Project Brief

Developing a creative marketing campaign for National Space Centre Leicester

 

Type: Individual Project

Credit: 40% of overall module mark

This project is designed to assess the following module ILOs:
– Assess the implications of consumer behaviour and consumption for creative industries.
– Demonstrate a grasp of conceptual and methodological tools relevant to the analysis of consumption and the creative industries.
– Discuss the importance of studying consumer behaviour for the implementation of the marketing concept within creative industries.

Project Brief: In this hypothetical scenario, you will be taking on the role of a creative marketing consultant. You have been contracted to help a new client, the National Space Centre in Leicester, to design new creative content with the aim of attracting a wider range of consumers to visit their attraction.

The National Space Centre is an educational charity which opened in June 2001 and is now one of Leicester’s biggest tourist attractions. It has the aim of advancing education for the public benefit in particular, but not exclusively, in relation to space and planetary science, astronomy and technology and their significance to life on earth. The National Space Centre is located in Leicester, in part because of the links to the University of Leicester’s space research.

As an educational charity, the organisation orientates its service provision to accommodate schools and families. However, they have also established a corporate events arm to their business by hiring out exhibition spaces within the centre. The National Space Centre recognise that there are always opportunities to improve its marketing, and to expand into other market segments, and thus, broadening their target consumer base.

Specifically, your job is help market the attraction to students from the two universities in the city of Leicester, namely, the University of Leicester and De Montfort University. The aim is to both increase awareness of the attraction, and to increase the number of visitors from this demographic.

Your job as a creative marketing consultant is to visually represent the National Space Centre’s current brand image and an appropriate future brand identity to meet this new aim in a mood board, that would enable them to target university students.

To achieve this, you will need to get to know your client in this scenario, the National Space Centre, virtually. You will do this by engaging with their promotional material and other relevant material about the National Space Centre online. Remember that you are acting as a creative marketer, so your goal is to analyse this material while thinking about the brief you have been set.

To get started, you should do some research about the National Space Centre by assessing their website: https://spacecentre.co.uk/ You should then read other media coverage, reviews and other information you can find. You can use this to analyse the brand image that consumers are exposed to and analyse how this matches with the brand identity that you are advising and shaping through this project.

The project is comprised of two assessed elements:
Part 1. Mood board of brand image and identity: 60% of project mark
Part 2. Written Justification of creative vision and content: 40% of project mark

Part 1: Mood board of brand image and brand identity (60% of project mark)

What is a mood board?
– Mood boards are visual tools that are often used in creative design processes as a way to create and communicate certain themes and ideas, provide inspiration and aid in the development of new content/products. Mood boards also help to ensure that the various creatives working on the project have a shared view of a brand image and identity, and can be a useful tool for agencies to communicate their ideas and interpretations to their clients. You will be learning more about mood boards in the seminar following the branding lectures on this module.

What do I need to do?
– For the purpose of this project, you are asked to create a mood board, using any medium that you wish, that visually communicates your analysis and interpretation of the National Space Centre’s current brand image and future brand identity.
– You must clearly divide your board between brand image and identity, although the split does not have to be equal in terms of space on the board. If not 50/50 you will need to justify why you chose to focus more on either brand image or identity in your written justification.
– You can use a whole range of visual elements including images and text. Remember you will be given detailed guidance on typical elements of mood boards during the branding lectures and seminar.
– You can produce your mood board digitally or in a physical format, that choice is entirely up to you. If you produce it in physical format you will need to take a good quality digital photo of your mood board to upload for submission.
– You will need to justify your visual representation in the written part of this project, so think carefully about how you construct your mood board.

How will this be assessed?
– The mood board will be judged on: its relevance, clarity, originality and consistency. We are looking to see that you have created a clear and concise visual representation of your analysis of the brand image and identity. There should be consistency in each of the sections that demonstrates a clear vision.
– This element will be marked out of 100 and you will be given feedback on it. It will then be weighted to account for 60% of your overall project mark.

