Faculty of Business & Management

Richmond University, the American International University
London
Faculty of Business & Management
Assessment Brief 2020/21
Page 1 of 8

B: Learning Outcomes

• Examine the micro and macro environment of digital marketplace. • Critically assess emerging new technologies, their relevance and potential for short and long-term brand building strategies. • Integrate traditional marketing with digital marketing to achieve strategic objectives.

C: Assessment Task

Task 1 Using an organisation of your choice, identify and critically evaluate PESTEL factors influencing the success of their digital marketing campaigns. Use relevant theories to illustrate your answer. (30 Marks) Task 2 Critically evaluate and analyse the effectiveness of the social web for building brands. Compare two organisations of your choice to demonstrate your arguments. (30 marks) Task 3 Critically analyse how modern organisations integrate traditional marketing with digital marketing to achieve strategic objectives. Provide four advantages and four disadvantages for traditional and digital marketing. Illustrate your analysis with relevant examples and Marketing theory. (40 marks) Total word count 2500; weighting 50%

A: Assessment Details
Module Title	Digital Marketing Strategy
Module Code	MKT 6800
Module Leader	Dr John Davies
Component Number	Assessment 1 (Mid-term assessment)
Assessment Type, Word Count & Weighting	Coursework; 2500 words; 50% weighting
Submission Deadline	7th December 2020
Submission Instructions	Written assignments to be submitted on Turnitin on or before midday on day of the submission deadline.
Feedback Return Date	W/c 14th December 2020

Richmond University, the American International University
London
Faculty of Business & Management
Assessment Brief 2020/21
Page 2 of 8

D: Specific Criteria/Guidance

You are required to answer all three questions consisting of 50% weighting. In your report bring industry relevant examples and marketing theories to enhance your arguments. Module Assessment Achievement of learning outcome will be assessed via a coursework assignment essay. The assessment will require students to demonstrate theoretical understanding and practical relevance. At this level you are expected to confidently engage with the journal debate relating to the relevant areas of interest and interrogate your reading in an analytical and critical manner. Assessment Criteria As students on this module you will be assessed on the breadth, depth and understanding of theoretical knowledge and the ability to relate this to analysing and debating digital marketing challenges, themes and issues. An ability to apply theory to practice is essential in this module. You will be expected to present your findings via persuasive and convincing arguments in an appropriate format, underpinned with relevant supporting references. Assignment. This is an individual piece of work which you must execute on your own.

E: Key Resources

Essential Reading; CHAFFEY, D. (2019). DIGITAL MARKETING (7th ed.). Harlow, England: PEARSON EDUCATION Limited. Recommended reading • Hanlon, A. (2019). Digital marketing (1st ed.). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. • Jobber, D., & Ellis-Chadwick, F. (2016). Principles and practice of marketing (8th ed.). London: McGraw-Hill Education. • Kingsnorth, S. (2016). Digital marketing strategy (1st ed.). London: Kogan Page. • Strauss, J. & Frost, R. (2011). E-marketing. (6th ed.) [Pearson. • Ryan, D., (2014). Understanding digital marketing. London: Kogan Page. Journals Journal of Internet Marketing and Advertising 1. Internet Marketing Journal UK: 2. Web Marketing Today 3. International Journal of online Marketing 4. Journal of Marketing Research.

Richmond University, the American International University
London
Faculty of Business & Management
Assessment Brief 2020/21
Page 3 of 8

5. Journals Journal of Direct and Social Media Marketing.

F: Submission Guidance

• Students should submit work before 12 noon on the deadline date via the appropriate ‘Turnitin submission’ link on the Moodle module page. Please check your email confirmation to ensure you have submitted to the correct place. • Assessments should be submitted in Microsoft Word (.doc and .docx), Microsoft PowerPoint (.ppt, .pptx. .pps and .ppsx), Excel (.xls and .xlsx) or PDF format (generated from the word-processing or presentation software you are using, not a scanned document. Do not upload Open Office documents (.odt, .odp). • The file must be no larger than 40MB. Please refer to Help with Assignment Submission section on Moodle for further guidance on online submissions.

G: Document Format

• The font size must be a minimum of point 12 Calibri (or equivalent). • Line spacing in the body of the assessment must be 1.5 lines. • Include the following details written on the first page: Title of your work Module title and code Your student assessment number (J Number). Do not write your name or your student number. Word count (Please note penalties for excess word count) Module Leader and Seminar Tutor (if relevant) • Number the pages consecutively.

H: Academic Integrity and Penalties

It is your responsibility to ensure that you are familiar with all of the information contained in this brief as failure to do this may impact on your achievement. Please refer to the various Assessment Guidance below for detailed information on: • Academic Integrity

Richmond University, the American International University
London
Faculty of Business & Management
Assessment Brief 2020/21
Page 4 of 8

• Reference Guide • Excess Word Count Penalties • Richmond University Late Work Penalties: Unless you have an extension, any work submitted past the assessment deadline will be subject to a penalty as per university regulations. • Mitigating Circumstances: Please refer to the latest University guidance if for any legitimate reason you are unable to meet the assessment deadline.

