Marketing Policy & Problems
Marketing Polic
MKT 412
Lancer Gallery Case Instructions
You will analyze the Lancer Gallery case using the basics of the IFAAR method (attached as IFAAR guidelines). Consider all the case data, plus what we discussed in class, in your analysis. Though there is very little financial data in the case, you can consider what is there in the Issue, Factors, Alternatives, and Recommendation sections of your write-up.
Because of the limited financial data in the case, however, you will not be performing a spreadsheet analysis for the Analytics section. Instead, this section will consist of the types of quantitative and financial data you would need to support each of your alternatives. Be specific about what you need. For example, “prices” and “costs” would not be enough; you would need to include what items/categories you need prices for and what type(s) of cost data you would be looking for. Think about the types of financial analyses we’ve discussed in class and determine which ones would be appropriate for your alternatives along with the financial data that is available in the case. Because there will be no actual Analytics section in this case analysis, your Recommendations should be based on what you’ve developed from the available case data in your Issue, Factors, and Alternatives sections.
Your case write-up will still follow the original case mechanics (no more than four pages, double spaced, 12 point font, one inch margins) for the Issue, Factors, Alternatives, and Recommendations sections. The four pages will not include the Analytics section. Instead you will attach this section as an appendix (using the same basic mechanics i.e. double space, 12 point font, etc.). Like the spreadsheet analysis this Analytics appendix is not page limited, but can be as long as you need to cover the appropriate information. Because this case is different than our standard IFAAR analysis, grading will be done using the revised rubric.
(S16)
MKT 412
Lancer Case Grading Rubric
| 0 (0%) | 1 (65%) | 2 (75%) | 3 (85%) | 4 (100%) | |
| Issue
(15%) |
Does not identify an issue | Identifies something but not clear or relevant | Identifies major issue but not in insightful manner | Identifies major issue; evidences some insight | Succinctly and insightfully identifies major issue |
| Factors
(20%) |
Does not identify any factors | Identifies few factors; factors not relevant to case analysis | Identifies some factors but factors not relevant or sufficient | Identifies most major factors | Clearly identifies all major factors |
| Alternatives
(20%) |
Does not list any alternatives | Lists too few, too many, or inappropriate alternatives | Lists several alternatives but weak or inappropriate | Lists most major alternatives | Lists major alternatives clearly and insightfully |
| Analytics (20%) | Includes no analytics data needs | Includes some analytics data needs, but inappropriate or insufficient | Adequate analytics data needs, would support most alternatives and recommendations | Good analytics data needs, would support most alternatives and conclusions | Appropriate and complete analytics data needs, relevant to alternatives and recommendation |
| Recommen-dation
(15%) |
Does not make a recommendation | Recommendation not clear or relevant | Makes a generally on-base recommendation | Good recommendation, evidence of thought | Appropriate and well thought out recommendation |
| Mechanics
(10%) |
Unreadable and incomprehensible, many errors, has not followed directions | Difficult to read and understand, many errors, follows some directions | Mostly readable and comprehensible, some errors, follows directions | Readable and comprehensible, organized, few errors, follows directions | Very readable and comprehensible, almost no errors, follows all directions |
(S16)
y & Problems
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"
