13

BIRMINGHAM CITY BUSINESS
SCHOOL
UNDERGRADUATE/ POSTGRADUATE
DEGREES
COURSEWORK FRONT SHEET
MODULE TITLE: Strategic Brand Management
MODULE CODE: MKT7026
LECTURER: Naila Khan
ISSUE DATE: 16
th
January 2017
HAND IN DATE: 27
th
February 2017 (Component one, group
task)
HAND BACK DATE: 20 working days from the date of submission
Learning outcomes and pass attainment level:
Learning Outcomes
1. Critically analyse, and synthesise various parameters of brand management.
2. Solve problems and make decisions to justify proposals for the development
of a brand with an emphasis on creating and sustaining long term brand
equity whilst working effectively in a team.
3. Create, evaluate, and assess a range of options to demonstrate familiarity and
understanding of the nature, techniques and processes of creative brand
promotions.
4. Be able to conduct research into advanced and conventional theories to
recommend and justify a comprehensive brand promotions plan for
developing and sustaining long term brand image and brand equity.
Pass Attainment Level
A minimum of 50% is required to attain a pass. Work will be assessed in line with
the published marking scheme (see enclosed marking scheme for pass attainment
level criteria) and group peer assessment.
Assignment Brief
Assignment Weightings
The assessment consists of:
http://moodle.bcu.ac.uk/pluginfile.php/891992/mod_resource/…ent%20Assessment%202016-17%20-%20Component%201.docx 2/7/17, 9G35 PM
Page 1 of 7

Learning
Assessment Task Outcome Deadline Resubmission
Assessed Deadline
Component 1 - Group 1, 2 27
th
February 2017 30/06/2017
written report (40%)
Component 2 - individual 3,4 3
rd
April 2017 30/06/2017
written report (60%)
You must select a company with a presence in the UK
within the confectionery industry and complete the
following assessments. You MUST choose a
confectionary company with an established brand
portfolio. Choosing a non-confectionary company or
a company without an established brand portfolio will
result in student(s) failing the assessment.
Each group MUST obtain approval from the Module
Leader BEFORE starting work on a brand. You are
NOT permitted to use Ferrero/Nutella/Kinder as your
chosen brand(s). Any groups presenting work on a
brand for which approval has not been granted will not
have their work marked. If you are not in a group by
Week 3 of the module please contact the module tutor
and request to be put in a group.
PLEASE NOTE: All assignments must be submitted via
Moodle in accordance with the Birmingham City
Business School eSubmission policy. You will also have
an opportunity to check your work for similarity matches
and reports via TURNITIN before the final submission.
Group Report Assignment Brief (40% weighting)
Based on your chosen confectionary company your
group report should address the following questions.
The given word count for this component of the
assessment is 3500 words (excluding content list,
appendices, and reference list).
1. Using appropriate theories/models, analyse and
present a detailed picture of your chosen
Page 2 of 7

company’s existing brand portfolio in the UK
market. In doing so justify your company’s market
segmentation strategy and the opportunities that
led to the introduction of individual brand lines or
brand extensions.
[Weighting
30%]
2. Choose a strong brand from your company’s
current brand portfolio and analyse its brand equity
using the CBBE model. Identify the PODs and
POPs for the chosen brand comparing it with your
immediate rival(s). [Weighting
30%]
3. As a newly appointed branding team you have
been asked to enhance your company’s product
portfolio by successfully introducing a new
product/brand line for the UK market. Using
secondary market research data (along with other
databases) and branding theories, prepare a
detailed and realistic plan for launching and
establishing your new brand line. Your plan should
demonstrate how your new brand line will
contribute towards your company’s overall
sustainability and brand equity propositions.
[Weighting
40%]
Your report should be presented professionally, include
a contents page, be numbered and make full and
accurate use of the Harvard referencing style to present
all of your sources that support your claims.
Page 3 of 7