I: Marking Criteria

Please see attached rubric for marking criteria.

Generic Marking Criteria for levels 4, 5 and 6 APPENDIX 5E

The assessment criteria are used to measure student performance: how well you have fulfilled the specific learning outcomes of the module. The same criteria can apply to each level, because the learning outcomes are graduated by level. The learning outcomes at different levels define the complexity of understanding and skills that you must achieve in that module. The criteria offer descriptions of standards of achievement relating to four types of learning outcome, and four separate charts of these appear below: • Knowledge and understanding • Cognitive skills • Practical or professional skills • Communication skills. There are various descriptors under these headings, describing different aspects of understanding or skill. Assessors use the ones that apply to the particular outcomes you should demonstrate: if the learning outcomes of your module do not require (for example) practical skills, then those criteria do not apply. Because not all of the criteria will apply to each module, different departments and faculties in the University may customise these criteria to describe how they apply to your particular area of study or to a particular type of assessment. They may also customise them to show how they interpret and apply them at different levels (4–6). In these cases, they will publish the criteria for you to see. These discipline-specific, task-specific and level specific criteria will always conform to the institutional criteria set out here: they will specify, not contradict them.

The University classifies Honours Degrees and awards Foundation Degrees (FD) with Distinction and Merit. A brief summary of the broad characteristics of each class is given here, but you should consult the full grids below to fill out the detail and full range of descriptors. Classifications are made at the point of award, using a formula set out in the Principles and Regulations. Further details and examples may be found on the Registry Services Portal pages. Honours Degrees1st 2.1 2.2 3rd FailFoundation DegreesDistinction Merit Pass Pass FailKnowledge and under standingExcellent command of highly relevant, extensively researched material; very sound understanding of complexities.Clear, sound understanding of subject matter; breadth and depth of material, accurate and relevant.Basic knowledge sound but may be patchy; reasonable range of source material.Limited consistency of depth and accuracy of detail; background material relevant but over-reliant on few sources.Content may be thin or irrelevant; scant evidence of background investigation.Cognitive skillsConvincing ability to synthesise a range of views or information and integrate references sophisticated perception, critical insight & interpretation; logical, cogent development of argument.Ability to synthesise a range of views or information and incorporate references; perceptive, thoughtful interpretation; well reasoned discussion; coherent argument.Evidence of drawing information together; ideas tend to be stated rather than developed; attempt made to argue logically with supporting evidence, although some claims may be unsubstantiated.Limited perspective or consideration of alternative views largely descriptive; some ability to construct an argument but may lack clarity or conviction, with unsupported assertion.Superficial use of information; explanations may be muddled at times; poorly structured, little logic; may have unsubstantiated conclusions based on generalisation.Communic ation skillsVery clear, fluent, sophisticated and confident expression; highly effective vocabulary and style; near perfect spelling, punctuation and syntax.Clear, fluent, confident expression; appropriate vocabulary and style; high standard of accuracy in spelling, punctuation and syntax.Clearly written, coherent expression; reasonable range of vocabulary and adequate style; overall competence in spelling, punctuation and syntax.Expression, vocabulary and style reasonably clear but lack sophistication; inaccuracies in spelling, syntax and punctuation do not usually interfere with meaning.Expression of ideas insufficient to convey clear meaning; inaccurate or unprofessional terminology; many errors in spelling, punctuation and syntax.

KNOWLEDGE & UNDERSTANDING	90–100 (1st class/FD Distinction	80–89 (1st class/ FD Distinction)	70–79 (1st class/FD Distinction)	60–69 (upper second/FD Merit)	50–59 (lower second/FD Pass)	40–49 (third class/FD Pass)	30—39 (Fail/FD Fail)	20–29 (Fail/FD Fail)	10–19 (Fail/FD Fail)	0–9 (Fail/FD Fail)
Understanding of subject matter and theory 30%	Work produced could hardly be bettered when produced under parallel conditions	Sophisticated understanding of complexities of key theoretical models, concepts and arguments	Excellent, very sound understanding of complexities of key theoretical models, concepts and arguments	Clear, sound understanding of subject matter, theory, issues and debate	Reasonable level of understanding of subject matter, theory and ideas; main issues satisfactorily understood	Partial understanding of subject matter, core concepts and relevant issues; basic reference to theory	Very little understanding of subject matter, ideas and issues; may be issue of misreading/ misinterpretation of question	Significant weaknesses and gaps in understanding of subject matter, ideas and issues; misunderstanding of question	Devoid of understanding of subject matter, ideas and issues	No relevant understanding evident; response to question virtually nil

