MKTG7501 Semester 1, 2022
Assessment 3 Guidelines – Case evaluation report


Page 1 of 5

Weight: 45%
Submission: Word document (.docx is preferable)
Word limit: 2,000 words maximum. Any content submitted beyond the limit is ineligible for marking.
Referencing: APA (6th or 7th)

Scenario: Your team conducted an analysis of a brand in Assessment 2, and your new task
is to continue with this brand and now individually examine the marketing mix for the
specific product. The information garnered from the STP task provides the background for
this task. Approach this stage as you have been hired as a Marketing consultant for an external
company and your job is to assess current marketing performance by conducting an audit and
analysis of current marketing efforts, in relation to the marketing mix. This involves finding
evidence of marketing, analysing that evidence using theoretical frameworks and evaluating
the effectiveness of the marketing. Additionally, you then need to evaluate the marketing mix
performance as a whole.

The aim of this assessment is to increase learner knowledge of the marketing mix and it’s
connection to the target/position, by applying knowledge of the marketing mix to critically
evaluate a real-life business. To perform well, learners will need to actively participate in all
class activities, as well as complete the assigned readings each week. Learners will also need
to conduct research into relevant theory, as well as researching the marketing and industry
evidence. Evaluation is a crucial component of this task, using theory to support conclusions.
Please ensure you consult the full marking criteria.

The case for this semester is Bose SoundLink Micro Bluetooth® speaker

You are expected to conduct research to find evidence to identify, analyse and the company’s
marketing effort. Further, the application of evidence against theoretical foundations and
frameworks are imperative for completing this assessment.

You have been provided a template to follow, it includes the headings, you need to address
all of the detail but can add in further subheadings. You do not need to add a cover sheet.

You are to work through the identified topics, addressing all areas in the written report. You
should provide relevant evidence and theory, evaluating company’s current marketing
strategies. The basic structure of the task includes an introduction, which includes the
positioning statement to reflect the firms current strategy. The 4Ps will then be examined and
each is to be evaluated with a score out of 5, providing justification for this score. Following
this, the overall marketing mix will be evaluated with a score out of 5, with justification. A brief
conclusion wraps up the assessment.

Report requirements
The report should include a full marketing mix evaluation, working through the content from
each topic, evaluating the current evidence to determine the effectiveness of the strategy, with
support from marketing theory. Please note this is an individual assessment, so this report will
be your own work and backed by your own evidence and evaluation. Please ensure you
consult the marking criteria for full details of expectations. Notably, students will not just list
evidence but will consider and evaluate the marketing.

The report should follow the template provided and be a maximum of 2,000 words, excluding
reference list (everything else including tables, figures, heading, captions, etc are included in
the word count). There are no appendices for this task, so all content must fit into the word
limit.

MKTG7501 Semester 1, 2022
Assessment 3 Guidelines – Case evaluation report


Page 2 of 5

APA 6th or 7th Referencing is required (use the Library style guide). The report should include
a mix of quality peer reviewed scholarly sources to discuss theory, industry reports to establish
the context, and websites which host firm details and competitor insights. There is no specific
number of sources required. Reports which do not include evidence and theory will lack rigour
and will not perform well.


Where should I start?
This report requires in-depth analysis and evaluation which takes time. Please start this early
so you have time to thoroughly work through all areas. There are many places to start but
some ideas for you include…
 Ensure you’ve watched the approach to assessment video in the Assessment folder
 Watch the A3 overview video – in A3 folder
 Refer to the final outcomes of A2 to note the positioning statement
 Review BRAND overview details and evidence provided in Assessment 3 folder and
start to conduct some of your own research
 Watch the library video on how to conduct research – accessed via Library Guide
 Look at industry reports and some possible statistics, accessed via Library (the Library
Guide details how to locate these)
 Look up scholarly articles about the topics. You can start in your textbook and the
additional readings provided in the Learning Resources. You can conduct further key
word research in the library, and follow leads from the textbook.
 Start making some notes in your template to see where you have gaps in your
knowledge.
 Activities developed in tutorials give you important information on how to apply theory to
practice. Active participation on these activities facilitates the replication of knowledge
in your assessment.

Other important guidelines
• This evaluation is in relation to the Australian market only.
• The full report must be submitted electronically through the Blackboard. All students MUST
follow the specific submission instructions and follow the template provided.
• References should be included for ALL works used – don’t forget information relating to
the company, any theory, industry, trade, competitors and news materials.
• Under no circumstances should students contact the business involved. Penalties
will apply. I am not interested in the firm’s perspective, we are looking for your analysis
and learning so there are no advantages to contacting the firm, rather it will be detrimental.

