The new sections of this Asst should be a maximum of 3800 words. Please use headings/sub-headings to highlight changes in topic. An ideal assignment is your opinion, supported by evidence from respected/reliable sources, expressed in your own words, and fully referenced as to the source of ideas, facts and quotations. ‘In your own words’ is critical in displaying your understanding of the material, rather than being expert at copy and paste. Any use of Wikipedia as a source for the assignment will result in an automatic zero mark, as it is not a reliable source. Requirements - Your Assignment, including appropriately revised material from Asst 2 and 3, should be submitted to Turnitin by 11.59pm on the due date. Assignment 2 and 3 was done by you…MAN170910364-AB (GERMANY). OTHER ONE IS MAN17091364. UM (SouthAfrica).

Communication - This is about the presentation of the work including: Structure, Format, Grammar Poor grammar, spelling, punctuation, concepts were not clear, materials difficult to read - no tables or figures, inconsistency in style and content between sections. Word count is >10% over or under limit. Some grammatical errors, sentences were clear and complete, clear structure and formatting, some diagrams, but not explained and only decorative, some inconsistencies in style and content. Adheres to word limit. Minor grammatical errors, sentences were clear and complete, structure and format were used to aid the audience including relevant graphics, style and content are mostly consistent. Adheres to word limit.

Free of grammatical errors. Structure and format were clear. Sentences were well constructed. Language was concise. Excellent use of relevant graphics Clear consistency in style and content. Adheres to word limit. Free of grammatical errors. Structure and format were clear, logical and consistent. Sentences were well constructed. Exceptional use of clearly relevant graphics. Obvious consistency in style and content, with relevant links between sections. Adheres to word limit.

Realism – This is about practicality/realism in the country context Value 10% Is not supported or linked to country context Supported by real world information Well supported by connections to the real world context Well supported with explicit connections to the real world context Realistic and supported with explicit connections to the real world context Referencing Skills This criterion is about the application of APA referencing Value 5% There was limited or no attempt at in-text or end of text referencing There was an attempt to apply referencing, but style and application were inconsistent There was consistent style, but application was not consistent with some errors The style is consistent throughout the text and end reference list. Application was still inconsistent with some points remaining unreferenced. Both in-text and reference list were consistent in terms of style and application of APA

Application skills - This criterion is about linking theory to a specific context Value 25% There is no or limited application of theory to the context or case study The case study or context was connected briefly to theory. The case study or context was connected to theory with clear links. The case study or context was connected to theory with clear, logical and explicit connections The context is connected to theory with exceptional, logical and meaningful links. Strategic perspective This is about strategic recommendations for the company Value 10% No recommendations are made There were some recommendations, but they are not strategic There were relevant market recommendations, partly strategic The recommendations were relevant and strategic The recommendations were highly relevant and strategic

Australian student, 3800 words, based on previous work, will share it with start working email. Critical analysis skills – This criterion is about creating justifiable and effective marketing strategies based on evaluation of information found when researching the context Value 25% Can present limited reliable evidence supporting the recommendations and some is missing, incorrect or irrelevant. Can review and present some of the reliable evidence supporting the recommendations but some evidence is missing or incorrect. Can review and present most of the reliable evidence supporting the recommendations but lacks critical analysis and comparison Can clearly present the appropriate reliable evidence supporting recommendations with clear evaluations and conclusions Can critically review and present the appropriate reliable evidence with highly insightful and perceptive comparisons, evaluations and support for recommendations