5
Assessment Grading Criteria:
These should be interpreted according to the level at which you are working and related to
the assessment criteria for the module
Distinction (70%+) Commendation (60- Pass (50-59%) F (Fail)
69%)
Excellent Very Good Meets the minimum Below standard
Information Detailed, accurate,
standard
Detailed, accurate, Generally accurate and Very limited, with many
relevant, key points relevant. Information is relevant, but some gaps errors and gaps. A weak
highlighted. A up to date in most and/or irrelevant attempt at developing
comprehensive and areas. A well-developed material. A complete the brand portfolio and
creative brand portfolio
brand portfolio brand portfolio links to segmentationclearly linked to the
supported and justified supported with strategy. Descriptivecompany’s segmentations
strategy. Exceptional with evidence. Good evidence. Some CBBE with limited
application of theories. An discussion linking this to attempt at linking application and analysis.
accurate application of the company’s portfolio to PODs and POPs not
the strategic segmentation strategy. segmentation strategy. clear or poorly
implications of the Provides some ideas of Applies all elements of described. Branding
CBBE analysis. An the implications of the the CBBE model. Basic strategy not clear and/or
excellent discussion of CBBE analysis for attempt at PODs and not based on any
PODs and POPs. brand strategy. Good POPs. Some findings.
Excellent justification for discussion of PODs and generalisations made
and discussion of POPs. Good plan for when designing the new
chosen branding introducing the new brand line strategy.
strategy. brand line mainly based
on research.
Structure The report has a Generally clearly Genuine attempt to The report is poorly
focussed, coherent and structured and logical structure the work but structured and/or
sophisticated structure. but some aspects not always clear or significantly incomplete.
confusing in places. logical.
Interpretation Extensive evidence of Attempts to go beyond Little attempt to go Entirely derivative,
independent thought the context of the beyond the expected or generally superficial.
and critical analysis. project and secondary obvious. Somewhat
research, with key superficial, generally
points summarised. derivative and
assumptive.
Use of Evidence of wider Most points illustrated Some illustrative Little or no evidence
Evidence reading and critical with relevant evidence. material, but not discussed.
evaluation of literature. critically evaluated or
integrated logically in to
the report.
Grade:
Feedback:
5
Mark Adjustments
Please note that assessing tutor(s) can change
group and individual marks according to their
academic judgement, at their discretion, in line with
published marking schemes and in accordance with
academic moderation processes and have the final
say in all marks for all work.
Group Size
Tutors can change group members according to
Page 4 of 7

individual and group performance. Group size is
limited to a minimum of 3 to a maximum of 5 members
only. Groups that have more than 5 members or less
than 3 will be significantly penalised when submitting
assessments unless they have had written prior
approval from their tutor.
Peer Assessment
This assessment is subject to a PEER Assessment
(details included below). Peer assessment of individual
contribution can result in the assignment of different
grades to different group members subject to
assessing tutor moderation.
PEER CONTRIBUTION EVALUATION & ASSESSMENT
The following evaluation of your group members is a
tool to determine those who have been active and
cooperative members as well as to identify those who
did not participate. Be consistent when evaluating each
group member’s performance by using the guidelines
below. REMEMBER you are evaluating the contribution
of the group member to the group tasks.
FOR EACH MEMBER OF YOUR GROUP, INCLUDING
YOURSELF, EVALUATE EACH GROUP MEMBER
USING THE SCALE AND SHEET PROVIDED BELOW.
PLEASE NOTE THAT IT IS ESSENTIAL NOT TO
SHARE YOUR RATINGS WITH OTHER GROUP
MEMBERS. SUBMIT THE COMPLETED
CONSOLIDATED RATINGS FORM VIA THE PEER
ASSESSMENT SUBMISSION POINT ON MOODLE.
By rating members of your group differently to other
group members, you will redistribute the total marks
achievable between group members. For example:
GROUP A achieves an examiner mark of 60% in
their group report. GROUP A has five members, so
the total maximum marks achievable by the group is
300 (5 times 60). Different ratings between GROUP
A members will redistribute the 300 marks as
Page 5 of 7

