Consumer Behaviour Assignment

BSc Buyer Behaviour Minor assessment

Academic Year 2018/2019, term 2 Percentage of Module Grade: 40%

 

Course: UG6005 Buyer Behaviour Module Leader: Julie Harpley Lecturer: Paper due: November 3rd 2019 Oral Presentation: Week 6 Word count: 2000 +/- 10% per student Group preferably 2 or 3 per group Percentage of final grade given: 40% of final grade Project Description Students are invited to choose ONE of the two case studies listed below from our Consumer Behaviour reference book (buying, having and being 12th Edition Michael R. Solomon) and they are requested to answer the following questions on this assignment. It is highly recommended to go to the store in order to conduct a professional research for the chosen case. It is also strongly advised to answer the questions with breadth and depth of relevant reading and observations, as well as understanding and application of theory and analytical models. Please, respond IN ESSAY form. Pay particular attention to the extensive use of referencing. Case p126-127: A lush treat for the senses a) Brief Introduction of the company and explain how consumers get currently involved with Lush products and their promotional message. b) Describe and explain the perceptual process at Lush stores and how Lush uses sensory marketing for its products and encourages its customers to process information. c) Are the decisions of Lush’s consumers driven by a rational consumption appeal or is it influenced by hedonic consumption? Explain and discuss. d) Critical: Are there any counter indications to the use of sensory marketing in the retail industry? Is there evidence of it occasionally backfiring and when? OR Case p196: Has the death of the watch been greatly exaggerated? Apple gets into the game a) Brief introduction of the company and explain how consumers get currently involved with the iWatch product and promotional message.

 

 

b) use the affect theory to explain how emotional responses impact iWatch consumer usage; c) research one or more communities of iWatch users and explain the 5 most common issues raised by community members in relation to the use of such product and some possible insights on the iWatch typical consumer profile as opposed to that of other similar products; d) Critical: identify some possible criticisms posed to the use of communities in sports that the iWatch producers should be aware of. Grading:

Deliverable Weighting Date due

Group component 10% Nov 3rd 2019

Group presentation 5% Week 6 @class time

Individual content of group report 25% Nov 3rd 2019 STRUCTURE AND FORMAT OF THE REPORT: This is a group assignment. Groups should be made up of 2 to 3 participants. Groups can be chosen at your convenience and should be submitted to the course lecturer with the subject of your project. In the event that groups cannot be amicably selected the course lecturer will select groups, even amongst those groups already decided. The course lecturer reserves the right to select groups without recourse or debate. Make sure your writing is precise and to the point. Your paper should not exceed 2000 +/-10% words per student, excluding appendices and references. Format of the report: 1. 1 The report should display a coherent structure: title page should include student name, module name, lecturer name, date and school name followed by contents page, introduction, executive summary, methodology, findings, analysis, recommendations, referencing and appendices. 2. The report should be prepared as a neatly typed Word document (Times New Roman 12 points), with double spacing and page numbering. 3. All report will be discussed in class in a power point presentation of no more than 20 minutes. The presentation should be a summary of your work. The powerpoint presentation should be printed 4 slides per page and submitted attached to your project, otherwise submission will be rejected. 4. Tables or work/data taken from other sources may be included in an appendix. 5. All sources must be referenced in the text and a full bibliography must be provided (including visited websites) in the Harvard style referencing system. Paraphrasing or direct quotes taken from other sources must be clearly indicated with citations. No footnoting!

 

 