Part 2: Written Justification of creative vision and contentmaximum of 1,000 words (40% of project mark)

What is the written justification?
– Within your justification, you need to give the rationale behind the development and creation of your creative mood board. This is to show your clients the thought processes behind your creative content and demonstrate that your understanding of key theory and not just your own ideas and opinions drove your approach.
– We also need to assess your ability as marketing students to use the theories from the module to underpin your marketing ideas that you propose in the more creative aspects of this project.

What do I need to do?
– You are asked to submit a short report of no more than 1,000 words that will describe and critically analyse the brief you were set and how your understanding of consumer behaviour and branding (including theories from the first half of the module) informed the design of your mood board. You should explain how you think your design would meet the brief.

How will this be assessed?
– This will be marked on the basis of you demonstrating understanding of consumption and branding theories and practice. We will be looking for evidence that you have drawn on appropriate academic reading to support your application of relevant consumer and branding concepts to the National Space Centre task. We will also be examining the extent to which your justification demonstrates that your proposed creative content clearly meets the brief you were set.
– Remember, the report must be supported by both academic references and secondary sources. Therefore, you must provide a full list of references (references do not count in the word limitation). ALL material that you use should be referenced appropriately, using the Harvard System. Further advice on referencing can be found here: https://www2.le.ac.uk/library/help/referencing/author-date
– This element will be marked out of 100 and you will be given feedback on it. It will then be weighted to account for 40% of your overall project mark.

Further support and guidance will be given throughout the module and during super week. You also have the opportunity to use the module leaders office hours to discuss specific aspects of the project that you require advice on.

MARKING CRITERIA

Mark Postgraduate Grade Descriptor
85-100% Scholarship: Excellent application of a rigorous and extensive knowledge of subject matter; perceptive; demonstrates a critical appreciation of subject and extensive and detailed critical analysis of the key issues; displays independence of thought and/ or a novel and relevant approach to the subject; reveals both breadth and depth of understanding, showing insight and appreciation of argument.

Independent learning: Work draws on a wide range of relevant literature and is not confined to reading lists, textbooks or lecture notes; arguments are well supported by a variety of means.

Writing skills: Writing skills are excellent; writing is clear and precise; arguments are logical, well-structured and sustained, and demonstrate thorough understanding; conclusions are reasoned and justified by evidence.

Analysis: Work demonstrates a robust approach to analysis that is evident of a deep understanding of relevant concepts, theories, principles and techniques. For quantitative modules analysis is complete and entirely relevant to the problem.

70-84% Scholarship: Very good application of a rigorous and extensive knowledge of subject matter; demonstrates a critical appreciation of subject; displays detailed thought and consideration of the subject; reveals very good breadth and depth of understanding.

Independent learning: Work draws on a range of relevant literature and is not confined to reading lists, textbooks or lecture notes.

Writing skills: Writing skills are well-developed; writing is clear and precise; arguments are logical, well-structured and demonstrate thorough understanding; conclusions are justified by evidence.

Analysis: Analytical steps carried out carefully and correctly demonstrating that it is based on a sound understanding. Analysis is relevant to the problem and is complete and is placed in a clear context.

60-69% Scholarship: Good, broad-based understanding of subject manner; makes effective use of understanding to provide an informative, balanced argument that is focussed on the topic; reveals some attempt at creative, independent thinking; main points well covered, displaying breadth or depth but not necessarily both; broadly complete and relevant argument;

Independent learning: Sources range beyond textbooks and lecture material and are used effectively to illustrate points and justify arguments.

Writing skills: Arguments are presented logically and coherently within a clear structure and are justified with appropriate supporting evidence; capably written with good use of English throughout; free from major errors; complex ideas are expressed clearly and fluently using specialist technical terminology where appropriate.

Analysis: Some minor slips in the steps of the analysis and some minor gaps in understanding of underlying principles. Analysis is relevant to the problem and mostly complete. A good interpretation which conveys most of its meaning.

50-59% Scholarship: Some but limited engagement with, and understanding of, relevant material but may lack focus, organisation, breadth, and/or depth; relatively straightforward ideas are expressed clearly and fluently though there may be little or no attempt to synthesise or evaluate more complex ideas; exhibits limited independent creative thought; adequate analysis but some key points only mentioned in passing; arguments satisfactory but some errors and perhaps lacking completeness and relevance in parts.

Independent learning: Sources restricted to core lecture material with limited or no evidence of wider reading.

Writing skills: The question is addressed in a reasonably clear, coherent and structured manner but some sections may be poorly written making the essay difficult to follow, obscuring key points or leading to over-generalisation; competently written with a good use of English throughout (few, if any, errors of spelling, grammar and punctuation). Answers that have merit class qualities may fall into this category if they are too short, unfinished or badly organised.

Analysis: Minor slips and occasional basic errors in analysis. Underlying principles are mostly understood, but clear gaps are apparent. Analysis falls short of completeness and is a little irrelevant in place but a reasonable interpretation which goes some way to convey its meaning

 

45-49% Minimum requirements have not been met.

Scholarship: Inadequate understanding of key issues and concepts; some material may be used inappropriately; uninspired and unoriginal; relies on limited knowledge; analysis poor or obscure, superficial or inconsistent in places; arguments incomplete, partly irrelevant or naive.

Independent learning: Restricted to a basic awareness of course material and textbooks; meagre use of material to support assertions.

Writing skills: Poor use of English exhibiting errors. Answer may be poorly focussed on the question, lack rigour and/or consist of a series of repetitive, poorly organised points or unsubstantiated assertions that do not relate well to one another or to the question, although some structure discernible.

Analysis: Inadequate knowledge of the analysis to be followed, with frequent errors. Some attention paid to underlying principles, but lacking in understanding and frequently irrelevant. Some interpretation is given, but it does not place the analysis in any real context

40-44% Scholarship: Poor knowledge of relevant material; omission of key ideas/material; significant parts may be irrelevant, superficial or factually incorrect; inappropriate use of some material; mere paraphrasing of course texts or lecture notes; key points barely mentioned; very weak grasp or complete misunderstanding of the issues; inclusion of irrelevant material; does not address the topic or question.

Independent learning: Restricted to a basic awareness or no awareness of course material and textbooks; very meagre use of supporting material or unsupported assertions; use of irrelevant or unconvincing material.

Writing skills: Unacceptable use of English (i.e. comprehension obscured by significant and intrusive errors of spelling, punctuation and grammar); poor and unclear, or totally incoherent, structure. Answers that ‘run out of time’ or miss the point of the question may fall into this (or a lower) class.

Analysis: Erroneous analysis with mistakes. Very little attention paid to the underlying principles of the analysis. Far from complete with little relevance to the problem. Limited interpretation that reveals little, if anything, about the meaning

20-39% Scholarship: Displays a superficial appreciation of the demands and broad context of the question but is largely irrelevant, fundamentally flawed, or factually incorrect; inappropriate use of material; mere paraphrasing of course texts or lecture notes; key points barely mentioned; complete misunderstanding of the issues; inclusion of irrelevant material.

Independent learning: Restricted to a limited awareness of basic course material; unsupported assertions; use of irrelevant or unconvincing material.

Writing skills: Minimal structure, though may only list key themes or ideas with limited comment or explanation.

Analysis: Analysis has very significant omissions demonstrating little understanding of problem or underlying principles. Analysis may be ill suited to problem. Very little interpretation of meaning of the analysis.

0-19% Scholarship: No recognition of the demands or scope of the question and no serious attempt to answer it. Complete misunderstanding of the issues; inclusion of irrelevant material. May have simply failed to address the question/topic set.

Independent learning: No evidence that the most basic course material has been understood; unsupported assertions; use of irrelevant or unconvincing material.

Writing skills: Without structure; comprehension may be completely obscured by poor grammar, spelling, punctuation.

Analysis: Virtually complete failure to carry out analysis. No evidence of understanding of underlying principles and bears no relevance to the problem. No attempt to interpret or explain the meaning of the analysis.