Brand Development Plan: Creating and Developing an Imaginary Brand

Criteria

High Distinction

(D3 and above)

Low Distinction

(D1 and D2)

High Pass

(P3-P5)

Low Pass

(P1-P2)

Fail (F1 and below)

Introduction to the new brand (10%)

Excellent explanation of the new brand company/brand. The rationale for developing the brand is explained well and supported by strong justification and evidence.

Succinct, effective explanation of the new brand - including adequate explanation and rationale for the new brand.

The new brand is outlined quite well but perhaps rationale is not as strong as could be.

The explanation of the new brand is reasonable, but perhaps quite descriptive, rather than rational for its development.  May not provide any sources to support.

Information about the new brand is vague and hard to understand.  Lacks any supporting information/rationale.

Subject knowledge, understanding and application of brand management theories

(30%)

Brand management theory is applied consistently and critically throughout the report. It is used effectively to support the development of brand strategy and decisions. Excellent writing style that ensures theoretical perspective is well integrated in the strategy.   

A good integration of key concepts from brand management. Succinct and confident writing style that ensures theoretical perspective is effective and balanced.

Perhaps a more limited amount of theory than should be, but what is included has good rationale and attempt to apply the concept/frameworks.

Limited range of theory integrated – rationale often implied but the application of concept/frameworks is not included as effectively as could/should be.

Few if any models/frameworks included and the work has little foundation in theory. Will to varying degree show little/no rationale, and will not consider the brand plan well.

Analysis, evaluation and justification of brand development decisions

(20%)

Brand development decisions are explained and justified excellently. They are consistently and effectively supported by relevant theory and evidence. The brand’s marketing mix is thorough, consistent and linked with the overall brand strategy.

Decisions for the new brand are consistent with description/ rationale provided in introduction sections.   The brand’s marketing mix is consistent with the overall brand strategy.

Likely to have good considerations in paper, but not strongly justified or linked with target market.  The brand’s marketing mix is not always consistent with the overall brand strategy.

Decisions made may be logical and seem appropriate, but rationale is not provided strongly enough. The brand’s marketing mix is discussed, but not consistent with the overall brand strategy.

No real attempt to provide justification.  Probably could be too much descriptive information on the new brand and not enough on reasons for decisions in brand plan.  The brand’s marketing mix is briefly discussed but not linked to the overall brand strategy

Critical judgment and problem-solving skills in justifying the international branding strategy

(20%)

The international branding strategy is well explained and justified. The overseas market is chosen carefully and thoughtfully supported by supporting evidence. The elements of the brand that are standardised and adapted are discussed well and strongly justified.  

Will have incorporated secondary sources to support rationale of selecting an overseas market.  The international branding strategy is realistic and well-conceived.

Evidence of research and application of key theory.  Likely to offer additional sources to support rationale.  The international branding strategy brand is appropriate.

The justification of the selected overseas market may be relatively brief and not always supported by a rationale, or a strong theoretical perspective.   The international branding strategy is not consistent with the secondary data.

There is no or limited justification of the selected overseas market. It tends to be brief and includes information that is irrelevant or not logical. The international branding strategy is not considered or poorly explained and justified.

Quality and relevance of references/ supporting evidence

(10%)

An excellent range of information sources, including journal articles, textbooks and other good quality and reliable secondary data are utilised. The report adheres to the APA 7^th referencing style.

A very good range of references, from quality sources.  All that are cited are held in list and there is evidence of reading/research undertaken for assessment. The report adheres to the APA 7^th referencing style.

A good range of academic references presented in APA 7^th method.  

Quite a reasonable amount of sources included, but the quality of the sources may not be strong (e.g. internet sources of dubious quality, and not from reputable academic sources.  APA 7^th referencing is quite good,

though maybe not as wide

a range of sources used.

Referencing may be minimal or incomplete.  APA 7^th referencing system is not adhered to.  

Structure and presentation (10%)

A well-presented and well-structured paper with good identification of key sections. The report is easy to read and follow. Images are used to support ideas. An excellent range of references – all that are cited are presented in list.

A well-structured paper with good identification of key sections, typically using brand management themes to guide the paper where appropriate.  

Good presentation, using appropriate headings and good structure.  Any diagrams included are labelled.  Care and attention to detail are evident.

Report has relatively good presentation and remains within word limit.

Report may be over word limit.  Presentation may be poor, with little effort made.  Errors in spelling or inconsistency in format