Critically analyse the role of marketing analytics in marketing management and in deriving business value.

2025-06-25 16:27:02

Student Assignment Brief

This document is intended for Coventry University Group students for their own use in completing their assessed work for this module. It must not be passed to third parties or posted on any website. If you require this document in an alternative format, please contact your Module Leader.

Assignment Information

Module Name: [Applied Marketing Analytics]

Module Code: [7031SSL]

Assignment Title: [Individual Report]

Assignment Due: [23/06/2025 18:00 UK time]

Assignment Credit: [10 credits]

Word Count (or equivalent): 2000 +/- 10% words

Assignment Type: Standard

Percentage Grade (Applied Core Assessment). You will be provided with an overall grade between 0% and 100%. You have one opportunity to pass the assignment at or above 40%.

Assignment Task

This assignment is an individual assignment.

This assignment is an Individual Report which requires you to:

Prepare a short report for an organisation of your choice. Your report should critically analyse and

evaluate the organisation’s Marketing data using Multiple Regression Analysis.

As a detailed guide for your report, you should consider the following

1. Overview: An overview of the organisation and the scope of the marketing area discussing the contribution of this marketing area to organisational performance. (250 words)

2. Summarising Marketing Data Obtained: Use the dataset you have gathered to visualise the

data using appropriate tables and graph as well as identifying and discussing the key variables to be considered. (400 words)

3. Computing Multiple Regression Analysis: An analysis of the key variables identified using the technique as well as discussing the analytics capabilities of the organization. (550 words)

4. Discussion and Evaluation of the Outcome: Discussion of Multiple Regression Analysis outcome employed in the organisation and explaining the predicted values. (550 words)

5. Conclusions and Recommendations: Conclude on your findings and make quantitative recommendations for improvement. (250 words)

Word Count. The word count is 2000.

There will be a penalty of a deduction of 10% of the mark (after internal moderation) for work exceeding the word limit by 10% or more.

The word limit includes citations but excludes the Reference list.

Criteria for Assessment

This table details the weightings of the five criteria by which your work will be assessed.

Criteria	Breakdown of Marks
1. Overview	15%
2. Summarizing Marketing Data Obtained	20%
3. Computing Multiple Regression Analysis	25%
4. Discussion and Evaluation of the Outcome	25%
5. Conclusions and Recommendations	15%
Total	100%

Submission Instructions:

The assessment must be submitted by the deadline. No paper copies are required. You can access the submission link through the module web.

Your coursework will be given a zero mark if you do not submit a copy through Turnitin. Please take care to ensure that you have fully submitted your work.
Please ensure that you have submitted your work using the correct file format, unreadable files will receive a mark of zero.
The College accepts Microsoft Office (i.e. Microsoft Word) and not PDF, unless otherwise advised by the module leader.
All work submitted after the submission deadline without a valid and approved reason (see below) will be given a mark of zero.
The University wants you to do your best. However, we know that sometimes events happen which mean that you can’t submit your coursework by the deadline – these events should be beyond your control and not easy to predict. If this happens, you can apply for an extension to your deadline for up to Five Working Days, or if you need longer, you can apply for a deferral, which takes you to the next assessment period (for example, to the resit period following the main Assessment Boards). You must apply before the deadline.

You will find information about the process and what is or is not considered to be an event beyond your control at https://share.coventry.ac.uk/students/Registry/Pages/Deferrals-and-Extension.aspx

Students MUST keep a copy and/or an electronic file of their assignment.
Checks will be made on your work using anti-plagiarism software and approved plagiarism checking websites.

Marking and Feedback

How will my assignment be marked?

Your assignment will be marked by the module team.

How will I receive my grades and feedback?

Provisional marks will be released once internally moderated.

Feedback will be provided by the module team alongside grades release. You will be able access your feedback through Handin/Turnitin.

Your provisional marks and feedback should be available within 2 weeks (10 working days).