appropriate, resulting in some members
receiving less than 60 and some members
receiving more than 60. But the total marks when
all members marks are added together will
always be equal to 300.
PEER ASSESSMENT SHEET MKT7026 FEBRUARY 2016
Please enter your Group Letter (A, B, etc.), your name and
student ID in the table below.
Group Letter: Your Name: Your Student ID:
When grading the group element of the assignment, a
group grade will be assigned to each member.
This peer assessment sheet has been designed to give every
group member the opportunity to evaluate their own work
and that of their group members. The ratings provided on the
sheet will be used to determine a weighting factor that will be
applied to the group grade and marks for individual members
will then be adjusted based on the weighting factor.
Once you have rated each member, including yourself,
using the rating scale provided, please consolidate your
ratings on the table below and submit this page via Moodle
at the Peer Assessment Submission Point by TBC.
If none of the group members submits this sheet, all
members will get the same overall grade. However, if
you do not submit this sheet but some or all of your group
members do, marks for all group members will be adjusted
according to the ratings provided by your group members.
GROUP MEMBERS
LAST NAME FIRST NAME RATING
1
2
3
4
5
Assign an overall rating using the scale below for each
member of your group, including yourself.
RATING WORDS - Graded from 'Excellent' (the best) to 'No show' (the worst)
Rating word Rating Description
Page 6 of 7

Excellent Consistently carried more than his/her fair share of the workload
Very good Consistently did what he/she was supposed to do, very well prepared and cooperative
Satisfactory Usually did what he/she was supposed to do, acceptably prepared and cooperative
Ordinary* Often did what he/she was supposed to do, minimally prepared and cooperative
Marginal Sometimes failed to show up or complete assigned work, minimally prepared
Deficient Often failed to show up or complete assigned work, rarely prepared
Unsatisfactory Consistently failed to show up or complete assigned work, rarely prepared
Superficial Practically no participation
No show No participation at all
*Note - A rating of 'Ordinary’ or above is equivalent to a pass mark or more.
* Whilst the evaluation and assessment process will remain the same, the exact format may change to aid practical distribution and
data collection, depending on cohort size and module tutor group. 7
Page 7 of 7

Digestives Biscuits
Table of Contents
1. Strong brand..........................................................................................................................................................2
2. Customer Based Brand Equity Model (CBBE).............................................................................................2
 Brand Identity .......................................................................................................................................................2
 Brand Meaning......................................................................................................................................................3
 Brand Response.....................................................................................................................................................3
 Brand Resonance ..................................................................................................................................................3
3. Points of Parity (POP) .........................................................................................................................................4
4. Points of Difference (POD).................................................................................................................................4
REFERENCE...................................................................................................................................................................5
1

1. Strong brand
Among the UK biscuit market and products portfolio of McVitie’s, Digestives Biscuits should
be honored as the strongest brand because of its historical value as well as contemporary
commercial value. Digestives Biscuits has been embedded into the British culture and life as an
undetachable part because of its long time development in accordance with the tea culture of the
UK. As discussed by Mark Sugden, Director Market Strategy & Planning at United Biscuits
(2013), Digestives is regarded as the number one biscuit brand being worth £135 million and
possessing the average annual growth of 7%. Meanwhile, according to Statista (2015),
Digestives was ranked by a number of users in the UK in 2015 at the higher leading position in
comparison with biscuit brands of Burton’s and Fox.
2. Customer Based Brand Equity Model (CBBE)
 Brand Identity
Being a reputable brand as one of the most trusted and leading companies in the UK since 1925,
Digestives biscuit brand proves to own a remarkably high brand salience. The importance and
popularity of Digestives has been acknowledged through the appearance in the royal weeding of
Prince Williams. Additionally, as collected and analyzed by Kantar Worldpanel (2016),
Digestives brand name recognition and brand name recall show the extremely high percentage
among the British consumers because Digestives brand is currently purchased by 88.8% of
population with an average of 14.8 times per year.
Taking advantage of national brand recognition in order to create the more modern image as
well as reinforcing the strong brand association with consumers, Digestives has been refreshed
under the £12-million masterbrand strategy of McVitie’s, as announced by Martin Glenn, CEO
of United Biscuits (2014). The core campaign allows brands in the portfolio to be repositioned
under the only brand name McVitie’s; however, each Digestives brand would be accompanied
with an animated animal such as puppy, kitten, owl and tarsier enclosed with the strapline
Sweet and wheat-sheaf logo. This campaign aims to make the consumer shopping experience
become more simplified while consumers could arouse positive emotional and feeling
association with the simple ritual habit in the British’s daily life. As assessed by Marcouse,
Watson and Hammond (2015), this strategy focuses on redirecting the target market from
middle-aged and high income audience to younger consumers in A and A+ categories who start
to consider selecting biscuit products that are healthy and high-quality.
2

