MKTG90004 · Marketing Management
Marketing Planning
The whole subject is scaffolding for one deliverable: a group Marketing Plan for a real client, built in two written parts plus a pitch. This chapter is the spine. Part A — Situation Analysis is the evidence base, worked outside-in: the macro environment (PESTLE) → the micro-environment → industry structure (Porter's Five Forces) → a scored competitor analysis and a customer analysis, all synthesised into a SWOT. Part B — Recommendations converts evidence into action in a tight chain: SMART objectives → STP (segment, target, position, with current vs proposed positioning statements) → marketing-mix (7P) actions that deliver the positioning → implementation, milestones and metrics. The golden rule is that Part B must trace every recommendation back to Part A evidence. The same logic powers the exam — analyse → conclude → recommend → justify — so this chapter is the master key to the whole paper.
What this chapter covers
- 011 The shape of the plan — presentation + Part A + Part B; same client, same challenge
- 022 Strategy vs tactics — STP (what & why) vs the 7P mix (how); the value-proposition hinge
- 03Part A — PESTLE, micro, Porter's Five Forces, competitor & customer analysis, SWOT synthesis
- 04Part B — SMART objectives → STP → marketing-mix actions → implementation & metrics
- 05Two positioning statements (current vs proposed) and the repositioning move
- 06What distinguishes a strong plan; the section-level move (analyse → conclude → recommend → justify)
Worked example: structure a Part B recommendation from Part A evidence
- +2Objective (SMART): for an NFP, a strategic goal — e.g. "lift unaided awareness among 16–18s in the target region from 12% to 20% by 31 Dec" — specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, timely.
- +2Segmentation & targeting: segment on age + need; target the at-risk youth niche concentratedly, justified by attractiveness × competition × fit (the rising-demand opportunity supports it).
- +2Positioning: write current vs proposed statements to the template; the gap (low-awareness now → trusted, visible mentor brand) is the strategic move — built on the volunteer-goodwill strength.
- +2Mix + control: choose 7P actions that deliver the positioning (e.g. Promotion via school partnerships and earned PR to fix awareness), then add milestones, commercial implications and the awareness metric that tracks the objective.
Key terms
- Marketing Plan
- The unit's applied signature: a semester-long, group, client-based plan in two written parts (A and B) plus a pitch, all addressing the same client and self-selected challenge. The exam tests the same reasoning on a smaller scale.
- Part A — Situation Analysis
- The evidence base, worked outside-in: PESTLE (macro) → micro-environment → Porter's Five Forces (industry structure) → scored competitor analysis & customer analysis → SWOT synthesis. The discipline: draw implications, don't just describe.
- Part B — Recommendations
- Converts Part A evidence into action: SMART objectives → STP (with current vs proposed positioning) → justified 7P marketing-mix actions → implementation, milestones and metrics — each link traceable to the evidence.
- The section-level move
- The repeatable logic the plan and the exam both reward: ANALYSE the evidence → CONCLUDE an implication → RECOMMEND an action → JUSTIFY with the link back. Use it for every section.
- TOWS
- Crossing the SWOT quadrants to generate strategy: S×O (use strengths to seize opportunities), W×O (fix weaknesses to unlock opportunities), S×T (use strengths to defend threats), W×T (minimise exposure). It's how the situation analysis generates recommendations.
Marketing Planning FAQ
What's the golden rule of the marketing plan?
Part B must trace every recommendation back to evidence in Part A — nothing comes from nowhere. The two most common failures are description without implication (a beautiful PESTLE that never says "so what for the client") and recommendations from nowhere (a Part B tactic with no thread back to Part A). Both lose the same way: the marker can't see the reasoning.
How do Part A and Part B fit together?
Part A answers "where is the client now, and why?" (the evidence base: PESTLE, micro, Porter, competitor/customer analysis, SWOT). Part B answers "so what should the client do?" (SMART objectives → STP → 7P actions → metrics). SWOT/TOWS is the bridge — crossing the quadrants turns the diagnosis into candidate strategic moves.
This is a group assignment — why does it matter for the exam?
Because the exam tests the same reasoning on individual pieces: do a mini situation analysis, write a positioning statement, recommend a mix tweak. Master the plan's logic — analyse → conclude → recommend → justify — and name the framework explicitly, and you have the move that earns marks across the whole paper.
What separates a competent plan from a distinction plan?
Coherence and evidence. A distinction plan reads as one argument — here is the evidence, here is what it means, here is what to do, here is how we'll know it worked — for this client, on this budget. It shows coherence A→B, evidence over assertion, sharp focus, justified choices (and what was rejected), commercial realism, SMART measurement, and an explicit ethical lens.
Exam move
Treat the plan's logic as the master key to the subject. Learn the shape (presentation + Part A + Part B, same client and challenge) and the strategy-vs-tactics through-line (STP outputs a value proposition; the 7P mix delivers it). For Part A, work outside-in and keep PESTLE / Porter / SWOT at distinct levels so you don't double-count; score competitors rather than describe them; and derive the SWOT from the scan. For Part B, build the chain SMART objectives → STP (two positioning statements, current vs proposed) → justified 7P actions → implementation and metrics — every link traceable to Part A. Above all, drill the section-level move — analyse → conclude → recommend → justify — because that single habit is what the exam rewards across every question.
