RBP020L071S Global Brand Management

Instructions for assessment

  1. Formative assessment

The formative assessment for this module takes the form of a group-based poster. You will be asked to conduct an analysis of a global brand with respect to its brand inventory, which includes an analysis of the brand’s global branding strategy, brand positioning, and brand elements. In this analysis you need to consider the country where the brand was originally developed plus one additional country where the brand is present.

The brand will be provided to you by the Module Convener and all students will analyse the same brand. You will need to include your analysis in an A3 poster of maximum 500 words and submit it via Turnitin.

Through your formative assessment, you will have a unique opportunity to test your understanding of concepts that are part of your summative assessment.

Note however that we will not provide any written or marks indicative feedback on drafts for summative assessment at any time. Should you perceive any formative feedback such way, then please note that it is not binding for your marking. Markers can also always change, and you have no entitlement to be marked by the Module Convener or tutors.

  1. Summative assessment

The summative assessment for this module consists in an individual business report, a brand audit, on a self-selected brand. You will have to choose a well-known global brand for your assessment. This brand can be of any type (luxury, mass market, online, etc.) and from any product category (food and beverage, consumer electronics, fashion, jewellery, etc.), however you will not be allowed to use the same brand as the one provided for the formative assessment. In the brand audit, you are expected to conduct a comprehensive examination of your brand and, based on this analysis, elaborate global managerial recommendations on how to develop your brand in the long-term. Your analysis will be based entirely on information from public secondary sources and/or primary data (if necessary), company websites, as well as your own personal or professional experiences and insights.

The word limit for this assessment is 3,500 words including tables and figures but excluding references.

Your brand audit should include the following sections:

  1. An introduction which presents the global brand you selected and briefly describes the background about this brand including its history, vision/mission, and performance. (About 500 words)
  2. A brand inventory, which includes a critical analysis of the global branding strategy, brand positioning, and brand elements of the global brand you selected. In this analysis you need to consider the country where the brand was originally developed plus at least one additional country where the brand is present. (About 1500 words)
  3. A brand exploratory, which consists of a critical analysis of the consumer-based brand equity of the global brand you selected. In your brand exploratory you need to consider the same countries that you considered in the brand inventory and compare / contrast. (About 1000 words)
  4. Development of globally relevant managerial recommendations on how to develop the brand in the long-term. Based on your previous analysis in the brand inventory and brand exploratory sections, what opportunities can you identify for the brand? (About 500 words)
  5. A bibliography which includes all the references that you used to carry out your brand audit in Harvard format. (Not included in the word count)

Resit assignment details

Resit submission date: TBC and as shown on Moodle

 

For students who are offered a resit you are required to improve and resubmit your original work as well as adding a further reflective commentary discussing what you have learned from the process.

You must resubmit your work using the specific resit Turnitin link on Moodle.

 

You should:

  1. Review your previously submitted work and read carefully the feedback given by the marker.
  2. Use this feedback to help you revisit and rewrite your work, improving it in the areas identified as weak in the original marking process
  3. Include with your resubmission an additional reflective piece (up to 500 words) on what you understand was weak, how you set about addressing this and what you have learned from this that may help you with further assignments. You should address the following specifically:
  4. Identify tutor feedback points on your original work and identify where/how the resit work has changed (give page number) in response to feedback
  5. Identify the lessons you have learnt from doing the resit
  • Reflect on how your feedback and this process will help you improve future assignments

If you did not submit work at the first opportunity you cannot reflect on your feedback. However, you are still required to submit a reflective piece in which you identify your reasons for non-submission, the implications of non-submission for your future success and how you propose to address this in the future. If you have issues with confidentiality of your reasons for non-submission then you could reflect on how you have met the learning outcomes for the module, how you can use what you have done on the module to support your future career and what skills/employability attributes you feel the module has helped you to develop.

If you were deferred at the first assessment opportunity you do not need to include the reflective piece as this is a first submission at a later date, not a resit.

The original marking criteria will still apply (see marking grid provided above) except that the 10% weighting for presentation will be awarded instead to your reflective piece

How will we support you with your assessment?

  • Assessment briefing in Week 2.
  • Dedicated seminar session on your formative assessment in Week 7.
  • Feedback session on your formative assessment and tutorial session to support the development of your summative assessment in Week 8.
  • Tutorial session to support the completion of your summative assessment in Week 11.
  • Directed reading and study activities.
  • FAQs will be posted on the module’s Moodle site.

How will your work be assessed?

Your work will be assessed by a subject expert who will use the marking grid provided in this assessment brief.  When you access your marked work it is important that you reflect on the feedback so that you can use it to improve future assignments.

