| Category | Assignment | Subject | Marketing |
|---|---|---|---|
| University | PSB Academy | Module Title | 7WBS2008 Strategic Marketing Planning and Entrepreneurship |
| Module Title: | Strategic Marketing Planning and Entrepreneurship | Module Code: | 7WBS2008 |
| Assignment Format & Maximum Word count | CW1: Situational Analysis Individual Presentation (15 mins +/- 10%, maximum 15 slides) | ||
| Coursework Submission: | Time: 23:59
Date: Monday 1th December 2025 Method: Canvas (see detailed instructions below) |
E.g. Use LinkedIn Learning to improve skills
Assignment Title: Individual Recorded Presentation: Situation Analysis
Description of the assignment, task, content and structure:
Option 1
You have been tasked by your current employer to help them develop a new product or service.
Option 2
You are a marketing consultant specialising in social enterprise. You have been approached by a social enterprise company in the UK to help them develop a new product or service. (You will need to decide which social enterprise you would like as a client.)
Choose wisely as this assignment will lead into your second assignment when you will show your ideation process and report on the new product/service.
Your presentation should provide:
1. A short introduction (1 slide)
To include the purpose of the presentation and a brief overview of the organisation / business unit (option 1) or your client (option 2)
2. An external analysis (2-3 slides)
To include an analysis of the market including an industry analysis, key trends, competitions, supply and distribution. Your focus should be on the macro-environment and you should include some key models eg PEST, Porters Five Forces
3. An internal analysis (2-3 slides)
To include an analysis of the organisation/business unit. Your focus should be on the micro-environment and you should include some key models eg Balanced Scorecard, VRIO
4. Segmentation explained (2-3 slides)
A detailed customer analysis including a description of the proposed segmentation of the customers available to target and a report of met and unmet needs.
5. A SWOT analysis: (1 slide)
a. Strengths of the internal environment
b. Weaknesses of the internal environment
c. Significant opportunities available in the marketplace, including unmet customer needs.
d. Significant external threats to the competitive advantage of the organisation
6. A summary (1 – 2 slides)
A summary of the significant factors affecting the organisation/unit (no more than 8 in total). You should include a key model eg perceptual / positioning map
7. Identify the UN Sustainable Development Goal the company meets for Option 2 only (1 slide)
8. Overview (1 slide)
A very brief illustration of how customer value can be created, and competitive advantage obtained, through potential innovation and/or NPD
9. References (1 slide)
At least 10 credible references
You MUST submit using the template available on the assignment information page.
The assignment should be submitted via Canvas as:
1) a word document (this MUST be the template provided within the assignment information section). This word document will include your AI declaration, the URL address for your narrated presentation and your reference list (all sources should be referenced according to HBS guidelines, using Harvard).
2) a copy of your powerpoint slides
You should include a minimum of 10 credible references including marketing databases. Read and use a range of recent academic resources, e.g. books, journals, websites for Mintel reports, Keynote, Business Source Complete etc. Do NOT use Wikipedia/ company website references alone, nor should you use Student/ Essay websites.
You must use Cite Them Right Harvard Reference style.
Please also upload your script on a Word document.
The presentation of the plan should be in your own words. When you have referred to a text, this must be referenced. If you quote short phrases directly from textbooks (you are allowed to do this occasionally), these MUST be referenced correctly following the Cite Them Right referencing (see point above). It is unlikely that these short quotations will exceed ten words. A plan which contains lengthy quotations will be marked down. Where you quote techniques and theories, they must be supported through adequate and rigorous referencing. It is expected that you will refer both to the suggested texts and further self-researched sources through your own wider reading.
The HBS Grading Criteria (rubric) will evidence how marks are awarded for individual parts of the assignment i.e. Presentation and Structure, Intellectual Curiosity and Referencing, Content, Analysis, Discussion – see Mark Scheme below:
| Criteria | Weighting |
PRESENTATION AND STRUCTURE
|
10% |
INTELLECTUAL CURIOSITY
|
10% |
CONTENT / TERMS / FINDINGS / DEFINITIONS
1. A short introduction to the organisation/business unit (ie your client) |
20% |
BUSINESS APPLICATION AND INTEGRATION OF DATA / LITERATURE
|
30% |
DISCUSSION / ANALYSIS / CRITICAL EVALUATION / CRITICAL REFLECTION:
|
30% |
| Total | 100% |
Your use of generative AI (genAI) tools in this assessment must follow one of the three categories below. Your Module Leader will indicate which category applies:
You are permitted to use Category 2 – Proofreading only permitted
Category 1 – Authorised use of AI
You are permitted to use genAI tools to create content for your work and to proofread your work. Alternatively, you may use a proofreader or non-genAI proofreading service.
