代写MARK5814 T2-2024 Assessment Information代做留学生SQL 程序

MARK5814 T2-2024 Assessment Information

21 May 2024

5.  Individual Assignment – Digital Marketing Evaluation Report (30%)

Due date:       16:00, Thursday, 8 August 2024.

Word limit:   Maximum 2,500 words (All included except UNSW assignment cover sheet,

references, and appendices). Submission:   To TurnitinTM  via Moodle.

Task:

This report is designed to help you reflect on your own experiences as a consumer being  targeted by a specific brand through its digital marketing activities. The brand can be any brand with which you have had multiple engagement, purchasing, or consumption experiences. For example, it could be a fashion brand, an online marketplace, an online game, a food delivery service, or an online streaming service. Ideally, you should select a brand where some forms of digital engagement exist. By recording and analyzing your own experiences, particularly in reference to the theories of digital marketing, you should begin to evaluate the effectiveness of certain digital marketing efforts.

For this assignment, you are required to discuss your experiences with the digital marketing activities of your chosen brand. The digital marketing activities may include, for example, social media marketing, mobile app marketing, content marketing, email and SMS marketing, referral marketing, and/or display advertising, aimed at increasing your engagement with the   brand. Critically discuss and analyse the activities based on the digital marketing theories and concepts studied in MARK5814 and support with good secondary data.

Format and instruction:

Please include: The School of Marketing Assignment Cover Sheet as the first page

Executive summary:

You should only briefly summarise the digital marketing activities experienced, digital marketing theories discussed, and key recommendation(s) proposed. This should be no more than half a page. Have a separate page for the executive summary.

1. Description of the digital marketing activities experienced.

Describe your chosen brand (focus on only one brand, the brand can be any firm or organisation) and its business model. Describe in detail what specific digital marketing activities the brand has done to engage you. Document each digital marketing activity experienced and what value you received from each activity (e.g., quality value, economic value, social value, emotional value). Discuss at least two digital marketing activities. You are also required to give an overall engagement rating and whether you would recommend this brand to a close friend or family member (all using 5-point scales).

This section should be no more than 800 words.

2. Analyse and evaluate the digital marketing activities experienced.

Analyse and evaluate the digital marketing activities using relevant digital marketing theories (concepts, frameworks and/or models) and support this with good secondary data.

In addition to the MARK5814 text, you should at least read and refer to two recent academic journal articles (published after 2016, excluding 2016) that are related to the digital marketing theories you are going to apply to analyse your experience and form. your recommendation(s)  and implementation.

This section should be no more than 800 words.

3. Recommendation(s) and implementation

Based on the analysis, make a recommendation for improvement - or if your evaluation was a very positive one, then indicate what lessons could be passed on to other brands. By applying digital marketing theories, you should briefly make a recommendation on how the brand may improve their digital marketing activities. However, do not recommend theory or ideas in this section. Practical and specific recommendation(s) are required. Recommendation(s) should

be evaluated in terms of its advantages and disadvantages (strong and weak points) and you need to justify your recommendation(s). No more than two recommendations should be made. Use valid supporting evidence to argue why such recommendations are practical and useful.

In this section you should specifically explain how you would implement the recommended solutions. What should be done, by whom, when, in what sequence, what it will cost (rough  estimates) and other such issues.

Remember, if a recommended solution cannot be realistically implemented, then it is not a solution at all.

This section should be no more than 800 words.

4. Reference list

5. Appendix (if applicable)

•   You are free to include an appendix; however, no mark is allocated to the information contained in the appendix.

Additional format requirements:

•   Font: Headings - Font size: 14; main text - Font size: 12. Times New Roman is preferable.

•   Margin: 2.5 cm.

•   Space: Double-spaced throughout the paper, except the Executive Summary.

•   Presentation style. for Executive Summary: Font size: 12, 1.5 spaced, no more than half a page.

•   This course uses in-text referencing, for more information also see UNSW Business School Harvard Referencing Guide available on the Moodle course website.

You must reference all non-original work, e.g., if you take an idea from an academic journal article, book, magazine, or website, you must reference it. Do not reference lecture notes/PowerPoint, you must go to the original source, i.e., book, article, magazine, website.

Marking rubric:

CRITERIA	FAIL	PASS	CREDIT	DISTINCTION	HIGH DISTINCTION
Level of summary, research, referencing, presentation style. and formatting (30%)	Poorly research. No appropriate referencing. Inconsistent presentation styles through all parts.	Research adequate. Correct referencing. Some inconsistent presentation styles through all parts.	Research good. Correct referencing. Consistent presentation styles through all parts.	Researched very well (multiple good sources). Correct referencing. Consistent presentation styles through all parts.	Research  excellent. Correct referencing. Consistent presentation    styles through all parts. Appropriate    use of tables   and diagrams.
Coherent, professional and logically structured analysis and recommendations (50%)	No clear logic or flow to the report. No application of    course concepts or models in problem identification,   analysis and/or solution identification.	Some structure for the report, though relatively poor integration  between report parts. Little support among report parts. Some application of    course concepts or models in problem identification,   analysis and/or solution identification.	Good logical structure flow for the report and from one report part to another. Some support among report parts. Good application of course concepts or models in problem identification, analysis and/or solution identification.	Well-structured   report, reflecting high level of integration among different report parts. Good support among report parts. Very good application of course concepts or models in problem identification,   analysis and/or solution identification.	Well- structured,  synthesised into a rich   report. Excellent logical structured analysis and flow from one report part to   another. Excellent support among report parts. Excellent application of course concepts or models in problem identification, analysis and/or solution identification.
Clear, concise, insightful writing (20%)	Poor level of reflected understanding. Inaccurate expression making meaning unclear.	Basic effort in reflecting understanding. Inaccurate expression making meaning sometimes unclear.	Some insightful reflection. Expression generally    accurate.	Insightful  reflection.  Consistent expression making meaning concise and clear.	Exceptionally insightful (reflected understanding). Fluent expression making it very easy to read and comprehend.