6. Students are reminded that depth, relevance and variety are the crucial elements of quality research. (Wikipedia is not considered to be a relevant source of information; any students referencing Wikipedia will be deducted marks! Alternatively if you find information on Wikipedia use the original sources listed at the bottom of the article) 7. Students are reminded to use valid and peer-reviewed references to support their work. Websites should only be used if they represent an established source and only for facts and figures. Students should make the most of academic and practitioner books and articles. 8. Submission should be by the deadline below and should include a hard copy to the lecturer and an electronic copy to your academic coordinator 9. All work must conform to University regulations on Cheating, Collusion and Plagiarism’ as described in your program handbook. You are advised to use the Harvard referencing style and avoid plagiarism. Deadline: Midnight November 3rd 2019 Projects, must be delivered by email to the lecturer and the academic office, and be loaded on Turnitin by midnight on November 3rd 2019. Only when this has been done will the project be considered submitted. Coursework must be submitted for assessment by the due date. Coursework is deemed to have been submitted once it is lodged in accordance with the assessment requirements for the module or unit. Late submission: Coursework may be accepted after the deadline, but 5% will be deducted from the face value mark (5 marks) for work submitted before the end of the day after the due date, and 10 marks for course work submitted up to one week after the due date. (For example, if a piece of work deserves a mark of 48pc, 43pc will be recorded if the work is submitted before the end of the day, and 38pc – fail – if the work is submitted up to a week late). If the imposition of the penalty deduction results in a fail mark, the student will be deemed to have failed the assessment. Assessments which are marked with a literal grade, or which take the form of presentation, performance or exhibition may not be submitted late. Submission of coursework arising from reassessment may not be submitted late. If you fail to submit an electronic version of your work, your mark will normally be recorded as a non-submission. However, if on the due date for your assignment, Turnitin is unavailable due to technical difficulties, students must submit the electronic version of your work as soon as possible to the academic Office. Your tutor will be aware of the situation and may well have informed you of such problems, so you will not risk penalties. You should submit the hard copy of your work as normal by the deadline. A paper copy of the project must be delivered to the lecturer at the start of the next class after the deadline. Oral presentations will be held in week 6.

 

 

Students absent on the date of the oral presentation, without valid justification, will receive 0 as a mark for the oral component. Turnitin Details: Please see submission details on the ESE Student Portal

 

 

 

GENERAL MARKING CRITERIA (UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES)

Outstanding Quality 80-100%

Excellent work: 70%-79%

Above satisfactory work:

60% – 69%

Satisfactory: 50 – 59%

Below satisfactory work:

40% – 49%

Failure: Below 40%

Relevance Innovatively addresses objectives of the

assessment task, especially those components

requiring sophistication of critical analysis, synthesis

and evaluation.

Excellent knowledge and understanding of

material and an imaginative sense of its relevance across a range of issues, and context or

policy situation; excellent

use of course material and other relevant

information to support argument

Very good use of course material and other information;

well-chosen to support arguments relevant to question

Competent use of course materials

and other information to support most

arguments

Some use of appropriate course

materials and experience to support arguments; capacity to identify

relevance, but may be rather

narrowly focused and miss out important

areas

Little or no sign of relevance

Content A clear and consistent line of highly critical

and evaluative argument, displaying the ability to develop

one’s innovative ideas from the work of

others. Creative flair in theoretical and

conceptual analysis.

Independent and creative, and

demonstrates clear thinking; ability to

analyse and critically evaluate material

Good knowledge and understanding of the material, across a

broad spectrum, combined with an ability to evaluate,

analyse and reflect on key issues

Reasonable knowledge of the

material and ability to draw upon more

than one source for ideas; uses key

themes well.

Adequate understanding and use

of course and other relevant material;

mostly descriptive, but with some grasp of key

course themes and issues and a capacity to discuss these in context

Very limited knowledge and

understanding and the issues involved

Depth Wide range of recommended and

relevant sources used in an innovative and consistent way to

support arguments. In depth use of sources

beyond recommended texts, demonstrates

creative flair in independent research.

A sensitive awareness of conflicting arguments

and ideas and of their

provenance. Clear grasp of implications.

Well organized use of most of the major points with an ability to draw upon them

creatively and critically; awareness

of conflicting arguments and

ideas and attempt to address them in

context

Capacity to grapple with conflicting

arguments and ideas; beginning to draw together and

synthesize ideas and perspectives from a

range of theory

Some attempt to address the conflicting arguments and ideas

from the course, some signs

of an attempt to take an evaluative,

analytical and critical stance; some

appropriate use of concepts, but with only

limited evidence of independent thinking

Lack of awareness of conflicting

arguments and ides

Structure Outstanding visual and written presentation.

Sophisticated yet clear and accessible style. Possibly innovative yet logical and

fluent organisation and development of materials. Articulate, coherent and succinct. Relationships between statements and sections are clear and

precise. Referencing is accurate and, appropriate.

Excellent organisation of

material; clear, logical flow of argument; good sign-posting throughout

Good, clear framework and

reasoned argument with evidence of careful thought

Sensible use of major points

integrated into the answer; logical flow of ideas is

apparent

Framework is apparent with an

introduction, argument and conclusion, but the logical flow and

coherence is not always consistent and may be

difficult to follow

Little or no evidence of

planned structure and organisation