Brand Report

need to design a questionnaire about 12 questions (including Likert scale, brand performance question, brand imagery question, brand judgment  question, brand resonance question). see in sample questionnaire

 

Report details 

  • 5 pages maximum (there will be a penalty for exceeding page limit)
  • Font – 12pt, Times New Roman, single space
  • Use of figures/diagrams/graphs is encouraged
  • References, appendices not included in page limit

introduction

1.Historical overview and background 

  • Parent company background
  • Existing brands
  • History of chosen brand
    – Any changes in positioning/target market? – Competitors
    – Exisiting brand extensions (if any)
  • 2. Brand inventory 
  • Brand elements
  • Brand associations
    Positioning strategy (POP/POD)
    Target market
    Existing campaigns

3.Consumer perceptions 

‱ Conduct quantitative research to identify:

– Brand awareness/usage – Brand performance
– Brand imagery
– Brand judgments/attitudes – Brand resonance

Important: Min. sample size of 10 consumers

4. Findings 

  • Is there a gap between desired positioning and the positioning based on consumer perceptions? Why?
  • Which are the main drivers of brand equity (which of dimenions positively or negatively affect brand equity)?

5. Recommendations 

What can be done to rectify the problem/s?

Play consultant and be creative

– Possible extensions?
– Trimming the brand portfolio?
– Change pricing? Packaging? website/? – Promotion campaign?
Objectives 

Understand what consumers think of the brand
Can be broken up under the following:  following 5parts should be mentioned   see the sample (Rolex)
– Historical overview and background

– Brand inventory
– Consumer perceptions
– Main findings
– Recommendations

  • Sample Brand Tracking Survey

    Introduction: We’re conducting a short online survey to gather consumer opinions about quick-service or coffeehouse chains.

    Brand Awareness and Usage

    a. What brands of coffeehouse chains are you aware of?

    b. At which coffeehouse chains would you consider visiting?

    c. Have you visited a coffeehouse chain in the last week? Which ones?

    d. If you were to visit a coffeehouse tomorrow, which one would you go to?

    e. What are your favorite coffeehouse chains?

    We want to ask you some general questions about a particular coffeehouse chain, Starbucks.

    Have you heard of this brand? [Establish familiarity.]

    Have you ever visited a Starbucks coffeehouse? [Establish trial.]

    When I say Starbucks, what are the first associations that come to your mind? Anything else? [List all.]

    Brand Judgments

    We’re interested in your overall opinion of Starbucks.

    a How favorable is your attitude toward Starbucks?

    b. How well does Starbucks satisfy your needs?

    c. How likely would you be to recommend Starbucks to others?

    d. How good a value is Starbucks?

    e. Is Starbucks worth a premium price?

    f. What do you like best about Starbucks? Least?

    g. What is most unique about Starbucks?

    h. To what extent does Starbucks offer advantages that other similar types of coffeehouses cannot?

    i. To what extent is Starbucks superior to other brands in the coffeehouse category?

     

     

    j. Compared to other brands in the coffeehouse category, how well does Starbucks satisfy your basic needs?

    We now want to ask you some questions about Starbucks as a company. Please indicate your agreement with the following statements.

    Starbucks is . . .

    a. Innovative

    b. Knowledgeable

    c. Trustworthy

    d. Likable

    e. Concerned about their customers

    f. Concerned about society as a whole

    g. Likable

    h. Admirable

    Brand Performance

    We now would like to ask some specific questions about Starbucks. Please indicate your agreement with the following statements.

    Starbucks . . .

    a. Is convenient to visit for coffee

    b. Provides quick, efficient service

    c. Has clean facilities

    d. Is ideal for the whole family

    e. Has delicious coffee

    f. Has tasty snacks

    g. Has a varied menu

    h. Has friendly, courteous staff

    i. Offers fun promotions

    j. Has a stylish and attractive look and design

     

     

    k. Has high-quality food

    l. Has baristas who prepare excellent coffee

    Brand Imagery

    a. To what extent do people you admire and respect visit a Starbucks?

    b. How much do you like people who frequently visit Starbucks?

    c. How well do each of the following words describe Starbucks?