COGNITIVE SKILLS	90–100 (1st class/FD Distinction)	80–89 (1st class/FD Distinction)	70–79 (1st class/FD Distinction)	60–69 (upper second/FD Merit)	50–59 (lower second/FD Pass)	40–49 (third class/FD Pass)	30—39 (Fail/FD Fail)	20–29 (Fail/FD Fail)	10–19 (Fail/FD Fail)	0–9 (Fail/FD Fail)
Interpretation of information 25%	Work produced could hardly be bettered when produced under parallel conditions	Sophisticated perception, critical insight and interpretation	Excellent perception, critical insight and interpretation	Perceptive, thoughtful interpretation	Sound explanation; this may be partly descriptive and factual; ideas tend to be stated rather than developed	Some interpretation or insight; may be largely descriptive, or superficial; over reliance on narrative or anecdote for explanation	Little attempt to interpret material, or merely descriptive; explanations may be muddled at times	Purely descriptive; very limited discussion	Any attempt at discussion limited to personal view; no discernible insight	No interpretation of information
Structure and argument 30%	Work produced could hardly be bettered when produced under parallel conditions	Authoritative and persuasive argument	Excellent organisation of ideas; clear, coherent structure and logical, cogent development of argument	Logically structured; good organisation of ideas; well reasoned discussion; coherent argument	Reasonable structure; organisation may lack some logical progression; attempt made to argue logically with supporting evidence, although some claims may be unsubstantiated	Basic structure; may be some repetition or deviation; some ability to construct an argument but may lack clarity or conviction, with unsupported assertion	Poorly structured, little logic; may have unsubstantiated conclusions based on generalisation	Structure confused or incomplete; poor if any relationship between introduction, middle and conclusion; lack of evidence to support views expressed	Lack of recognisable structure or reference to argument; no related evidence or conclusions	Lack of evidence of reasoning

PRACTICAL OR PROFESSIONAL SKILLS

90–100 (1st class/FD Distinction)

80–89 (1st class/FD Distinction)

70–79 (1st class/FD Distinction)

60–69 (upper second/FD Merit)

50–59 (lower second/FD Pass)

40–49 (third class/FD Pass)

30—39 (Fail/FD Fail)

20–29 (Fail/FD Fail)

10–19 (Fail/FD Fail)

0–9 (Fail/FD Fail)

COMMUNICATION SKILLS	90–100 (1st class/FD Distinction)	80–89 (1st class/FD Distinction)	70–79 (1st class/FD Distinction)	60–69 (upper second/FD Merit)	50–59 (lower second/FD Pass)	40–49 (third class/FD Pass)	30—39 (Fail/FD Fail)	20–29 (Fail/FD Fail)	10–19 (Fail/FD Fail)	0–9 (Fail/FD Fail)
Written vocabulary and style 5%	Exceptional clarity and coherence; highly	Extremely well written, with accuracy and flair; Highly	Very clear, fluent, sophisticated and confident expression; highly	Clear, fluent, confident expression; appropriate	Clearly written, coherent expression;	Expression, vocabulary and style reasonably	Expression of ideas insufficient to convey clear meaning;	Lack of clarity, very poor expression; style inappropriate,	Inaccuracies of expression and vocabulary render meaning	Incoherent expression

sophisticated expression; work produced could hardly be bettered when produced under parallel conditions	sophisticated, fluent and persuasive expression of ideas	effective vocabulary and style	vocabulary and style	reasonable range of vocabulary and adequate style	clear but lack sophistication	inaccurate or unprofessional terminology	terminology inadequate and inappropriate	of written work extremely unclear
Referencing 5%	All sources acknowledged and meticulously presented	All sources acknowledged and meticulously presented	All sources acknowledged and meticulously presented	Sources acknowledged and accurately presented	Sources acknowledged and referencing mostly accurate	Sources acknowledged; references not always correctly cited/presented	Referencing incomplete or inaccurate	Referencing inaccurate or absent	No attempt at referencing	No attempt at referencing
Presentation skills 5%	Complete accuracy in presentation; highly autonomous, thorough and well-managed approach	Great clarity and maturity of presentation; independence in extensive planning and preparation	High standard of presentation; evidence of thorough planning, preparation and organisation	Good standard of presentation; well-organised; relevant planning and preparation	Presentation generally sound, maybe some weaknesses; fairly good organisation, planning and preparation	Some confidence in presentation, with some lapses; adequate organisation, planning and preparation	Few presentation skills; weaknesses of organisation, planning and preparation	Ineffective presentation skills; serious deficiency in organisation, planning and preparation	Inadequate presentation skills; almost no evidence of organisation, planning or preparation	Presentation totally ineffective; no evidence of organisation, planning or preparation