| Category | Assignment | Subject | Marketing |
|---|---|---|---|
| University | University of Liverpool (UOL) | Module Title | ULMS893 Marketing and Digital Analytics Assignment 2 |
| Word Count | 2000 Words |
|---|---|
| Assessment Type | Individual Learning Portfolio |
| Assessment Title | Assignment 2 |
This learning portfolio task uses Amazon reviews on the Kodak Printomatic Digital Instant Print Camera, which can be found in the csv file labelled “AmazonKodakReviewPosts.csv”. You can download the file from the “all data sets” folder on Canvas (this folder is in Start Here in the Materials folder).
Task: Identify latent topics in the review data to generate insights for Kodak’s product management regarding important features of the camera and, if present in the data, customers’ perceptions of the brand. Use tables/graphs to support your discussion. [Modify the R Studio codes provided for the week 10 seminar to run your analyses.]
This learning portfolio task also uses the same data set of online reviews on the Kodak Printomatic Digital Instant Print Camera (please see task 1).
Task: Analyse customers’ sentiment to generate insights for Kodak’s product management regarding product weaknesses and strengths as well as wider implications for the brand. Use tables/graphs to support your discussion. [Modify the R Studio codes provided for the week 11 seminar to run your analyses.]
Word limit: You need to complete both tasks, with approximately 1,000 words allocated to each task. Please do not exceed the maximum word count of 2,000 words overall for this assignment. There is no leeway regarding word count (please see the handbook).
What is included in the word count: Please see the module handbook regarding what is included in the word count. However, note the following important exception for this module: All charts/graphs produced in R Studio are not included in the word count. Similarly, simple tables (e.g. showing a list of analysed words or some review excerpts) are not included in the word count. However, if you do include tables or other figures created by yourself with lots of text and explanations, which should be in the main body of the learning portfolio, these will be included in the word count (i.e. do not use tables or figures to sneak in overflow text). The same is true for any appendices you wish to include.
Structure and style: Simply structure your portfolio by task. You can have subheadlines to structure your text for each task. At the heart of your writing should be managerial relevance and clear communication, as discussed in seminar 1 (week 7). Note that what counts for these tasks are your analytical skills, reasoning/communication and data support of presented findings/recommendations (i.e. show that what you are discussing is backed by your analyses of the data). You will also need to acquire background knowledge of the brand and product to make meaningful recommendations. However, you do not need to write an essay and include academic references, as our main focus in this module is analytical skills and problem-solving. Please also do not include lengthy explanations of the coding to conduct the analyses. Finally, please write in the third person rather than the first person.
Location of tables and figures: When including tables and figures to support your arguments, please place them directly in the text where you discuss them rather than in an appendix. Note that most of the tables/figures you produce are not included in the word count (see above), and they are an important part of your discussion.
Formatting and template: Please use the Word template (see Canvas download). Figures and tables should be numbered and appropriately labelled (i.e. choose a brief description of what the figure/table shows). You don’t need a list of figures and tables after the contents page, but if you want to include that, you can. If you should have references, such as sources with background knowledge on the brand, please insert them at the end of the learning portfolio (we use the Harvard referencing style at ULMS). You don’t need to reference R Studio for graphs that you have created.
Submission: Please submit your learning portfolio via the relevant resit link on Canvas. Please submit the Word file. A hardcopy is not required.
|
90 – 100% |
Extremely thorough and authoritative execution of the brief. Containing evidence of significant independent analysis, well-structured, logic, showing significant originality in ideas or argument, aptly focussed and very well written, in appropriate register. Strong demonstration of subject matter mastery, good background knowledge and well supported with data illustrations; few areas for improvement. Potentially worthy of sending to brand management. |
|
80-89% |
Thorough execution of the brief, well-structured, clearly argued and logic throughout. Strong independent analysis and demonstration of subject matter knowledge, solid background knowledge. Data illustrations well utilised and clearly linked with argument; focussed and well written, actionable implications. |
|
70-79% |
Good execution of the brief; well-focussed, logic, good evidence of independent analysis and well supported by data illustrations, implications are well argued and actionable. Demonstration of some background knowledge on the brand and product. Good critical grasp of subject matter. |
|
60%-69% |
Well-structured and well-focussed answer with evidence of a sound understanding of the conducted analyses and some basic independent analysis. Some data illustrations that generally support arguments. Some useful implications. Mostly logic and coherently written. Displays a sound knowledge of the subject matter and some background knowledge. |
|
50-59% |
Competently structured answer, reasonably well-focussed and comprehensive but tending to mainly follow analysis example and descriptive in approach with limited argument. Few implications and/or not well linked to data and/or insufficiently illustrated and/or not actionable. May contain illogical arguments and some errors. |
|
40%-49% |
Tending to rely entirely on example without making any changes to analyses. Descriptive rather than knowledgeable and authoritative in approach. Limited knowledge and understanding of the subject matter displayed; containing some significant errors and/or irrelevancies; poorly structured and/or illogical. No or very ineffective use of data illustrations, weak implications. |
|
30%-39% |
Inadequate execution of the brief. No analysis or incorrect analysis. Highly irrelevant argument and/or containing serious errors. Poorly structured. Displays little knowledge of the subject matter. No data support, no or very weak implications. |
|
0% - 29% |
Seriously inadequate execution of the brief. Failure to focus upon the task. Seriously short or even devoid of understanding. Large sections irrelevant. Very limited or no analysis used. |
Need plagiarism-free Answers for your college/ university ULMS893 Assignments
Order Non-Plagiarized Assignment
Don’t let your ULMS893 Marketing and Digital Analytics Assignment 2 assignment stress you out! We are here for marketing assignment help. Our expert writers are here to support you with affordable, AI-free, and plagiarism-free assignment help. Whether it’s Business Management or a complex project, we ensure well-researched, high-quality content. We offer free assignment samples and always deliver your work before the deadline. Reach out today and get the best support for your assignments—quick, easy, and reliable! We also provide University of Liverpool Assignment Samples that the phd expert writers have written. Contact us now!
If you want to see the sample of this brief, then click here:-ULMS893
Let's Book Your Work with Our Expert and Get High-Quality Content
