Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 | Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago | Pages:5-10 |
Instructions:
Part 2 Harvard Business Review article analysis.
Read the HBR article on Blackboard A BETTER WAY TO MAP BRAND STRATEGY (Dawar & Bagga, 2015).
Complete the questions and analysis below. (3 points per question unless otherwise noted = 45 total points)
BACKGROUND QUESTIONS:
1. What do the authors mean by central brands? Define in detail and provide examples.
2. What do the authors mean by distinctive brands Define in detail and provide examples.
3. The authors note that marketers typically have analyzed brand positioning and business performance separately.
a. How is brand positioning typically measured?
b. How is business performance typically measured?
4. What is the purpose of the centrality-distinctiveness (C-D) mapping tool?
5. How can managers use the C-D tool?
6. According to the authors, higher distinctiveness results in lower sales volume. So why then do brands seek out this coveted distinctive place on the C-D map?
7. MATCHING (8 points): Match the examples with the appropriate term there are two responses for each term.
___ Aspirational a. unique; distinguished from traditional
___ Mainstream b. highly differentiated; wide appeal
___ Peripheral c. low distinctiveness, wide appeal; typically top of mind in category
___ Unconventional d. low price; lack distinctiveness; unlikely top of mind for consumers
e. Mercedes, BMW
g. Ford, Chevrolet
i. Tesla, Mini
j. Kia, Mitsubishi
8. Complete the following according to the authors: As the C-D maps show, ________________ tends to increase with centrality, and prices tend to ________. The more distinctive a brand is, the ________ the sales volume and the _______ the price.
9. In markets with high innovation and disruption, the authors recommend more / less (highlight one) frequent mapping. Why do the authors recommend this type of tracking and analyzing?
10. Assuming you are to lead discussion for the C-D map at the next staff meeting, outline strategic implications for each quadrant of the C-D tool.
a. Aspirational
b. Mainstream
c. Unconventional
d. Peripheral
ANALYSIS/APPLICATION QUESTIONS: Drawing from the logic and examples in the article, apply your critical thinking and analytical skills to complete this section.
1. Considering the bottled water brands and prices below, use the concepts provided in the article to map the brands on the C-D map according to consumer perception (10 points):
RUBRIC |
||||||
Excellent Quality 95-100%
|
Introduction
45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Literature Support 91-84 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met. |
|||
Average Score 50-85% |
40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided. |
83-76 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration. |
52-49 points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met. |
|||
Poor Quality 0-45% |
37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided. |
75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration. |
48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met |
|||
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow |
MKT 650 Marketing Strategy Business Review article analysis