    Down-to-earth, honest, daring, up-to-date, reliable, successful, upper class, charming, and outdoorsy

    d. Is Starbucks a coffeehouse chain that you can visit at a variety of different times of the day?

    e. To what extent does thinking of Starbucks bring back pleasant memories?

    f. To what extent do you feel that you grew up with Starbucks?

    Brand Feelings

    Does Starbucks give you a feeling of . . .

    a. Warmth?

    b. Fun?

    c. Excitement?

    d. Security or confidence?

    e. Social approval?

    f. Self-respect?

    Brand Resonance

    a. I consider myself loyal to Starbucks.

    b. I buy Starbucks whenever I can.

    c. I would go out of my way to visit a Starbucks.

    d. I really love Starbucks.

    e. I would really miss Starbucks if it went away.

     

     

    f. Starbucks is special to me.

    g. Starbucks is more than a product to me.

    h. I really identify with people who go to Starbucks.

    i. I feel a deep connection with Starbucks as a company.

    j. I really like to talk about Starbucks to others.

    k. I am always interested in learning more about Starbucks.

    l. I would be interested in merchandise with the Starbucks name on it.

    m. I am proud to have others know that I eat at Starbucks.

    n. I like to visit the Starbucks Web site.

    o. Compared to other people, I follow news about Starbucks closely.

 
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

Marketing Case Study (Nestle Ice Cream In Cuba)

Each course participant will hand in one independently written case analysis report.  Each write-up should be restricted to 6 pages- double-spaced, normal 12 font  (includes the executive summary but excludes tables, exhibits, etc.). . Make sure you address all the assigned case questions (already posted as a Bb Learn announcement and sent out as an email) as part of your analysis and include an executive summary (1 page) at the beginning of the case analysis that briefly summarizes the case’s main issues and the marketing decisions you have made and the rationale behind those decisions. All individual case write-ups are due to be submitted by 6 pm (EST), Thursday, July 21, in the Bb Learn Assignments Dropbox. Late submissions will not be accepted.

 

Case discussion questions:

1. How would you characterize the operating environment for foreign firms in Cuba?

2. Has Nestle’s ice cream business in Cuba been a success? Use available data from the case to estimate Nestle-Coralac profits to support your answer?

3. How can Nestle position itself for future success, given current market position and potential changes on the horizon?

4. What are the prospects for future investment and economic growth in Cuba?

  • ©2015 by the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. This case was prepared by Kyle Bell ’15 under the supervision of Professor Russell Walker. Cases are developed solely as the basis for class discussion. Cases are not intended to serve as endorsements, sources of primary data, or illustrations of effective or ineffective management. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, call 800-545-7685 (or 617-783-7600 outside the United States or Canada) or e-mail [email protected]. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, used in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise—without the permission of Kellogg Case Publishing.

    RUSSELL WALKER AND KYLE BELL ’15 KEL919

    Nestlé Ice Cream in Cuba

    Elsewhere in ice cream, we inaugurated a new factory in Cuba in April.

    With those thirteen words buried deep in the company’s 2003 annual report, NestlĂ© announced to the global investor community that it was officially open for business in Cuba. The announcement had been a long time coming. In 1996, as the Castro regime began welcoming limited international investment back to the island, NestlĂ© signed a letter of intent with the Cuban government to build an ice cream factory in Havana’s El Cotorro neighborhood. The plant, a joint venture between the Cuban government and NestlĂ©, was to produce high-quality helados for tourists and affluent Cubans.1

    Nearly twenty years after this initial decision to enter the Cuban market, it was not clear how successful the investment had been and what the future might hold for Nestlé on the island. The 2014 announcement of intentions to normalize diplomatic relations between Washington and Havana made answering these questions increasingly urgent, as U.S. companies began to eye the Cuban market and existing foreign investors in Cuba prepared for new competitive threats and expanded market opportunities.

    Stakeholders inside and outside NestlĂ© needed to evaluate the firm’s investment in Cuba as well as its strategy for future growth.