What will I be marked against?

Details of the marking criteria for this task can be found at the bottom of this assignment brief.

Assessed Module Learning Outcomes

The Learning Outcomes for this module align to the marking criteria, which can be found at the end of this brief. Ensure you understand the marking criteria to ensure successful achievement of the assessment task. The following module learning outcomes are assessed in this task:

3. Critically analyse the role of marketing analytics in marketing management and in deriving business value.

4. Critically evaluate marketing research findings, derive the implications of such findings and have an understanding of how these would be applied in a commercial environment.

Assignment Support and Academic Integrity

If you have any questions about this assignment please see the Student Guidance on Coursework for more information.

Spelling, Punctuation, and Grammar:

You are expected to use effective, accurate, and appropriate language within this assessment task.

Academic Integrity:

The work you submit must be your own, or in the case of groupwork, that of your group. All sources of information need to be acknowledged and attributed; therefore, you must provide references for all sources of information and acknowledge any tools used in the production of your work, including Artificial Intelligence (AI). We use detection software and make routine checks for evidence of academic misconduct.

Definitions of academic misconduct, including plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and collusion can be found on the Student Portal. All cases of suspected academic misconduct are referred for investigation, the outcomes of which can have profound consequences to your studies. For more information on academic integrity please visit the Academic and Research Integrity section of the Student Portal.

Support for Students with Disabilities or Additional Needs:

If you have a disability, long-term health condition, specific learning difference, mental health diagnosis or symptoms and have discussed your support needs with health and wellbeing you may be able to access support that will help with your studies.

If you feel you may benefit from additional support, but have not disclosed a disability to the University, or have disclosed but are yet to discuss your support needs it is important to let us know so we can provide the right support for your circumstances. Visit the Student Portal to find out more.

Unable to Submit on Time?

The University wants you to do your best. However, we know that sometimes events happen which mean that you cannot submit your assessment by the deadline or sit a scheduled exam. If you think this might be the case, guidance on understanding what counts as an extenuating circumstance, and how to apply is available on the Student Portal.

Administration of Assessment

Module Leader Name: Azadeh Pourmalek

Module Leader Email: ad9666@coventry.ac.uk

Assignment Category: Written

Attempt Type: Standard

Component Code: Cw

Assessment Marking Criteria

Criterion

Theory, concepts and models

Analysis, evaluation and application

Critique, conclusions and recommendations

Exceptional First

80 to 100%

Evidence of exceptional research well beyond the minimum recommended using a range of methodologies.

Exceptional understanding of knowledge and subject specific theories and concepts with evidence of originality and autonomy.

Arguments are exceptional, nuanced and well supported by a variety of literature.

There is a detailed literature review section with up-to-date peer-reviewed studies.

Exceptional analytical skills. Insightful and perceptive analysis that demonstrates both the depth and breadth of the issues with excellent examples.

Exceptional integration of theory into practice such that new contributions to knowledge are emergent. There is a very detailed descriptive statistics analysis. All the central tendency measurements were calculated, compared and critically interpreted.

Well-developed problem-solving skills with an exceptional ability to apply learning resources.

Demonstrates creativity and a high degree of originality and autonomy. The dashboard is very well-designed and it includes all the necessary variables to make sensible decisions.

Exceptional work demonstrating a very high degree of understanding, creativity and criticality. The literature review section is written critically, and gaps are highlighted well.

Demonstrates exceptional judgement based on arguments consistently supported by relevant literature. Logical, nuanced and complex argument presented. The descriptive statistics measurements are interpreted accurately and compared between multiple variables.

Demonstrates a creative and critically engaged command of the literature and context that enables new contributions to knowledge. The dashboard is used interactively to make data-driven decisions about the sector.

Completed to a very high degree of accuracy, proficiency and autonomy. Exceptional communication and expression with evidence of professional skill set.

First

70 to 79%

Excellent research well beyond the minimum recommended using a range of methodologies.

Excellent understanding of knowledge and subject-specific theories and concepts with evidence of considerable originality and autonomy.

Excellent arguments, nuanced and well supported by a variety of literature.

There is a sufficient literature review section with relatively new studies.

Excellent analytical skills. An insightful and perceptive analysis demonstrating both the depth and breadth of the issues with excellent examples.

Excellent integration of theory into practice. There is sufficient descriptive statistics analysis. Most of the central tendency measurements were calculated, compared and critically interpreted.

Clear evidence of problem-solving skills and an excellent ability to apply learning resources.

Demonstrates creativity, originality and autonomy. The dashboard is sufficiently designed, and it includes enough variables to make sensible decisions about the case.

Excellent work clearly evidencing understanding, creativity and criticality. The literature review section is written partially critically, and there is an attempt to highlight the gaps.

Demonstrates coherent argument and interpretation consistently supported by relevant literature. Logical, nuanced and complex argument presented. A significant number of descriptive statistics measurements are interpreted accurately. There is a sufficient attempt to compare the descriptive statistics measurements between the variables.

Demonstrates an excellent creative and critically engaged command of the literature and context. The dashboard is sufficiently used to make data-driven decisions about the case study.

Completed with accuracy, proficiency and considerable autonomy. Excellent communication and expression with some evidence of professional skill set.

Upper Second

60 to 69%

Thorough research, using established methodologies accurately, beyond the recommended minimum with little, if any, irrelevant material present.

Very good understanding of knowledge and subject-specific theories and concepts with some originality and autonomy.

Very good arguments are nuanced and well-supported by a variety of literature.

The literature review section has mostly new studies with some old studies.

Very good analytical skills. An analysis demonstrating both the breadth and depth of the issues. Well-chosen, well-justified and insightful examples were provided.

Very good integration of theory into practice. There is an acceptable attempt at descriptive statistics analysis. A reasonable number of central tendency measurements were calculated. There could be a more critical analysis of the descriptive statistics measurements.

Demonstrates some originality, creativity and problem-solving skills and a very good application of learning resources. The dashboard design is acceptable, and it includes a variety of variables to make sensible decisions about the case.

Very good work demonstrating a strong understanding of theories, concepts and issues with clear evidence of criticality. The literature review section has critically written sections, but the gaps are not highlighted in detail.

Demonstrates coherent, substantiated, supported argument and interpretation. The logical and nuanced argument is presented.

Most of the descriptive statistics measurements are interpreted accurately. There is an attempt but there should be more comparison of the descriptive statistics measurements between the variables.

Demonstrates a very good creative and critically engaged command of the literature and context. Sense is made of the issues identified with the support of relevant literature. The dashboard is used to make data-driven decisions, but the dashboard could be more dynamic and interactive.

Completed with accuracy, proficiency and autonomy. Very good communication and expression with evidence of professional skill set.

Lower Second

50 to 59%

Research is undertaken accurately using established methodologies and drawing on a good range of relevant literature. Enquiries beyond that recommended may be present.

Some errors may be present and some inclusion of irrelevant material.

Good understanding of knowledge and subject-specific theories and concepts with indications of originality and autonomy.

Good arguments well supported by a variety of literature.

The literature review section is acceptable, but it needs to be updated with new studies.

Good analytical skills. An analysis demonstrating both the breadth and depth of the issues. Well-chosen, well-justified examples were provided.

Good integration of theory into practice. There is a partially accurate attempt at descriptive statistics analysis. A few of the central tendency measurements are calculated. There should be more descriptive statistics measurements to make sensible decisions.

Demonstrates some originality, creativity and problem-solving skills though with inconsistencies. A good ability to apply learning resources. The dashboard design needs improvement, and more variables should be investigated.

Good understanding of relevant theories, concepts and issues with some criticality. There is very little attempt to critically analyse the literature. Very few gaps are highlighted.

