Integrated Marketing Communications Plan and Critical Analysis for Global Organisation and Animal We

Submission Requirements

In order to achieve full marks, you must submit your work before the deadline. Work that is submitted late – up to five working days after the published submission deadline - will be accepted and marked. However, the element of the module’s assessment to which the work contributes will be capped with a maximum mark of 40%.

Your work must indicate the number of words you have used. Written assignments mustnot exceed the specified maximum number of words. When a written assignment is marked, the excessive use of words beyond the word limit is reflected in the academic judgement of the piece of work which results in a lower mark being awarded for the piece of work (regulation 6.74).

Assignment submissions are to be made anonymously. Do not write your name anywhere on your work.

Where the assignment comprises more than one task, all tasks must be submitted in a single document.

TASK ONE

Select one GLOBAL organisation in a Consumer market.

For the selected company you are required to do the following: Critically analyse and evaluate the current marketing communications strategy within the UK. Your evaluation must include an assessment of how successfully social networks have been used as part of its integrated marketing communications effort.

TASK TWO

You have been appointed as a Marketing Communications Manager for a new animal welfare charity whose main focus is to use digital technologies to raise funds and increase the number of donors.

Prepare an integrated marketing communication plan to enable them to launch the charity in June 2021.

You must use academic theory and other robust sources to support your text, and any theory used should be applied to the context of the scenario.

You must use in-text citations to evidence your work, in addition to producing a full list of references in the bibliography. All of these should conform to Harvard Referencing format. The bulk of this text should be your own original work, and should not be excessively paraphrased.

Marks will be awarded as follows

A poor answer (39% and below (Fail) misses the point of the task and fails to address the requirements listed in the brief, either entirely or to a significant degree. Expression is simplistic and vague. The answer is unstructured and also fails to use any academic support, with no citations or reference list in evidence. Answer demonstrates no analysis question and is simply a templated solution taken from other sources. Answer lacks significant originality.

A basic answer (40 – 49%) addresses some of the issues and demonstrates limited knowledge of appropriate theory, but at a superficial level. It demonstrates difficulties with structure and contains some gaps in understanding. Expression lacks maturity and use of professional terminology. The material is not arranged in a user friendly, logical format. The delivery system of the programme is unclear and there are minor inaccuracies in any financial information.

A satisfactory answer (50-59%) addresses a large amount of the questions and demonstrates a sound, basic knowledge of theory, but with some minor omissions in content and minor inaccuracies in expression. Structure is largely logical. There is an attempt to analyse and evidence that the solution has been tailored to a fair degree. Use of theory and evidence is reasonably good but with room left to strengthen the credibility.

A good answer (60-69%) adopts a logical structure and addresses almost all of the questions using virtually all appropriate theory that relates. Knowledge appears be sound. The report is supported by a good variety of robust academic and industry sources. Omissions and inaccuracies are minor. Analysis and evaluation are done well, but lacks some depth, detail and sophistication.

An excellent/outstanding answer (70%+) identifies all the key issues within the question and makes extensive use of appropriate theory in providing a credible solution. Structures are logical and the proposal is easy to follow and digest. Relevant theory and industry practice are used to produce well-supported recommendations. Grammar and academic skills are of  a high standard, and analysis and evaluation are consistently delivered throughout, with sophisticated use ofmaterials. An extensive range of sources have been used in a highly sophisticated manner.

An exceptional answer (80%+) Faultless work in terms of presentation and academic skills, and the overall credibility of the proposal is extremely high, to the extent that it might be used as a template for a future industry document. The level of detail included in the plans and schematics is exceptional without being overcrowded or confusing.