Marketing case analysis

Marketing case analysis
Case Analysis Rubric PRODUCT AND BRAND MANAGEMENT POOR – 1 A VERAGE – 2 G OOD – 3 E XCELLENT – 4 Identification of the Main Issues/ Problems ( 15 %) Incomplete analysis of the issues Poorly identified primary problem. Immediate and/or primary problems are not presented. (7 %) Identifies and understands some of the issues in the case study The analysis indicated that some issues are more important than others but did not explain why. (10 %) Identifies and understands all of the main issues in the case study The analysis indicated that some issues are more important than others but did not explain why. (1 2% ) Identifies and understands all of the main issues in the case The analysis indicated that some issues are more important than others and explained why. (15 %) Problem Analysis (20% ) Problems are dissected to analyze key factors, to find out root causes of these issues No analysis is offered. Only facts are repeated without scrutiny. (8%) At least one problem is analyzed adequately, however superficial an alysis of rest of the issues in the case. Analysis needs more critical attention. (1 2%) Each problem is analyzed well. Thorough analysis of some of the issues. (15%) Each problem is analyzed thoughtfully and thoroughly. Insightful identification of the sou rces of all issues (root cause). (20%) Alternatives (15 %) This is for brainstorming. Identifies few, if any alternatives listed or not all aspects of identified problems are addressed. (7%) Only one adequate alternative is offered. (10 %) More than one go od alternative is proposed for each issue. (1 2% ) Each alternative suggests clear action. A few thoughtful alternatives are offered for each issue. (15 %) Evaluation of Alternatives (15 %) Arguments are provided for and against each alternative. Pros and con s are not provided for each alternative. Some are weak. ( 7% ) Pros and cons are provided for most alternatives. Most key points are convincing. (1 0% ) Pros and cons are provided for each alternative and are, overall, generally convincing. (1 2% ) Pros and cons are provided for each alternative and each is very convincing. (15 %) Recommended Course of Action (25%) Develop the most effective, efficient, and feasible combination of alternatives to solve the problems within boundaries of the firm’s objectives. Rec ommendation s are not clear or are not supported . (11%) Recommendation s are clear but support is not well developed. They need attenti on regarding who will implement them, how they’ll be implemented, and what needs to get done. ( 16% ) Recommendation is clear and supported . ( 20% ) Recommendation s are clear and completely supported. They are directly responsive to problems and provide effective, efficient, and feasible. (25% ) Mechanics (structure, grammar and spelling) (5%) Careless; report contains many struct ural, grammatical, or spelling errors . (2% ) Marginal; report contains 3 -5 structural, grammatical or spelling errors. (3%) Few grammatical errors exist and don’t impede meaning. (4%) Excellent; report contains no structural, grammatical or spelling errors . (5%) Format and Organization (5%) Writing is disorganized with poor flow (2% ) . Writing is somewhat organized but contains some weak areas. (3% ) Writing is organized . (4% ) Writing is organized, Interesting , and easy to read . (5% )