A marked improvement in the overall standard of work was shown for this session.

Transcription

1 Module report Level: Diploma in Professional Marketing Module: Strategic Marketing Please refer to the December 2015 assessment Most candidates produced a solid strategic plan using a SOSTAC (PR Smith) framework. Responses were generally well analysed using a variety of audit tools, with good application to the task in hand. Higher scoring candidates related responses specifically to issue of ethical marketing rather than generic responses. Candidates did not always develop clear conclusions or answer the task relating to problems with ethical data, following the audit stage, and higher scoring candidates were those who used a wider range of tools and frameworks such as TOWS to draw out options and strategic choices. Similarly, better responses were those that critiqued objectives and justified strategic decisions in the context of ethical marketing. Lower scoring candidates produced superficial audits, lacked external focus and produced a superficial evaluation of strategic decisions recommended. Written responses in general were clearly presented and were consistent with the theme of the strategic plans previously developed. Some lower scoring responses lacked depth and content, with generic responses lacking basic critical evaluation and justification. Practical issues, such as exceeding the page limit in Task 1, time management issues in Task 2, lack of clarity of language and not answering the brief (both Tasks 1 and 2) were shown by only a limited number of candidates. Overarching performance: A marked improvement in the overall standard of work was shown for this session. Candidates knowledge was consistently good across a number of Accredited Study Centres. Generally, responses were good with some examples of excellence; although omission of responses in both Tasks 1 and 2 did inhibit marks. Some candidates had prepared very strong marketing audits and strategies but seemed to be unprepared when they attempted the exam. Accredited Study Centres must encourage candidates to familiarise themselves with all aspects of the syllabus and to practise applying topics to different scenarios. For instance, Tasks 2 (a) (i), (a) (ii) and (b) (i) simply drew on standard marketing topics but candidates seemed baffled when they had to apply these to an ethical context. On the whole, Task 1 submissions were weak when it came to reflecting strategic decisions in the plan and this limited candidates' ability to justify their decisions when they answered the exam.

2 There is room for more evaluation throughout both tasks and the use of more examples to help justify points made. To generalise, most candidates submitted two tasks that exceeded the pass mark. The key to a good Task 1 was a well-executed audit that used a variety of appropriate models/ frameworks; then having done this, and with use of further appropriate theory and frameworks, the rest of the task was well-handled. In Task 2, a number of candidates struggled with task (a); tasks (b) and (c) were better answered. Candidate performance was polarised with candidates at some Accredited Study Centres producing excellent work whilst at other Accredited Study Centres performance was very disappointing with very few passes. It is evident that some Accredited Study Centres prepare candidates by providing them with templates for their marketing plans whereas others encourage individuality and creativity. Layout of assessment structure: A large number of candidates either did not address the two sub-tasks of the strategic audit in Task 1 or only addressed one sub-task. This meant that they forfeited valuable marks. Also, very few candidates reviewed their organisation's objectives in their Task 1 submission. In Task 1 some Accredited Study Centres clearly told the candidates to use certain models. These were not all required or relevant. The audit and plans tended to follow the framework suggested in the assignment brief and few went over and above to follow an academic/real marketing planning framework, eg McDonald or Smith, etc. Some exam answers were bullet points, which is not appropriate for Level 6. Key points: Ethical marketing was a popular topic with candidates showing a good grasp of the key issues and applying them well to their relevant organisations. Syllabus knowledge was strong in this session, in particular knowledge of theory was impressive for this level. Control and measurements was a weaker area of the majority of plans, despite the number of marks available. This needs to be communicated back to Accredited Study Centres to ensure candidates allocate sufficient space to this part of the plan. Many candidates are still not applying their plans to each task throughout the exam and in many cases the references to the plan are vague. Measurements, and to a lesser degree controls, also saw weaker responses possibly due to lack of understanding. Responses in the exam were generally good with some well written responses. Candidates still need to be reminded to attempt all tasks though. Candidates must tightly align their marketing plan to their analysis and objectives and must be prepared to draw on that plan to justify their decisions when answering the exam tasks. Candidates must familiarise themselves with all topics in the syllabus and must practise

