MARK3082
Strategic Marketing
Term 3, 2025
Assessment 1: Class contribution
All week(s)
14%
In tutorials and lectures
Description of assessment task
MARK3082 is a highly hands-on course, grounded in a strong theoretical foundation. We will reinforce theory through discussions that build on course readings and pre-work.
Starting in Week 2, you are expected to come to lectures and tutorials prepared to discuss and/or apply specific theories or concepts from the assigned readings and Moodle pre-work. Each week, your lecturer and tutor will record your contributions. The maximum credit you can earn for discussions is 14%.
Contribution formula:
Up to 16 points for case study discussions in tutorials ( up to 4 points per case study)
Up to 3 points for simulation outcomes
Up to 3 points for lecture discussions
Maximum: 14 points
In Week 5, you will receive individual feedback from your tutor on your current points for case study discussions.
Assessment 2: Quizzes
Week 4 (during lecture)
Week 10 (during lecture)
16% (8% + 8%)
Quiz
60 minutes
Via Moodle course site
Description of assessment task
You will have two quizzes, one in Week 4 and one in Week 10, each consisting of 10 multiple-choice questions. All questions will relate to mini-case studies. Your goal is to apply the knowledge you have acquired in the weekly lectures, tutorials, and readings to these mini-case studies.
Format
Quizzes will be accessible via Moodle. Each quiz will be available for one hour at the beginning of the lecture. After the quiz, we will have the regular lecture for that week’s topic.
Assessment 3: Reflections
Week 5
Week 10
40% (20% + 20%)
Written response
Reflection A:1500, Reflection B: 1500 words (+/- 10%)
Via Moodle course site
Description of assessment task
During tutorials, you will work in a pre-defined group on a strategic marketing simulation. Your group will represent the executive branch of a company and will aim to make decisions that will maximise your company’s performance.
The simulation consists of 8 rounds. For each round, you will be provided with new information, which you will use to inform. marketing budgetary decisions. At the end of every round, your decisions’ impact on your company’s performance will be evaluated and you will receive new information for the following round.
In the reflection pieces, you will be asked to reflect on a) the simulation decisions made until that point, and b) the teamwork related to the management of the company. There will be two reflection parts: Reflection A and B.
Specific questions for both reflections will be available on Moodle at least one week prior to the assessment deadline. Although the simulation is a group activity, the reflection is an individual assessment – you will have to answer the reflection questions and submit your answers individually.
Format
1500 words (+/-10%), must be 1.5 line spaced, 2.5 cm margins, 12 pt font, Times New Roman or Arial, first page must have your name, zID, and page numbers.
References will not be counted in the word limit.
Only one group member needs to submit the report for Reflection A. For Reflection B, only one group member needs to submit the report for the first two questions, and every student needs to submit the report for the third question.
Assessment 4: Personal branding
Report: Week 11
30%
Written response: 4 parts (Job advertisement, CV, Cover letter, and Branding strategy)
Job advertisement: no predefined length, CV: 2-3 pages, Cover letter: up to 2 pages, Branding strategy: 1 page
Report: via Moodle course site
Description of assessment task
As you approach the completion of your studies, developing a clear and compelling personal brand is essential for successfully transitioning into the workforce. This assessment is designed to give you hands-on experience in crafting the core materials employers review during hiring, so you can enter the job market with confidence and professionalism.
For this assessment, you will undertake a mock job application to demonstrate your personal brand in action. Select one real job advertisement and prepare:
Ø A tailored résumé (CV) highlighting your key skills and experiences;
Ø A bespoke cover letter that communicates your fit and unique value proposition;
Ø A concise personal-branding strategy (500 words max +/-10%) outlining how you will position yourself to stand out to employers.
Your submission should showcase not only professionalism in formatting and language but also strategic alignment between your credentials and the employer’s needs. This exercise will help you refine your personal-brand narrative and practical application for the job market.
Format
Document details:
CV: Highlight your key achievements (2–3 pages).
Cover letter: Explain the fit between you, the position, and the company (1–2 pages).
Branding strategy: Detail for tutors and LIC why you chose this specific job ad and outline your personal-branding approach (up to 1-2 pages).
Job advertisement: Include the original job ad (no length limit).
While submitting the report, please merge all four files and submit them as one document.
Please use 1.5 line spaced, 2.5 cm margins, 12 pt font Times New Roman or Arial.