    Nestlé

    Tracing its roots to the establishment of the Anglo-Swiss Condensed Milk Company in 1866, NestlĂ© grew to become one of the world’s leading consumer products companies. By 2014, the company had grown to over 300,000 employees and reached approximately $100 billion in annual sales; its market capitalization eclipsed $250 billion in early 2015 and the company reported a return on equity of 23 percent globally.2 Many analysts labeled the Swiss firm the world’s largest food and beverage company (see Exhibit 1).3

     

    1 “NestlĂ©, Coralsa Make Ice Cream Together,” CubaNews, June 1, 2003. 2 NestlĂ©, “Key Figures,” http://www.nestle.com/aboutus/keyfigures (accessed May 1, 2015); “NestlĂ© SA,” Financial Times, http://markets.ft.com/ research/Markets/Tearsheets/Financials?s=NESN:VTX (accessed September 14, 2015); “NestlĂ©: Food Giant with Compelling Dividend,” Seeking Alpha, http://seekingalpha.com/article/2469755-nestle-swiss-food-giant-with-compelling- dividend (accessed September 14, 2015). 3 For example, “World’s Most Admired Companies 2015,” Fortune, http://fortune.com/worlds-most-admired-companies/nestle-33 (accessed May 27, 2015); Alexander Hess, “Companies that Control the World’s Food,” USA Today, August 16, 2014.

    For the exclusive use of Y. Hong, 2016.

    This document is authorized for use only by Yinan Hong in Global Marketing Summer 2016 taught by Lawrence K Duke, Drexel University from June 2016 to December 2016.

     

     

    NESTLÉ ICE CREAM IN CUBA KEL919

    2 KELLOGG SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT

    As NestlĂ© grew, the firm’s product portfolio dramatically expanded. For nearly seventy years, the company specialized in condensed milk and infant cereal. It was not until the 1930s that NestlĂ© launched successful businesses in powdered beverages and instant coffee (Milo in 1934 and NescafĂ© in 1938).4 Rapid innovation and numerous acquisitions accelerated the growth of Nestlé’s portfolio over the ensuing decades. By 2015, the company sold over 3,000 brands in thirteen distinct product categories ranging from bottled water to pet care (see Exhibit 2).

    In addition to product diversification, international expansion helped fuel Nestlé’s corporate growth in the twentieth century. As of early 2015, NestlĂ© operated in 197 countries, giving the firm global scale and extensive experience navigating new markets. The firm divided the world into three main operating regions: Europe, Americas, and Asia/Oceania/Africa. NestlĂ© Americas accounted for 43 percent of corporate sales and employed 33 percent of NestlĂ© workers; the region also earned a trade operating profit margin of 18.8 percent in 2014, compared with a corporate trade operating profit of 15.5 percent over the same period (see Exhibit 3).5 While a significant portion of Nestlé’s sales came from developed economies such as the United States and the EU, the company also built strong businesses in China, Mexico, Brazil, and the Philippines (see Exhibit 4) and was a pioneer in formerly closed markets such as Myanmar.6

    Nestlé’s stated corporate strategy focused on transforming the company into a global leader in nutrition, health, and wellness. The firm planned to use its brand portfolio, research and development capabilities, global reach, and talent to deliver healthy results for both consumers and investors. In particular, Nestlé’s leadership identified four potential growth areas for the firm: nutrition, emerging markets, out-of-home consumption, and “premiumization”7 (see Exhibit 5). The firm planned to apply this roadmap to all business units and markets.8

    Despite this nutritional focus, ice cream was an important part of the company portfolio. NestlĂ© sold ice cream and ice cream–based products under the NestlĂ© brand and other well-known brands such as HĂ€agen-Dazs, Edy’s, Dreyer’s, and Skinny Cow. “Milk products and ice cream” was the firm’s second-highest selling category after powdered beverages, accounting for 18 percent of global revenue and 28 percent of regional sales in the Americas (see Exhibit 6). Ice cream products alone made up 4.5 percent of 2014 corporate sales and earned a trade operating profit of 16.4 percent that year.9

    Surprisingly, NestlĂ© ice cream may have succeeded in part because of the firm’s new health and wellness goals. In 2010 the company began selling a new line of smaller-scale ice cream cups under the Dreyer’s, HĂ€agen-Dazs, and Skinny Cow brands in the United States as a way of translating key elements of its strategic roadmap to the U.S. ice cream business. The cups provided portion control (wellness), were portable (on-the-go consumption), and allowed consumers to buy a range of interesting flavors (customization, premiumization). Following a concerted retailing campaign, the new cup line became a successful part of Nestlé’s U.S. ice

     

