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 organizations
- 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 the 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. |