代写MKIB340 Marketing & Digital Analytics代做R语言

MKIB340 Marketing & Digital Analytics

My Showcase Portfolio – Showcase/Task 1

Deadline: See the module’s Canvas homepage

Mode: Pair

Submission: Electronically via the submission link on Canvas (see the module’s Canvas homepage)

Maximum length: 1,000 words (Task descriptions, tables & charts, References, Appendix and code do not count towards the limit; there is no expectation that you max out the word limit)

Mark weight per task: 22.5% [+2.5% for professionalism; added at semester end]

Marking criteria and rubric: See at the end of this document (last page)

Enter Student ID(s) here

Student 1 ID	ENTER_HERE
Student 2 ID	ENTER_HERE

My Showcase Portfolio | Showcase/Task 1

Task Description

UGG Australia is interested in frequent search queries related to their brand. What can they learn from the queries, including regarding their marketing mix? How do the queries compare to those of their competitor Bearpaw? What are the implications of this comparison?

Notes: Download the files containing the search queries from Canvas (Task1_Ugg_search queries.csv and Task1_Bearpaw_search queries.csv). To solve this task, use the R code from the corresponding seminar and carefully change elements (e.g. search terms) where appropriate. Take the view of a digital marketing consultant who was hired by UGG Australia to help them to learn and generate relevant insights/implications from the search engine queries. Present and discuss your findings and recommendations on the basis of your analyses, displaying relevant charts and/or tables. Include two academic references in your discussion where they add value. Note that you are not asked to write an essay. Instead you write for a practitioner audience about your analysis findings: Be to the point and write about relevant insights and conclusions/recommendations. Show a certain breadth and depth in your analyses. Paste the R code that you have used to the Appendix of this document. The Appendix does not count towards the word limit. You can enter your response directly below or create a new document containing your response and References/Appendix, both options are equally fine.

Your response

References and Appendix

Notes: Provide a reference list for the academic sources that you have used in your discussion. Also, use this section to copy and paste your R code to that you have used for your analyses.

Marking Criteria and Rubric for Showcase Portfolio Tasks

Important Note (‘Rules of Play’): No drafts will be commented; feedback will be provided on the actual submission. However, you have multiple submissions and hence the ‘risk’ is small/moderate per submission. Questions on assignments are answered on the module’s Canvas Discussion Board, not via email (we need to avoid many duplicates) or in private meetings (we need to ensure a level-playing field, i.e. no tips behind closed-door). Importantly, questions related to the actual solution (e.g., ‘what is the best approach to answer the question?’, ‘which information/tables/data should I use?’, ‘how should I use Table X?’, ‘is my approach correct?’) will not directly be answered, since you are expected to come up with the solution yourself and make the necessary judgment calls. Expect a little push back when you repeatedly ask these types of questions. Do not misread this as a lack of support, the opposite is true as we do this for pedagogical reasons: It is important that you practice making these calls independently and then receive feedback for them; recall the skills that we want to develop (e.g. resilience, problem solving) which unfortunately you will not develop if the answer is always directly being given to you. Having said this, the module is designed so that the assessment brief and the corresponding sessions (lecture and seminar) equip you with, at least, the starting points required to solve the task. However, independent thinking will be required and you will need to demonstrate this (and, as discussed, this is not by trying to drag the solution or specific approaches out of the lecturer/seminar leader). We need to ensure that the tasks are sufficiently challenging and the ‘challenge bit’ is the judgement calls (incl. which data to use or in what way to use it) that you are required to make to complete the task.

Marking Criteria

· Quality of the analysis (approx. 35% weight).
Checklist for self-assessment of your response:

o Does your analysis intuitively make sense?

o Is a clear logic being provided regarding the rationales for why certain aspects are analysed?

o Does the chronology of the analytical steps make sense?

o Do you analyse relevant aspects for the scenario/company at hand (vs are you just going with default settings to get the task over with)?

o Are you making good use of the available data? E.g., do you provide a certain depth where this is interesting? Do you provide a certain breadth, i.e. not miss out on analyses that would be valuable in the scenario?

o Are your conclusions and recommendations clearly based on your analyses? Strong recommendations must come from the data and analyses.