    4 NestlĂ©, “About Us: Key Dates,” http://www.nestle.com/aboutus/keydates (accessed May 27, 2015). 5 NestlĂ© 2014 Annual Report. 6 Peter Vanham, “NestlĂ©: NescafĂ© for Myanmar,” beyondbrics (blog), Financial Times, October 5, 2012. 7 NestlĂ© defines “premiumization” as a strategy for “enhancing consumers’ lives, whilst creating additional value per consumption moment: many consumers are not looking to eat and drink more; they are looking to eat and drink better.” NestlĂ©, “The NestlĂ© Roadmap to Good Food, Good Life,” http://www.nestle.com/asset-library/Documents/About_Us/Nestle_Roadmap.pdf (accessed September 25, 2015). 8 NestlĂ©, “About Us: Strategy,” http://www.nestle.com/aboutus/strategy (accessed June 1, 2015). 9 Ibid.

    For the exclusive use of Y. Hong, 2016.

    This document is authorized for use only by Yinan Hong in Global Marketing Summer 2016 taught by Lawrence K Duke, Drexel University from June 2016 to December 2016.

     

     

    KEL919 NESTLÉ ICE CREAM IN CUBA

    KELLOGG SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT 3

    cream business, increasing cup category sales by 35 percent in the first six months after the launch.10

    Foreign Investment in Cuba

    In the nearly six decades since the Cuban Revolution, the Cuban government’s positions on foreign investment—and economic policy in general—had shifted dramatically, bringing important changes for multinational companies operating in or evaluating opportunities on the island (see Exhibit 7).11

    The early years of the regime were characterized by Soviet-style central planning and expropriations of foreign assets. Foreign investment was largely discouraged, as the regime sought to assert national economic sovereignty. Nevertheless, in the 1990s, after the fall of the Soviet Union, Cuba suffered an economic crisis and the Castro regime was forced to change the country’s policies to prevent economic collapse and maintain power. The government liberalized regulations on foreign investment and Fidel Castro made personal appeals to attract multinational companies. The change was short-lived. As the economy began to recover by the early 2000s, the Castro regime reversed its position towards foreign investment, canceled joint venture contracts, allowed input prices to spike, and halted other market-oriented policies. Between 2002 and 2008 the number of foreign joint ventures in Cuba fell by half (see Exhibit 8).12 After taking power in 2008, RaĂșl Castro passed a number of economic reforms, including a new foreign investment law that reinforced—and perhaps even advanced—policies of the 1990s.

    Under Cuban law, foreign investment could take three forms: joint ventures, international economic associations, and wholly owned foreign ventures. Joint ventures between the government and a foreign multinational were the most common. All business ventures were required to be approved by the Cuban government; approval was granted for a fixed time period (typically ten or fifteen years) after which the government could, and often did, change the investment terms. The limited approval period and threat of renegotiation had important implications for project valuations and financing, lowering the potential net present value of investment opportunities, incentivizing higher levels of debt, and discouraging investment towards the end of the approval period.13

 
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

New Coke Case Study

Let’s assume that among the marketing strategy solutions for Coca-Cola in 1985 was the strong consideration of introducing a new cola product (in some form) in the marketplace. As we know, Coca-Cola did in fact reformulate their flagship Coke product and relaunch it in 1985 – but was that the right decision? Now it’s your turn to determine what would be the best product mix for the Coke brand, given the competitive marketing environment in the soft drink market of 1985.

Recap: Why Coca-Cola Introduced New Coke in 1985

  • Coke was being outsold by Pepsi in segments where consumers had a choice of the brands, such as supermarkets,
  • Overall Coke’s market share was steadily declining (down from 24.3% in 1980 to 21.7% in 1984) ,
  • Coke had increased their advertising and promotional spending from $50m to $200m in recent years. Their $200m promotional budget was 1/3 more than Pepsi’s spend of $150m), but failing to stop Pepsi’s gains in market share,
  • Coke was having to resort to conducting aggressive sales promotions and discounting in stores (to reduce the impact of the Pepsi Challenge advertising),
  • Coke’s own market research was indicating that “taste” was the main reason for their erosion of market share,
  • Pepsi’s “new generation” advertising campaign was designed to position Coke as old and tired and boring,
  • Pepsi now had Michael Jackson at the height of his career,
  • Coke’s R&D area has developed a new cola formula that was preferred over both Pepsi and existing Coke in blind taste tests,
  • Plus the new Coke formula was cheaper to manufacture, which would add up to a $50m pa increase to the bottom line.