Referencing

You MUST use the Harvard System.  The Harvard system is very easy to use once you become familiar with it.

Assignment submissions

The Business School requires a digital version of all assignment submissions.  These must be submitted via Turnitin on the module’s Moodle site.  They must be submitted as a Word file (not as a pdf) and must not include scanned in text or text boxes.  They must be submitted by 2pm on the given date.  For further general details on coursework preparation refer to the online information via StudentZone http://studentzone.roehampton.ac.uk/howtostudy/index.html.

Mitigating circumstances/what to do if you cannot submit a piece of work or attend your presentation

The University Mitigating Circumstances Policy can be found on the University website – Mitigating  Circumstances Policy.

Marking and feedback process

Between you handing in your work and then receiving your feedback and marks within 20 days, there are a number of quality assurance processes that we go through to ensure that students receive marks which reflects their work. A brief summary is provided below.

  • Step One – The module and marking team meet to agree standards, expectations and how feedback will be provided.
  • Step Two – A subject expert will mark your work using the criteria provided in the assessment brief.
  • Step Three – A moderation meeting takes place where all members of the teaching and marking team will review the marking of others to confirm whether they agree with the mark and feedback.
  • Step Four – Work at Levels 5 and 6 then goes to an external examiner who will review a sample of work to confirm that the marking between different staff is consistent and fair.
  • Step Five – Your mark and feedback is processed by the Office and made available to you.

 

Rubric category

(range)

Assigned mark >>

________________

Marking criteria

(weight out of 100)

Outstanding

(100-90)

100

Excellent

(80-89)

85

Very Good (70-79)

75

Good

(60-69)

65

Adequate

(50-59)

55

Marginal Fail (40-49)

45

Fail with omissions

(30-39)

35

Fail with major omissions

(20-29)

25

Not done

(0-19)

0

Introduction (10%)

 

·   Presentation of the global brand selected.

·   Identification and description of the brand history, vision/mission, and performance.

 

Outstanding and flawless. The brand is introduced in a very effective manner. Brand history, vision/mission, and performance are correctly identified and reported in an exhaustive and critical manner.

 

The brand selected is very clearly introduced. Brand history, vision/mission, and performance are correctly identified and well reported.

 

Good effort to introduce the brand.  The brand history, vision/mission, and performance are correctly identified and reported fairly well.

 

The brand is presented in a satisfactory manner. Brand history, vision/mission, and performance are partially identified and reported.

 

The brand is presented in an inadequate manner. Identification and reporting of brand history, vision/mission, and performance is sparse and unsatisfactory. The brand selected is introduced in a limited way. Unclear brand history, vision/mission, and performance are identified and reported. The brand selected is introduced in a very limited way. Brand history, vision/mission, and performance are not reported. Missing. Wholly incorrect or not attempted.
Brand inventory

(35%)

 

·   Analysis of (1) global branding strategy, (2) global brand positioning, and (3) brand elements of the selected global brand.

·   Use of different sources (e.g., secondary data, company website, professional or personal experience) to support the analysis.

Outstanding and flawless. The analysis is very well-articulated, comprehensive, and insightful. The analysis shows a critical understanding of each brand inventory element, which is examined in an accurate manner. Excellent quality sources are used to support the analysis. The analysis is comprehensive and accurate. Each element of the brand inventory is very well applied to the brand selected in the assignment. The analysis shows a very good understanding of the theory. Sources used to support the analysis are of very good quality and appropriate. The analysis is quite comprehensive and accurate. The brand inventory elements are applied well to the brand selected in the assignment. The analysis shows a good understanding of the theory. Sources used to support the analysis are appropriate and of good quality. A satisfactory analysis is provided. All brand inventory elements are covered. Some of these elements are covered in detail, some others in a more superficial manner. The analysis reveals some depth of understanding of the theory. Sources used to support the analysis are appropriate and of adequate quality. The analysis provided is not satisfactory is most parts. Not all brand inventory elements are covered. Most of these elements are covered in a superficial manner. The analysis reveals little depth of understanding of the theory. Only few sources used to support the analysis are appropriate and of adequate quality. The analysis is weak and limited. The analysis reveals a partial understanding of the brand inventory elements, which are not always correctly applied to the brand selected in the assignment. Sources used to support the analysis are irrelevant, inappropriate, or low quality.

 

The analysis is very weak and limited. The analysis reveals a lack of understanding of the brand inventory elements, which are not correctly applied to the brand selected in the assignment. No sources are used to support the analysis. Missing. Wholly incorrect or not attempted.
Brand exploratory

(25%)

 

·   Analysis of each component of consumer-based brand equity of the selected global brand.

