Posted: August 6th, 2015

Branding Strategist for organisation in tourism and hospitality sector

—————————————————————————————————————-
Assessment Type: Case Study

———————————————————————————————————————–
Indicative Assessment Requirements for the Module;-

Individual Assignment
One of the challenges in branding of services is due to the nature of their intangibility (Keller, 2008).
Select one hospitality brand of your choice as your case study and critically analyse how a successful branding strategy can help to achieve competitive advantage.
Include 4 supported recommendations on how such strategies can be enhanced.

———————————————————————————————————————–

Maximum Word Limit and Assessment weighting for each aspect within the assessment:

Word count
Your assignment should be 3000 words.
Weightage: 100 % of the module

———————————————————————————————————————–

Description of Assessment Requirements

Format
Present your case study in a report format. Please ensure that you acknowledge ALL your sources of data and appropriately Harvard reference them. Please include the following in your report;
• A suitable title
• An executive summary-200 words (not included in the word count)
• An introduction-200 words
• Literature review-1500 words
• Discussion and analysis-1000 words
• Conclusion-100 words
• Recommendations- 200 words
• References and bibliography
• Appendix (use sparingly)
Assessment Criteria

The following marking scheme will be used for marking the assignment;

Introduction -coverage of the background of the topic and the organisation selected (10 marks maximum)
 Weak coverage with little or no justification: 1-3
 Satisfactory coverage with some justification: 4-7
 Good coverage with good justification: 8-10

Literature review -Collection of data from a range of sources (25 marks maximum)
 Little or no evidence of data: 1-9
 Satisfactory range of sources: 10-16
 Excellent range of sources: 17-25

Discussion and analysis -the analysis and evaluation of the case study (20 marks maximum)
 Weak analysis with little or no evaluation: 1-7
 Satisfactory analysis with some evaluation: 8-13
 Good analysis with good evaluation: 14-20
Conclusions – A critical evaluation of how the aim and objectives of the assignment were achieved (10 marks)
 Poor conclusions with little or no evaluation: 1-3
 Satisfactory conclusions which have evaluated how the objectives of the study were achieved : 4-7
 Good conclusions with a critical evaluation of the achievement of the aims and objectives of the study: 8-10

Recommendations – for management of case study about taking forward action in relation to the topic under consideration (15 marks)
 Poor recommendations with little or no explanation: 1-5
 Satisfactory recommendations with some explanation: 6-10
 Good recommendations with good explanation: 11-15

Presentation, argument and Harvard referencing (20 marks maximum)
 Poor presentation, poorly structured argument and poor Harvard referencing: 1-7
 Satisfactory presentation, logically structured argument and satisfactory Harvard referencing: 8-13
 Good presentation, logically structured argument and satisfactory Harvard referencing: 14-20

TOTAL MARK: 100 %

———————————————————————————————————————–

Level 7 Marking Criteria

Distinction 70%+ Pass (strong) 55-69% Pass (threshold +) 40-54% Fail 20-39% Fail 0-19%
KNOWLEDGE
& UNDERSTANDING
of the academic discipline, field of study, or area of professional practice as 55-69 &
excellent coverage, offering sophisticated or original insights;
a synthesis, possibly, of disparate material. as 40-54 &
an awareness of problems & insights much of which is at, or informed by, the forefront of the discipline/practice. a systematic understanding of relevant knowledge;
good identification, selection and & understanding of key issues;
awareness of current problems &/or new insights;
conceptual awareness enabling critical analysis; accuracy in detail. Coverage of some relevant issues with moderate understanding; identification of some underpinning issues. paucity of relevant material in support of response
RESEARCH I:
READING &
USE OF OTHER APPROPRIATE RESOURCES as 55-69 &
extensive, well-referenced research both in breadth & depth. as 40-54 &
a range in breadth or depth of well-referenced research a good range of reading, beyond core or basic texts, with sources appropriately acknowledged according to academic conventions of referencing. the range of reading may be limited;
sources not always explicitly or accurately acknowledged. inadequate resourcing &/or sources insufficiently acknowledged.

RESEARCH II: METHODOLOGY as 55-69 &
sophisticated evaluation of possibilities and limitations of methodologies used. as 40-54 &
a comprehensive & critical understanding of techniques applicable to the student’s own research. a practical understanding of how established techniques of research & enquiry are used to create & interpret knowledge in the discipline;
research work planned in scale and scope so that adequate and appropriate evidence is gathered. understanding of methodologies used but these may have been used to too little effect inadequate understanding of methodologies, used inappropriately or erroneously.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS
& INTERPRETATION
as 55-69 &
imaginative, insightful, original or creative interpretations;
impressive, sustained level of analysis & evaluation;
a cogent argument with awareness of limitations. as 40-54 &
a command of accepted critical positions;
conceptual understanding that enables the student to propose new hypotheses. the ability to deal with complex issues both systematically & creatively, & make sound judgements;
consistent analysis and critical evaluation of current research & advanced scholarship in the discipline;
a coherent argument supported by evidence. some ability to deal with complex issues;
judgements not all well substantiated;
some evaluation of research & scholarship;
the ability to construct an argument may be limited. analysis is limited, deriving from limited sources &/or too limited to a single perspective;
argument or position not made clear;
self-contradiction or confusion.

COMMUNICATION SKILLS & PRESENTATION as 55-69 &
Authoritative, articulate communication demonstrating a balance of enthusiasm and control
as 40-54 &
Persuasive communication skills; the academic form largely matches that expected in published work clear expression, observing academic form;
(in written work) predominantly accurate in spelling & grammar;
conclusions communicated clearly for specialist & non-specialist audiences as appropriate. there may be errors in academic form and/or (in written work) spelling & grammar. poor observation of academic conventions;
deficiencies in spelling & grammar.
CRITICAL
REFLECTION: PERSONAL &/OR PROFESSIONAL APPLICATION & EVALUATION. as 55-69 &
sophisticated critical self-evaluation;
new insights informing practical situations. as 40-54 &
decision-making in complex situations;
originality in addressing needs or specifications, and /or solving problems. collaborative or individual problem-solving, & planning & implementing of tasks appropriate to a professional context;
the independent learning ability and self-evaluation required to continue to advance the student’s knowledge & understanding, & to develop new skills appropriate to a professional context. some exercise of initiative & personal or professional responsibility but a limited self-evaluation weakness in independent learning, decision-making &/or self-evaluation.