3 applying those topics to the context of the Task 1 brief. Candidates must take great care to address all parts of the assessment brief. Throughout Tasks 1 and 2; lack of explanation, lack of critical evaluation, lack of justification. Production of generic plans with insufficient focus on ethics and sustainability. Use of templates at some Accredited Study Centres resulting in very similar approaches and lack of creativity, particularly where candidates worked for the same organisations. Lack of understanding of ethics and sustainability and as a result many candidates only focused on ethical business practices. Many marketing plans did not really provide sufficiently detailed strategies. Instead they mentioned becoming more ethical, introducing ethical codes of conduct, treating their customers ethically without actually explaining how they were going to achieve this. Task Task 1 Strengths Very good knowledge of theory, well presented, thorough application to organisation and good strategic recommendations. Use of recognised SOSTAC (PR Smith) framework. Generally good content, solid analysis with appropriate justification. Good justified conclusion following SWOT. Higher scoring candidates related responses specifically to the issue of ethical marketing rather than generic responses. Most well presented with good professional tone and format. There were some very detailed audits that drew on a wide range of tools and frameworks to good effect. Some candidates applied their analysis very tightly to the context of the brief and this gave them useful material to draw on in their plan and exam answers. Some candidates presented a useful critical analysis of the organisation's marketing objectives and set new ones to reflect the audit findings. Some candidates presented very detailed and justified strategic decisions that drew on a wide range of relevant tools and frameworks to develop the ethical aspects of their strategy. There were some detailed marketing plans with push and pull components for the promotion part.

4 Most candidates had incorporated appropriate tools, such as Gantt charts, critical success factors, and KPIs for the control and measurement of their plan. The prepared analysis was generally kept in context to the scenario. Better candidates clearly justified recommendations. Better candidates were critical and analytical of the current situation. Task 2 Good range of risks and problems identified, supported by examples and theory. Good knowledge of brand equity shown and some good financial metrics explained. A popular task. Good knowledge of the key elements of missions and visions and some very good recommendations made. Good STP demonstrated with strong focus on ethics. Satisfactory understanding of organisation structure, business sustainability issues with stronger candidates making good recommendations for change. General good understanding of control mechanisms and good understanding of strategic drift. Clearly presented responses with consistent content and good links to strategic plan. Good use of relevant example issues in chosen organisation in Task 2 (a) (i) Good understanding of brand equity in Task 2 (a) (ii). Good assessment and evaluation of organisations mission statement with appropriate recommended changes. Good recommendations in exam tasks. Some candidates answered Task 2 (a) (i) well and made reference to the context of their organisation to illustrate their points. Most candidates were able to identify appropriate financial metrics when answering Task 2 (a) (ii). On the whole most candidates answered Task 2 (b) (ii) well and were able to contextualise their communication to an ethical scenario.

5 Tasks 2 (c) (i) and c (ii) were generally answered well but rarely within the context of the candidates' plan. Candidates allocated the time appropriately for the most part and answered all tasks. Kept in context to the tasks and plan well. Better candidates used the information in the plan/audit well to help build discussion and depth. Kept in context to the organisation and, for the majority, to the scenario too. Some reference back to the plan/audit (although this could be used to greater affect). Format and presentation Plans very well presented with a good range of tools used and very detailed analysis. Generally, presentation was good although some exams were more challenging to read. The adoption of SOSTAC (PR Smith) without consideration of situational analysis Task 1 (ii) and (iii) did prove problematic for more candidates even after its explicit request in the task brief. On the whole, marketing plans were very well presented and all candidates stuck to the eight-side limit. Some candidates submitted additional sides for their cover sheet and contents pages but these were not necessary and were not taken into account in the marking process. Exam answers were legible and well organised. Task Weaknesses Recommendations Task 1 Tasks (ii) and (iii) were often forgotten. Controls and measurements lacking in detail. Audits too long. Strategic decision chosen not clear. Controls/measures too long (often 4pp). Lack of context. Lack of references for key data obtained via secondary research. Make clear the fact that some elements of Task 1 do not fall under a traditional SOSTAC (PR Smith) framework and therefore may need adaptation. Advise candidates that all elements of the plan should be covered in detail and space should be allocated accordingly. In line with the above comment, candidates should choose the most relevant analysis tools for the task rather than trying to squeeze too much in which may not be relevant. A short justified conclusion of the strategy chosen helps the examiner

