58052 – Subject Title Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC)Subject

SOLUTION AT Australian Expert Writers

Assignment Details:
Subject Title Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC)Subject Code MKT201AAssessment Title ReportGraduate Capabilitiesa) Explain the concepts and basic features of integrated marketing communicationsb) Link the aims of integrated marketing communications with basic marketing principles to analyse given communication problemsc) Recommend appropriate IMC tools for various communication environmentsLearning Outcome/s (found in the Subject Outline) a b & cAssessment type (group or individual) IndividualWeighting % 40%Word count 1000 words +/- 10% excluding cover, referencesDue day Sunday by 11.55pm week 7Submission type Turnitin ?Format / Layout of AssessmentReport:ICMS Cover PageIntroduction (Brief Case Background and summary of previous analysis)Analysis— Current IMC strategiesConclusionReference List?????Page 1 of 5Assessment instructions Using the same case study from Assessment 1, students continue developing an individual report using their knowledge learnt up to week 6(approximately 1,000 words +/- 10%). The report will focus on analysis of current IMC strategies of the client (Strength, Weakness, Opportunities and Threats), specifically• Business performance• Products (packaging design, range composition)• Customers and market share• Positioning and image• Mix strategies (price, sale promotion, broadcast media, etc.)• The communication strategy focused on public relations and sponsorship• Opportunity to develop a new product or product range domestically or internationally or both.The Report analysis needs to match the following:• 1000 words +/- 10%• Follow short report formatting• Minimum of 6 resources [3 from academic resources at minimum]Readings for the assessment To assist you with writing this report, use the materials found on your• Moodle page (lecture slides, recommended and additional readings or other documents). • Class content.• Useful links posted on Moodle.Complete the Module activities which are designed to support the critical tasks of this Assessment.Grading Criteria / Rubric See belowPage 2 of 5Assessment 2 – Report – Marking RubricCriteria High Distinction(85-100) Distinction(75-84) Credit (65-74) Pass (50-64) Fail(0-49)Introduction—BriefCase Background &Summary of PreviousFindings15% Effective introduction including a briefcompany/case overview and concise summary of findings from previous analysis in Assessment 1. Mostly effective introduction including a brief company/caseoverview and mostly concisesummary of findings from previous analysis in Assessment 1. Moderately effective introduction including a brief company/case overview anda summary of findings from previous analysis inAssessment 1 but not overly concise. Introduction included but need more elaboration / background on thecase/company or summary of previous analysis findings OR the overview/summary is too long. There is no clear introduction and does not adequatelyprovide an overview of the chosen case/company ORlacks a summary of previous analysis findings.Current IMC Strategy Analysis—Application of theories, concepts and methods in the analysis35% The analysis is coherently presented. Shows a full understanding of the topicTheories, concepts and methods are accurately applied and used to justify rationale throughout. Shows a depth of knowledge.Includes insightful commentary and highlights high significance. The analysis is coherently presented. Shows a significant understanding of the topic.Theories, concepts and methods are accurately applied and used to justify rationale in most instances. Shows a depth of knowledge in all but 1 area.Includes insightful commentary and highlights above average significance.The analysis is present, but hard to follow at times.Shows a good understanding of the topic.Theories, concepts and methods are accurately applied and used to justify rationale, but further elaboration was needed in 2 areas. Shows a depth of knowledge in all but 2 area.Includes multiple instance insightful commentary and highlights average significance. The analysis is present, but hard to follow at times. Shows a basic understanding of the topic.Theories, concepts and methods are sometimes inaccurately applied when used to justify rationale. Or greater depth is needed in the analysis and application of unit content.Includes somewhat insightful commentary and highlights average significance. Analysis is confused or missing. Lacks depth or shows superficial understanding.Theories, concepts and methods are inaccurately applied when used to justify rationale. Or greater depth is needed in the analysis and application of unit content.Does not include insightful commentary and highlights little or no significance.SWOT Analysis30% Clearly identifies the internal strengths and weaknesses, and the external opportunities and threats. Each SWOT Analysis included all 4 categories, each category included at least 3 items SWOT Analysis included all 4 categories, each category included at least 2 items that SWOT Analysis omitted 1 category or included all 4 categories but included only 1 item in at least one category. SWOT Analysis omitted 1 or more categories or included all 4 categories but includedcategory included 4 or more items that are relevant to findings in the situational analysis.The SWOT analysis is thorough, with reasoning for each individual points provided. No major points are missing or incorrectly categorised that are relevant to findings in the situational analysis.The SWOT analysis is mostly thorough, with reasoning for most individual points provided. One major points are missing or incorrectly categorised are relevant to findings in the situational analysis.Two major points may be missing or incorrectly categorised. OrLittle justification or rationale provided for the individual points 1-2 categories.OrMore than two major point are missing or incorrectly categorised. only 1 item 2 or more categories.And/OrNo justification or rationale provided for the individual points in more than 2 categories.And/OrMore than two major point are missing or incorrectly categorised.Conclusion5%Thorough conclusion that summarises effectively. Mostly thorough conclusion that summarises effectively. Somewhat thorough conclusion that summarises adequately. Minimal conclusion that summarises averagely but lacks depth in some areas. Conclusion present but does not summarise and is not effective. Or conclusion missing.Presentation, Referencing and structure15% Professional presentation and effective communication of analysis and evaluation, fully supported with evidence. Outstanding report structure and communication of ideas enhances readability. Free of errors and logical flow, appropriate sections.At least 6 resources from reliable sources, with at least 3 being from academic sources… e.g.journals, company Well-structured presentation and communication of analysis and evaluation, supported with evidence that closely correspond to the elements of the report. Very good report structure, free of errors and has a logical flow, appropriate sections.5 resources from reliable sources, e.g. journals, company websites, trustworthy articles.OR1 source not reliable. Appropriate presentation and communication of analysis and evaluation, supported with some evidence. Good report structure, free of errors and has a logical flow, appropriate sections.4 resources from reliable sources, e.g. journals, company websites, trustworthy articles.OR2 sources not reliable. Presentation that shows some evidence of report structure, but errors may detract from communication of the analysis and evaluation. There are some evidence used but they may not correspond to the elements and sometimes detract from readability. Basic report structure, some errors and hard to follow, some sections are missing.3 resources from reliable sources, e.g. journals, company websites, trustworthy articles. Lacks evidence of a structured presentation with limited analysis and evaluations. The few pieces of evidence used do not correspond to the key elements. Missing appropriate report structure, contains errors and hard to follow, appropriate sections are missing.2 resources, OR less than 3 from academic reliable sources e.g. journals, company websites, trustworthy articles.websites, trustworthy articles. OR2 sources not reliable. OR4 or more not from reliable sources.

Order from Australian Expert Writers
Best Australian Academic Writers

QUALITY: 100% ORIGINAL PAPERNO PLAGIARISM – CUSTOM PAPER

Assignment status: Already Solved By Our Experts

(USA, AUS, UK & CA Ph. D. Writers)

CLICK HERE TO GET A PROFESSIONAL WRITER TO WORK ON THIS PAPER AND OTHER SIMILAR PAPERS, GET A NON PLAGIARIZED PAPER FROM OUR EXPERTS

Order from Australian Expert Writers
Best Australian Academic Writers

QUALITY: 100% ORIGINAL PAPER – NO PLAGIARISM – CUSTOM PAPER

YOU MAY ALSO READ ...  64026 – SUPPLEMENTARY ASSESSMENTSubject Code and Title MRD403: