MC5079 Assignment 2: 1,500-word Report (weighting 70%)

Students are required to produce a 1,500-word investigative report

comparing/contrasting current bricks-and-mortar environments of,
and merchandising strategies employed by, two fashion retailers
operating at an equivalent market level. Where applicable the
following elements should be addressed: layout, interior design,
exterior architecture, product presentation, atmospherics, window
display, in-store promotional material (not sales promotions),
service culture. The inclusion of (relevant) images - maybe to save
on word count – is optional; there is no penalty for not doing so.
The text should also highlight any practices/tactics that could be
said to embody theoretical approaches identified in the module or
encountered during through further study. NB the task requires
visiting stores in person (accurate data cannot be gained remotely)

Learning Outcomes: LO2 Document, compare and contrast the

merchandising environments of selected retailers

Marking Scheme (please also refer to the generic grading

criteria )

Tasks: Marks A Suggested Approach

(%)

Introduction 10 Present a brief historical overview of the

two brands selected (c. 150 words).

Main discussion and 60 Fulsome account of required elements of

analysis the merchandising environments of both
brands; sub-headings may help organise
the material. Any images (whether
integrated into the text or appended)
should be captioned (c. 1,200 words -
includes theoretical discussion below).

Theoretical 20 Identify instances where ideas, concepts,

component (to appear and/or theoretical models could be said
in main discussion not to operate in respective merchandising
under separate environments. Interweave this material
heading) into the main discussion as appropriate.

Conclusion 10 Reiterate key similarities and differences

 between retailers (c.150 words); Harvard
referencing for theoretical approaches
cited (not part of the word count)

Total 100

Submission: On-line via Turnitin by 3 pm Wed 7th Dec 2022

Generic Grade Descriptors (Level 5)

General o Generate ideas through analysing concepts

o Demonstrate a command of specialised skills
o Formulate responses to well defined and abstract
o Analyse and evaluate information
70-100 (A) Advanced scholarship
Excellent Goes beyond the material provided
Excellent link to research
Excellent analysis, synthesis, evaluation and critical appraisal
Excellent evidence of preparation
Comprehensive and critical understanding of the topic
Excellent ability to communicate clearly and effectively
Excellent organisation, structure and presentation of work
Good references, appropriate sources (quality and quantity). No errors in reference
list or citations.
60-69 (B) Demonstration of very good comprehension of the task with evidence of analysis,
Very good synthesis, evaluation
Use of a wide variety of appropriate sources
Transformation of knowledge
Independent thinking and development of ideas
Ability to communication clearly and effectively
Very good evidence of preparation
Very good organisation, structure and presentation of work – minimal errors
Good references, appropriate sources (quality and quantity). Minimal or no errors
in reference list or citations.
50-59 (C) Some evidence of thinking independently to develop own ideas
Satisfactory Evaluation of relevant theories or literature
Reasonable ability to communicate clearly and effectively
Report information in a structured way
Use of an appropriate format
Quite comprehensive knowledge
Satisfactory evidence of preparation
Satisfactory referencing, appropriate sources.
Numerous but minor errors in references
40-49 (D) May be incomplete in knowledge (some errors or omissions)
Adequate - Weak or no analysis, evaluation or synthesis
All learning Some application of theories/knowledge
outcomes met An awareness of appropriate principles/theories/techniques
Irrelevance to the task at times
Disorganised work with weak standard of presentation
Aberrations from the requirements of the task
Referencing is attempted although may be inconsistent, many errors, weak sources
Condoned Pass Little relevant knowledge
30-39 (F1) Not Lacking structure
competent Numerous errors in structure and form
Learning Limited understanding of concepts/theories
outcomes not No appropriate analysis, evaluation or synthesis
met Significant inaccuracies/omissions
Little or no attempt to use references and if so very weak with errors
Under 30 (F2) Little engagement with the task
No basic understanding of the subject matter
Poor communication (written or verbal)
Lacking or no structure
Significant errors in structure and form
Many significant inaccuracies/omissions – very little correct
Little or no attempt to use references and if so very weak with many significant
errors
(0%) No submission
Nothing of relevance in the work submitted