Explain ethical issues and social responsibility in digital marketing

Digital Marketing
Subject Code MKT103A
Assessment Title Case Study
Learning Outcome/s (found in the Subject Outline) b) Indicate the importance of digital media in today’s marketing and communication planning
c) Explain ethical issues and social responsibility in digital marketing
Assessment type (group or individual) Individual
Weighting % 35%
Word count 1000 words +/- 10% excluding cover, references, appendices
Due day Sunday by 11.55pm week 7
Submission type Turnitin ?
Format / Layout of Assessment
Report:
ICMS Cover Page
Introduction
Findings (Analysis, Evaluation, Response to Questions)
Recommendations
Reference List
Appendices (if applicable)
?
?
?
?
?
?
Page 1 of 4
Assessment instructions Choosing between 1 of 2 case studies supplied by the instructor, conduct further research and analyse a digital marketing campaign using the theories and concepts from the unit. The report will focus on:
• conducting an analysis of a real-world digital marketing presence across various digital channels,
• evaluating the digital marketing strategies o examples—channel selection, audience engagement strategies, content development, implementation and monitoring strategies, etc.
• Provide recommendations for improving the brand’s digital marketing footprint.
o What additional digital media could be used, how and why?
o Determine the possible challenges faced when reaching the target audiences using each form of digital media. How would you plan for or addresses these challenges?
Additionally, be sure to respond the following questions:
1) How would you address questions of ethics and social responsibility with your proposed strategy?
2) Based on the case study, explain the importance of digital media in today’s marketing and communication planning.
The Case Study analysis needs to match the following:
• 1000 words +/-10% excluding cover, references, appendices
• Follow short report formatting
• Minimum of 6 resources [3 from academic resources at minimum]
Readings for the assessment To assist you with writing this report, use the materials found on your
• Moodle page (lecture slides, recommended and additional readings or other documents). • Class content.
• Useful links posted on Moodle.
Complete the Module activities which are designed to support the critical tasks of this Assessment.
Grading Criteria / Rubric See below
Page 2 of 4
Assessment 2 – Case Study – Marking Rubric
Criteria High Distinction
(85-100) Distinction
(75-84) Credit (65-74) Pass (50-64) Fail
(0-49)
Analysis &
Evaluation— Application of theories, concepts and methods in the analysis
40% The analysis is coherently presented. Shows a full understanding of the topic
Theories, concepts and methods are accurately applied and used to justify rationale throughout. Shows a depth of knowledge.
Includes insightful commentary and highlights high significance.
The analysis is coherently presented. Shows a significant understanding of the topic.
Theories, concepts and methods are accurately applied and used to justify rationale in most instances. Shows a depth of knowledge in all but 1 area.
Includes insightful commentary and highlights above average significance.
The analysis is present, but hard to follow at times.
Shows a good understanding of the topic.
Theories, concepts and methods are accurately applied and used to justify rationale, but further elaboration was needed in 2 areas. Shows a depth of knowledge in all but 2 area.
Includes multiple instance insightful commentary and highlights average significance.
The analysis is present, but hard to follow at times. Shows a basic understanding of the topic.
Theories, concepts and methods are sometimes inaccurately applied when used to justify rationale. Or greater depth is needed in the analysis and application of unit content.
Includes somewhat insightful commentary and highlights average significance. Analysis is confused or missing. Lacks depth or shows superficial understanding.
Theories, concepts and methods are inaccurately applied when used to justify rationale. Or greater depth is needed in the analysis and application of unit content.
Does not include insightful commentary and highlights little or no significance.
Response to Questions
25% Questions fully addressed. Response are logical, evidence-based, cohesive in nature and coherently presented.
Includes insightful commentary and Questions mostly addressed. Responses are logical, evidence-based, mostly cohesive in nature and coherently presented.
Includes insightful commentary and highlights above average significance. Questions are addressed. Responses are logical, mostly evidence-based, somewhat cohesive and overall coherently presented. Further elaborated needed in some instances.
Includes multiple instances of insightful commentary and Responses illustrates basic knowledge and with moments of incoherence in presentation.
Responses are logical, somewhat evidence-based, and somewhat cohesive. One or more questions not addressed, or response illustrate superficial knowledge and lack any depth of understanding.
Does not include insightful commentary and highlights little or no significance.
Page 3 of 4
highlights high significance.
highlights average significance.
Includes somewhat insightful commentary and highlights average significance.
Recommendations
20%
Thorough and insightful recommendations with strong rationale and justifications. Mostly thorough and insightful recommendations with above average rationale and justifications. Somewhat insightful recommendations with adequate rationale and justifications. Minimally insightful recommendations with some rationale and justifications but lacks depth of understanding. Lacks insightful recommendations with limited or flawed rationale and justifications. Or
Recommendations missing.
Presentation, Referencing and structure
15% Professional presentation and effective communication of analysis and evaluation, fully supported with evidence. Outstanding report structure and communication of ideas enhances readability. Free of errors and logical flow, appropriate sections.
At least 6 resources from reliable sources, with at least 3 being from academic sources… e.g. journals, company websites, trustworthy articles. Well-structured presentation and communication of analysis and evaluation, supported with evidence that closely correspond to the elements of the report. Very good report structure, free of errors and has a logical flow, appropriate sections.
5 resources from reliable sources, e.g. journals, company websites, trustworthy articles.
OR
1 source not reliable. Appropriate presentation and communication of analysis and evaluation, supported with some evidence. Good report structure, free of errors and has a logical flow, appropriate sections.
4 resources from reliable sources, e.g. journals, company websites, trustworthy articles.
OR
2 sources not reliable. Presentation that shows some evidence of report structure, but errors may detract from communication of the analysis and evaluation. There are some evidence used but they may not correspond to the elements and sometimes detract from readability. Basic report structure, some errors and hard to follow, some sections are missing.
3 resources from reliable sources, e.g. journals, company websites, trustworthy articles.
OR
2 sources not reliable. Lacks evidence of a structured presentation with limited analysis and evaluations. The few pieces of evidence used do not correspond to the key elements. Missing appropriate report structure, contains errors and hard to follow, appropriate sections are missing.
2 resources, OR less than 3 from academic reliable sources e.g. journals, company websites, trustworthy articles.
OR
4 or more not from reliable sources.
Page 4 of 4