MECM30013 Marketing Communications – Assessment Guide
Semester 1, 2024
Assignment 2 (30%): Campaign Analysis
Words: 1200 words (+/- 10%)
This is an individual assignment.
This assignment consists of:
· A 1200-word report that analyses an integrated marketing communications campaign (IMC) by a brand or company of your choice.
A suggested outline for this report:
|
Description of campaign
|
About 50 - 100 words
|
|
Situation analysis & objectives
|
About 100 - 150 words
|
|
Target market/audience
|
About 100 - 120 words
|
|
Message and media analysis
|
About 500 - 600 words
|
|
Evaluation and recommendations
|
About 200 - 250 words
|
The title page, references and appendix will not be included in your word count.
This assignment will ask you to choose a recent integrated marketing communications campaign (IMC) by a brand or company of your choice and analyse it using the key concepts of this course. You will provide an overview of the campaign, describing the media executions used in the campaign, complete a situation analysis, define the objectives of the campaign, analyse the target market and audience for the campaign, analyse the messages and media executions used in the campaign, and finally, evaluate the overall success of the campaign and make recommendations for how the campaign could have been improved.
You are expected to use the course textbook, readings and your own independent research to describe, analyse and evaluate the IMC. You will be assessed on your understanding of key concepts from Weeks 1 – 9. If you need to revise these, there are summaries of key concepts at the beginning and end of all lecture slides in this subject.
Please remember: one or two media executions do not make an IMC! An IMC contains multiple media executions all working in an integrated way to communicate a single message. One ad or influencer post is not an IMC.
Criteria
When we mark your assignment, we will pay attention to the following aspects:
· Appropriate use of key concepts in the course
· Quality of analysis and argument
· Use of relevant resources (quality of research)
· Quality of writing.
A detailed rubric is provided below.
Other things to consider
· An introduction is not required.
· Use subheadings to indicate the main components of the report.
· There is a late penalty of 5% per day.
· References: (also see https://library.unimelb.edu.au/reference-management)
o Reference style. APA, Chicago, Harvard or Vancouver (as long as the reference style. is consistent, we are happy)
o We would generally expect 10 or more references for a report of this type. Make sure to cite the course textbook and course readings, as well as your own independent research
o The quality of resources is also important. For example, if you rely on an outdated or less credible information source (e.g., a blog or social media article), that won't be considered a "high quality" resource.
o Your reference section must only include those references that you have actually used and cited in your essay
o Reference everything that is not your own work or idea
o Do not reference lecture slides (e.g., "According to Lecture 5…”). Citing lecture slides doesn't make your report look professional. A better way to write a professional report is to reference academic or professional sources through your own research.
Rubric for Assignment 2
|
Group Presentation
|
Well above standard
21 - 25
|
Above standard
19 - 21
|
At standard
17 - 19
|
Near standard
13 - 17
|
Below standard
1 - 13
|
|
Appropriateness of content and use of key concepts 25%
*Campaign is current (2023 – 2024)
*Report articulates how campaign used a mix of media executions to communicate the same Big Idea
*Report highlights all aspects of the IMC
*Correct identification of key concepts – i.e. describes what PR is and doesn’t confuse it with influencer marketing
|
Campaign meets the criteria of an IMC and is current. The report clearly describes all elements of the campaign and demonstrates how the Big Idea was communicated through multiple executions. Defines terminology with aplomb.
|
Campaign meets the criteria of an IMC and is current. The report is mostly clear in its description of all elements of the campaign and demonstrates how the Big Idea was communicated through multiple executions. Defines terminology mostly correctly.
|
Campaign may not meet with criteria of an IMC and/or may not be current. Elements of the IMC may have been skipped over or left out and it is not always clear how the Big Idea was communicated. Terminology may have been incorrect or confused in places.
|
Campaign may not meet with criteria of an IMC and/or may not be current. Elements of the IMC have been skipped over or left out and it is not clear how the Big Idea was communicated. Terminology was incorrect or confused in places.
|
Campaign does not meet with criteria of an IMC and/or is not current. Elements of the IMC are not described, and it is not clear how the Big Idea was communicated. Terminology is incorrect or confused.
|
|
Analysis and argument (25%)
*Analysis of key concepts from course materials
*Understanding of IMC (based on the course material and independent research)
*Evaluation and analysis of situation, objectives, target audience, message and media, evaluation and recommendation.
|
The report demonstrates nuanced and insightful analysis of key concepts. Argument is insightful and clear. There is a clear understanding of IMC. A keen and thorough evaluation of the campaign in relation to each element of integrated marketing communications.
|
The report conducts a good analysis of key concepts. Argument is clear. An understanding of IMC is mostly demonstrated. The evaluation of the campaign in relation to each element of integrated marketing communications is strong.
|
There is an attempt at an analysis of key concepts but this could have been stronger (description vs analysis). Argument is somewhat confused or needs a bit more clarity. A clearer understanding of IMC might have been needed. The evaluation the campaign in relation to integrated marketing communications was okay but could have been stronger.
|
There are problems with the analysis of key concepts. Argument is not present or needs a lot of work. The report does not fully demonstrate an understanding of IMC. More effort needed to be paid to evaluating the campaign in relation to integrated marketing communications.
|
There is little or no attempt to engage with key concepts in this report. There is no attempt at a cohesive argument. The report unfortunately does not demonstrate an understanding of IMC. There also may not have been an evaluation of the campaign in relation to integrated marketing communications.
|
|
Research 25%
*Engagement with subject material
*Independent research into client
*Proper use of academic/professional source in your content strategy
|
Detailed and clear engagement with subject material. Course textbook and readings are cited and clearly understood. It is clear that thorough independent research has been conducted. Use of academic and professional sources is rigorous and impressive.
|
The report engages well with subject material. Course textbook and readings are cited. Independent research is evident. There is a mostly good use of academic and professional sources in the content strategy.
|
The report demonstrates some engagement with subject material. The course textbook OR readings are cited. Independent research has been conducted but perhaps could have been stronger. Academic and professional sources have been used but perhaps could be further utilised.
|
The report needed more engagement with the subject material. The course textbook and/or readings were not cited. Perhaps there was not enough (or any) independent research. There were not enough academic and/or professional sources.
|
There was no clear engagement with the subject matter in this report. The course textbook and/or readings were not cited. It was not clear that independent research had been conducted into the client. Perhaps there are no academic or professional sources used.
|
|
Writing (25%)
*Structure and flow
*Expression
*Style. fit
*Grammar and punctuation
|
Structure is logical, flows well and meets every guideline. Expression used in the writing is perfectly appropriate for the subject matter. The style. of writing fits report conventions with aplomb. There are no grammar or punctuation mistakes.
|
Structure is mostly logical, flows well and meets most of the guidelines. Expression used in the writing matches the subject matter. The style. of writing fits strategic report conventions well. There are very few grammar or punctuation mistakes.
|
Structure could use some tightening and/or missed a couple of the guidelines. Expression was a good effort at matching the subject but could use a few tweaks. The style. of writing was mostly a fit for report conventions. There are a few grammar and/or punctuation mistakes.
|
Structure was difficult to follow and did not quite meet the guidelines. Expression needs to be worked on as it did not match the subject matter. The style. of writing needs some work to be a fit for report conventions. There are many grammar and/or punctuation mistakes.
|
This report does not have a discernible structure and did not meet the guidelines. Expression was poor and needs work to match the subject matter. The style. was not clear and/or there were many grammar and/or punctuation mistakes.
|