Demonstrates logical argument and interpretation with supporting evidence. Some of the descriptive statistics measurements are accurately analysed. There is not enough central tendency comparison between the variables.

Demonstrates a good creative and critically engaged command of the literature and context. Consistent attempts to make sense of the issues identified with the support of relevant literature.

Expression and presentation were mostly accurate, proficient, and conducted with some autonomy. Good communication and expression with an appropriate professional skill set. The dashboard needs to be used more interactively to make data-driven decisions.

Third

40 to 49%

Research scope sufficient to evidence the use of some established methodologies. Some irrelevant material is likely to be present.

Demonstrates an understanding of knowledge and subject-specific theories sufficient to deal with concepts.

Arguments supported by a variety of literature.

The literature review section needs improvement. The provided studies are either mostly not up-to-date or not from peer-reviewed academic journals.

Adequate levels of analysis were demonstrated but with some lapses in descriptions or practice. Adequate number and/or depth of examples provided.

Adequate use of theory to makes sense of practice. The descriptive statistics analysis section needs improvement. It is either not accurate or not enough variables are used and compared.

Demonstrates some originality, creativity and problem-solving skills but with inconsistencies. A basic ability to apply learning resources. There is a poor dashboard design with either not enough variables or not dynamic and interactive.

Meets the learning outcomes with a basic understanding of relevant theories, concepts and issues. The literature review section is more descriptive than critical. There are not enough gaps presented.

Demonstrates the ability to devise and sustain an argument with a basic level of criticality. Adequate logic but the argument can sometimes be difficult to follow. The central tendency measurements are either not accurate or there are not enough variables in the analysis.

Some evidence of a creative and critically engaged command of the literature and context. Adequate attempt to make sense of the issues identified with the support of relevant literature.

Expression and presentation are sufficient for accuracy and proficiency. Sufficient communication and expression with a basic professional skill set. The dashboard is not dynamic and well-designed to make data-driven industrial decisions.

Fail

30 to 39%

Little evidence of research and use of established methodologies.

Demonstrates a weak knowledge and understanding of key theories and concepts.

Minimal references to relevant literature lead to unsupported assertions.

Some relevant material is present.

There is a weak literature analysis. There are not enough studies and the provided studies are not new and from peer-reviewed academic publications.

Deficiencies are evident in the analysis with undeveloped examples provided.

Weak links between theory and practice. The descriptive statistics section has many analytical errors. Either the results or their interpretations are not accurate.

Very limited originality, creativity and struggles with problem-solving skills.

Limited ability to apply learning resources. There is a very poor dashboard design or the values are not accurate.

Fail - very limited understanding of relevant theories and concepts.

Arguments are weak and poorly constructed. Many unsupported assertions and judgements were made.

Lacks evidence of a creative and critically engaged command of the literature and context

Fundamental errors and some misunderstandings are likely to be present.

Expression and presentation are insufficient for accuracy and proficiency. Insufficient communication and expression and deficiencies in professional skill set.

Fail
0 to 29%

No evidence of research.

Material may be entirely irrelevant.

No evidence of analysis.

Very weak or no evidence of originality, creativity and problem-solving skills.

Inadequate evidence of ability to apply the learning resources.

Clear failure - inadequate understanding of relevant theories, concepts and issues.

No evidence of logical argument and no evidence of alternative views.

No evidence of a creative and critically engaged command of the literature and context

Unsupported assertions and value judgements made throughout

Virtually no understanding of the assignment brief.

Assessment may be fundamentally wrong or with major elements missing. Not a serious attempt.

Expression and presentation extremely weak for accuracy and proficiency. Communication and expression very weak and with significant deficiencies in professional skill set.

Data Source : Netflix-Film-Data-Analysis/netflix1 (netflix1)_netflix1.csv at main · PratikRao18/Netflix-Film-Data-Analysis · GitHub

100% Plagiarism Free & Custom Written, Tailored to your instructions