Level: Diploma in Professional Marketing. Unit/Module: Mastering Metrics. Please refer to the December 2015 assessment. Overarching performance:

Transcription

1 Module report Level: Diploma in Professional Marketing Unit/Module: Mastering Metrics Please refer to the December 2015 assessment Overarching performance: The overall performance for this session of the Mastering Metrics module was good with a pass rate indicating many candidates had a good understanding of the concepts, applying them appropriately to the context of their chosen organisations. Those Accredited Study Centres that achieved high pass rates have done so by demonstrating a good use of numbers and supporting calculations around ROI, Brand Value, NPS, Profit and many other calculations that support a brand value. However, there are still candidates who feel they can provide an assignment for Mastering Metrics that contains little or no number work or calculations. This is even starker when the assignment brief focuses on brand value. In some instances not only did candidates not provide or analyse quantitative data they also did not focus their discussion on areas that related to brand valuation. Weaker performing candidates still find it difficult to bring the theory into practice and failed to apply the models and theories to their organisations. In some cases, not finding any brand valuation models to apply, and in others, returning to lists and appendix diagrams lifted directly from sources, such as the company reports or the internet. Overall, success was related to the ability to provide evidence of knowledge and understanding of marketing metrics focussed on demonstrating brand value within the chosen organisation through application of concepts and theories relevant to the context. Layout of assessment structure: Submissions were typically well structured and easy to follow. Presentation was good and it was apparent that candidates had thought about layout and presentation marks as a whole. However, too many candidates failed to present a well-structured and well-presented dashboard with a surprising number of candidates failing to follow CIM guidance about the organisation summary and not answering the headings provided within the brief. Numerous candidates in Task 2 (b) produced an analysis on non-evidential data that might have arisen, for example, in interpretation of the task requirement, or using the unmarked appendix as the data source.

2 Some candidates continue to present an executive summary and, good as they are, in many cases no marks can be awarded and more importantly is wasting valuable word allocations. Key points: Most candidates are addressing the key issues and applying the chosen metrics well. There is clearly evidence of wide research and good application of theory. Overall, a good standard with well-presented reports and with no none answered subtasks. Far too many key metrics identified, therefore, meaning in the majority of cases the indepth analysis was not maximised. A weakness of lack of discussion in Tasks 2 (a) and 3 (a), substituted by description. A noticeable number of candidates described the background theories to research in Task 3 (b) but lacked recommendations to move the task forward. Task 2 was misinterpreted by some, who did not quite get what brand elements were; and the tie-in with parts a, b and c was lacking in quite a few assignments, despite it being expressly mentioned in the tasks themselves. That meant that some candidates would choose elements/metrics to discuss (Task 2 (a)), then collect data for completely different sets of metrics (Task 2 (b)) and then prepare a dashboard (Task 2 (c)) with a third set of metrics that bore no relation to the previous work. Overall, the main points of issue were, as covered above, the lack of quantified data analysis and focus on brand value throughout the assignment. Task Task 1 Strengths Many candidates produced very good organisation backgrounds for Task 1 (a), using clear headings for the areas indicated in the brief with detailed information that provided good depth of understanding of the context used for the assignment. Stronger candidates used a variety of sources and references to identify and explain the role of metrics within their organisation s decision making processes, relating thoroughly to the context with innovative and imaginative choices of relevant metrics. Many related the general aspects of marketing decisions well through the use of planning models such as SOSTAC (PR Smith), APIC (Beamish & Ashford), for example. When the metrics for brand value were identified, there was usually an understanding of how they assisted in understanding brand value with relevant key metrics for the context of the organisation covered with good detail. Many good answers linked McDonald or De Chernatony & McDonald brand value and definitions to give context to their answers. This followed through to examples from the candidate s own

3 organisation with detail demonstrating the current use of metrics related to brand value and clearly indicated how these were used with indication of who provided the analytics and areas in which the metrics were implemented. High achieving candidates gave a very clear and honest explanation to the effectiveness of metrics currently used in their organisations, especially around the brand valuation or a description of why no value had been calculated in the past. Generally, this task was well done and quite a few candidates got their highest marks here. Task 2 Whilst there were few examples of how the different elements involved with measuring the brand assist in making decisions, those candidates who linked these areas did generally answer the first element of this task very well. Stronger candidates highlighted some of the different theories and models available to value a brand, applying these to their chosen organisation and consequently achieved high marks. Those candidates who had identified these models typically then used one, or a combination of the models, to provide a brand value using numbers from their chosen organisation that provided robust data and analysed it accordingly. The strongest candidates used data from a variety of sources, related to the metrics identified in Task 2 (a), and analysed the data thoroughly with clear explanation to provide a financial brand value (for commercial organisations) or reputational value (for not for profit organisations). Many stronger candidates made good use of tables to give accurate, precise and focused answers. Some very good graphic work was delivered by candidates for dashboard depiction. Candidates thought through their dashboard and related the metrics used to their brand calculation, included a single value and then provided this as part of the dashboard; clearly demonstrating the status of data provided in the previous section to provide a quick indication of the value of the brand in the chosen organisation. Task 3 Strong candidates identified the need to both reflect and to build upon what had gone before as a base for answering this task. Candidates clearly identified the complex nature of brand values, demonstrated the ability to adapt the models to suit their chosen organisation and reflected well on the use of metrics to demonstrate brand value. For stronger candidates clear recommendations were made for additional metrics, which could be used for measurement of brand value that was justified well in the context of the organisation and content of the previous tasks. Candidates who considered the various models of metrics for brand also typically linked additional primary and secondary research