Format:
• Line spacing 1.5, font Arial, font size 11pt, standard margins
• The word count includes ALL content (except reference list). Any tables/figure/captions
are all included. Therefore, it is your task to prioritise which information is critical and which
is not. Any content over the maximum word limit provided will not be assessed and
penalties will apply.
• Make sure your reference list follows APA 6 (or 7), specifically in alphabetical order.


MKTG7501 Semester 1, 2022
Assessment 3 Guidelines – Case evaluation report


Page 3 of 5

A template document has been provided for you to complete. Working with the template, the
following identifies the specific analysis expected within the template.

Where you are asked to ‘identify’ this involves reviewing the evidence from market, then
considering and analysing the evidence and theory to determine the most logically aligned
conclusions. You need to explain how you come to the conclusion, not just list it. You need to
evaluate the effectiveness of the approach, considering (using theory to support you) whether
this is a good or bad marketing approach, scoring out of 5. Justification of the score is
essential.

The following excerpt is for illustrative purposes only and discusses the pricing strategy used
by a fictional company. (…) a competition based pricing strategy was identified, more
specifically lower-price approach (include reference for pricing theory), as is evident by the
proactive note of ‘we beat competitors prices’ found on the company’s website
(www.companywebpage.com, 2021). Competition based pricing is based on (discuss theory,
include references) and as such has the following advantages for this company…


Template Explained
Remember, for all elements of this report – this is not a new proposal but your informed view
and evaluation of their current approach.

Introduction
• Brief introduction to the report/company
• Identify a close direct competitor (explaining why they are an important competitor)
• Include the positioning statement (which identifies target and position) – this can be
drawn directly from A2, or can be updated based on feedback and improvement

Product
• Identify and detail the product levels (core, actual and augmented) – a visual figure
might be useful in addition to the discussion
• Identify the type of consumer good (convenience, shopping, specialty or unsought)
• Evaluate the effectiveness of the product marketing strategy, justifying your score out
of 5.

Price
• Identify and evaluate actual price (relative a close competitor)
• Identify the dominant price approach influence (cost, competitor or customer)
• Evaluate the effectiveness of the price marketing strategy, justifying your score out of
5.

Placement
• Identify the distribution channels (a visual figure might be useful)
o Including direct and Indirect
• Identify the nature of distribution (intensive, exclusive or selective)
• Evaluate the effectiveness of the placement marketing strategy, justifying your score
out of 5.

MKTG7501 Semester 1, 2022
Assessment 3 Guidelines – Case evaluation report


Page 4 of 5


Promotion (IMC)
• Identify the key IMC message strategy
• Identify which areas of promotion mix are used, detailing their use (advertising, sales
promotion, personal selling, public relations, direct/digital marketing)
• Evaluate the effectiveness of the promotion marketing strategy, justifying your score
out of 5.

Marketing mix evaluation
• Evaluate the cohesion of the overall mix - Explain how the Ps interact (or not) in a
cohesive manner.
• Evaluate the alignment of the mix to the positioning statement - Explain how the Ps
support (or do not support) brand positioning
• Evaluate the effectiveness of the overall marketing mix strategy and implementation,
justifying your score out of 5

Conclusion
• Brief final note.

Reference list
• Follow the APA guide from the library (APA 6th or 7th)



