COMM1100 Case study analysis

The case and questions are released at 9 am on Friday 25 March. The assessment is due at 5 pm
on Friday 1 April
1,000 words excluding references
20%
Submission is via the Turnitin link on Moodle under Assessments
In this assessment you will apply the tools and concepts you have developed the first half of the
course to analyse a business case. Tutorial activities in Weeks 1 – 5 provided an opportunity for you to
practice the skills needed to complete this assignment.

Case description
Frankie Devine is an aspiring concert promoter with a modest track record. She has been offered the
extraordinary chance to host as part of the Sydney Fringe festival a four-week residence of Bernie Dieter’s
Club Cabaret show starting 2 April 2022 and being performed daily through to 29 April 2022 with two daily
shows on Fridays and Saturdays. The show will put her on the map in a highly competitive industry that has
been hit hard by Covid restrictions over the past three years. The show features international standout
cabaret artist Bernie Dieter and half a dozen other world-class artists such as fire-breathing and sword-
swallowing Jacqueline Furey, hula-hooping queen extra-ordinaire Lisa Lottie, and fabulous aerial artist
Matthew Pope. A gin-soaked houseband soundtracks a hazy night of outrageous cabaret, and breath-taking
circus lasting two hours, with a twenty-minute intermission. The show has been an outstanding success
elsewhere. These precedents show that at a price of admission of $75 the shows are very likely to sell out.

Ms Devine can hire the whole package (Bernie Dieter, the artists, houseband, sound-engineer, light-
engineer, stagehands) for $13,500 per show, with each additional show costing the same as the first. The
performers are contractors and are not viewed as employees by Frankie or the venue where the shows will
be hosted. This means that they will only be paid if the shows go ahead. This also applies to the staff that
she will have to contract to check tickets, serve drinks, and guide patrons into the venue. The staffing cost to
cover these services is $1,000 per show. Many of these contract workers are university students who have
Page 2
worked with Frankie previously and indirectly helped her to build her business before Covid restrictions hit
the industry.

The only appropriate and fitting venue for the show is The Famous SpiegelTent which she can rent only for
the full four weeks, at a fixed cost of $195,000. This price includes the setting up of the venue but does not
cover organizational costs associated with enforcing a Covid safety plan such as checking vaccination
records, additional security to enforce mask mandates and additional staff to facilitate and monitor social
distancing. These costs are estimated to be an additional $2,000 per show.

The Famous SpiegelTent can accommodate 300 tightly packed paying customers at maximum capacity with
no social distancing. There is no seating. First come, first serve.

The following Terms and Conditions of Entry apply to all ticket holders, and are mentioned in the
advertisement to the show:
1. Patrons entering the SpiegelTent venue must have a valid Event ticket.
2. Covid-19: Please note all SpiegelTent ticketholders must be fully vaccinated; proof of vaccination will
be required upon entry.
3. By entering this venue, ticketholders acknowledge there is a heightened risk of contracting COVID-19
and the Event Organisers do not guarantee that it is or will remain a COVID-19 free area. The
ticketholder assumes all risk for any loss or damage caused in this regard while in or around the
SpiegelTent venue.
4. The Sydney Fringe Festival is responsible for all aspects of this event. All complaints and claims arising
out of or in connection with this event, including but not limited to admittance at this event, shall be
directed to Sydney Fringe Festival.

Since 10 March 2022 the number of cases has started to drift up again, apparently driven by a more
infectious variant of Omicron known as BA.2. The BA.2 virus wave is predicted to reach its peak in mid-April.
Vaccination and mask-wearing mandates are put in place on 1 April 2022, and additional social-distancing
restrictions are also put in place the same day, reducing the SpiegelTent capacity to 150 patrons if enacted.
The City of Sydney’s penalty for violations of that social distancing stipulation is $10,000 for a first offence
and capped at a maximum of $55,000 in total for subsequent offences. During the two years of the
pandemic the City of Sydney’s enforcement of its stipulations has become increasingly lackadaisical.

After much deliberation and analysis, Frankie decides to go ahead with the shows as planned and, contrary
to the announcement in the advertisement, to not check vaccination status at the shows and also not to
enforce the mask-wearing and social-distancing stipulations.

Questions
1. Who are the key stakeholders who affect and/or are affected by the decision to go ahead with the
show? Describe at least four stakeholders in terms of how they affect and are affected by the
decision? (+/- 250 words)
2. What are the most relevant economic considerations of the decision to go ahead with the show?
(+/- 250 words)
3. What are the most relevant legal and ethical considerations of the decision to go ahead with the
show? (+/- 250 words)
Page 3
4. Based on your analysis, would you have made the same decision as Frankie Devine? Why or why
not? (+/- 250 words)

Resources
What is a concert promotor https://www.connollymusic.com/stringovation/concert-promoter
Spiegeltent https://www.eventfinda.com.au/venue/the-famous-spiegelTent
Support for research https://moodle.telt.unsw.edu.au/mod/page/view.php?id=4367549
Writing support https://moodle.telt.unsw.edu.au/mod/lti/view.php?id=4367804

Page 4
Marking rubric for Assessment 3: Case study analysis
Criteria % Unsatisfactory Fail Pass Credit Distinction High Distinction
Quality of
stakeholder
analysis; depth
of reflection
25 Fails to clearly
identify multiple
stakeholders.
No clear
analysis of
stakeholder
needs or rights
or the
organisation’s
responsibilities
toward
stakeholders.
No reflection on
broader
concerns.
Stakeholder choice
is inappropriate
and omits central
stakeholders.
Limited analysis of
the organisation’s
stakeholders, their
needs and rights,
and the
organisation’s
responsibilities
towards them.
Reflection is non-
specific and
unclear.
Stakeholder choice
is generally
appropriate and
includes some
central
stakeholders.
Basic analysis of
the organisation’s
stakeholders, their
needs and rights,
and the
organisation’s
responsibilities
towards them.
Reflection is
generic and
superficial.
Stakeholder choice
is mostly
appropriate and
includes most
central
stakeholders.
Sound analysis
with some depth
and careful
consideration of
the organisation’s
stakeholders, their
needs and rights,
and the
organisation’s
responsibilities
towards them.
Reflection is sound
with some depth.