4 activities to these and gave a good idea of potential sources of data and information that could be accessed in the future through appropriate methods of marketing research. Where primary and secondary sources were linked well to the context of the organisation they were detailed in context. Stronger candidates reflected on the benefits and challenges and this set them apart and helped them to achieve higher grades, particularly when considering the difficulties found in making the models fit the real world of their chosen organisation. Format and presentation The majority of submissions were well presented both in referencing, page layout and narrative accuracy being laid out using clear headings/sub headings related to task elements. Stronger candidates gave thought to presentation and used tables well to summarise information. For good presentation, many candidates provided a one page dash board that was explained using call outs or additional information. Candidates used the Harvard referencing system correctly throughout the document, both within the body and the bibliography. Task Weaknesses Recommendations Task 1 Some weak submissions contained very brief organisation overviews with lists of points to cover the information rather than narrative descriptions. Some also missed out areas stated as requirements within the brief. The role of marketing metrics was often not fully understood and many candidates did not include any theory despite this being mentioned in the brief. Definitions of marketing metrics were also missed by weaker candidates. Within Task 1 (b) many candidates did not relate the role of metrics to decision making either generally or within their chosen organisation. Ensure all points stated in the brief for the organisation summary are covered fully. It is important that candidates address the issue and support their arguments with wider reading and reference to a range of theorists. Ensure that all command words and brief elements are covered adequately within the answers provided to link metrics to decision making, for example. Application to the context of the organisation is essential for success at this level of study; demonstrating understanding of the application of concepts and theories in a manner appropriate to the specific organisation chosen. Depth of information to demonstrate understanding needs

5 Task 2 Metrics appropriate to brand value were often just a list from a text book for those who scored low marks theory but no application. The link to how these metrics can assist in understanding brand value was often overlooked. It was also the case that some candidates listed too many metrics without explanation or application rather than providing depth for key brand metrics. In many instances, despite some very good commentaries as to the role of metrics, there was little or no reference to brand value and in some cases to relevant theorists. Weaker candidates did not appear comfortable with the use of brand value and the different theories available to value a brand. Similarly some candidates did not relate theories of brand value to decision making within their chosen organisation. Without this underpinning knowledge it was then difficult for the candidates to provide any quantified data that could be seen to value a brand or show how the data could be used within a dashboard. Some provided no data but did refer to the content of the dashboard where it was represented; this did not demonstrate the quantitative analysis expected or justification for any results shown. A large percentage of candidates did not provide an overall value for the brand of to be provided by candidates to provide insights for the context of the chosen organisation; when the brief asks for key metrics, as in this instance or similar areas for others, more marks will be awarded for a relatively short number of key points discussed in depth than a long list of points that are not considered or applied adequately. The over-riding theme of the brief should always be considered to ensure answers relate specifically to that theme. As above, linking brand value to decision making to make appropriate recommendations to demonstrate knowledge and understanding is required. For success with this module it is essential to analyse quantitative data to demonstrate, for this brief, brand value through a range of metrics gathered from appropriate sources. It is this analysis of data that demonstrates the required knowledge of marketing metrics as a subject an area that is increasingly important for marketers in a professional capacity as it proves the value created. Dashboards should provide a clear overview of the situation in relation to the context required brand value in this brief. The dashboard should use a range of graphics to convey the information, contained on one page. Ideally call-outs or similar will be used to provide brief explanations of what the graphics