6 Lack of detail. Lack of content particularly around controls and measurements and situational analysis (ii) and (iii). Lack of strategic recommendations that were actually strategic or suitably innovative. SWOTs lacking depth with no conclusion. Unstructured plan. Limited analysis. Generic responses. Basic strategic evaluation. No critique of mission, values, objectives. Some audits were more descriptive than analytical. Some audit facts and figures were not referenced. Many candidates omitted to include content for either one or both of the sub-tasks in the strategic audit section. Some audits were very general and not applied to the context of the brief. Many candidates either did not consider STP in their strategy section, or included data, but did not critically analyse their decisions. Hardly any candidates aligned their plan to their STP strategy and as a result their control and measures sections were also very generic. to understand the candidates thinking. Ensure that the appropriate focus is given to tasks according to marks awarded for the task. Accredited Study Centres should review standard traditional responses every session to ensure the theme of the assessment task is included and emphasised to ensure candidates are able to maximise the potential marks available. Although the signposting of theoretical references was generally acceptable, candidates should be encouraged to declare the sources of data/information that drives the audit. Consider TOWS. Use SOSTAC (PR Smith). Wider range of audit tools. Relate to ethical marketing. Wider use of analytical frameworks. Greater critical evaluation. Candidates must analyse at every point and never simply describe. Candidates must reference the source of all facts and figures in Task 1. Candidates must take care to address all parts of the assessment brief or they will forfeit valuable marks. Candidates must carry out their analysis very tightly within the context of the brief.

7 More evaluation, more analysis of the situation and the potential impact on the business within the audit required. There is little justification of recommendations and these are not always in context. Some Accredited Study Centres clearly issued a template for candidates to follow, which meant that some tables were not required/appropriate. Some candidates struggled with the strategic aspects of the plan, such as decision making. Many candidates provided tactical plans with limited strategic choices. A significant number of candidates demonstrated a limited understanding of measures and controls, and the difference between the two. Candidates must justify their STP decisions and tailor their marketing mix to deliver this strategy. Candidates must design their marketing mix around their STP strategy and then align their controls and measures with the objectives set and the subsequent strategy. If candidates did this they would find it easier to refer to their plan when answering exam tasks. Candidates need to use only models and frameworks that are relevant to the scenario. Candidates need to be more critical, evaluative and analytical in their approach. Candidates should include more clearly justified recommendations. There should be a clear flow between each element within the audit and plan. Support candidates to develop strategic thinking and analysis. Help candidates to develop strategic decision making skills based in theoretical tools. Task 2 Second part of the task missed. Candidates focussing on cultural issues rather than risks and problems of data. Theory dump of financial metrics was fairly common, lacking in application to the organisation. Repetition of plan without More focus on this area of marketing management in teaching. Again, candidates were misreading the task. Stress the importance of applying theory to the organisation. Advise candidates not to copy out chunks of their plans but apply their knowledge to the task set. Again, this refers to exam technique. The last part of the task was often missed, which lead to

8 explanation. Outline of segmentation criteria missed. Theory dump. Application to the organisation lacked specific detail. Add detail to theory (controls). Responses needed for all tasks. Lack of moving beyond application. Lack of references. Lack of link to plan. Lack of application of theory. Lack of content. Generic responses. Basic strategic evaluation/lack of justification. Limited understanding of brand equity. Lack of depth relating to some latter tasks. Many candidates did not understand how to answer Task 2 (a) (i) and produced very vague answers about their organisation's strategy. Some candidates wrote very general comments about PESTLE issues. Many candidates seemed ill prepared to answer Task 2 (a) (ii) on brand equity and Task 2 (b) (i) on vision and mission. some answers lacking coherence and flow. Reiterate the importance of answering all parts of the task in order to maximise potential for high marks. Advise candidates to apply theory to the task not quote theory verbatim. Many answers began with the organisation should improve its structure but never elaborated on why/how, etc, or referred to the plan. Candidates must be reminded to give specific relevant detail in order to gain good marks. See comment above. Good knowledge of controls but not much application. While there were some well executed submissions candidates should be encouraged to approach the tasks in a way that, while still keeping a focus on the practicalities of the responses, also remind the examiner of the key strategic marketing concepts that underpin these. Relate to theme of ethical marketing. Greater critical evaluation and justification. Candidates must become familiar with all aspects of the syllabus and then practice applying topics to different contexts. Again, candidates must familiarise themselves with all aspects of the syllabus and practise applying topics. In this case, candidates should have been familiar, for instance, with theories around brand equity and been able to apply relevant models to ethical issues facing their organisation.

