and deliverability.
differentiation but many details
are missing.
Recommendations
30%
Recommendations are directly
responsive to problems and
provide effective, efficient,
feasible recommendations.
Your argument is sound and
convincing.
You show a clear understanding
of how a point of difference can
become a strong, favorable,
unique brand association.

Recommendations are actionable
and responsive to problems.
They’re effective, efficient, and
feasible.
Your argument needs improvement
and more evidence may be
required. You show some
understanding of how a point of
difference can become a strong,
favorable, unique brand
association.
Recommendations are
adequate but need attention
regarding who will implement
them, how they’ll be
implemented, and what needs
to get done. Arguments need
improvement and more
detailed information/evidence
is required.
You may understand how a
point of difference can become
a strong, favorable, unique
brand association but you are
not able to articulate it
completely.
Recommendations suggest
simple solutions and are either
vague, unrealistic, too
expensive, or too complex.
Arguments need improvement
and more detailed information /
evidence is required.
You understanding of how a
point of difference can become
a strong, favorable, unique
brand association is poor.
Recommendations
are not related to
the problem or not
provided.
There is no
understanding of
how a point of
difference can
become a strong,
favorable, unique
brand association
is poor.
Professional Communication (10%)
Grammar, spelling,
punctuation
Makes virtually no grammatical
or
Syntactical errors. Establishes
credibility with the audience.
Proofreads well enough to
Eliminate most grammatical
errors; may have minor problems
with punctuation or usage.
Writes generally correct prose;
Occasionally fails to catch
minor grammatical errors.
Makes disruptive
grammatical/syntactical errors
such as run-ons, fragments,
unintelligible sentences.
Makes repeated
grammatical or
syntactical errors
making the report
hard to
understand.
Referencing

You support your analysis using
several sources from the
literature.

Use of APA reference format
without any citation or
referencing mistakes.
Citation information is complete.
You support your analysis using
some sources from the literature.

Use of APA referencing format with
minor errors in applying convention.
Citation information is complete.
You use sources from the
literature but its support to your
argument is questionable.

Mostly used APA referencing
format but with some mistakes.
Citation information generally
complete.
Your analysis lack literature
support.

Used some reference format
but not APA and/or had many
referencing mistakes. Citation
attempted but elements are
missing.
No references
provided or No
referencing format
was used.
Communication Style and
Format

Demonstrates a sophisticated
grasp of the language; writes in
a fluid manner; varies syntax
and vocabulary; uses original
language.

Format helps readers
understand and remember
information.

Writes clearly, concisely, and
coherently; employs syntactical
variety with general success.
Creates a friendly, business-like,
positive style.

Format helps readers find the
information they need.
Writes serviceable prose; uses
active voice, strong, action
verbs; rarely uses jargon or
clichés.

Readable format.
Writes in a notably awkward
manner: misuses words and
idioms; uses slang; wordy; uses
some borrowed language.

Imbalanced or cluttered design.
Uses garbled
style.
Plagiarizes.

Format interferes
with readability.