The New Coke Strategy

Coca-Cola’s management believed that the introduction of New Coke would completely destroy Pepsi’s competitive strategy. In fact, Pepsi’s own management initially believed that this was a masterstroke by Coke.

Firstly, the New Coke product was to be positioned as new, exciting, modern and young; directly confronting the “Pepsi Generation” campaign and stealing Pepsi’s market positioning.

Secondly, the New Coke product tasted better which would stop the Pepsi Challenge taste-test advertising. In fact, Coke had plans to run their own taste-tests and run their own TV commercials in order to win back lost customers.

Therefore, you can see why Coke’s management was so confident, as they believed that they had boxed Pepsi into a corner and destroyed their competitive strategy, as highlighted in the following perceptual map.

Alternative Product Options to Consider

You need to consider whether if and how Coca-Cola should launch a new product or whether there are better non-product solutions to their competitive battle with Pepsi.

Here are the different approaches to a new product to consider.

A. Develop a NEW product

  1. Launch the new product as a replacement for Coke (as they did first) or
  2. Launch the new product under Coke brand in addition to Coke (as they did later) or
  3. Launch the new product under a new brand name (as a multi-brand strategy) or
  4. Slowly change the Coke formula over time to become New Coke (without consumers noticing) or
  5. Undertake market testing of the new product first (before a full launch)

B. Do NOT develop a new product

  1. Increase promotional activity and spend
  2. Increase in-store promotions and discounting
  3. Increase retailer penetration
  4. Reposition the Coke brand
  5. Attempt to reposition Pepsi
  6. Try something else (your own ideas)

C. Do nothing different

Questions:

  1.  From the above list, what would be the best option for Coke to pursue in 1985?
  2. If you decided to introduce some form of new product, how would you position the new product relative to both Pepsi and any remaining Coke products?
  3. If you decided to reposition the Coke brand outline your positioning goals. If you decided NOT to modify the product mix, outline why this approach would be successful given that Coke has already implemented many of these marketing tactics.
  4. Outline why your proposed competitive strategy will be successful in this aggressive period of the Cola Wars.
  5. In what ways, do you think, that Pepsi may respond to your proposed strategy?CASE LINK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jL_oKq4ddCs

     

    Let’s assume that among the marketing strategy solutions for Coca-Cola in 1985 was the strong consideration of introducing a new cola product (in some form) in the marketplace. As we know, Coca-Cola did in fact reformulate their flagship Coke product and relaunch it in 1985 – but was that the right decision? Now it’s your turn to determine what would be the best product mix for the Coke brand, given the competitive marketing environment in the soft drink market of 1985.

     

    Recap: Why Coca-Cola Introduced New Coke in 1985

    · Coke was being outsold by Pepsi in segments where consumers had a choice of the brands, such as supermarkets,

    · Overall Coke’s market share was steadily declining (down from 24.3% in 1980 to 21.7% in 1984) ,

    · Coke had increased their advertising and promotional spending from $50m to $200m in recent years. Their $200m promotional budget was 1/3 more than Pepsi’s spend of $150m), but failing to stop Pepsi’s gains in market share,

    · Coke was having to resort to conducting aggressive sales promotions and discounting in stores (to reduce the impact of the Pepsi Challenge advertising),

    · Coke’s own market research was indicating that “taste” was the main reason for their erosion of market share,

    · Pepsi’s “new generation” advertising campaign was designed to position Coke as old and tired and boring,

    · Pepsi now had Michael Jackson at the height of his career,

    · Coke’s R&D area has developed a new cola formula that was preferred over both Pepsi and existing Coke in blind taste tests,

    · Plus the new Coke formula was cheaper to manufacture, which would add up to a $50m pa increase to the bottom line.

    The New Coke Strategy

    Coca-Cola’s management believed that the introduction of New Coke would completely destroy Pepsi’s competitive strategy. In fact, Pepsi’s own management initially believed that this was a masterstroke by Coke.

    Firstly, the New Coke product was to be positioned as new, exciting, modern and young; directly confronting the “Pepsi Generation” campaign and stealing Pepsi’s market positioning.