9 Although many candidates answered Task 2 (c) (i) and Task 2 (c) (ii) well and seemed familiar with the theory, many did not refer to their marketing plans to justify their recommendations. Again, candidates must tightly align their marketing mix, controls and measures around their STP strategy and objectives as doing so would make it easier for them to explain in the exam the rationale for their recommendations. Overall, very few candidates referred to the specific aims of their plan in order to justify the points they made in their exam answers. Lack of justification to points made and recommendations. Little use of examples and referencing/wider reading. Some candidates wrote in bullet points. Some mismanaged their time Not answering the task set (particularly Task 2 (a) (i)). Candidates must be prepared to answer tasks about the rationale for their marketing plan decisions. Candidates are therefore advised to prepare plans that are tightly aligned with the objectives and strategic decisions arising from their audit and analysis. Candidates must be prepared to refer to their analysis, strategy, and marketing plan throughout their examination. Use the plan and audit to help build discussion and help justify. More depth and detail within the plan will help with this. Support candidates to practice with a range of strategic level tasks. Candidates to develop strategic analysis and evaluation skills. Ensure teaching covers the important concept of measures for all elements of the syllabus. Format and presentation Some candidates struggled to answer the task asked using both context and relevant theory; many answers were not based in theory at all. Many answers repeated the plans recommended in Task 1 with no further elaboration. Many candidates struggled with the concept of brand equity and appropriate measures. Candidates answering tasks in a different order to the exam but not making clear reference to which answer Change the order of tasks to have the highest scoring first OR advise candidates to make it clear which task they are answering.

10 belongs to which task. Generally good, although handwriting can pose some challenges. Candidates are reminded to always proof read their work before submission. There were a very small number of Task 1 submissions that would have benefitted from a proof-reading exercise before submission. Most seemed to be approached in an appropriate manner. General issues Reference to plans in exam. Theory dump. Failure to identify requirements of situational analysis (ii) and (iii). Measurement and controls lacked depth, detail and relevance. Standard responses that simply omit reference to the task context or simply insert generally unconnected or unexplained key words in an attempt to offset the negative effect of a standard response. Avoid application only based responses to the exam in particular. Recommendations The best candidates referred firstly to the relevant section of the plan before elaborating on that in their answer. Candidates saying refer to audit or page 1 of the plan says x, y, z will gain some marks but not enough to show the examiner the level of their understanding. Whilst theoretical knowledge is very important for this module, it is not enough to simply quote the author without an explanation of why it is relevant to their organisation. Avoid standard responses and ensure familiarity with the task brief and its individual components and mark allocations. Ensure the same care and understanding is given to this concluding part of Task 1 as the rest are given to ensure mark potential is maximised. Ensure that the context subject is included within the teaching and that it acts as a hub for the audit and plan, which can then feed meaningfully into the exam responses. Seek to include fully referenced underpinning theory to add further value to this Level 6 unit assessment.

11 Not all tasks responded to in exam. SWOTs lacking depth with no conclusion. Analysis limited in scope. Basic strategic evaluation. Generic written responses. Some candidates slipped into lengthy descriptions in their Task 1 audits without analysing the implications of the issues. Many candidates either did not consider STP in their Task 1 strategy or simply described what the organisation is currently doing without carrying out any critical evaluation. Many candidates did not design their plan, controls and measures around their objectives and strategy. Many candidates did not reference the sources of facts and figures in their Task 1 submission. References and headings were also often missing from diagrams, charts, graphs, etc. Candidates must familiarise themselves with all parts of the module syllabus and must practice applying topics to the context of the brief. In the exam, candidates must refer to the specifics of their Task 1 marketing audit, strategy and plan to illustrate their points and to justify their recommendations. Ensure that time is allocated to all exam tasks. Consider TOWS. Wider range of audit tools. Greater use of alternative analytical frameworks. Tutors to advise greater application to task regarding ethical marketing. Candidates are encouraged to always analyse and never simply describe in their Task 1 submission. Candidates must study the topic of STP and be prepared to justify their decisions; tutors must prepare candidates in the process of critical evaluation rather than description. Candidates must invest as much time and effort in the design of their plan as they do in their audit. Candidates must state the source of their facts and figures. They must use Harvard to do this. Candidates must be fully acquainted with the syllabus before they attempt the exam and they must practise applying answers. In the exam, candidates must be prepared to justify their points and their decisions in the same way they would in a meeting at work. To do this, candidates must refer to specific aspects of their Task 1 submission.