Page 5 of 5


Criteria Exceptional Advanced Proficient Functional Unsatisfactory
Background
5 marks
Exceptionally succinct and expert
introduction, accurately justifying highly
relevant competition and detailing a clear
positioning statement.
Clear and well considered introduction,
with highly relevant competition justified
and a clear positioning statement.
Accurate detail of competitor and
positioning statement, but with limited or
less precise justification.
Fair positioning statement and
competitor noted, but with limited or
unconvincing justification.
Lacking specific detail and/or justification of
competitor and/or positioning statement.
Product
15 marks
Detailed identification and analysis of
product evidence across all required
areas, accurately using all specific
theoretical frameworks. Fully justified
evaluation, supported by systematic
application of theorical support.
Detailed identification and evaluation of
product evidence, across all required
areas accurately using all specific
theoretical frameworks. Strong
justification of evaluation, supported by
theory but could be more rigorous at
times.
Identification of product evidence across all
required areas, with some analysis being
precise while others being descriptive in
parts. Some supporting theoretical basis at
times, although scope for more precise
theoretical support in justification of
evaluation.
Mostly accurate description of the main
product evidence with some basic
analysis but lacking all required specific
detail and needing more justification
from specific applied theory in
evaluation.
Lacking or inaccurate identification and
analysis of key product evidence in relation to
required topic areas and with irrelevant or
insufficient evaluation and justification from
theory.
Price
15 marks
Detailed identification and analysis of
price evidence across all required areas,
accurately using all specific theoretical
frameworks. Fully justified evaluation,
supported by systematic application of
theorical support.
Detailed identification and evaluation of
price evidence, across all required areas
accurately using all specific theoretical
frameworks. Strong justification of
evaluation, supported by theory but
could be more rigorous at times.
Identification of price evidence across all
required areas, with some analysis being
precise while others being descriptive in
parts. Some supporting theoretical basis at
times, although scope for more precise
theoretical support in justification of
evaluation.
Mostly accurate description of the main
price evidence with some basic analysis
but lacking all required specific detail
and needing more justification from
specific applied theory in evaluation.
Lacking or inaccurate identification and
analysis of key price evidence in relation to
required topic areas and with irrelevant or
insufficient evaluation and justification from
theory.
Placement
15 marks
Detailed identification and analysis of
placement evidence across all required
areas, accurately using all specific
theoretical frameworks. Fully justified
evaluation, supported by systematic
application of theorical support.
Detailed identification and evaluation of
placement evidence, across all required
areas accurately using all specific
theoretical frameworks. Strong
justification of evaluation, supported by
theory but could be more rigorous at
times.
Identification of placement evidence across
all required areas, with some analysis being
precise while others being descriptive in
parts. Some supporting theoretical basis at
times, although scope for more precise
theoretical support in justification of
evaluation.
Mostly accurate description of the main
placement evidence with some basic
analysis but lacking all required specific
detail and needing more justification
from specific applied theory in
evaluation.
Lacking or inaccurate identification and
analysis of key placement evidence in relation
to required topic areas and with irrelevant or
insufficient evaluation and justification from
theory.
Promotion
15 marks
Detailed identification and analysis of
promotion evidence across all required
areas, accurately using all specific
theoretical frameworks. Fully justified
evaluation, supported by systematic
application of theorical support.
Detailed identification and evaluation of
promotion evidence, across all required
areas accurately using all specific
theoretical frameworks. Strong
justification of evaluation, supported by
theory but could be more rigorous at
times.
Identification of promotion evidence across
all required areas, with some analysis being
precise while others being descriptive in
parts. Some supporting theoretical basis at
times, although scope for more precise
theoretical support in justification of
evaluation.
Mostly accurate description of the main
promotion evidence with some basic
analysis but lacking all required specific
detail and needing more justification
from specific applied theory in
evaluation.
Lacking or inaccurate identification and
analysis of key promotion evidence in relation
to required topic areas and with irrelevant or
insufficient evaluation and justification from
theory.
Marketing mix
15 marks
Rigorous and fully justified evaluation of
the overall marketing mix in relation to
the cohesive connection to target and
position, supported by systematic
application of theory.
Thorough and justified evaluation of the
overall marketing mix in relation to the
cohesive connection to target and
position, supported by theory but could
be more rigorous in justification at times.
Sound analysis of the overall marketing mix
in relation to the cohesive connection to
target and position, with some supporting
theoretical basis at times, although less
convincing evaluation at times.
Some analysis of the overall marketing
mix in relation to the cohesive
connection to target and position but
lacking specific detail and needing more
justification from specific applied theory,
with some minor inaccuracies at times.
Inaccurate and/or irrelevant analysis of the
overall marketing mix, repeating the previous
discussion rather than considering the cohesive
connection to target and position, with
irrelevant or insufficient evaluation and
justification from theory.
Informed evaluation
10 marks
Use of high-quality literature and
evidence throughout the entire report to
support evaluations and strengthen
justification.
Use of quality literature and evidence at
times in the report to support
evaluations and add to justification.
Broad use of literature and evidence
throughout the report, with some instances
of support of justification and/or with some
less valuable sources.
Accurate but descriptive use of literature
and evidence, with limited use of
justification and with some less valuable
sources at times.

Insufficient or inaccurate use of literature or
evidence, and/or with poor sources.
Communication
(including style, spelling,
grammar and referencing).
10 marks
Communicates meaning with absolute
confidence, clarity and fluency, with no
errors in grammar, spelling and
referencing.
Communicates meaning with clarity and
fluency, with minimal errors in grammar,
spelling and referencing.
Communicates meaning with some clarity
but with several errors in grammar, spelling,
word limits and/or referencing.
Mostly communicates meaning, but with
some issues in grammar, spelling and
referencing and word limits which
interrupt communication and flow at
times.
Major issues in communicating meaning, with
poor use of language, grammar, spelling, word
limits and/or referencing style.