 Brand Meaning
As emphasized by Keller (2013), in respect of brand performance dimension, strong brands tend
to align product’s features to meet customers’ needs. Digestives has succeeded in
communicating brand’s primary characteristics and features; product reliability, durability and
serviceability; service effectiveness, efficiency and empathy; style and design. The masterbrand
repositioning strategy enables Digestives brand to rejuvenate the image that become more
accessible to younger customers. Nevertheless, Digestives price seems to be struggling to
exceed customers’ expectation since its premium price is entitled with the high quality products;
as a consequence, reducing price might deteriorate its brand. In terms of brand imaginary
section, Digestives has established the partnership deal with TerraCycle to create the free
Biscuit wrapper recycling programme that aims to raise funds for participants. According to
United Biscuits (2015), the recycling programme as McVitie’s Biscuit Wrapper Brigade
managed to collect around 2.5 tonnes wrapper in addition to raise more than £35,000 for charity
fund. As a result, it contributes to enhance its meaningful brand positively in customers’ mind.
 Brand Response
As asserted by Aghaei et al. (2013), customers’ loyalty to a brand tends to rely on positive
judgments and feelings of customers during shopping and consuming experience. Digestives
attracted 87% of returns of investment on media spend after launching the campaign, as
reported by Joseph (2014). In addition, for example, according to a number of feedbacks and
judgments of customers about McVitie’s Digestive Biscuits brand on the website of Waitrose,
Amazon, Morrison, Sainsbury’s, Ocado and Ciao, the brand has been rated with around 4 to 5
stars in average. The contents of customers’ reviews tend to mention positive words such as
excellent, wonderful, the best, perfect, favourite, super or satisfactory whilst most of them are
willing to recommend Digestive Biscuits brand to their friends. In terms of brand consideration
and superiority, if comparing with other biscuit brand competitors like Fox or Burton’s,
Digestives appears to be judged as a more unique brand with positive feelings like fun, social
approval and self-respect.
 Brand Resonance
3

Repeating purchases around 14.8 times annually tends to exhibit the behavioral loyalty of
customers toward Digestives brand. Boult (2016) reported that the whole British people were
suffered from serious biscuit shortage after the flood closing McVitie’s factory and Digestives
lovers called it as a disaster. This behavior shows that purchasing Digestives products has
played a special role in the UK consumers’ live depicting the attitudinal attachment of the
brand. Moreover, launching the McVitie’s VIP Club scheme has encouraged customers to
engage in Digestives’s activities more frequently to receive interesting branded merchandise
rewards (United Biscuits, 2010). It is true that the brand has built successfully the sense of
community and active engagement by such club program.
3. Points of Parity (POP)
Digestives tends to share category points of parity with other brand competitors such as
Burton’s Lyons Digestive Biscuits brand in terms of basic ingredients. For example, the
digestive biscuit might often include coarse wheat flour, sugar, mail extract, oil, whole-meal or
skimmed milk. Digestive biscuits tend to be consumed by being dunked into tea or coffee in
order to enjoy the disintegration of the wet biscuits. In respect of competitive points of parity,
although the packaging design style of any confectionery player might guarantee similar basic
elements for each type of product, Digestives packaging proves easy to identify due to the
wheat-sheaf logo with the tagline The Original and a cute animal recalling the association with
basic biscuits. This feature appears quite competitive if compared with no clear signals of logo.
4. Points of Difference (POD)
Digestives brand seems to possess three points of difference as the market leader. Firstly, the
masterbrand strategy simplified the brand recognition of the portfolio for consumers that would
raise brand awareness more comfortably. Secondly, according to Gupta (2013), the president of
United Biscuits, Jayant Kapre stressed the importance of the Digestives brand identity is to
disseminate its unique selling point that contains plentiful entire wheat rather than wheat-flour
in products proving more nutritious for consumers’ health. Moreover, Digestives would expand
to serve for affordable segmentation although it is positioned in the premium category. The last
point is the cuteness positioning of the brand that would create greater emotional association
between Digestives and customers.
4