    Secondly, the New Coke product tasted better which would stop the Pepsi Challenge taste-test advertising. In fact, Coke had plans to run their own taste-tests and run their own TV commercials in order to win back lost customers.

    Therefore, you can see why Coke’s management was so confident, as they believed that they had boxed Pepsi into a corner and destroyed their competitive strategy, as highlighted in the following perceptual map.

     

    Alternative Product Options to Consider

    You need to consider whether if and how Coca-Cola should launch a new product or whether there are better non-product solutions to their competitive battle with Pepsi.

    Here are the different approaches to a new product to consider.

    A. Develop a NEW product

    1. Launch the new product as a replacement for Coke (as they did first) or

    2. Launch the new product under Coke brand in addition to Coke (as they did later) or

    3. Launch the new product under a new brand name (as a multi-brand strategy) or

    4. Slowly change the Coke formula over time to become New Coke (without consumers noticing) or

    5. Undertake market testing of the new product first (before a full launch)

    B. Do NOT develop a new product

    1. Increase promotional activity and spend

    2. Increase in-store promotions and discounting

    3. Increase retailer penetration

    4. Reposition the Coke brand

    5. Attempt to reposition Pepsi

    6. Try something else (your own ideas)

    C. Do nothing different

     

     

    Questions:

    1.  From the above list, what would be the best option for Coke to pursue in 1985?

    2. If you decided to introduce some form of new product, how would you position the new product relative to both Pepsi and any remaining Coke products?

    3. If you decided to reposition the Coke brand outline your positioning goals. If you decided NOT to modify the product mix, outline why this approach would be successful given that Coke has already implemented many of these marketing tactics.

    4. Outline why your proposed competitive strategy will be successful in this aggressive period of the Cola Wars.

    5. In what ways, do you think, that Pepsi may respond to your proposed strategy?

 
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

Marketing Case

MKTG 2101: NewShoes INITIAL MARKETING STRATEGY

MKTG 2101 Sec (001 or 002):

Team #:

Leader’s Name:

DUE: FRIDAY, OCTOBER 12 @ 11:59 PM

Submit Digitally (on Canvas) to: NewShoes / NewShoes INITIAL MARKETING STRATEGY

1 Submission per NewShoes TEAM

The objective of this Assignment is to develop an overall marketing strategy for your NewShoes TEAM that will be applied as you consider other elements of your marketing plan.

As background, read the “NewShoes CASE” which is posted on Canvas / NewShoes. The CASE provides information about the firm’s current strategy and operations. Recall that YOUR marketing team was brought in specifically to turn this struggling company around and to begin to operate profitability 
 so rethinking all aspects of the existing strategy is appropriate.

YOUR team will prepare a 1-1œ page document addressing the following:

(1) CREATE an effective, market-oriented MISSION STATEMENT for YOUR team. (Your MISSION STATEMENT should comply with the guidelines provided on page 71 of the textbook.) (1/3 grade)

(2) EXPLAIN YOUR team’s initial MARKETING STRATEGY by answering BOTH of these questions.

a) TARGET MARKET – What market segment(s) will YOUR team TARGET? What factors make this market segment – or these segments – attractive? (1/3 grade)

b) POSITIONING – How will YOUR team DIFFERENTIATE and POSITION your brand in this domain? What criteria do customers use to evaluate competing products, and how will you distinguish YOUR offering from competitors’ products? (In other words, what are YOUR competitive advantages?) (1/3 grade)

REQUIREMENTS

· Final written submission should NOT exceed two (2) pages

· Use standard 8.5″ by 11″ page size with appropriate margins

· Double space your submission and use an 11- or 12-point font of your choice

· Include your SECTION #, NewShoes TEAM #, and TEAM LEADER’s name

· DUE: FRIDAY, OCTOBER 12 @ 11:59 PM; SUBMIT on CANVAS

GRADE

· 1 POINT for complete paper (answering all parts) submitted before DEADLINE

· Work that is incomplete or not submitted in proper form will receive a zero (0)

LATE SUBMISSION PENALTIES

· −50% If submitted AFTER DEADLINE, but BEFORE 11:59 AM on SATURDAY, OCTOBER 13

· −100% If submitted AFTER 12 NOON on SATURDAY, OCTOBER 13

MKTG 2101: NewShoes INITIAL MARKETING STRATEGY 10.12.2018

 
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"