Digital marketing: Fan Fit
Learning Outcomes Evidenced by this assignment:
- Evaluate the relevance of traditional marketing theory to the digital realm.
- Appreciate and understand the importance of interdisciplinary research to digital marketing
- Appraise key metrics for evaluating digital campaign performance
- Consider the relevance of traditional marketing thought to contemporary digital domains.
- Evaluate how digital marketing can be integrated into company and marketing strategy
- Understand how to develop a coherent digital marketing strategy and evaluate its results
- Apply digital campaign management skills to contemporary organisations
- Evaluate theory independently and understand how it applies to relevant case examples.
Fenton A., Heinze A. (2015). “Fan Fit: Developing a Sports Club Social Media and Fitness App to Engage Fans”, The Case Centre, www.thecasecentre.org
https://moodle.uel.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=1570358
Using relevant digital marketing theory and industry sources, students should address the following questions:
- What are the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Treats for Fan Fit?.
- Who are the competitors for Fan Fit?
- What is the digital marketing strategy that you would recommend for them in order to be able to sell in other markets that you fell would be appropriate?
- How should Fan Fit use Channels, Content and Data to reach its buyer personas?
- What changes would Fan Fit have to make to implement the new strategy?
Assignment Instructions
Structure
You have been asked to answer the question in a structured report. All the questions are related one to each other.
Title
- Short introduction
- Question 1
- Question 2
- Question 3
- Question 4
- Question 5
- Short Conclusion and personal reflection
- Bibliography
- Length 2000 words
Skills Advice
Refer to your material provided in your skills modules to make sure that you have conformed to academic conventions. Pay particular attention to:
- Your introduction
- Your conclusion
- The use of headings and/or signpost words
- Paragraph structure
|
Component
|
Comments
|
Weight
|
Actual Mark
|
|
Correct Answer to the question using appropriate data and theories
|
|
60%
|
|
|
Depth and breadth of literature and theories used, evidence of a critical approach
|
|
15%
|
|
|
Ability to create an overall solution, linking the five answers one to each other
|
|
15%
|
|
|
Overall Presentation, Professionalism and Referencing
|
|
10%
|
|
|
Total
|
|
100%
|
|
|
General Comments:
|
Agreed Mark:
|
|
General guidelines for standards expected at different levels of study.
|
|
Grade
|
Level 1
|
Level 2
|
Level 3
|
|
First
(70% or above)
|
Thorough understanding of relevant ideas. Clear and well referenced argument. Coherent structure.
|
Ideas critically analysed. Argument is clear, succinct and well supported. Evidence of a wide range of reading and some independent thought.
|
Critical work evidencing excellent synthesis and application of ideas. Work is exceptionally well constructed and presented.
|
|
Upper Second
(60-69%)
|
Sound understanding. Well written and relevant argument. Appropriately referenced.
|
Critical consideration of relevant ideas. Arguments are precisely defined and appropriately referenced. The work is structurally sound and well written.
|
Ideas are critically applied and coherently presented. Evidence of wide reading and some originality. Well referenced
|
|
Lower Second
(50-59%)
|
Evidence of understanding and independent reading. Adequate referencing, but some unsubstantiated material. Weaknesses in spelling, structure & grammar.
|
Reasonable understanding of the relevant concepts, but some inconsistencies in application. Arguments are referenced, but disjointed. Poor structure, spelling or grammar.
|
Clear grasp of concepts and some critical application. Appropriately referenced and relevant argument. Reasonable structure and syntax. Well presented
|
|
Third
(40-49%)
|
Indication of some understanding, but poor application of ideas. Minimal referencing. Generally weak structure.
|
Generally descriptive work with limited evidence of a critical consideration of ideas. Inadequate referencing. Weaknesses in structure, spelling and grammar.
|
Evidence of good understanding of issues, but crudely applied. Work indicates some critical thinking, but tends towards description. Argument may be unbalanced. Poor structure and presentation
|
|
Fail
(Below 40%)
|
Irrelevant or poorly analysed material. Indication of weak grasp of concepts. Inadequate structure. Poor grammar and spelling.
|
Uncritical. Poorly referenced. Argument indicates little use of relevant literature. Chaotic structure and generally badly written.
|
Poorly referenced and suggests inadequate exploration of relevant literature. Chaotic structure and generally badly written.
|