Marking Rubrics
Assessment 3: Reflections
|
Criteria
|
%
|
Fail
|
Developing (P-C)
|
Exemplary (D-HD)
|
|
Identifies relevant course topics/skills to integrate with practical experience
|
30%
|
Course topics or skills are not clearly identified.
Limited or no justification of points that lacks connection to course content.
Limited or no explanation of link to practical simulation experience.
|
Describes course topics/skills that are mostly relevant to the reflection question.
Attempts to justify points using terms, concepts or ideas raised in the course.
Provides some explanation of link(s) to practical simulation experience with limited depth.
|
Accurately describes course topics/skills that are relevant to the reflection question.
Justifies points using appropriately referenced terms, concepts and ideas raised in the course.
Provides insightful explanation of link(s) to practical simulation experience.
|
|
Applies appropriate frameworks, tools and standards to justify decisions
|
30%
|
Applies inappropriate frameworks, tools or standards, if at all.
Does not adequately consider strengths, limitations or impacts.
Does not adequately consider industry standards.
|
Applies frameworks, tools or standards with some contextual links.
Outlines some strengths, limitations and impacts.
Includes some consideration of industry standards.
|
Applies frameworks, tools or standards that are appropriate to the context.
Provides a clear explanation of strengths, limitations and potential impacts.
Makes clear links to accepted industry standards.
|
|
Demonstrates reflective practice in evaluation of own and others’ contributions (applicable only for the Reflection B)
|
30%
|
Demonstrates minimal self-reflection, with little consideration of personal growth, learning and impact.
Provides limited or non-constructive assessment of the group.
Shows limited consideration of feedback and self-evaluation.
|
Demonstrates a satisfactory level of self-reflection, acknowledging some areas of personal growth, learning and impact.
Provides a fair assessment of the group.
Shows some willingness to adapt and adjust approach based on feedback and self-evaluation.
|
Demonstrates a comprehensive and insightful evaluation of personal growth, learning, and impact.
Provides a thoughtful, balanced and constructive assessment of the group.
Shows an openness and willingness to adapt and adjust approach based on feedback and self-evaluation.
|
|
Communicates effectively and appropriately
|
10%
|
Ideas lack logical coherence and/or are difficult to follow.
Expresses ideas in a convoluted or over-simplified, making it difficult for the reader to grasp the meaning.
Displays limited adherence to academic writing standards, with noticeable deviations or inconsistencies from style. guide.
|
Ideas are generally easy to follow, but with some logical gaps.
Expresses ideas and information using mostly clear language.
Mostly adheres to academic writing standards (i.e., correct referencing, within word count, etc).
|
Ideas are developed logically and insightfully in a well sequenced, easy to follow format.
Expresses complex ideas and information in accessible language.
Adheres to academic writing standards (i.e., correct referencing, within word count, etc).
|
Assessment 4: Personal branding
Presentation
|
Criteria
|
%
|
Fail
|
Developing (P-C)
|
Exemplary (D-HD)
|
|
Clarity of communication and visual appeal
|
30%
|
The materials lack a clear structure and contain multiple errors that hinder understanding. Visual design is inconsistent or distracting.
|
The content is generally understandable but shows occasional lapses in organization or grammar. Visual layout is serviceable but could improve.
|
The materials are exceptionally well‐structured, error‐free, and immediately engaging. Design elements enhance comprehension and professionalism.
|
|
Fit between the position and applicant characteristics
|
30%
|
There is little to no alignment between the applicant’s experience and the job requirements. Key skills and accomplishments are missing or irrelevant.
|
The application shows some awareness of the role’s requirements but omits important details or overemphasizes less relevant strengths.
|
The applicant clearly targets the role, highlighting precise experiences and skills that map directly to the job description and company needs.
|
|
Strength of the personal branding
|
30%
|
Branding is generic or nonexistent, offering no clear value proposition. The documents read as interchangeable with any other candidate.
|
A basic personal brand is emerging but lacks differentiation or a compelling narrative. Some unique attributes are mentioned.
|
Personal branding is vivid and memorable, presenting a strong, unique value proposition that clearly distinguishes the candidate.
|
|
Connection between the documents
|
10%
|
The CV, cover letter, and strategy feel disjointed, with conflicting messages or repeated information. There is no clear narrative thread.
|
Documents reference each other in places but transitions are awkward and cohesion is partial. Some themes recur without full integration.
|
All materials form. a seamless, cohesive narrative, reinforcing key themes and ensuring each document builds logically on the others.
|