Category 2 – Proofreading only permitted
You are permitted to use genAI tools (or a proofreader or proofreading service) to proofread your work, but you are not permitted to use AI tools to create content. This applies even if the assessment includes marks for English and grammar.
Category 3 – AI use not permitted
You are not permitted to use genAI tools for content creation or proofreading. This category applies where all or most marks are awarded for language proficiency (including spelling, punctuation, and grammar).
The relevant HBS Grading Criteria (Rubric) for your assignment should be added as a table immediately below the assignment description. If you are unable to find the Grading Criteria (Rubric), please contact your Module Leader.
| INDIVIDUAL NARRATED
PRESENTATION |
Presentation & structure | Intellectual curiosity (including use & presentation of Harvard Referencing) | Content | Application & Integration | Discussion /Analysis /Critical evaluation &/or Reflection |
| Task details | Follows guideline structure & keeps to time limit of 15 minutes (+/-10%) and no more than 15 slides | Follows Harvard style for in-text citation & Reference List. Uses a minimum of 10 reliable and relevant sources including marketing databases | Content included – a professional presentation that uses concepts taught on the module. Undertakes comprehensive market research by applying appropriate models to complete the market audit | Integration & application of information – drawing on a range of relevant industry analysis and relevant marketing frameworks | Evidence of preparation in order to develop the discussion through an appropriate line of argument. Evidence of critical thinking is demonstrated through discussion of the findings against the theories and frameworks. |
| Marks | 10 | 10 | 20 | 30 | 30 |
| 90 – 100 Outstanding | Outstanding presentation, structure and narration with outstanding quality of slides: professional quality, clear images, ‘audience friendly’ / use of colour / font.Clarity of delivery: business-like, interesting, natural, appropriate (eg volume, speed) with articulate & fluent language that is clear and preciseTiming: 16.5 minutes max.Logically sequenced and presented ideas appropriately and coherently cross referenced. Reference slide providedNo grammatical / spelling errors. | Outstanding selection of quality sources, including marketing databases, well beyond core & recommended resources.Outstanding standard of referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system (follows Cite Them Right for in-text citation and reference list)Accuracy of in-text references & full details shown in Reference list. | Outstanding exploration of topic showing outstanding knowledge & understanding of topic through thorough & appropriate research. Impressive choice and range of appropriate module content including theoretical models.All aspects included. | Outstandingbusiness insight & application. Outstanding integration of literature/data into work, showing outstanding links between practical application and theory.Very impressive breadth and depth. | Outstanding level of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation & reflection, resulting in an outstanding convincing, logical and thoroughly evidenced argument.Highly developed/ focused work. |
| 80 89 Excellent | Excellent presentation, structure and narration with excellent quality of slides: professional quality, clear images, ‘audience friendly’ / use of colour / font.Clarity of delivery:business-like, interesting, natural, appropriate (eg volume, speed) with articulate & fluent language that is clear and preciseTiming: 16.5 minutes max.Logically sequenced and presented ideas appropriately and coherently cross referenced. Reference slide providedOnly minor errors that do not detract from presentation | Excellent selection of quality sources, including marketing databases. Evidence of independent searching beyond core recommended resources.Excellent standard of referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system (follows Cite Them Right for in-text citation and reference list).Accuracy of in-text references & full details shown in Reference list. | Excellent level of knowledge & understanding of module content demonstrated.Evidence of appropriate reading and research. Includes some theoretical models.Covers all relevant points & issues of assignment brief. | Excellent business insight & application. Excellent integration of literature/data into work, showing excellent links between practical application and theory. Impressive breadth and depth. | Excellent level of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation & reflection, resulting in an excellent convincing, logical and evidenced argument.
Clearly developed points |
| 70 – 79 Very Good | Very good presentation, structure and narration with very good quality of slides: professional quality, clear images, ‘audience friendly’ / use of colour / font.Clarity of delivery: business-like, interesting, natural, appropriate (eg volume, speed) with mostly clear articulation & language that is mostly clear and preciseTiming: 16.5 minutes max.Logically sequenced and presented ideas appropriately and coherently cross referenced. Reference slide providedVery few grammatical errors & spelling mistakes. | Very good selection of mostly quality sources beyond the recommended resources. Few irrelevant/poor quality sources used.Very good standard of referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system (follows Cite Them Right for in-text citation and reference list).Accuracy of in-text references & full details shown in Reference list. | Very Good level of knowledge & understanding demonstrated of module content. Includes some theoretical models but could be developed further.Covers most relevant points & issues.Few errors / omissions in content. | Very good business insight & application.Very good integration of literature/data into work showing very good links between practical application and theory.
Very good use of literature/data with breadth and depth. |
Very good level of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation & reflection, resulting in a very good convincing, logical and evidenced argument.