·   Use of different sources (e.g., secondary data, company website, professional and personal experience and/or primary data) to support the analysis.

Outstanding and flawless. The analysis is very well-articulated, comprehensive, and insightful. The analysis shows a critical and deep understanding of each component of consumer-based brand equity, which are applied in a critical and accurate manner. Excellent quality sources are used to support the analysis. The analysis is comprehensive and accurate. The components of consumer-based brand equity are very well applied to the brand selected in the assignment. The analysis shows a very good understanding of the theory. Sources used to support the analysis are of very good quality and appropriate. The analysis is quite comprehensive and accurate. The components of consumer-based brand equity are applied well to the brand selected in the assignment. The analysis shows a good understanding of the theory. Sources used to support the analysis are appropriate and of good quality. A satisfactory analysis is provided. Components of consumer-based brand equity are covered. Some of these components are covered in detail, some others in a more superficial manner. The analysis reveals some depth of understanding of the theory. Sources used to support the analysis are appropriate and of adequate quality. A largely inadequate analysis is provided. Some components of consumer-based brand equity are covered. Most of these components are covered in a more superficial manner. The analysis reveals little depth of understanding of the theory. Only few sources used to support the analysis are appropriate and of adequate quality. The analysis is weak and limited. The analysis reveals a partial understanding of the components of consumer-based brand equity, which are not always correctly applied to the brand selected in the assignment. Sources used to support the analysis are irrelevant, inappropriate, or low quality. The analysis is very weak and limited. The analysis reveals a lack of understanding of the components of consumer-based brand equity, which are not correctly applied to the brand selected in the assignment. No sources are used to support the analysis. Missing. Wholly incorrect or not attempted.
Development of global managerial recommendations

(20%)

 

·   Appropriateness and feasibility of recommendations.

·   Connection between recommendations and previous analysis.

 

Outstanding and flawless. Development of exceptional recommendations. Recommendations are appropriate, feasible, and presented in an extremely clear and effective manner. Recommendations are built on the analysis previously conducted. Very good recommendations are developed. Recommendations are presented in a clear and effective manner. Very good connection between recommendations and the analysis previously conducted. Good recommendations are developed. Recommendations are presented in a quite clear and effective manner. Good connection between recommendations and previous analysis. Satisfactory recommendations are developed. Recommendations are clearly identified but lack of detail. Quite good connection between recommendations and previous analysis. Recommendations are developed in an unsatisfactory manner. Some recommendations are clearly identified but lack of depth and detail. The connection between recommendations and previous analysis is not always evident or clear. Recommendations are developed in a weak and limited manner. Recommendations are partially identified. A partial and limited connection between recommendations and previous analysis is provided. Recommendations are developed in a very weak and limited manner. Recommendations are not correctly identified. No connection between recommendations and the analysis previously conducted. Missing. Wholly incorrect or not attempted.
Quality of presentation

(10%)

 

·   Writing style.

·   Spelling and grammar.

·   Use of Harvard referencing system.

Outstanding and flawless. The presentation of the assignment is excellent. Exemplar academic style is adopted. No spelling or grammatical mistakes are present. Harvard referencing system is correctly implemented throughout the assignment. The assignment is very well presented. Appropriate and consistent academic writing style is used. There are hardly any spelling or grammatical mistakes. Harvard referencing system is generally implemented throughout the assignment. The assignment is well presented. Mostly appropriate and consistent academic writing style is used. A few spelling or grammatical mistakes are present in the assignment. Most of the work conforms to Harvard format, but there are a few references or citations that are not consistent with Harvard notation. The presentation of the assignment is satisfactory. Usually appropriate and consistent academic writing style is used. Some spelling or grammatical mistakes are present. Harvard referencing system is usually implemented correctly, but some errors in referencing are present. The presentation of the assignment is inadequate. Some appropriate and consistent academic writing style is used. Several spelling or grammatical mistakes are present. Harvard referencing system is occasionally implemented correctly, several some errors in referencing are present. The quality of presentation of the assignment is largely insufficient. The writing style is largely not consistent with academic conventions. Several spelling and grammar mistakes are present throughout the assignment. Referencing is poor and does not conform to Harvard standards. The quality of presentation of the assignment is insufficient. The assignment requires substantial proof-reading to become a reasonable piece of work. Referencing is sparse or non-existent. Missing. Wholly incorrect or not attempted.

 

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

+1 587-331-9072
WHAT'SAPP US, WE'LL RESPOND
AustralianEssayHelp
We will write your work from scratch and ensure that it is plagiarism FREE, you just submit the completed work.