· Relevance for manager audience (approx. 35% weight).
Checklist for self-assessment of your response:

o Are your analyses and your discussion of findings interesting for a manager audience?

o Do you analyse aspects that would be of interest for the scenario/company (vs are you presenting default analyses that are not tailored to the scenario)?

o Do you discuss your analyses concrete enough, e.g. by referring to specific examples from the data to make your analyses tangible?

o Are you interpreting your findings and substantiate why they should be of interest to the company?

o Are you translating your findings into marketing mix implications for managers, i.e. explain to them why they should care / what is the value of your analyses?

o Are you making it easy for readers to follow your analyses and arguments?

o Are you using a structure that aids comprehension (e.g. the pyramid principle)?

o Are your conclusions and recommendations clearly based on your analyses? Convincing recommendations must come from the data and your analyses.

o Are you making good use of the data, convincing managers that you have done a thorough job?

· Structure and form (approx. 20% weight).
Checklist for self-assessment of your response:

o Does the discussion have a logical structure / flow?

o Is it easy for the reader to follow?

o Are the analyses and conclusions/recommendations clearly linked?

o Are references provided where they add value (vs including irrelevant reference somewhere in the text just to get it over with)?

o Is the text free from spelling errors, i.e. feels like it has been proof read multiple times before submission?

· [General professionalism (approx. 10% weight). Note: Will be added at semester end. This criterion is critical due to the module’s focus on ‘employability’ for which professionalism is key

Checklist for self-assessment:

o Do you show a solid work ethic towards the module and your learning? E.g., did you attend all the relevant lectures (= our ‘work meetings’) for the task? Did you attend the relevant seminars (= our ‘work meetings’)?

o Do you demonstrate that you want to learn (vs ‘no can do’ attitude or ‘I can’t do this / it’s too difficult / it’s all unclear and confusing’ mindset)? E.g., do you ask ‘informed’ questions, i.e. reflecting that you have completed the lectures and seminar materials (vs very basic questions that one could easily answer oneself using the information provided on Canvas and in the module material)? Do your questions demonstrate a minimum level of own thinking, e.g. by stating what you have tried/considered to solve the question vs are they blunt short-cut attempts in the sense of ‘I am confused, therefore tell me what the solution is’?

o Does your work reflect that you have done the readings?

o Does your work reflect that you work continuously on the module contents instead of leaving tasks until very late and completing them ad-hoc without having developed the proper skills, depth and reflection?

o Do you demonstrate a solid understanding that the module is focused on practitioner-directed (vs theory-focussed) contents and solutions (e.g. we do not write essays in this module)?

]

General Marking Rubric (more abstract than the criteria listed above since the rubric’s purpose is to provide overarching/generalizable guidance across specific criteria)

Marks range	Description
90 – 100%	Comprehensive and authoritative response; reflective, perceptive, well-structured, showing significant originality in ideas or argument. Hard to identify gaps or suggestions for improvement. Excellent standard of presentation of ideas and well-written.
80 – 89%	Comprehensive response; well-structured, clearly argued, signs of originality and/or independent critical analytical ability. Few gaps or suggestions for improvement. Excellent standard of presentation of ideas and well-written.
70 – 79%	Good response; well-focused, knowledgeable, well-written. Possibly some weaknesses but compensated for by a high level of achievement upon other criteria.
60 – 69%	Well-structured and well-focused answer. Some weaknesses but excellent standard of presentation of ideas.
50 – 59%	Competently structured answer, reasonably well-focused and comprehensive but tending to be descriptive in approach. Certain weaknesses but good standard of presentation of ideas.
40 – 49%	Descriptive in approach, limited knowledge and understanding of the subject matter displayed; partial and/or containing significant errors and/or irrelevancies; poorly structured. Content weaknesses and the presentation of ideas could be improved.
0 – 39%	Inadequate execution of the brief. Highly partial and/or containing serious errors; contents partly or substantially irrelevant. Poorly structured. Displays little knowledge of the subject matter. A number of weaknesses and the presentation of ideas needs to be improved.