Mostly relevant points – some may benefit from further development. |
| 60 – 69 Good | Good presentation, structure and narration with good quality of slides that are clear, ‘audience friendly’ / use of colour / font.Good delivery with only occasional difficulties with clarity or tone & language that is mostly clearTiming: 16.5 minutes max.Structure is mainly good with some logical flow Reference slide providedSome grammatical errors & spelling mistakes but these seldom impede understanding | Good selection of quality sources but some irrelevant/poor quality sources used beyond the recommended reading.Good standard of referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system ((follows Cite Them Right for in-text citation and reference list).Accuracy of in-text references & full details shown in Reference list. | Good grasp of the topic & some of its implications presented.Good knowledge & understanding of module content is demonstrated.Minor errors / omissions in content but more links with theoretical models needed | Good business insight & application.Good integration of literature/data into work showing good links between practical application and theory.
Good use of literature/data with adequate breadth and depth. |
Good level of discussion/analysis/ criticalevaluation & reflection, resulting in a good convincing, logical and evidenced argument
More ideas/points/options could be addressed or developed further |
| 50 – 59 Clear Pass | Satisfactory presentation structure and narration with basic quality of slides / visual aids. Delivery is not always clear and Timing is not within acceptable limits. Structure is satisfactory, but sequencing could be improved.Reference slide providedGrammatical & / or spelling errors which impede understanding. | Satisfactory: Some quality sources used. Research did not go beyond the recommended sources. Satisfactory referencing within text but some inconsistent use of Harvard referencing system (does not follow Cite Them Right for in-text citation and / or reference list consistently). | Satisfactory content / level of knowledge of the topic. Addresses most of the task. Some errors / omissions in content. May benefit from further research. | Satisfactory business insight & application. Limited integration with literature/ data – links between practical application and theory need developing. Use of literature/data but limited in breadth or depth. | Satisfactory basic evidence of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation & reflection, resulting in a satisfactory convincing, logical and evidenced argument
Some points irrelevant or superficially made so need further development. |
| 40 – 49 Marginal Fail | Weak presentation with weak quality of slides (not clear / crowded / not used as a visual aid)Weak delivery (inaudible) and inadequate timekeeping. Poor structure with muddled work.Reference slide may be missingMany spelling and/or grammatical errors.Must see CASE with feedback | Weak: Limited evidence of appropriate research. Some use made of recommended reading, but the majority of sources are irrelevant/of poor quality. Weak use of Harvard referencing system with errors & inconsistently applied (does not follow Cite Them Right for in-text citation and reference list consistently). Must see CASE/ Information Managers (LRC) with feedback | Weak: Limited content / knowledge. Limited or muddled understanding of the topic/question.Does not meet all the learning outcomes.Must see CASE with feedback | Weak: Unsatisfactory evidence of business application & insightWork needs to show better links between practical application and theory.Must see CASE with feedback | Weak: Limited evidence of discussion/analysis/critical evaluation & reflection resulting in a weak argument that needs further evidence to become convincing.
More development & comment needed. May need to do more than describe.Must see CASE with feedback |
| 20 – 39 Clear Fail | Inadequate delivery and structure. Inappropriate style. Poorly written and/or poor spelling and grammar.Must see CASE with feedback | Inadequate: Little evidence of appropriate research. Few quality sources used from recommended reading.Inadequate use of Harvard referencing with many errors &/or inconsistencies. Must see CASE/ Information Managers (LRC) with feedback | Inadequate: Lacking in relevant content/ knowledge. Content irrelevant / inaccurate. Does not meet all the learning outcomes.Must see CASE with feedback | Inadequate: Lacks evidence of business application & insight. Some literature irrelevant to topic.Must see CASE with feedback | Inadequate: Lacking / inadequate level of discussion/ analysis/critical evaluation & reflection. Descriptive.Must see CASE with feedback |
| 0 – 19 Little or Nothing of merit | Nothing of merit: No structure to presentation. Wholly inappropriate style. Many inaccuracies in spelling & grammar.Must see CASE with feedback | Nothing of merit: No evidence of research. No use made of recommended reading. Sources are irrelevant & of poor quality. Little or no attempt to use Harvard referencing system.Must see CASE/ Information Managers (LRC) with feedback | Nothing of merit: Unsatisfactory level of knowledge demonstrated.Content used irrelevant / not appropriate/ to the topic. Does not meet the learning outcomes.
Must see CASE with feedback |
Can’t Prepare Your 7WBS2008 Assignment CW1 On Time?
Order Now!Do you need help with the 7WBS2008 Strategic Marketing Planning and Entrepreneurship Assignment? Don't Worry! We are here to help you. Workingment platform provides all types of assignment writing services according to your university guidelines. We also provide a free list of university assignment examples for your guidance. We have Ph.D assignment writers who provide plagiarism-free work with AI-free content for your assurance. So why wait! Today, contact us.
Let's Book Your Work with Our Expert and Get High-Quality Content
dfsdf