Stakeholder choice
is appropriate and
includes all central
stakeholders.
Strong and critical
analysis with depth
and careful
consideration of
the organisation’s
stakeholders, their
needs and rights,
and the
organisation’s
responsibilities
towards them.
Reflection is
considered and
nuanced with
depth.
Stakeholder choice
is clearly
appropriate,
comprehensive
and includes all
central
stakeholders.
Very strong and
critical analysis
with depth and
careful
consideration of
the organisation’s
stakeholders, their
needs and rights,
and the
organisation’s
responsibilities
towards them.
Reflection is deep,
thoroughly
considered and
nuanced.
Quality of
analysis and
support for
analysis

35 Fails to identify
economic, legal
and ethical
factors.
Discussion is
largely irrelevant
and/or fails to
incorporate any
evidence or
draw on course
concepts.
Does not clearly
identify relevant
economic, legal
and ethical factors.
Limited discussion
of the
consequences of
key decisions.
Lacks evidence or
logical application
of course concepts
to support answer.
Identifies one
economic, legal
and ethical factor
each.
Basic discussion
of the
consequences of
key decisions.
Demonstrates
partial
understanding of
course concepts.
Supports analysis
with evidence or
logic. Some factual
or logical errors.
Identifies relevant
economic, legal
and ethical factors.
Sound discussion
of the
consequences of
key decisions.
Demonstrates
accurate
understanding of
course concepts.
Supports analysis
with mostly
accurate evidence
or sound logic with
few errors.
Identifies key
economic, legal
and ethical factors.
Clear and critical
discussion of the
consequences of
key decisions.
Demonstrates
accurate and
nuanced
understanding of
course concepts.
Supports analysis
with accurate
evidence or sound
logic.
Clearly identifies
key economic,
legal and ethical
factors.
Clear, critical and
nuanced
discussion of the
consequences of
key decisions.
Demonstrates
sophisticated and
nuanced
understanding of
course concepts.
Supports analysis
with specific,
accurate evidence
or clear logic.
Evaluation of
the central
decision
20 Fails to provide
an evaluation or
position
statement on
the key decision.
Provides a
superficial position
statement on the
key decision but
the position is not
justified or linked
to the preceding
analysis.
Provides a position
statement on the
key decision with
limited or illogical
justification that is
not consistently
supported with the
preceding analysis.
Provides a clear
position statement
on the key decision
with basic
justification that is
partially supported
by the preceding
analysis.
Provides clear
position statement
on the key decision
with in-depth
justification that
follows logically
from the preceding
analysis.
Provides a
sophisticated
position statement
on the key decision
that acknowledges
the nuances of the
case study. The
position is clearly
supported and
informed by the
preceding analysis.
Structure,
written
expression,
presentation,
referencing
20 Writing is not in
English or is not
legible or
intelligible.
Spelling/gramm
ar/syntax errors
and/or lack of
structure are so
severe as to
seriously impair
the ability of the
reader to follow
the analysis.
Written expression
is unclear and
incoherent. Ideas
and argument are
difficult to follow
and not succinct or
convincing.
No evidence of
editing with poor
presentation of
materials.
Structure is poor
and/or very
difficult to follow.
Significant
problems with
sequencing and
Written expression
is generally clear
and coherent.
Ideas and
argument are
generally easy to
follow but not
succinct and/or
convincing.
Basic evidence of
editing. Structure is
adequate with
some problems in
sequencing and
transitioning of
ideas. Some errors
Written expression
is mostly clear and
coherent. Ideas,
and argument are
mostly easy-to-
follow, succinct but
not convincing.
Sound evidence of
editing. Structure is
logical, coherent
with appropriate
sequencing and
transitioning of
ideas. Few errors
with spelling
and/or grammar.
Written expression
is consistently
clear and coherent.
Ideas, information
and argument are
easy to follow,
succinct and
convincing.
Clear evidence of
editing. Structure is
logical, coherent
with appropriate
and clear
transitioning of
ideas. No
substantial errors
with spelling
and/or grammar.
Written expression
is consistently
clear and coherent.
Ideas, information
and argument are
easy to follow,
succinct and
thoroughly
convincing.
Very clear evidence
of thorough
editing. Structure is
logical and
coherent with
appropriate and
clear transitioning
of ideas.
Page 5
transitioning of
ideas. Significant
and frequent errors
with spelling
and/or grammar.
Significant errors
in referencing that
does not comply
with faculty
guidelines
including absent
sources.
with spelling
and/or grammar.
Some errors in
referencing but
generally complies
with faculty
guidelines
including citing
accurately some
sources.
Few errors in
referencing but
mostly complies
with faculty
guidelines
including citing
accurately most
sources.
No substantial
errors in
referencing and
complies with
faculty guidelines
including citing
accurately all
sources.
Flawless spelling
and/or grammar.
Flawless
referencing and
complies with
faculty guidelines
including citing
accurately all
sources.

Note: Failure to comply with the word limit (within 10%) will reduce the score for Criterion 4 by one (within 25%) or two
(greater than 25%) categories.