REFERENCE
 Aghaei, M., Mosavi, M., Vahedi, E. & Asadollahi, A. (2013). Developing Brand Equity
Model Based on C.B.B.E Approach to Establish Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty in
Tehran's chain stores. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research. Vol.3, No.7,
pp.956-965.

 Boult, A. (2016). Britain suffers 'biscuit drought' following McVities factory flood. [Online].

Available from:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/12139012/Britain-suffers-
biscuit-drought-following-McVities-factory-flood.html. [Accessed: 12 February 2017].
Gupta, D. (2013). Digestives Digestive: Wholesome challenge. [Online]. Available from:
http://www.afaqs.com/news/story/37081_McVities-Digestive-Wholesome-challenge.
[Accessed: 14 Februray 2017].
 Joseph, S. (2014). Digestives masterbrand campaign generates 87% ROI spike. [Online].

Availablefrom:https://www.marketingweek.com/2014/07/31/mcvities-masterbrand-
campaign-generates-87-roi-spike/. [Accessed: 14 February 2017].
 Kantar Worldpanel (2016). Brand Footprint: A Global Ranking of the Most Chosen
Consumer Brands.

 Keller, K. L. (2013). Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring and Managing

Brand Equity. 4
th
Ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

 Marcouse, I., Watson, N. & Hammond, A. (2015). AQA Business for AS (Marcouse). 3
rd
Ed. London: Hodder Education.

 Statista (2015). Sweet biscuits brands ranked by number of users in the United Kingdom

(UK) in 2015 (in 1,000 people). [Online]. Available from:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/302794/leading-sweet-biscuits-brands-in-the-uk/
[Accessed: 13 February 2017].
United Biscuits (2010). The Digestives VIP Club on TV. [Online]. Available from:
http://www.unitedbiscuits.com/news/media-archive/the-mcvities-vip-club-on-tv/.
United Biscuits (2013). New, exciting biscuit range from McVitie’s Digestives for dessert
lovers. [Online]. Available from: http://www.unitedbiscuits.com/news/media-archive/new-
exciting-biscuit-range-from-mcvities-digestives-for-dessert-lovers/. [Accessed: 11 February
2017].
 United Biscuits (2014). Digestives Unveils £12 million campaign celebrating everyday
moments transformed by the great British biscuit. [Online]. Available from:

5

http://www.unitedbiscuits.com/news/corporate-news/mcvities-unveils-12-million-
campaign-celebrating-everyday-moments-transformed-by-the-great-british-biscuit/
 United Biscuits (2015). Digestives Biscuit Wrapper Brigade® saves one million used biscuit
wrappers from landfill. [Online]. Available from:
http://www.unitedbiscuits.com/news/mcvities-biscuit-wrapper-brigade-saves-one-
million-used-biscuit-wrappers-from-landfill/. [Accessed: 14 February 2017].
6

Bạn đang tìm dịch vụ tin cậy để làm giúp ASSIGNMENT, DISSERTATION ?
Nhóm mình gồm các cựu sinh viên:
Đã tốt nghiệp xuất sắc
Có 5 năm kinh nghiệm viết bài
Phương châm chất lượng luôn được ưu tiên hàng đầu với chi phí hợp lý.
Liên hệ với mình : 24/7 qua Email : ngochan2686@gmail.com
https://www.slideshare.net/HanPhamNgoc1 các bạn vào đây tham khảo bài mình đã làm
#assignmenthelp #dissertationhelp #SPSS
Kết nối với mình để nhận được nhiều giá trị hơn nữa
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ngochan2603

13

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (16)

Similar to 13

Similar to 13 (18)

More from Han Pham Ngoc

More from Han Pham Ngoc (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

13