6 their chosen organisation which was disappointing. It is recognised that this is a complex area but avoiding it completely meant marks available could not be awarded. demonstrate. The graphics should be clearly related to the data analysis provided. Task 3 Overall for Task 2 (b) many candidates appeared to struggle with the whole notion of brand value, the calculations in many assignments were weak or non-existent. The content provided by those gaining lower marks for the dashboard typically comprised charts, often without any explanation or even title, which did not relate to any data which was provided in Task 2 (b) or related to metrics for brand value. Failure to tie together Tasks 2 (a), (b), and (c). Many candidates failed to achieve good marks in this task due to their failure to identify different brand value metrics in the previous task. There was often confusion over B2B and B2C metrics and then this lead to confusion about the data used for brand value. Reflection aspects were in the main not considered to their maximum, candidates often confused the brand of one organisation with the brand of their own and this lead to poor reflection and evaluation of the information. Weaker candidates failed to provide appropriate recommendations for additional metrics to Make recommendations that are robust and relevant to the organisation, do not present a generic list that lacks context and application. Candidates are reminded that at Level 6 the modules are not exclusive and the use of information, theories, models or other marketing information from different modules or levels will be expected or required. Research in this brief was a case in point; many candidates appeared to have forgotten what they should have learned at Level 4 about research methodology. Candidates should be mindful of the fact that the final conclusions arrived at need to be supported by

7 understand brand values, failing to build on the previous tasks. appropriate data and clearly referenced whilst also providing their own, justified views. Format and presentation There were too main weaknesses in terms of Task 3 (b), candidates either described primary or secondary research, and then did not use either or they used many different research methods but did not support their methodology with the theory. For weaker candidates typically far too much concentration was spent by some discussing the process of research as opposed to identifying the range of methods appropriate for understanding brand value. The benefits and challenges of using metrics was often provided purely theoretically based on lists of headings taken from text books without any application to relate to the chosen organisation, avoiding the discussion element to justify the points included. Of the three sub-tasks here, Task 3 (c) was the least well done, with a few omitting either the benefits or the challenges and failing to do an overall reflection. In many cases the charts, figures and narrative within dashboard was too small to be legible. Specification requirements in terms of page count, margins and font sizes were not always followed. Headings were not clear and sections of tasks not indicated Repeating the task at the start of each section is not required, however, clearly showing where one task ends and another starts is very important. Ensure the guidance provided by CIM for page count and layout is followed. Produce documents to a professional standard appropriate

8 by some candidates, which can make allocation of marks difficult where the structure is unclear. for marketers in senior positions within the organisation. General issues Lack of numbers offered through the assignment; confused numbers when offered. Formulaic answers; a number of Accredited Study Centres appeared to provide a standard framework of the assignment report. However, this can lead to assignments that do not contextualise well or miss elements of tasks. Some Accredited Study Centres explaining the different B2C and B2B environment and especially brands. Format and communication was a weak area for many candidates, who either ignored it or they did not know the difference between the reports, briefing paper and appendices. Some candidates are still not answering tasks in their entirety, concentrating on the main section and failing to (for example) show how metrics aid decision making. Recommendations Accredited Study Centres must look to develop a basic understanding of numbers, use them and make the candidates comfortable with them. Simple profit and loss, ROI or sales as percentage of turnover would be an excellent start. Before venturing into brand valuation calculations. Tutors must support and can offer suggestions about format and presentation but they must avoid giving standardised formats. Often overseas distributors of global brands, such as Coca Cola and Vodaphone, have difficulty explaining the local company brand rather than using the global brand. Tutors must look to explain this relationship and develop the understanding that the local distributer will be the brand not the global name. Tutors must set practical exercises for candidates during their teaching and learning to lock in the basic presentation and formats. Candidates must read and answer ALL that is required. Some candidates are still including appendices showing theoretical models without application to the organisation. It is a waste of time and effort. Many candidates are offering an executive summary, which is not required though as indicated. Remind Accredited Study Centres and candidates that these will not be marked and they are taking up space, which could be better utilised.

9 The overview of the organisation in lacks detail. The metrics cited or incorporated into arguments should be justified. Lack of analysis and forecasting as one of the major benefits of metrics once identified, evaluated and sourced. Get sight of the recent Senior Examiner s report to indicate what is required in this field. It is important that candidates evaluate the data and put it into context from a marketing perspective. Candidates need to be more focused in the need for this important aspect of data management. The organisation summary in the vast majority of cases could have achieved full marks if the candidates had taken a more marketing approach, especially when the very detailed guidance was given. Key metrics identified in Task 1; a large number of candidates identified nearly all possible metric without due thought of the practicalities. Some candidates produced in extreme, paragraphs of quotations that did not reflect their own thought and at times intentions. Discussion across all tasks when asked was not well displayed; candidates reverted to description to support to answers. Dashboard work needed to better presented. Weaker candidates produced too small graphics, simple graphs or small text/axis information. Need to focus upon the current significant metric benefiting the present and future development of the organisation within a marketing focus. Correct use of referencing and use of theory to its best advantage. Guidance through Accredited Study Centres. Guidance through Accredited Study Centres.